We live in a world which believes in objective scienctific study and likes to have empirical data to back up what it takes as fact. I think this is a good thing. I think many scientists are too eager to assume what they can empirically demonstrate disproves held ideas and notions. This is less of a good thing. It creates a dichotomy of religion vs. science, which many–the pragmatic and the pious alike–believe to be an unbridgable gap. Reading The Da Vinci Code, a lot of increasingly popular alternate theories on Christ’s life are presented. Dan Brown borrows a lot from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail , which is (controversial) non-fiction, but presents evidence for many of the ideas which the characters of Brown’s book propose. Granted, they propose them as fact, but we should not assume this is the author’s agenda, to further the acceptance of or belief in these theories. He is an author of fiction, and his four published books have common thematic threads of uncovering or protecting well-kept secrets, conspiracies, etc. Only the two featuring Robert Langdon are religious in theme. This makes sense, considering the character Robert Langdon is a specialist in religious symbolism.

Many will be so intrigued by the things Brown writes as to accept them at face value and assume they are facts. Ultimately, I believe we cannot blame the author for this, no more than we can blame Orson Welles for the result of his 1938 War of the Worlds dramatized radio broadcast. However, it is probably fair to say that knowing the nature of humans, it is not surprising or unpredictable that readers would believe what Brown writes, without objective thought and study on the topic. Likewise, many will reject it without objective thought and study on the topic.

That said, let’s consider the theories proposed from within a Gospel perspective (namely, mine):

1. That Christ was married, that his wife was Mary Magdalene, and that they had mortal offspring.
As far as I am concerned, this is in no way detrimental to the Gospel message, either Biblical or Restored. Obviously another thesis of The Da Vinci Code is that this idea *is* detrimental to the dogma of the Catholic Church, and was removed by scheming men. Ultimately, I cannot reject this at its most basic because I do not see how it conflicts with the message of the Gospel. We know that at some point, Christ must marry, and in fact from one point of view we might wonder why he would be allowed into the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom without a spouse. In fact, we don’t even know that he was admitted there by explicit revelation.

2. That the idea of the divinity of Christ was created/propagated by the Catholic Church.
As Latter-day Saints, we must reject the idea that the Catholic Church originated the idea of Christ’s divinity, but it seems certainly possible that the Bible was selectively compiled to emphasize this point. In other words, our fuller understanding of Christ’s nature and mission allows us to accept that he was mortal and came to this earth for his own salvation as well as everyone else’s, but decades and centuries after Christ’s death, this truth was likely already lost or disregarded. In fact, it conflicts with the idea of God set forth in the Nicene Creed. Therefore, it would then make sense that the Catholic Church would want to emphasize his divinity and downplay evidence of his leading a normal mortal life prior to his ministry. The assumption that the Catholic Church originated this idea would then be a presumption made by recent religious scholars, and one we need not share.

3. That the Bible is the product of man.
Based on modern revelation, I believe we must reject the notion that God has never allowed men to tamper with the contents of the Bible. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” The King James Version of the Bible is the version officially approved for use in the modern Church, which would lead us to presume that it is the most correct, and was translated with some degree of inspiration. What we see from the Joseph Smith Translation, however, makes it clear that there are many grossly mistranslated portions (we might wonder whether the translators or their source documents were most to blame, although the answer is probably a combination of both).

My recollection of some General Authority’s comment on the Apocrypha is something like that they contain much truth, but altered and intermingled with false doctrine so as not to be acceptable as modern scripture, although much might be gained from careful study with the spirit’s guidance. To a lesser extent, the Bible contains false doctrine–remember, “as far as it is translated correctly.” We would be much more confused about it if we did not have the tools included in the LDS version–footnotes explaining archaic idiomatic expressions, Greek, Hebrew, Septuagint words, JST corrections, etc. That we have these things helps us to properly interpret it. I believe that God would not allow an authorized representative of his to make such egregious changes, and we know that there was a dearth of authorized representatives in Europe/Africa/Asia after the apostles were killed, so we can confidently say that changes were made by unauthorized men, no matter their position of authority in the Catholic Church or otherwise.

And on top of that, God has always used his representatives to record his teachings. To our knowledge, he has never given any prophet pre-written scripture. Prophets sometimes have limited knowledge or understanding, and we should recognize this when we study the scriptures. The doctrine may be perfect, but the mouthpiece is not, and ambiguities may arise from the prophet not even fully understanding *all* of God’s plan. Who can really say they understand it completely, anyhow? We trust it, but we know that our knowledge is incomplete. I don’t think any mortal (even a prophet) can comprehend it all. Even Jesus learned it gradually. If this can happen with God’s chosen prophet, then we should not be at all surprised when we someday find out that in 1800 years of unauthorized tampering, we lost a *lot* more than God is yet ready to restore. We should be grateful that as much truth survived as did, and be thankful for the righteous and inspired men who lived in the Dark Ages and fought those who would use religion to obtain and maintain power and control over others.

4. That nothing in Christianity is original.
This assertion does not bother me *one bit*. Granted, it is a dangerous idea without the proper context, but it makes perfect sense if you think about it a bit deeper. What is meant by “Christianity” here? Essentially, the doctrines of the Bible and the dogma of the Catholic Church, since at first glance it appears to be the original Christian religion. It *does* claim direct unbroken authority from Jesus Christ, just like the LDS Church does. Was Christ originating any new doctrines? Of course not! New to the people who he taught, but by no means new to the earth. The remnants of pure prophetic teachings from prior dispensations are abundant in every one of the world’s religions, pagan and otherwise. To a secular scholar, this would appear to be because Christianity was cobbled together from existing beliefs, and I believe a lot of the non-essential practices and traditions probably were, as well as the corruptions of true practices. But why would paganism or other religions have a traditional story of a virgin birth? Why would believers in pre-Christian religions have a figure they referred to as “The Son of God” or “The Light of the World”? Because the Gospel has existed on the earth since day one, and its teachings are embedded in the human psyche. In every dispensation but the last one these teachings become entirely corrupted and eventually lost, but the themes may not entirely change. Lots of cultures have traditional stories of a worldwide flood, or of a god who descended from the sky, etc. The characters of The Da Vinci Code present the evidence as they interpret it, but the glimmer of the truth can be found even in their skeptical version of the facts: the themes of the Gospel are as ancient as the earth.

In conclusion, I think it is probably not the case that Dan Brown is trying to tear down Christianity, or even the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail or other secular scholars of religious studies. But even if it was, I was enlightened to new concepts and ideas by the book, and I borrowed Holy Blood, Holy Grail from the library to take a glance at the research presented there, to make sure I know which parts Dan Brown invented, and which parts he based on scholarly research. I believe that the research is interesting and valuable, even if the interpretation is wrong.

That said, it’s not the best book in the world, either.