Talk:Under the Banner of Heaven

message: In Krakauer's forward he states that “faith is the very antithesis of reason” (xxiii) and proceeds to bash the crap out of the mormons and religion in general.  It'd be nice if someone could spend some time on carefully explaining this in a balanced way for the main article - because the Mormon church responded to this (external link) and has some really good points.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.237.152.53 (talk) 15:47, February 2, 2006
To the person above: Please sign your comments.
Also, the comments I read from the church's press release did not impress me at all. It was the adult response of "NUH-UH!", which was not unexpected but still disapointing. The part implying that Krakauer is comparing the church to the Third Reich or al Qaeda is pretty rich too. Of the books I've browsed at bookstores and libraries on the topic of Mormonism, this is one of the perhaps two or three that actually gives the crude details behind the religion and its founders; not to mention that it is perhaps one of the two or three books on the topic that I've been able to find that was written by a non-LDS member. Mikesherk 02:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It has been several years since the book came out and there is now a clear separation between fundamentalist Mormons and the mainstream Mormon Church.  It would seem the book helps to make that distinction clearer.  Is there anything written recently about that should that be included in the article? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your talking about, I grew up in Utah and have a better understanding of the Mormon religion than most as I experienced it first hand. In our lifetimes, there has always been a very clear separation between fundamentalist Mormons and the LDS church, the book did not create this separation. The idea that they are not separated simply came from ignorant rumors, I can't tell you how many times people have asked me about the mainstream LDS church being polygamist, when they haven't been for a century. The main point of this book is to show how religious zealots tend to cause harm, the belief that God is talking directly to you makes people feel empowered to do whatever they want and ignore the law, because God's communication to you supersedes any man-made law, the background about the church is required to really understand why these murders were committed. The fact that the LDS church takes offense to this book is very revealing. It's already obvious to anyone who pays attention that more death occurs in the name of God than for any other reason worldwide. The LDS church's number one concern though, is and always has been, making themselves look perfect in the eyes of the world so as to attract more members and bring in more tithe. The mainstream church is infamous for trying to cover up its past and hide certain "ugly" agendas, and surprisingly do so amazingly well. I would say a great majority of LDS members know very little about their church history, which is necessary, because if they did they would probably stop being members. In my humble opinion, the world would be better off without religion of any kind, but I guess the closest we'll ever get to that is John Lennon's song "Imagine". -War wizard90 (talk) 01:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the state of CLDS relationship with Book Today?

message: This page is challenged as to certain fundamental facts and historical errors.  These will be amended soon.
That sentence was included at the top of the section as of a few minutes before 20:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon History section 

message: Not sure why but the Controversy section has no information on specific items that may be controversial.  The ambiguous "...LDS Church Richard E. Turley argued that the book contained mistakes and incorrect assertions..." is genuinely useless in this section.  It is tantamount to having a Controversy section that states "there were controversial issues in this book."  At least some indication should be made as to what might be controversial.  For example, In the Wikipedia article regarding Joseph Smith, it is asserted that the Governor who arrested Smith stated that the Mormons were chased out because "their beliefs and actions were too different to have survived in Illinois" which would make this a religious issue, while this book asserts they were disliked because of economics.  Herein lies a specific controversy:  was Smith a martyr for his faith (as suggested by the Governor) or a victim of economic jealousy (as suggested by the book)?  I don't know, but it is important and specific and should be mentioned as part of the reason the book is controversial.  I do not think all disputed claims should be included, but certainly one or two weighty specifics are worthy of inclusion so that the reader may understand better *why* there might be a controversy rather than simply *that* there is a controversy.  For all the reader knows at this point, all of the controversies could be about the latest census count of Utah!  N0w8st8s (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree mostly. The section is mislabeled. The response of an acknowledged public figure (or two) from an organization who tries to defend that organization against an extended criticism does not constitute a controversy. In this case Turley is simply disputing claims made in the book. That doesn't make the book in any way controversial. If some non-partisan historians started objecting, we might be headed toward a controversy. Why not just change the section title to "Church of LDS Response" or something? Chafe66 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - Vague and unhelpful 

message: Since an editor chose to revert this edit as vandalism, despite the fact that it was made in accord with Template:Infobox book, let me point out that the template clearly states that the "genre" parameter is for fiction works only. Leaving it blank in an article about a non-fiction book is appropriate, not a form of vandalism, or the introduction of incorrect information. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I think there should be separate articles for Krakauer's book, and for the Laffertys and their crimes. 
By comparison: 
there are separate pages for serial killer Ted Bundy, and for the book The Stranger Beside Me by Ann Rule which discusses Bundy. 
there are separate pages for killer Perry Edward Smith, and for the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote which discusses Smith. 
Krakauer's book is not the only nor the most important source on these crimes, which earned national press attention.
ZeppoShemp (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate pages?  

message: "There were violent clashes between Mormons and non-Mormons, culminating in Smith's death on June 27, 1844 when a mob shot him after attacking him in Carthage Jail, where he was awaiting trial for inciting a riot after ordering, as Nauvoo’s mayor, in conjunction with the City Council, the destruction of the printing press of the Nauvoo Expositor, a local publication which had been declared a public nuisance."
This sentence in "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints history" section is fairly lengthy and confusing. It could probably be split into 2 or 3 sentences. I'd do it, but I'm not sure what it's saying, and I don't have the time or interest to figure it out. Frankensteinteen (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy, confusing sentence needs revising