Guest Post by CJ Obray
25 April 2022
“Under the Banner of Heaven” – a new miniseries based on Jon Krakauer’s book by the same title, released last week. It was getting a lot of advance press, as one would expect, which I followed closely out of personal interest.
I recently re-read the book (originally published in 2003) in anticipation of the release of the TV show. My understanding going in was that the show used the book as reference, but does not follow it closely. They’re similar, but not the same; the pre-release trailers bear this out.
The subject matter of the book is complex, and it can be difficult reading; it presents information that many LDS-adjacent people may find uncomfortable. I anticipated that the TV show would be similar.
Prior to watching Episodes 1 and 2, I recorded some of my thoughts based on promo video trailers and numerous advance reviews of the series. The commentary was hot and heavy well before the series dropped into the Hulu stream. This first post – a prelude of sorts – details a number of thoughts that were running through my mind prior to watching Under the Banner of Heaven, Episodes 1 and 2.
Fair warning: I make no attempt here to be nuanced, although I will try to be civil. Mormonism has been part and parcel of my life since before I was conceived. The observations I make here come from a now-distanced but born-in-the-covenant child of LDS parents who both were descendants of several generations of Mormon pioneer polygamists. This is my experience and my perception. Your mileage may vary.
One of the first things that caught my attention was the quote from one early reviewer who noted that in the first episode of the series, Allen Lafferty’s character says “…our faith breeds dangerous men.” He doesn’t say that in the book. I don’t know if he ever said that for real.
Does it matter? It depends on your perspective, a discussion which I will cover in future posts. But for now, even though the show hadn’t been released to the public yet, Mormon apologists and devotees were already arguing that this statement – that Mormonism breeds dangerous men – isn’t true, or that it’s not universally true. Of course they will argue that. Their devotion to their church fairly demands that they do. But that argument sidesteps what is verifiably true, that a certain percentage of horrifically violent acts – including murder – have been carried out in the past half-century (and in the century+ preceding that) by Mormon or formerly Mormon men claiming to be acting in God’s name or under God’s direction. Obviously, not all Mormon men do this; Mormons are no more a monolith than any other group. So, why, when a Mormon kills someone, does the murderer’s religious background become an issue? Generally, because the murderer makes it an issue by claiming some kind of mandate from or grudge against God and/or the church.
Even if the relatively small number of documented and verifiable cases of seemingly fine, upstanding, pillar-of-the-community types were the only Mormon men who ever went off the rails, it would be too many. Given the sheer number of people who have been or are practicing adherents of Mormonism of any variety, and given the general difficulty of documenting domestic and other kinds of interpersonal violence, it seems likely that the actual frequency of similar interpersonal/marital violence is somewhat higher than the statistical sample would suggest.
Given that violent extremism has been part of the faith practically since its inception, and given that the problem has not gone away (see, for example, the very recent case of Chad and Lori Vallow Daybell), it appears that the mainstream LDS church – as an institution – often chooses to tacitly accept as a necessary evil the myriad forms of subtle yet intangible violence regularly done to women, children, and even to men within its ranks who are systematically taught, coerced, threatened, and disciplined into compliance with church demands under threat of eternal damnation and separation from their families.
The techniques used to encourage such compliance with the church’s behavioral expectations empower male members (all of whom are raised to believe they are entitled to authority by virtue of their priesthood) and disenfranchise anyone who does not share that priesthood – namely women, and male children under age 11.* The higher up in the priesthood and organizational hierarchy a man ascends, the more authority he is told he is entitled to presume. But that authority isn’t really worth anything unless he has someone else over whom to exercise his authority. After all, somebody has to be in charge, eh? Again – failing other alternatives – women and children are the most likely and readily available subjects, and they are consistently and systematically taught to believe that it is their obligation to accept their own subjugation.
On its face, the statement that the church breeds violent men is a difficult chunk to swallow, but consider the social dynamic within which this conditioning occurs: women and children are taught that priesthood intervention is essential to their salvation and that they must therefore defer to priesthood authority or risk being denied eternal blessings. What does that kind of deference look like? It looks like this: follow the prophet; obey the counsel of church leaders; don’t question your leaders (when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done); never turn down a church calling; dedicate your life and all your resources to building up the church; interview with your bishop regularly to confess your sins (and the list of potential sins is exhaustive); fathers, do whatever you must do to keep your family on the covenant path; mothers, support and honor (defer to) your husband, this goes double if he is also ordained to a leadership position; doubt your doubts; stay in the boat; build up the church with a trowel in one hand, and keep a musket in the other to defend against God’s enemies.
This kind of psychological conditioning becomes deeply ingrained over time. Even in the absence of other kinds of abuse, such spiritual abuse teaches people that they must surrender their personal authority to a designated leader, ignore their own instincts, and always accede to the wishes of those who claim the right to hold power over them.
And of course, some men, as soon as they get a little authority, get a bit (or a lot) greedy. Even Joseph Smith knew this:
“[T]he rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and […] the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
“We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion (emphasis added). D&C 121:36-37, and 39.”
This may be my church-related deeply traumatized inner self speaking,[1] but before the show even hit the streaming service, numerous Mormon-adjacent voices were arguing on social media platforms that the modern LDS church is categorically not violent and does not encourage such violence. From my perspective, those making such an argument likely enjoy a level of personal privilege within the system that allows them to ignore the psychology at work in a high demand religion such as Mormonism. Unfortunately, this privilege can also make them blind to the deep suffering of those women and children who do endure spiritual, psychological, and often physical abuse at the hands of their priesthood leaders. One would hate to think that they consider such suffering to be an acceptable level of collateral damage in the battle to maintain the church’s claim to divine authority, or that they believe God would endorse such abuse. The idea that God would demand such extreme demonstrations of fealty is precisely the kind of thinking that got the Lafferty brothers and all of their violent Mormon predecessors in trouble. It’s the kind of thinking that got Brenda and Erica Lafferty murdered.
“Because God told me to do it” is a longtime fallback excuse for violent acts both large and small, by bad actors from all across the religious milieu. In the minds of some people, there is no distinction as to grade or severity – one must obey one’s god, regardless of the cost or the heinousness of the demand.
Trouble is, we all have our own perceptions of what God is, and our own interpretations of what we believe God is telling us to do with our precious lives. Thus, within the Mormon context, it can be difficult to predict which priesthood holder is going to go off the deep end, or when.
It’s not that Mormonism is intent on breeding dangerous men. It’s more like Mormonism is the petri dish where potentially dangerous men find an environment that enables – and doesn’t discourage – the idea that sometimes it’s ok to act on violent impulses in the name of God, and that it’s ok to believe that God supports, expects, and/or demands such acts. This is yet another demonstration of Lord Acton’s maxim, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Whether that power exists within the microcosm of the individual family, or within the hierarchical structure of the corporate church, the principle is the same.
Excusing the occasional “unfortunate outcome” in the interest of the “greater good” of “protecting the church” merely encourages self-aggrandizing ambition and behavior. The LDS church has historically been loath to enforce any stops or checks on the power its priesthood holders exert, insisting on matters of discipline being handled at the local levels, even if disciplinary activity is quietly directed from headquarters. Recourse for unjust or unrighteous treatment at the hands of a Mormon ecclesiastical leader is limited and generally unlikely to result in anything other than supportive reinforcement of the original harmful leadership decisions.
As Angie Hahn says in her recent review of the new miniseries:
“Mormonism and Mormon culture is for these characters what water is for a fish — just as unremarkable, and just as essential. It’s little wonder they’re so terrified to ask whether some of it might be toxic. And yet, what threatens to drown them in the end are not the questions, but the unbending refusal to engage with doubt at all.[2]“
Arguing that this polluted power structure didn’t influence the Lafferty brothers, that it didn’t encourage the interpretation that it was their God-given power and responsibility to carry out the “revelations” they had received, is disingenuous at best. The church knows[3] that its authoritative structure encourages men to exercise their priesthood authority in extreme ways, even if such exercise sometimes results in “unfortunate” outcomes where innocent people – often women and children – are harmed or lose their lives. In the nearly two hundred years since its founding, the church hasn’t come to grips with its past, which means it also hasn’t come to grips with its present. That’s why Brenda Lafferty and her baby are dead, that’s why so many Brighamite and fundamentalist Mormon women and children continue to live in quiet terror of their church leadership and – often – of their male priesthood-holding family members.
That’s why we’re here, talking about the Lafferty murders, again, and the Daybell murders, and the Hofmann murders, and … and … and …. other modern era Mormon murders, abuses, and myriad moments of spiritual violence. Unless the church as an institution finally forces itself to confront its own past and its own role in the ongoing toxic social pathology and generational trauma of Mormon culture, it looks like we’ll be talking about it for a long time to come.
For my Mormon friends who are inclined to argue “that’s not my experience, I have never seen the kind of violence or extremism you’re talking about,” resist the temptation to dismiss the lived experience of others just because it hasn’t been part of your own life. Instead of shying away from it, instead of being afraid to look, lean into it, acknowledge that there is more going on here than you may be aware of. Learn and try to understand that there are dark corners in the history of your faith community that have been obscured for too long, to the detriment of us all.
Under the Banner of Heaven is shining a giant, high-powered spotlight into those dark corners. We would do well to pay attention, take a look, and examine our own hearts in that regard. Are we propping up a system that will lead to yet more generations of spiritual trauma, or will we, at last, insist that the sins of the fathers must stop here and now? Seven generations is plenty.
I will grant you, this story is not about all Mormons, or even about all Mormon men, but it speaks to the truth that there have been and certainly still are far too many who take their faith to the extreme, and as a result they hurt those they claim to love.
Just to reiterate: NotAllMormonMen, but certainly too many. Any is too many. History generously shows us that a certain percentage of obedience-obsessed Mormon priesthood holders will – either sooner or later – opt-in to the kind of extreme behavior that can lead to Lafferty-esque interpretations of what God wants. As long as the church continues to encourage, facilitate, and enable the kind of thinking and behavior that leads even a small percentage of its members to misuse the power they claim, it will continue to have spiritual, and sometimes physical, blood on its hands.
~
All this, and I haven’t even seen the opening credits yet.
*I’m not forgetting about the many individuals within Mormondom who do not identify as specifically male or female; my explanation here is mirroring the gender binary the mainstream church insists on imposing.
[1] – OK, yes, she’s here and she’s speaking, but she has legitimate things to say; the fact of past trauma doesn’t necessarily negate truth, it often facilitates the awareness and expression of it. –
[2] https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-reviews/under-the-banner-of-heaven-tv-review-1235132455/?fbclid=IwAR3iqjzQ4Zyxqb2czs5s3BoU3e8IOsEh4v0Q43MQcbSZls3ioZEks-l9ck0
[3] If the church doesn’t know by now it certainly should know; it has a moral obligation to know, and to work actively and diligently to prevent such harm. It has no excuse for not knowing.
Mormonish: My view from the fence 
Leave a comment