I sometimes read books that I know for a fact that I will completely disagree with. Sometimes they can be informative and challenging (I try to keep up with the best Catholic and Reformed apologetic works as I interact with Catholic and Protestant apologists), and often times, they are just lousy, but as they are popular, one has to be familiar with them. One such work is:
Lynn M. Hilton, The Kolob Theorem: A Mormon's View of God's Starry Universe (2012)
While I am not an expert by any stretch on cosmology and related fields, I do have a degree in a “soft” science (anthropology) and have expertise in scriptural exegesis and backgrounds, and found the book to be an utter flop, and one is disheartened that such a volume is popular in LDS circles, and that someone like George Potter (co-author with Richard Wellington of Lehi in the Wilderness) would endorse such a dreadful book.
There have been some good reviews of the book on Amazon, including those of Mike Parker, Malin Jacobs, and D. Charles Pyle:
The theory the author proposes is an expansion of the Mormon concept of the three degrees of glory. He argues the Milky Way galaxy is divided into three zones (think of a paper archery target), with the inner portion of the galaxy being a "celestial" area (a Mormon term for the dwelling-place of God), the middle portion a "terrestrial" area, and the outermost portion a "telestial" area. These rings are separated from one another by dust lanes that prevent us, out in the telestial zone, from seeing the others. When the earth was created, it was near Kolob in the celestial (central) area of the galaxy, but was moved into the telestial zone before the creation of man. The earth will eventually move back to a terrestrial location, and the stars around us will go by so quickly that they will appear to "fall from heaven." Eventually, it will return to the celestial zone.
The author lists his sources in the bibliography at the end of the book. For his research he consulted three astronomy books, all of which were written in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Needless to say, there have been considerable (!) advances in astronomical research that leave his conclusions wanting. For example, while visible light from the galactic core is largely obscured by dust, we are able to penetrate it with x-ray and infrared telescopes, and astronomers have even recently confirmed that a supermassive black hole lies at the center of our galaxy.
In short, the author's theory is driven solely by his overly-fundamentalist interpretation of the scriptural creation accounts, and has no basis in reality.
As a believing Latter-day Saint, I've been concerned by the number of other Mormons who have been convinced by Hilton's "Theorem." He has gone well beyond the known limits of LDS doctrine, and much further beyond the known truths of science.
Comment by Malin Jacobs
Mr. Parker's review and Mr. Bone's comment pretty much agree with my reaction to the book, which I recently (August & September 2015) read because my brother, who looks upon its views favorably, asked me to. The idea that when God said that he created the universe (the Heavens & the Earth), he really didn't mean it, but limited it to the Milky Way galaxy, and it only seemed to be everything to Man because of his limited senses, strikes me as a very problematical rationalization. I was next struck by the dated astronomy references (late 1950s & early 1960s). As the book progressed, the speculations grew more unlikely and seemed to be dependent on a peculiar interpretation of some LDS scriptures, plus the acceptance as fact of ideas that were widely speculated upon by early members of the of the LDS church (including prominent church leaders), but were never put forth as doctrinal.
The general approach to the arguments seems to be:
1) Speculate, providing an often unique interpretation of LDS scriptures, plus statements attributed, directly or indirectly, to Joseph Smith, in his role as prophet of God, as evidence for the speculation;
2) Treat the speculation as having been demonstrated to be true;
3) Using this newly "demonstrated truth," speculate again;
4) Repeat steps 2) and 3) until all the "Kolob Theorem's" conclusions have been "demonstrated" to be reasonable and in basic agreement with what Dr. Hilton claims is our present state of scientific knowledge.
The "Kolob Theorem" seems to be built upon an increasingly unstable house of cards. The position that modern science, esp. astronomy, supports the theorem, is simply not true.
It also irks me that a man whose Ph.D. is in Educational Administration would use that degree (prominently displayed on the cover of the book) to lend credibility to arguments highly dependent on subjects (astronomy and astrophysics) completely outside his academic qualifications, without at least providing the reader with some evidence that he has acquired the requisite knowledge on his own outside of his academic career.
I here give two examples, out of many which could be given, of Dr. Hilton's simplistic understanding of physics and astronomy. First is his brief elementary school, and incorrect, discussion of how gravity counteracts centrifugal forces that, according to him, try to pull the solar system out of its orbit around the galactic core (p. 41). This explanation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both gravity and Newton's Laws of motion. Second, as has been pointed out, he is ignorant of the fact that modern astronomers can see through the galactic dust "veils" to the core of the galaxy using non-visible radiation.
On p. 20 he appears to confuse astronomy (a field of science) with astrology (not science at all)!
My own advanced degree is in Electrical Engineering, which required several college senior-level physics and graduate-level mathematics courses. This academic background plus my personal interest in Astronomy and Astrophysics, while by no means making me an expert in those subjects, has allowed me to more-or-less keep up with major developments in the fields, at least to the point of being able to see fundamental flaws in Dr. Hilton's attempts to use science to bolster his speculations.
At least Dr. Hilton clearly labels his book as speculation (pp. 2-3). Unfortunately, it is very easy for a layman in things scientific to forget the speculative nature of "The Kolob Theorem" and come away believing the theorem is in agreement with the findings of modern science.
Malin L. Jacobs
Electrical Engineer, retired
(MS, Electrical Engineering)
Review by D. Charles Pyle (he is a bit too favourable towards the book than I am, though does point out some errors in the volume)
After having read from this book, I have come to the conclusion that a better title for the book would have been "The Kolob Hypothesis" rather than the title that now graces its cover. In all seriousness there is not enough supporting scientific evidence and information to credit this as a Theory or Theorem. Way too much speculation as well as reliance upon things that may not even have come from Joseph Smith are among the more serious problems with the book, such as use of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that were combined out of order and with other items not part of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers by critics of the Church, and slapped with the name of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.
Very little of these papers bear the handwriting of Joseph Smith. Much of the content of these papers also is nonsense. The Kirtland Egyptian Papers were part of a project abandoned almost as soon as it was started. One should be careful not to apply too much significance to the contents of the papers as Hilton has done.
In either case, aside from a few spelling errors and other errors, it is an entertaining read. I think that there is much room for improvement. Perhaps a Second Revised Edition that corrects the number of problems in the text, scientific or otherwise, is in order.
Yet, readers should be aware that this work could not even pass muster in scientific circles as a theory. It could be thought of, however, as an hypothesis (although I am certain that many in the scientific community would not even ascribe the term 'hypothesis' to the contents of the book). Readers also should be aware that some of the science in the book is out of date, and that the postulations in the book cannot be tested in the current state of science and is unfalsifiable because of this.
It is not a scientific guide and neither are the scriptures, but one should certainly not base faith, which should be reserved for the scriptures, on this book. The scriptures were written by prophets and apostles who were not scientists, and who often thought of things in the way that was thought in their intellectual environment, wrong or right. Prophets and apostles in even the Bible did not live in a vacuum and were influenced in their thinking by those around them. It is also the nature of man to explore the unknown and speculate upon things where there is little information.
That is not to denigrate the scriptures but to warn that not everything in them can be taken literally or understood to be exact and precise truth that can be scientifically verifiable. The astronomy of the Book of Abraham, for example, is geocentric in nature and as such cannot be held with surety to have scientific veracity. By way of contrast, the book under present review is not scripture but is an alternate interpretation of scripture that the author believes is supported by scientific data, however badly understood.
If you can get past the scientific errors and other issues and just think about possibilities, and if you understand that this view is only one of a number of differing and mutually exclusive views of Latter-day Saints in attempts to explain what has not as of yet been revealed, and if you are curious about how others think on things beyond our ability to grasp at present, the book is worth a read. If not, buyer beware.
