The claim that Joseph Smith developed a cosmology compatible with modern quantum and computational physics proves he must be a prophet. has gained traction in some apologetic circles, particularly within Latter-day Saint discourse.

This assertion, however, collapses under historical, philosophical, and scientific scrutiny. It relies upon anachronism, metaphorical reinterpretation, and selective abstraction rather than demonstrable correspondence between Smith’s teachings and the content of modern physics.

When examined carefully, Joseph Smith’s cosmology is not only unrelated to contemporary scientific theory, but in many of its foundational claims stands in direct contradiction to it.

Joseph Smith’s cosmological framework emerged in the 1830s and 1840s, culminating most clearly in the King Follett Discourse delivered shortly before his death in 1844.

In this sermon and related revelations, Smith rejected the classical Christian doctrine of creation ex nihilo, asserting instead that matter and intelligence are eternal and uncreated.

He taught that God Himself was once a mortal man who progressed to deity and that an infinite regression of gods preceded Him.

Human beings, according to Smith, possess co-eternal intelligences and may likewise progress to godhood through exaltation. Creation, in this system, is not the origination of being but the organization of preexisting materials and intelligences.¹

None of these claims constitutes a scientific cosmology. They are explicitly metaphysical and theological assertions, unaccompanied by mathematical formulation, empirical prediction, or falsifiable hypothesis.

By comparison, modern physics—whether quantum mechanics, relativistic cosmology, or computational theory—operates within rigorously defined mathematical frameworks that generate testable predictions and are constrained by observational data.

Superficial resemblance in vocabulary does not establish conceptual equivalence. The use of words such as “matter,” “intelligence,” or “organization” in nineteenth-century religious discourse cannot be retrofitted to carry twentieth- or twenty-first-century scientific meaning without committing a category error.²

Quantum mechanics, developed in the early twentieth century, does not teach the eternal self-existence of matter as conceived in LDS theology.

While quantum field theory allows for particle-antiparticle fluctuations in a vacuum state, such vacua presuppose the existence of spacetime, physical laws, and quantum fields themselves.

Contemporary cosmology overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that spacetime has a finite past, most commonly associated with the Big Bang. Even speculative models that explore pre-Big-Bang conditions do not posit eternally existing matter in the sense Smith described, nor do they affirm the independent, conscious eternality of “intelligences.”³

Similarly, computational physics and information theory provide no support for the LDS doctrine of divine progression. Computational models investigate complexity, emergence, entropy, and informational limits within physical systems.

They do not posit, nor do they permit, the ontological transformation of finite, contingent beings into omnipotent creators of universes. On the contrary, information theory imposes strict upper bounds on informational density and processing capacity within physical systems, constraints fundamentally incompatible with the idea of embodied gods who are spatially and temporally conditioned.⁴

Perhaps the most serious problem for the apologetic claim lies in Smith’s doctrine of an infinite regress of gods. An infinite causal regress of contingent beings fails as an explanation both philosophically and scientifically.

Modern cosmology does not tolerate actual infinities instantiated in physical reality, particularly in causal sequences. An infinite regress explains nothing; it merely postpones explanation indefinitely.

By comparison, physics consistently seeks boundary conditions, initial states, or fundamental laws that terminate explanatory chains. Smith’s cosmology offers no such terminus.⁵

Furthermore, LDS doctrine affirms that God the Father possesses a body of flesh and bone and exists within spacetime. Such a being would necessarily be subject to thermodynamic decay, entropy, and causal dependency.

Modern physics requires that whatever grounds the existence of spacetime and physical law cannot itself be a product of those laws.

A material, embodied deity cannot serve as the ultimate explanation for the universe’s existence. In this respect, Joseph Smith’s theology stands in direct opposition to the implications of modern cosmology rather than in harmony with them.⁶

The persistence of claims linking Joseph Smith to modern physics is best explained not by evidence but by rhetorical strategy.

Vague references to “quantum theory” or “computational models” lend an air of scientific sophistication while avoiding precise definitions or testable claims.

This approach mirrors similar efforts in New Age spirituality and popular pseudoscience, where metaphor is mistaken for mechanism and analogy for identity. Without predictive power or empirical correspondence, such claims remain unfalsifiable and therefore non-scientific.⁷

Ironically, classical biblical theism aligns far more closely with the conclusions of modern cosmology than does LDS theology.

The biblical doctrine of divine aseity affirms that God is uncreated, non-contingent, and the source of all that exists. Creation ex nihilo coheres with a universe that has a finite beginning, while God’s immutability and transcendence comport with the requirement that the ultimate cause of spacetime not be subject to spacetime.

Far from anticipating modern science, Joseph Smith explicitly rejected these doctrines in favor of a metaphysical system that modern science cannot accommodate.⁸

In light of these considerations, the assertion that Joseph Smith’s cosmology fits modern quantum and computational physics so well that prophetic inspiration is unavoidable is demonstrably false.

It rests upon anachronistic reinterpretation, ignores fundamental scientific constraints, and misrepresents both LDS theology and modern physics. The claim functions as apologetic rhetoric rather than as a conclusion derived from evidence. When evaluated by historical standards, philosophical coherence, and scientific validity, it fails on every count.

Sources and Citations

1 Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 345–354; Doctrine and Covenants 93:29; 131:7–8; 132:19–20.

2 Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 1–9.

3 Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20–35; Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), 176–181.

4 Rolf Landauer, “Information Is Physical,” Physics Today 44, no. 5 (1991): 23–29; Seth Lloyd, Programming the Universe (New York: Knopf, 2006), 210–225.

5 William Lane Craig, The Kalām Cosmological Argument (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 63–92.

6 Paul Davies, The Mind of God (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 189–201.

7 Victor J. Stenger, Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2009), 15–40.

8 Robert J. Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 137–165.