A Response to Brandon Sanderson on Mormonism
Having recently finished The Way of Kings, I was curious about the author’s religious views. Why? After reading many texts with my eyes opened, first by university and then (more importantly) by God, I know a lot of an author’s personal point of view finds its way into novels. Some will dismiss such notions, and many will scoff or sneer at my comment; so be it. It’s no less true. Just read Ayn Rand if you doubt (my response to her work is here). In fact, one of the primary reasons for writing, and for reading the writings of others, is for the sharing of one’s personal point of view and to experience what one might never otherwise experience—another’s perspective on life, the universe, and everything.
Somewhere about half-way through the book, I got the distinct impression that Sanderson must be Mormon. Why? Hard to put my finger on the precise moment. Perhaps it was just my gut or the Spirit (the Spirit of God can show you many things), but I’ve learned over the years that some things, certain songs, books, or films, just feel… Mormon. Am I always right? No. But it happens.
I tend to think of their works as falling into the Uncanny Valley of All Things Pertaining to Christ. Sometimes I think the awareness grows organically from a subconscious recognition of the culture of Mormonism as expressed in such works, indelible marks of their makers which are almost impossible to filter out. We often seem most blind to the uniqueness of our own cultures, and so such elements cannot help but find their way into humanity’s creative expressions.
On his personal website is an answer to the question, “Why do you think Mormonism is correct?” I share here my answer to his answer, not directed specifically at him, but at anyone who might benefit from hearing the truth spoken plainly about why, when, and/or how he and they are wrong, about many of the most important things in life.
He states he believes in Mormonism for three general reasons—experience, logic, and feelings. We’ll explore those next (my general response to Mormonism is here).
Experience
Sanderson speaks about how many of his most profound experiences, many of his “greatest joys,” came about involving his religion and its teachings. “The teachings on family,” according to him, “have caused my family to be closer.” He also says the teachings on marriage “caused [him] to seek out a wife,” and brought him great joy. “The teachings on what it takes to live a good life are things [he has] tested, and found comforting and true.” He believes he is “happier when [he does] things the religion teaches.”
I have no arguments against such, although I wonder if he’d really have remained single without the influence of religion in his life. If the primary point of religion and life itself is to be happy, then good on ya, mate, but I don’t think Mormonism can claim to be any better at this than any other religion. Many can make similar statements about the religion they find themselves in, many by birth, but some by choice, more so if they actually live according to the theology/doctrines they espouse. Furthermore, it is good to marry, but to the one able to accept it, it is better to be single for God. Could I live that way? No. But God doesn’t require me to. The Mormons, however, teach that one must marry to attain the highest level of perfection in God’s kingdom. Really? Hmm… My God offers freedom and pretty much says the exact opposite (Rev 14: 1-5). What does yours offer?
I suppose, however, that if a family thought they couldn’t rise to the pinnacle of spiritual perfection individually, they might be closer, more inclined to stick it out through thick and thin. Not everything about Mormonism is bad or harmful, but many things are and teach that which directly opposes the teachings of Christ, throughout the Word of God.
Logic
Sanderson talks about how some things “just make SENSE” [emphasis in the original]. This brings him to reflect on his time as a missionary and his Mormon answers to two of the biggest questions (his words) he could find no “sufficient answers to in any other Christian religion” [note he conveniently ignores that Mormonism teaches or has taught (they do shift their beliefs a bit from time to time to make themselves more appealing) that there are no other actual Christian religions—read about Mormonism and the children’s catechism here and read the actual catechism file here]. From his website:
1. How can you believe in God when there is so much suffering in the world?
2. What about all the people who aren’t of your religion? They go to hell because they happened to live at the wrong time, when there were no missionaries to teach them?
His answer to question one states that the LDS teach that we lived as spirits before being born, that we needed to be born to experience life and all that goes with it, and that we were all given a choice “to decide for ourselves if we wanted to experience pain and suffering—in order to learn and grow—or if we didn’t want to.” He also talks about free will, “that God HAD to let us make our own decisions here, otherwise the whole thing would be for naught.” Continuing on a bit, “He can’t stop people like Hitler from existing, otherwise the whole thing would be meaningless.” He then talks about how “we are responsible for doing all we can to alleviate suffering.” He tops it all off with this statement, “We all made the decision we’d RATHER end up as a starving child in Africa than miss out on the opportunity to experience life” [ALL emphasis, each and every time, in the original].
Wow. Just wow. Talk about victim blaming. So much here to process I must break it down in parts.
1. The spirit life before this one the Mormons teach also includes the view that those who are Mormon in this life are so because they were more noble than the rest of us in that spirit life. He conveniently leaves that bit out. So Mormons, in their view, are the only approved people of God, they were more noble than us before this life, and if we suffer, well, we knew and chose a life of suffering for the experience. This is logic according to Sanderson. What of the aborted baby? Did that one choose to be killed before leaving the womb? I don’t want an answer, Mormons, just saying that’s derived from your logic.
2. Free will. No arguments here. Free will is sacred, but God does, at times, harden someone’s heart to bring about a particular end. Also, not only did He simply not prevent Hitler’s birth, He created Hitler in the womb. I know the Mormon concept of God is a bit weak compared to the true Christian view of Him, but it must be clarified: God creates all human life. He allows us to make our choices with the light given to us. Once we make a choice, however, He sometimes prevents us from going back to the other way of doing things. Choices are real. Choices have consequences. Mormon views don’t align with the Bible, but they don’t claim that they do. They take their guidance from “modern revelation.” Sure, many will tell you to your face, when they want something from you (like acceptance, admiration, or conversion), that they believe the same things as other Christians, but they mostly don’t.
3. Victim blaming. Wow, again. Just wow, again. Just remember, down the road, if the Mormon gains true power over the rest of us, they’ll feel perfectly justified in treating the rest of us—those lesser beings they think we are, any way they please. This is the faith that taught that dark-skinned people were cursed by God, thus justifying how they were treated as slaves and as victims of land appropriation during the 1800’s, and that if they’d convert to Mormondom they’d become “white and delightsome.” Yeah, love that logic. Not that no Christians ever did anything so foolish, but that, for a religion that claims to be the one and only religion approved by God, completely rebooted by Joseph Smith in the 1830’s to correct Christianity’s “errors,” it’s particularly bad at setting a shining example of right and good from its inception onward.
Sanderson’s answer to question two states that “LDS doctrine[sic] is one of the only world religion[sic] which includes serious, powerful provisions for the benefit of those who never learn of Christ.” He goes on to paint this wonderful picture of the LDS view of heaven in which everyone who would’ve accepted the gospel in this life will be saved in the next, that “people in the next life continue learning, growing, and having opportunities to discover the gospel and learn.“ The fires of Hell, according to Sanderson, are taught as mostly being self-inflicted (sorry, I paraphrased somewhat, close but no quotes here). “The pains of hell[sic],” he continues, “is the knowledge of missed opportunities, of lost chances to do good and to help others, and the pain we feel from having made terrible decisions and having hurt others.” He further talks about Christ’s ministry taking our pains as we learn “to do better.” Sanderson’s concept of repentance is “becoming a better person” by being sorry for mistakes and trying to do better. Some little bits are tossed in, but regardless, that’s the meat of his understanding as I read it.
Serious, powerful provisions for the benefit of those who’ve never learned of Christ? Consider the harrowing of Hell: Scripture teaches that, after crucifixion and burial in the tomb, Christ went and ministered to spirits bound since the days of Noah. The Apostles’ Creed states (regardless of what some believe) that Christ descended to the dead. God is just and righteous. The Bible makes clear that some will be saved from every tribe, language, people, and nation; therefore, there will be those who have not heard the gospel of Christ (a different gospel from the gospel of the Mormon) who will be saved. Remember, Job, Noah, and Abraham found favor apart from the law and knowledge of Christ. Christ alone is worthy. God will judge the world. We are told to try the spirits to see whether they come from God. We are also told to use discernment, especially when it comes to those who claim to be Christian but teach what is false or do not live in accordance with His commands. And what does He command? That we love—first Him, then our fellow human beings, regardless of their lot, including our enemies. I write these words out of zeal for His house, but also because of love, to turn the spiritually blind from their blind paths. All glory be to God.
The fires of Hell will include self-torment, to be sure. They will remember their lives there, as is clear from Christ’s parable about the rich man and the beggar. It is for this reason that there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But the fires are not merely symbolic. The rich man was in torment and begged for a bit of water on his tongue to soothe the pain of the fires around him. There is hope in this teaching of Christ: The one who knows the will of God and does not get ready or do it will be beaten with many blows, but the one who does not know, who does something worthy of punishment will be beaten with few. The worst condemnations are reserved for the religious wicked and those who knew better but refused to obey the one command given, to love.
Life is about making mistakes and learning to do better. I don’t find anything particularly Christian in this idea, although it seems somewhat obvious and true. It’s how a baby learns to control its muscles and, eventually, walk. It’s why childhood has plenty of scrapes and bruises. Christ does take our sins upon Himself in exchange for our faith in Him, but such faith is a gift from God that none may boast of how good they are. Surely, we are to be sorry for our mistakes and try to do better, but repentance goes beyond mere self-improvement and into reverential awe and respect for God. It means turning away from wickedness and living a new life, one devoted to God in Christ, as one bought and paid for by the sacrifice of the Ever-Existent One Himself. Much that is good may be found in Mormonism, but it is intertwined with skewed semantics, shifted definitions, and hidden teachings not at all compatible with the Truth of God as found in the Word of God. Many shall say to Him, “Lord, Lord, didn’t we do all things in your name?” This pertains to many who claim to be Christian.
Feelings
Sanderson talks about his feelings. Nothing wrong with that, but not much to put one’s faith into or dispute. I won’t say much about his feelings as my feelings to the contrary are just as strong. I’m just as convinced as he is that my path is correct and his is not. He says something a lot of Mormons say, that others should pray over whether the Book of Mormon is true. I haven’t known many Mormons, but those I have met were either a little off or a bit arrogant, so please forgive me if I don’t accept Sanderson’s feelings as worthwhile testimony. I think anyone who reads the Bible and the Book of Mormon will be forced to put one in front of the other because they are not compatible. Either the Bible is the source of one’s guiding doctrine and principles or the Book of Mormon, but it cannot be both. The men who wrote the Book of Mormon were racist, elitist, self-serving Americans living in the 1800’s, not particularly filled with visions or inspirations of God. It is the only reasonable conclusion one might draw given a complete testimony of their lives and the fruit of their lives. Only those who already stand on shaky ground regarding God, Scripture, and Christ would even pray such a prayer.
Sure, some will say the Bible is no better, but I disagree. The Holy Spirit has shown me much that I used to stand in ignorance about and could only wonder at. Jesus met me on the road to Atlanta. He showed me how the Scriptures were about Him from beginning to end. Can Sanderson claim such an insight from God? I doubt it, but I can and do. You may call me crazy. You may disbelieve. But it happened as surely as I’m sitting here writing this. I also saw a golden hand reach through the windshield of my Ford Ranger and hold me in my seat during an accident. I know Whom I have believed. I know the One in Whom I trust. Can Sanderson claim such a relationship with Christ? I doubt it. I find his feelings less convincing than my experiences.
Fruit
What about Sanderson’s The Way of Kings? In spite of myself, the fact that the novel is slow going across much of its lengthy, leapfrogging span, and that I felt manipulated into wanting to buy more books due to everything being so drawn out, I found myself enjoying the novel, especially around ¾ of the way through. So much so, by then, that I checked the book out a second time from the library just to finish it. I had reserved and checked out the second book, Words of Radiance, in anticipation of finishing, but then I did. Spoiler—if you want to read this book, maybe stop reading here. I mean it. Stop here. Okay, having given fair warning, Sanderson kills God. Sure, it’s a fictional god, but a lot in the book smacks of him sharing similarities with the actual God of the Bible, so when I read that, it felt like Sanderson meant it to feel that way. In retrospect, I suppose such a thing might be possible with a Mormon view of God, which they deem a mere exalted man.
I must admit that the middle third of the book felt extremely presumptuous, and there were times I only kept going because I’d come thus far. I just wanted closure, and when I got to the end of the text, instead of getting the closure on the character arcs I so badly wanted after such a slog, he killed “the Almighty” and ended with a few cliffhanger threads waiting to be tied together, as if this was some Saturday matinee. Serials are fine, but there’s a massive difference in investment between 30 - 60 minutes and 1007 pages for the first novel in a series, a novel offering no satisfying conclusions, only frustrations and slog.
People complain about Tolkien being wordy, but even an expansive edition containing all three books in a copy of The Lord of the Rings published in 2012 ran to only 1178 pages and concluded several major character arcs across a vast, richly-detailed landscape, AND included many major battles, satisfying conclusions, the fall of Sauron and Saruman, a travel to Mount Doom and back again, a couple of hobbits simply walking into Mordor (I could go on like this)…. . And then there were the languages and history… What did I get from Sanderson but slaughter, delay, delay, slaughter, delay, delay, oh, look, isn’t it awful we’re killing these folks who kill us back, delay, slavery sucks, delay, more suckitude, delay? (Now remember, kids, drink your Ovaltine and buy the next dozen books to find out what happens to our hero. What’s that? You say that fantasy readers like to read longer books that immerse them in the fantasy worlds they explore? Let’s just make these as long as possible.) Epics are wonderful. But telling your tale at a snail’s pace, jumbling several novels together at once, all for the sake of selling books, DOES NOT AN EPIC MAKE.
When Sanderson killed God, I had to walk away. Then I came back and read the last few pages, and closed the book. Then I started reading the next book in spite of myself, but then Sanderson poured salt in the wound and started arranging fairy tale romances of extremely unlikely probabilities, and I felt stupid and manipulated and betrayed by my own reading pleasures. Take it any way you will, that’s the truth as I see it. I closed the book and won’t be back. Sanderson, if you read this, maybe don’t deliberately try to manipulate readers into buying more books… and that’s just the first of many things I’d say about your writing that annoys me.
Sure, I have a feeling that somewhere 5 novels down the line, there’s a huge payoff where all these arcs have interconnected in a pleasing way. But all you give the reader in the first novel is suck, with no really good, really satisfying outcomes for any of the heroes. It feels like, oh look, here’s a minor battle I tossed in as an afterthought because someone told me there just wasn’t enough action. Oh look, here’s a major battle at the end, but you set the reader up to feel as if the heroes are killing people who aren’t their actual enemies, or are they? Instead of fighting the enemies who need a butt-kicking, they kill dozens of foes who only stand in their way, and the killing sickens them. Wasn’t enjoyable for the heroes? Wasn’t enjoyable for the readers either. And that’s how the entire thing reads. Oh, look, something might happen here… nope. Wait, wait… nope. Look here, see what’s going to happen next? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. A whole lot of nope.
Before this, I also tried reading Elantris, but had to set it aside as it just didn’t feel like anything but a slog in the beginning: Exposition, exposition, exposition, exposition, a little action, exposition, exposition, etc., ad nauseum. Hey, here’s this prince who grew up in the kingdom right next to this cursed kingdom, but he needs a tour of the cursed kingdom which was only cursed 10 years ago, which means, I guess, royalty from his kingdom didn’t visit neighboring kingdoms when he was young, even though he was expected perhaps to manage in his father’s stead one day, even though this now cursed kingdom was an amazing city of god-like beings who seemingly were the pinnacle of civilization on their world? I mean, Sanderson couldn’t even sneak in a vague, dim recollection of visiting the place as a youth? Yeah, no. Next.
That’s my two cents. You are welcome to do you however. God bless. If you’d like to read more of my thoughts on Mormonism, you may do so here.