Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith book club questions

1. 1.

   Krakauer was criticized for conflating mainstream Mormonism with its fundamentalist offshoots. Do you think he maintains the distinction, or does the book blur it?

2. 2.

   The Lafferty brothers were not mentally ill by clinical definition. What does it mean to receive a 'revelation' commanding murder, and how should the law handle that defense?

3. 3.

   How should secular societies balance religious freedom against the rights of children raised inside closed religious communities?

4. 4.

   The book traces Joseph Smith's founding of Mormonism with skeptical scrutiny. Would a comparable treatment of Islam's founding or Christianity's be published in the same way? Does that matter?

5. 5.

   Ron Lafferty's radicalization followed a recognizable pattern: financial stress, marital conflict, ideological escalation, and finally isolation. At what point could intervention have changed the outcome?

6. 6.

   The mountain meadows massacre was suppressed in LDS institutional memory for over a century. How do religious institutions handle historical violence in their own founding, and how should they?

7. 7.

   Dan Lafferty believed the murders were divinely commanded and felt no remorse. Is there a meaningful distinction between that certainty and the certainty of religiously motivated violence in other traditions?

8. 8.

   Krakauer identifies a pattern in fundamentalist movements: charismatic leaders claiming direct divine revelation, polygamy as a form of social control, and violence against those who challenge authority. Does that pattern have secular analogs?

9. 9.

   The book's victims — Brenda Lafferty and her daughter — receive less attention than the perpetrators. Is that an editorial choice you accept or resist?

10. 10.

    What does the existence of ongoing fundamentalist Mormon communities practicing polygamy suggest about the state's ability and willingness to enforce laws inside religious communities?

11. 11.

    Krakauer makes the case that belief in divine revelation is structurally dangerous because it is immune to argument. Do you find that argument compelling or too broad?

12. 12.

    If you were designing a legal framework for how societies handle religiously motivated violence, what principles would you want it to rest on?

How to run the discussion

• Pick six to eight, not all of them. An hour of real discussion covers fewer questions than anyone expects, and racing the list is what makes a book club feel like homework.
• Open with what people noticed, not what they concluded. Asking for a verdict first hardens opinions before anyone has heard each other.
• Let the disagreement run. The questions below that split a room are the ones worth the time; the ones everyone answers the same way can be skipped.
• Ask the quiet person a specific question. A direct, narrow question is far easier to answer than an open invitation to contribute.