Dan Brown's book: what I think about the LDS references

After three weeks of vacation in Texas, there is a lot on my mind that I would like to write about. It's hard to know where to begin.

My mom let me borrow her copy of Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. (I cannot figure out how to underline on my blog-sorry.) If you did not read my previous post about Dan Brown, you should read it now. If you haven't read the book yet, I will spoil the surprise for you in this post. Consider yourself warned. Note that I do not say "ending" here; after the conflict is resolved, Brown spends another billion pages describing architecture and building a romantic interest for the main character. Did anyone care by that point?

I am not going to eat crow about my prediction; I wasn't exactly right, but, for a blind guess, I was pretty close. This is my favorite of Brown's books because it is the least cynical and the least destructive. However, I was disappointed to be reading through a particularly suspenseful section when Brown stops all forward progress of the book to explain the architecture of the building where the bad guy was chasing them. Really. Who gives a flip? I enjoy art history as much as the next girl, but at this point in the novel, I want to know what happens with the freakshow tattoo guy, or at least the freakshow CIA lady, not more about Doric columns.

My other thought on the book is while I did not guess who the bad guy was for a while, hasn't a spoiled son taking revenge on his father been done before? Even backwards, as in, "I am your father, Luke." I am pretty sure I read this bad-guy's psych eval in the last Vince Flynn novel. He was describing some nutjob politician with a victim complex, etc. Couldn't the masterful Dan Brown come up with something better than how an entitled, drug-doing, prison-rotting, and abandoned son chooses the dark side? At least in this novel, the bad guy openly admits to having chosen the side of evil. His afterlife is interesting, although flawed, I think.

You might be surprised that I would like this book after reading his references to my church. The first reference is followed by Langdon's conclusion that a large group of people who believes in something does not prove it's validity. His conclusion, not spoken aloud, but rather part of his thought process, is written in italics. Either Langdon felt very strongly about this idea or Brown wanted to reinforce his opinion. Why did Brown single out one church to prove this point? Could not the same thing be said about the Catholic Church, the Bible, or all of Christianity? How about Islam? Was Brown seriously trying to question the validity of all organized religion or just the LDS church? In all honesty, it does not matter what Brown's motivation was because he is right.

I do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because 13+million other people on this earth agree with it's theology. I do not believe in the reality of God and His Son, Jesus Christ, because it is a tradition or because so many other millions of people couldn't be wrong. I do not believe in the validity of Joseph Smith's claims and teachings, the scripture he translated solely because other people believe the same way. Ditto with the Bible. On a personal level, if you know me well enough, you know that I do not often take the expected, easy or well-travelled road. I make my own choices and I choose to believe in Christ and to act accordingly. How would anyone whose seed of faith was buried so shallow or who lacked substantial roots resulting from taking someone else's word for it withstand the scorching heat that comes into the lives of all of us? My thought on Brown's statement is this: our salvation does not depend on the knowledge and faith of others. While I understand that a belief in Christ is part of my heritage, exercising faith in Christ is a conscious decision each Christian must make, sometimes on a daily basis.

At an institutional level, I am fortunate to belong to a church that does not take it's scriptural precedent, it's history, it's organization, or it's source of doctrine from any other source than Christ, who is, as He should be, the head of our church. This is not the place for an in depth discussion of my faith in Christ or doctrinal teachings of my church. Please refer to www.mormon.org or even to Neil's blog, www.neilonthemoon.blogspot.com. I am only commenting on this in relation to Dan Brown's books.

I do not worry what crazy, if possibly true, ideas Brown comes up with because my understanding of the nature of God, His Son, and their plan for us does not depend on the knowledge given to previous dispensations, or periods of time. Each dispensation is given that knowledge anew. For example, Adam, Moses, Noah, and Abraham lived in different dispensations, and they each testified and taught the Lord's will as a result of their personal experiences with Him.

Finally, it is the message of the Book of Mormon, as well as what I teach my own children, there will come a time when every one of us will need to sincerely and fervently pray to their Eternal Father for a witness that what they have been taught is true. Christ is the only intercessor we need. If we depend on our personal experience with the Lord for a witness of truth, we do not depend on man. I believe in the reality of God and His Son Jesus Christ because I have prayed and have received the confirmation of the Holy Ghost in my mind and in my heart. It makes sense to my mind as well as speaks to my heart. I have also seen His hand in my life and in the lives of those around me.

The second reference to our church was about Baptisms for the dead. Brown mistakenly calls it "baptism of the dead." It's only semantics, but there is a huge difference in connotation and actual function. In this chapter, Langdon considers the ramifications of religious rites taken out of context and without proper initiation or understanding. Again, he is right. I barely remember my sorority initiation, but I do vividly remember hearing about another sorority whose initiation involved a coffin, much like the Masons in Brown's book. Who knows what they did with those coffins, but I did not want to find out.

Similarly, people who would like to worship in one of the beautiful temples built by our church must be 12 years of age and living according to our church's standard for membership to perform baptisms for the dead, and for more worship opportunities and temple marriage, membership of one year is required. While there is nothing like the eerie initiation scenes of the Masons that Brown describes in his book, doing temple work, at the very least, will not make as much sense and will not be as profound without prior knowledge and understanding of our beliefs and a desire to be there, demonstrated by a high level of commitment shown by living a Christ-like life of honesty, chastity, love and kindness, service, and abstaining from habit-forming and destructive foods, drinks, and medicines.

While I have much more to say about this book, I will close by saying that one of the concepts in the book, Noetic Science, is interesting. There is an entire discussion in the book about how truths appear to be re-learned or remembered rather than taught. How civilizations all over the world, throughout all generations of time, happen to have similar concepts of science, our place in the universe, creation. (For example, Joseph Smith and some guy in 300-ish BC both taught that matter cannot be created. Some pretty notable modern scientists teach this, too; I just don't know who they are. That's what happens when you learn Physics and Chemistry from Wikipedia. Just kidding-I read a textbook or two once upon a time.) If you are LDS, this paragraph in the book will sound extremely familiar to you.

Finally, you know you've made it into pop-culture when Dan Brown is referencing your organization right up there with Twitter and iPhones. I really did like this book; the ending surprised me more than anything else in the book. How beautiful and refreshing is it that hope was actually the result of 500 pages of madness and evil? And did I mention the architecture and art history lessons thrown in there?