1606: Mormon Cosmology - Science vs. Mormonism - w/ Dr. Simon Southerton

Mormon Cosmology and Scientific Reality: What Modern Genetics Reveals About LDS Creation Doctrine

When Dr. Simon Southerton, a former LDS bishop with a doctorate in genetics, began systematically comparing Mormon cosmology with established science, he discovered fundamental incompatibilities that raise serious questions about the origins of LDS scriptural claims. The Mormon Stories Podcast series exploring "Mormon Cosmology: Science vs. Mormonism" brings these tensions into sharp focus, examining how LDS doctrine about creation, planetary systems, and the nature of matter conflicts with contemporary scientific understanding across multiple disciplines.

For members seeking answers about how their faith tradition explains the physical world, and for researchers investigating the historical development of Mormon theology, this comparison matters deeply. It forces an honest reckoning with Joseph Smith's cosmological claims and the church's relationship to empirical evidence.

The Book of Abraham Problem: Scriptural Claims vs. Scholarly Consensus

The foundation of Mormon cosmology rests largely on the Book of Abraham, particularly Facsimile 2, which Smith interpreted as depicting celestial mechanics unknown to modern Egyptology. Smith's identification of a planet called Kolob, supposedly the nearest star to God's residence, a thousand times larger than Earth, where "one day" equals a thousand Earth years, presents perhaps the most testable cosmological claim in Mormon scripture.

Yet according to the Mormon Stories discussion with geochemistry experts like Bill White, the scholarly consensus is decisive: Facsimile 2 is not a unique cosmological chart but rather a standard Egyptian hypocephalus, a funerary document type well-documented from the Greco-Roman period. When Egyptologists and Egyptologists compare Smith's interpretations with what these images actually depict, and what contemporary Egyptians understood them to mean, Smith's readings are consistently incorrect.