Influence of Velikovsky on Religious Thinkers

In this post, we explore the surprisingly wide — and often controversial — influence of Immanuel Velikovsky across both LDS and broader Christian scientific communities. Velikovsky’s radical catastrophist theories challenged prevailing scientific orthodoxy and sparked intense debate for decades.

What makes his reception particularly fascinating is how some LDS writers found in his work a natural resonance with Restoration scripture and cosmology, while many in the broader Christian world dismissed or outright opposed his reconstructions of ancient planetary upheavals.

This post examines those contrasting receptions and traces the network of thinkers who have engaged, embraced, or battled his ideas.

VELIKOVSKY’S BASIC FRAMEWORK (Very briefly summarized)

• He proposed that many ancient catastrophes recorded in myths, scriptures, and traditions (including the Bible) were actual planetary events: near collisions or rearrangements of planets like Venus, Mars, Earth, etc.
• These cosmic disruptions were responsible for many of the plagues, upheavals, and astronomical anomalies described in sacred texts.
• He challenged the uniformitarian view of geology, favoring catastrophism as the primary driver of historical events.
• He heavily incorporated ancient texts (Hebrew, Egyptian, etc.) as historical records, not mere myth.

RECEPTION IN THE LDS COMMUNITY

Why LDS thinkers were receptive:

1. Scriptural alignment with catastrophism
   • LDS scripture (Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, Doctrine and Covenants) already contains numerous references to cosmic signs, upheavals, and world-transforming events.
   • The Great Flood, Fall of Adam, and pre-Flood worlds fit naturally into a catastrophist paradigm.
   • LDS cosmology contains ideas of Kolob, governing stars, and God’s proximity to physical worlds, which makes planetary realignments plausible to many readers.
2. The doctrine of dispensationalism and apostasy
   • LDS teaching often emphasizes that ancient knowledge has been lost and restored, so the idea that modern science overlooks ancient astronomical records fits the restoration narrative.
3. Interest among LDS scientists and writers
   • Writers like Melvin A. Cook, Anthony E. Larson, and a handful of BYU faculty in earlier decades explored catastrophism openly.
   • Larson explicitly built an entire interpretive model combining LDS scriptures with Velikovskian planetary catastrophism (the Polar Configuration, Saturn Thesis, etc.).
4. Cultural independence from mainstream Christian creationism
   • Because the LDS Church does not officially endorse young-earth creationism or strict literalism, LDS thinkers had more space to explore alternative theories like Velikovsky’s without directly contradicting their own doctrines.

RECEPTION IN THE BROADER CHRISTIAN SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

Much more cautious or outright rejection:

1. Evangelical young-earth creationists (e.g., Henry Morris, ICR, Answers in Genesis)
   • Generally rejected Velikovsky as incompatible with a literal six-day creation model.
   • Saw Velikovsky’s planetary collisions as unnecessary or speculative, especially since the Bible “plainly” taught a simple, orderly 6-day creation.
2. Old-earth Christians (e.g., Hugh Ross, Reasons to Believe)
   • Also rejected Velikovsky but for different reasons: they accepted an ancient universe governed by stable physical laws, with no major planetary rearrangements in recent human history.
   • They saw Velikovsky’s catastrophism as violating astrophysics, orbital mechanics, and radiometric dating.
3. Mainline and Catholic scholars
   • Rarely engaged Velikovsky seriously.
   • Preferred non-literal readings of Genesis compatible with modern science, leaving little room for Velikovskian reconstruction of cosmic events.
   • Catholic thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin explored alternative evolutionary theologies rather than cosmic catastrophism.
4. Velikovsky’s reception in the fringe / independent Christian subcultures
   • Some fringe Christian groups incorporated aspects of Velikovsky, but these were usually marginal.
   • A small number of independent Bible-prophecy interpreters (particularly those influenced by early 20th-century dispensationalism) found Velikovsky’s ideas intriguing as possible explanations for eschatological upheavals.

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LDS AND NON-LDS RECEPTIONS

Topic	LDS Thinkers	Broader Christian Scientists
Scriptural approach	Open to non-traditional models (Kolob, dispensations, restoration of lost knowledge)	Generally more literal or naturalistic, depending on denomination
Authority structure	Lay members and independent scholars explored Velikovsky without institutional interference	Evangelicals often tied to confessional statements limiting speculation
Cosmological openness	More speculative cosmology welcomed in LDS community	Strict adherence to known science or young-earth models
Appeal to ancient texts	High value on extra-biblical records (Book of Abraham, JST, etc.)	Little to no acceptance of extra-biblical texts for creation cosmology
Influence on published LDS authors	Cook, Larson, a handful of BYU scholars	Virtually none in mainstream Christian publishing

WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

At root, LDS theology already contains a “cosmic theism” framework:

• God governs physical worlds.
• Kolob is literal.
• The heavens are ordered but dynamic.
• Ancient prophets may have witnessed planetary upheaval as part of dispensational history.

In contrast, most Christian scientific models — both evangelical and mainline — are more tightly tethered to either:

• Literal Genesis (young-earth)
• Or full scientific consensus (old-earth, evolutionary models).

Thus Velikovsky’s unique middle-ground catastrophism found far more sympathetic LDS readers than anywhere else in Christianity.

A CLOSING INSIGHT:

Velikovsky essentially proposed a sacred astronomy that collapsed the gap between science, myth, and scripture.

• Most Christians saw that as a bridge too far.
• Many LDS readers saw it as a natural fit with Restoration scripture.

Reading List: Writers Influenced by or Reacting to Velikovsky

1. LDS Writers / Researchers

1️⃣ Melvin A. Cook & M. Garfield Cook

• Science and Mormonism (1967)
• Prehistory and Earth Models (1966)

LDS catastrophist synthesis blending scripture, physics, and Velikovskian planetary instability.

2️⃣ Anthony E. Larson

• And the Moon Shall Turn to Blood (1983)
• The Earth Shall Reel To and Fro (1984)
• And There Shall Be a New Heaven and a New Earth (1986)
• Eschatus: Volumes 1–7 (1999–2005)
• Keys to Prophecy (unpublished series, 2004–2006)

Larson directly applies the Saturn Polar Configuration model to LDS scripture, citing both Velikovsky and Talbott. He remains the most extensive LDS proponent of a fully Velikovskian-Electric Universe model.

3️⃣ Joseph Fielding Smith (indirectly)

• Man: His Origin and Destiny (1954)

While not a Velikovskian, Smith strongly resisted uniformitarian geology and accepted a catastrophist, short-earth timescale—making his thought more compatible with Velikovsky than mainstream science, albeit for very different reasons.

4️⃣ Henry Eyring

• The Faith of a Scientist (1967)
• The Gospel and the Age of the Earth (Improvement Era, 1965)

Eyring took a more mainstream scientific view, but was aware of the larger catastrophism debate happening in LDS circles and acknowledged both models respectfully.

5️⃣ Paul Cracroft

• “How Old Is the Earth?” (Improvement Era, Oct 1964)

Direct reference to Velikovsky, Cook, and catastrophism; framed multiple LDS-compatible models for LDS members during the height of Velikovsky’s fame.

1. Non-LDS Writers Favorable to Velikovsky

1️⃣ Immanuel Velikovsky

• Worlds in Collision (1950)
• Ages in Chaos (1952)
• Earth in Upheaval (1955)
• Peoples of the Sea (1977)

The primary works. These became wildly popular in the 1950s–60s, deeply controversial but widely discussed.

2️⃣ Ralph E. Juergens

• The Velikovsky Affair (multiple essays, 1960s)
• “Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovsky”

Developed key arguments that inspired later Electric Universe theories, closely aligned with Velikovsky’s framework.

3️⃣ David N. Talbott

• The Saturn Myth (1980)
• Symbols of an Alien Sky (documentary, 2009)

Perhaps Velikovsky’s most dedicated intellectual successor, especially in planetary configuration theory and ancient iconography.

4️⃣ Wallace Thornhill

• The Electric Universe (with David Talbott, 2007)

Developed Juergens’s electrical interpretations into a fully alternative plasma cosmology — directly inspired by Velikovsky.

5️⃣ Lynn E. Rose

• Velikovsky Reconsidered (with the editorial board of Pensée Journal, 1976)

Academic defense of Velikovsky’s work after decades of scientific ostracism.

III. Christian Writers Critical of Velikovsky

1️⃣ Henry M. Morris (Institute for Creation Research)

• The Genesis Record (1976)
• Scientific Creationism (1974)

Rejected Velikovsky as unnecessary and inconsistent with biblical literalism and 6,000-year chronology.

2️⃣ John C. Whitcomb & Henry Morris

• The Genesis Flood (1961)

One of the foundational texts for young-earth creationism. They dismissed alternative catastrophist models like Velikovsky’s as speculative.

3️⃣ Hugh Ross (Reasons to Believe)

• The Genesis Question (1998)

An old-earth creationist who flatly rejects Velikovsky for contradicting established astrophysics and cosmic stability.

1. Secular Scientists and Skeptics Responding to Velikovsky

1️⃣ Carl Sagan

• Broca’s Brain (1979), Ch. 6: “Venus and Dr. Velikovsky”

One of Velikovsky’s most vocal critics, directly challenged his astronomical claims, but also acknowledged the sociological importance of the Velikovsky controversy.

2️⃣ Stephen Jay Gould

• Bully for Brontosaurus (1991)

Criticized Velikovsky sharply, using him as an example of pseudoscience vs. mainstream scientific standards.

3️⃣ Donald Goldsmith

• The Velikovsky Affair: Scientism vs. Science (1977)

Documented the heated debates surrounding Velikovsky in the scientific community.

1. Primary Journals and Forums that Shaped the Debate

• Pensée: Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered (1972–1974): The central forum defending and analyzing Velikovsky’s work academically.
• Kronos Journal (1975–1988): Extended Pensée’s work, exploring planetary catastrophism and plasma cosmology.
• Aeon Journal (1990s): Continued efforts of planetary reconstruction after Kronos.
• Electric Universe (Thunderbolts.info) (2000s–present): Modern plasma cosmology inheritors of Velikovsky’s legacy.

While Velikovsky remains a deeply polarizing figure in mainstream science, his legacy endures powerfully in:

• Alternative cosmology circles (Electric Universe)
• Certain religious reconstructions (especially within LDS fringe scholarship)
• Independent catastrophist geology
• Cultural studies of how paradigms shift in science

Velikovsky remains a polarizing figure — celebrated by some as a visionary, rejected by many as a pseudoscientist, but undeniably influential in shaping alternative approaches to ancient history, astronomy, and sacred texts. Within the LDS world, his ideas found a particularly receptive audience among a handful of independent thinkers who saw in his catastrophist model a powerful key for unlocking scriptural cosmology.

Outside of LDS circles, however, Velikovsky’s legacy was largely resisted by both mainstream scientists and most Christian theologians, leaving him an intellectual orphan on the edges of both science and faith. Yet precisely because of this unusual position, his work continues to inspire those who seek fresh models for understanding the cosmic drama of creation, destruction, and restoration — themes that resonate deeply in both scripture and speculative fiction, including the ongoing development of Red Sky.