is there a place for heavenly mother in mormon theology?

S U N S T O N E
WHO’S GENERALIZING?
ACCORDING to all three official responders,
one of the book’s most
damning faults is that Krakauer extrapolates
the behavior of zealots and extremists—in
Otterson’s words, “tar[ring]
every Mormon with the same brush.” 5
According to Otterson, a reader “could be
forgiven for concluding that every Latter-day
Saint, including your friendly Mormon
neighbor, has a tendency to violence,” which
places Krakauer “in the same camp as those
who believe every German is a Nazi, every
Japanese a fanatic, and every Arab a terrorist.”
Otterson doesn’t provide any evidence
to support this inflammatory and
unfair accusation. Nor is there any.
Millet, whose treatment of the book is
generally more balanced than the other two,
does offer an example of these alleged generalizations
by citing the following passage
from the book:
To comprehend Brian David
Mitchell—or to comprehend Dan
Lafferty, or Tom Green, or the
polygamous inhabitants of
Bountiful and Colorado City—one
must first understand the faith
these people have in common, a
faith that gives shape and purpose
to every facet of their lives. And any
such understanding must begin
with the aforementioned Joseph
Smith, Jr., the founder of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday
Saints.” (53)
Then Millet analogizes:
This is like asking someone:
“Would you like to understand
Catholicism today? Then study
carefully the atrocities of the
Crusades and the horrors of the
Inquisition.” Or “Would you like to
gain a better insight into the minds
and feelings of German people
today? Then read Mein Kampf and
become a serious student of Adolf
Hitler.” 6
But Krakauer’s statement is nothing of the
kind. He doesn’t say that those who want to
understand Mormonism today should study
Brian David Mitchell, Dan Lafferty, or Tom
Green. He makes the opposite, seemingly inoffensive,
observation that any attempt to
understand a Brian David Mitchell, Dan
Lafferty, or Tom Green should involve an understanding
of Mormonism in general and
Joseph Smith, Jr. in particular 7 —an obviously
good idea, given that all three have attempted
to justify their wrongdoing based on
radicalized or outdated versions of Mormon
doctrine and the teachings of Joseph Smith. 8
The persuasiveness of these official critiques
is further weakened by their dogged
determination to dispute virtually everything
Krakauer says, no matter how harmless or inconsequential.
Krakauer opens a chapter
with a humorously good-natured account,
from an outsider’s perspective, of attending
the Hill Cumorah Pageant. He describes it as
having “all the energy of a Phish concert, but
without the drunkenness, outlandish hairdos
(Brother Richard’s comb-over notwithstanding)
or clouds of marijuana smoke”
In the face of
such attacks by
the official Church
critics, one can only
imagine Krakauer
scratching his head
in bewilderment.
Why the excessive
defensiveness?
(65). Turley quotes this passage and then
seizes on a sentence early in the same chapter
as proof that Krakauer “stretches the truth in
writing about modern Church events”:
Without citing a source, he
[Krakauer] exaggeratingly asserts
that “sooner or later most Latterday
Saints make a pilgrimage
there.” Although the pageant is
popular, most Latter-day Saints
have never attended it, and most
never will. 9
In the face of such attacks by the official
Church critics, one can only imagine
Krakauer scratching his head in bewilderment.
Why the excessive defensiveness? The
charge of generalization is very likely a reflection
of what appears to be their main concern
with Krakauer’s book: that people will
read the disturbing accounts of the bad apple
fanatics and unfairly conclude that they are
representative of the whole bunch. Such
fears assume the worst about readers and
aren’t likely to materialize when the average
reader stacks these stories up against her experience
with her “friendly Mormon
neighbor.” This book isn’t about all
Mormons, or even all Mormon
Fundamentalists.
THE WRONG HISTORIANS
ANOTHER, related charge of the official
detractors is leveled by Otterson:
“This book is not history,” he chides,
“and Krakauer is no historian.” 14 But
Krakauer doesn’t claim to be a historian, nor
to have written a history book, nor even to
have conducted any original historical research.
Like any journalist, he is presenting
the findings and opinions of others, who he
readily lists in end notes and who do include
respected historians such as D. Michael
Quinn, Fawn Brodie, Juanita Brooks, Will
Bagley and Todd Compton. Krakauer doesn’t
offer a single historical assertion that hasn’t
already been made elsewhere. More to the
point is Otterson’s subsequent observation
that Krakauer has been “heavily influenced”
by the wrong historians, i.e., those who are
“unsympathetic to the Church.”
Unfortunately, all this only underscores
Krakauer’s typically pithy, if also unoriginal,
observation that the Church “happens to be
exceedingly prickly about its short, uncommonly
rich history” (5). It leaves Turley, for
example, in the unenviable position of
having to insist, in an official response whose
very existence argues the opposite, that the
Church isn’t protective of its history. 10
Consider the Church’s opposition, reiterated
by Millet, to the term “Mormon
Fundamentalists.” 11 The point is well taken
that none who openly espouse a
Fundamentalist agenda remain members of
the LDS Church. No one could blame the
Church for wanting to emphasize the distinction,
which Krakauer acknowledges (4–5).
But the Church’s position seems to go beyond
that, to suggest that the word
“Mormon” can be used only to indicate
membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. (Krakauer rightly reminds
us that there are other organized religions
who believe in the Book of Mormon and the
teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.) This
desire to control the word Mormon is emblematic
of the Church’s approach to
Mormon history: like the subject of a
modern merchandising contract, there is but
PAGE 46 JULY 2004