Tuesday, October 6, 2009

The Mormon Response to Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol"

What: The website sacredsymbol.com discusses Dan Brown's latest novel from a Mormon point of view.

Quote: "I believe that the reason we see common threads that run through secret societies and cults from the Ancient Hellenes Maya, to the modern Freemasons and even court oaths and Boy Scouts, is that even apostate peoples understand the power and importance of temple worship."

Reaction: For a while, there was talk that this new book would feature Mormons in a bad light. In fact, it doesn't appear to mention Mormons at all. As with the Da Vinci code, however, there are certain "shocking revelations" that might stir up controversy among some groups, but which Mormons will appreciate with an enlightened perspective.


  1. I've really struggled with a desire to read the book just to stay on top of what is arguably one of the most popular authors right now and my distaste for the utter ridiculousness of the premises and writing.

    Dan Brown is nothing more than a pop-writer with little truly inspiring writing. I won't take away from his ability to weave an exciting story, but I always cringe when people say Dan Brown is a great writer. No. Dan Brown is a master story teller, but he is not a great writer.

    Eh... I think I'll pass. I've gained nothing of value from the previous books.

  2. I agree with Dave that Dan Brown is a great storyteller but not a great writer. (He uses hooks like heroine... he's a form writer, baah.)

    But I probably WILL read this book, because I do think his stories are interesting and I want to see what happens in this book. I like my entertainment-value reading. :)

  3. Just so you know... Mormonism is mentioned twice. If you check out the article on TempleStudy.com Bryce points those spots out, and that one seems to be a back-handed compliment.

    David L, I completely agree. He's not a great writer. Though a pretty good story teller, and he definitely researches his symbols. The books definitely exciting, and in my mind a step above the average pulp-novel, just because of the symbolism and other things it gets you thinking about.

    Thanks to Bob for featuring my article.

  4. I too agree that he is a good story teller, but not a great writer. In fact he is so good that in his first movie his arguement for the last supper had a twisted angle to it making Jesus not more than a common man. I do not read his books because they go against fundimental christendom and I am a fundementalist so I wont waste my time