Got a book for Christmas from my friend Ted. John Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven. It explores Mormon fundamentalism. While it includes a great deal of history on the rise of Mormonism in general, it gives the majority of space to the violence, misogynism, and just general theological weirdness of fundamentalist strains of Mormonism.
Fascinating book, but quite hard to read on a number of levels.
At any rate, I'm cruising along reading when I was astounded by the following passage:
'As history, moreover, The Book of Mormon is riddled with egregious anachronisms and irreconcilable inconsistencies. For instance, it makes many references to horses and wheeled carts, neither of which existed in the Western Hemisphere during the pre-Columbian era. It inserts such inventions as steel and the seven-day week into ancient history long before such things were in fact invented. Modern DNA analysis has conclusively demonstrated that American Indians are not descendants of any Hebraic race, as the Lamanites were purported to be. Mark Twain famously ridiculed The Book of Mormon's tedious, quasi-biblcal prose as 'chloroform in print,' observing that the phrase 'it came to pass' is used more than two thousand times.
'But such criticism and mockery are largely beside the point. All religious belief is a function of nonrational faith. And faith, by its very definition, tends to be impervious to intellectual argument or academic criticism. Polls routinely indicate, moreover, that nine out of ten Americans believes in God--most of us ascribe to one brand of religion or another. Those who would assail The Book of Mormon should bear in mind that its veracity is no more dubious than the veracity of the Bible, say, or the Qur'an, or the sacred texts of most other religions. The latter texts simply enjoy the considerable advantage of having made their public debut in the shadowy recesses of the ancient past, and are thus much harder to refute.' (Bold mine.)
Okay, several things:
1. I dig Krakauer. Loooooved Into Thin Air. I have great respect for him as a journalist.
2. The first bolded section above is a really uncharitable (and uninformed, I think) view of the relationship between faith and reason. ALL religious belief is a function of nonrational faith?? Really? Impervious to critique and criticism? Really??? I've been in and around quasi-fundamentalist circles long enough to know that is true in many contexts, but there are worlds of difference between 'many' and 'all.'
Krakauer's portrait does not at all reflect the world my friends, partners in ministry, and I inhabit.
3. To suggest that the veracity of The Book of Mormon is on par with the Bible is just patently silly. None of the The Book of Mormon has been historically verified. None. You're hard pressed to find anachronisms in the Bible, and there are mountains of commentary on legitimate reasons for the ones that exist. The inconsistencies in the Bible are either apparent and not real (e.g., two accounts of the death of Judas Iscariot) or they are immaterial (e.g., contradictory troop counts in the Old Testament). They are not the sorts of inconsistencies that are foundational to the theology of the document (e.g., non-Hebraic ancestry of Native Americans).
And while he may be right when he says that more ancient texts like the Bible have an advantage over The Book of Mormon in terms of their being harder to refute, virtually every historical reference in the Bible has either been verified or is still an open question. Are there any that have been dis-confirmed? I'm sure there are claims that there have, but I'm unfamiliar with what they are.
This is NOT the case for The Book of Mormon. Not even close.
I'm not an inerrantist; so should an anachronism or inconsistency within the pages of the Bible appear, it would not destroy my faith. So it's not like my faith's on the line in with this discussion. That said, there's just no way Krakauer can make the claims that he does here.
The implication is that The Book of Mormon and the Bible are near-equals in terms of their reliability. That's simply not true, and unfortunately, it calls Krakauer's objectivity about matters of faith into question.