Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Core danger: Too many LDS Church members don’t know the Standard Works

LDS Church members are often among the most trusting and gullible people in the world. They also sometimes believe in doctrines they find on the Web that they should know are false and not even worth reading. A big problem is they sometimes then teach these untruths to other Church members – even in official meetings.
The core problem is that too many Church members these days don’t read the Standard Works – or at best only read The Book of Mormon over and over.
These members are clueless on what doctrines are found in the Old Testament, the Doctrine and Covenants and/or the Pearl of Great Price.
President Harold B. Lee, stated very prophetically about the danger of scriptural ignorance in the Ensign Magazine of December 1972:
“I say that we need to teach our people to find their answers in the scriptures. If only each of us would be wise enough to say that we aren’t able to answer any question unless we can find a doctrinal answer in the scriptures! And if we hear someone teaching something that is contrary to what is in the scriptures, each of us may know whether the things spoken are false—it is as simple as that. But the unfortunate thing is that so many of us are not reading the scriptures. We do not know what is in them, and therefore we speculate about the things that we ought to have found in the scriptures themselves. I think that therein is one of our biggest dangers of today.
When I meet with our missionaries and they ask questions about things pertaining to the temple, I say to them, as I close the discussion, “I don’t dare answer any of your questions unless I can find an answer in the standard works or in the authentic declarations of presidents of the Church.”
The Lord has given us in the standard works the means by which we should measure truth and untruth. May we all heed his word: “Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law, to be my law to govern my church.” (D&C 42:59.)”

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Is the foundation of the Salt Lake Temple composed of granite or sandstone?

DOES the famous and historic Salt Lake Temple actually sit on a base of all granite?
There’s no doubt that a sandstone base, taken from Red Butte Canyon, was the Temple’s original base. But is any of the sandstone still there?
The vast majority of all Internet searches find sources that imply the sandstone base was entirely removed – it is all granite now.
The most authoritative of these sources is from the BYU Religious Studies Center at:
This report states that the Temple’s foundation was covered as the U.S. Army approached Salt Lake in the summer of 1857.
Then, as the Army threat disappeared, the foundation was uncovered as Temple work was ready to resume.
The BYU Religious Studies history of the Salt Lake Temple then states:
“At this time, President Young examined the newly uncovered foundation and became aware that it was defective. He and his associates noticed large cracks and concluded that its small stones held together with mortar could not carry the massive weight of the temple. On January 1, 1862, he announced that the inadequate foundation would be removed and replaced by one made entirely of granite. The footings would be sixteen feet thick. “I want to see the Temple built in a manner that it will endure through the Millennium,” he later declared. The work of rebuilding the foundation moved slowly, and the walls did not reach ground level until the end of the construction season in 1867, fourteen years after the original cornerstones had been laid.”

However, this report can be supplemented by several Deseret News stories, including a photograph from the early 1960s.
The Deseret News of March 30, 1963 published a photograph of when extensive excavations were made around the base of the Salt Lake Temple. This photograph lists the granite foundation as 14 feet deep (two feet less than the BYU article stated).
It also clearly shows a sandstone sub-foundation still there, underneath the granite foundation.
So, technically both statements of a granite or sandstone base are true.
An earlier Deseret News story on Sept. 8, 1962, stated:
“The story of the foundation and the back-breaking labors of the pioneers who toiled with oxen to haul giant pieces of granite from Cottonwood Canyon quarries to replace an original foundation of sandstone has been told.”
Thus, if there ever was a full foundation of sandstone up to the ground level, then the upper 14 feet of that base had to have been removed and replaced with granite. However, the BYU story stated that the temple structure didn’t rise to ground level until 1867, or 10 years after the threat from the U.S. Army. So, this casts some doubt on a full underground base of sandstone ever existing.
Notwithstanding, it is a fact that some 14 feet to 16 feet of lower sandstone sub-base still remain below ground.
The 1963 Deseret News story stated that the sandstone sub-foundation was 30 feet down. Amazingly, only hand tools, horse and oxen power created that foundation.
This sandstone sub-foundation covers an area of 4,850 square feet.
The photograph also reveals how layered in blocks and even partially eroded the sandstone sub-foundation appears to have been in 1963.
During the 1963 renovation, cement wells and footings were added to replace the previous rocky subsoil. At the same time of the 1963 underground improvements, underground passages were also added.
-“Facts about the Temple” was an Oct. 22, 1891 story on the S.L. Temple in the Salt Lake Herald newspaper. This article accurately mentions the deepest foundations as being sandstone.
“The Salt Lake Temple foundation is not laid of granite from Cottonwood canon (sic), as has been stated, but is of the same kind of sandstone as the temple block wall foundation – we call it firestone – and has never been disturbed or taken up and relayed as has been stated …” the Herald story stated.
The Herald also explained that oxen hauled the sandstone from a spur in the mountain a little south of the mouth of Red Butte Canon (sic), in blocks about three feet thick.
Back to the Deseret News’ 1963 photograph, it does appear to show the three-foot thick sandstone blocks in the sub-foundation.

-One other interesting excerpt from the BYU Religious Studies article on the history of the S.L. Temple is this:
“Because the builders recalled President Young’s desire for this temple to stand through time, the structure was very solid. Even at their tops, the walls were six feet thick, and the granite blocks were individually and skillfully shaped to fit snugly together. Nearly a century later, Elder Mark E. Petersen attested to the soundness of the temple’s construction. He was in the temple when a rather severe earthquake hit, damaging several buildings around the Salt Lake Valley. “As I sat there in that temple I could feel the sway of the quake and that the whole building groaned.” Afterward, he recalled, the engineers “could not find one semblance of damage” anywhere in the temple.”
So, the finished Salt Lake Temple may be more earthquake resistant than some may believe – notwithstanding that sandstone sub-foundation.
-Still one more interesting fact from the BYU Religious Studies article is this:
“Some have suggested that in the Salt Lake Temple, shafts were provided for elevators and spaces left throughout the building for electric conduits and heating ducts even before these technologies were known. Angell Sr., (the temple’s architect) however, certainly would have learned about elevators, which were just coming into use at the time of his 1856 visit to Europe. By the early 1860s, electricity was already being used in Utah for the Deseret Telegraph system. Hence, most of the temple’s interior was designed and built long after these technologies emerged. Although the west center tower proved to be a convenient location for the two main elevators, there is no evidence to suggest that their shafts were planned when there was no knowledge of this technology.”

-Originally published in the Deseret News.

NOTE 1: The term "granite" is a layman's term in this article. Geologists probably have their own different scientific terms.

NOTE 2: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Monday, May 7, 2018

Don't make the error of elevating The Apocrypha (or Esdras) to a Standard Work

SOME LDS Church members have apparently recently seized upon verses from the Book of 2nd Esdras in the Apocrypha as being Gospel and as clear and prophetic as the Book of Revelation and the Doctrine and Covenants about what happens in the last days.

BEFORE anyone buys into this kind of risky doctrine, they should consider the following:

1.        The Prophet Joseph Smith said much of the Apocrypha is true and much of it is false. (See D&C 91:1-2). Without the spirit, it is not possible to determine which is which. The scriptures also stated it was not needful for the Prophet to re-translate any of the Apocrypha. Why? Likely because there was nothing important enough there. The Prophet also wanted to run for President of the United States. If the Esdras sections of the Apocrypha actually contain the future history of U.S. Presidents (as some claim in an eagle's feathers treatise), it is hard to accept that Joseph Smith didn’t note that somewhere – and yet he didn’t.

2.        President Gordon B. Hinckley said time and time again that Church members should read the Book of Mormon -- a book of scripture written for us and our day. He said nothing about reading the Apocrypha. It is the Book of Mormon that is the book for the American continent. The Sealed Plates of the Book of Mormon likely do have a detailed history of the world from the beginning to the end, so why would Esdras have a small section of that in it?
3.        It is simply hard to believe that Ezra, who wrote the book of Esdras in the Apocrypha could be so detailed in his so-called foretelling of the American Presidency and future of the USA, when no other scripture -- including the Doctrine and Covenants -- is even close to being as detailed. And, the Lord's style simply ISN'T to give man such detailed accounts of things to come -- and certainly not a presidential timeline.
     This blog isn't the only one to question the teachings in Esdras. For example, ldsscriptureteachings.org states:
"The apocalyptic tone of II Esdras is impressive and appealing. Not all of the content, however, is trustworthy. It tries to describe some very questionable signs of the Second Coming as follows:
…infants a year old shall talk, and women with child will bring forth untimely infants at three or four months, and they will live and dance…
…[in that day] wild animals will go outside their [dens], and women in their uncleanness will bear monsters. (2 Esdras 6:21; 5:8)"
Also, the same blog states:
"The Second Book of Esdras teaches false doctrine about Father Adam, blaming him for the consequences of the Fall."
4.         Plus, who was the author of Esdras? He was Ezra, a scribe and priest for the Jews. Not likely a prophet ... and why did he get such revelation that was certainly not in any way pertinent to his calling?
Doesn’t D&C 50:13 apply here to Ezra?
(“Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?”)
Or, even if Ezra was writing down a prophet’s words, who was that prophet?

Finally, if you search Ezra the Jewish scribe on Google, it is clear that many scholars believe his writings are counter to other Biblical doctrines and Esdras may not have actually been fully written when Ezra was even still alive, but may have been written later on. Some scholars even question Ezra’s sanity during some of his writings.
-BOTTOM LINE: Some Church members are too hasty to believe such fringe and shaky doctrines these days, especially with the easy access to them via the Web.

Some of these same Church members likely haven't even read the Old Testament, or the Pearl of Great Price and yet they jump to The Apocrypha? If they don't know what's in the Standard Works, then how can they judge authenticity for The Apocrypha? 

-Lastly, Robert J. Matthews, BYU professor, said, "When compared with the scriptures, the Apocrypha is less fruitful soil for spiritual growth without greater than usual assistance from the Spirit… While historians and scholars can find much in these documents of importance to their research, average Church members will receive a greater spiritual return on their investment of time by reading the Bible and the other standard works than they will by reading the Apocrypha." (Ensign, December, 1983, page 70.)

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Monday, April 2, 2018

The history of an LDS Temple in Layton, Utah

PRIOR to April 1, 2018, mention anything about a temple in Layton, Utah and you were talking about the Layton Buddhist Temple, 644 East 1000 North in Layton – as that was the lone “temple” inside the City’s boundaries.
This temple opened way back in 1979.

                      The "Layton Temple," a Buddhist shrine.

However, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will redefine that title with its own “Layton, Utah Temple” in a few years.
Announced on Sunday, April 1, 2018 in General Conference, this temple will be the 19th in Utah.
“We are now pleased to announce plans to construct seven more temples,” said LDS Church President Russell M. Nelson during the Sunday, April 1, 2018 afternoon session of General Conference. “Layton, Utah,” President Nelson both smiled and laughed when he announced the name Layton, which was met with awes and cheers.
(In one Layton household, a woman listening to General Conference yelled, “What? What?” after the announcement was made.)
Layton is a relatively “new” city in Utah, based on pioneer settlements, being an outgrowth of Kaysville, Utah.
Layton community residents de-annexed from Kaysville City, from 1902-1907, to become their own, separate unincorporated area. Layton finally incorporated as a town in 1920.
However, the move for Layton to become its own community had actually started a decade earlier in 1892.
According to the Davis County Clipper newspaper of May 6, 1892, members of the Kaysville Second Ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really resided in what most recognized as Layton territory and not Kaysville. Hence, some Church members circulated a petition in 1892, asking Church leaders to rename the ward to what it really is -- the Layton Ward.
"We do not live in Kaysville City, nor Kaysville precinct, and why it is called the 2nd Ward of Kaysville we cannot understand," the newspaper report stated.
Just less than 4 months later, the Ward name change did take place.
“The members of second ward of Kaysville last Sunday decided to change the name to Layton Ward to so as to conform with the precinct and post office And hereafter it will be known by that name.” (-Davis County Clipper, Aug. 31, 1892.)
When Layton became its own official town in 1920, Kaysville’s population was 809, while Layton had less than 400 residents.
Even by 1940, Layton only had half the population of Kaysville, with 646 residents.
It was World War II and rise of area military installations, like Hill Air Force Base, that produced a surge in Layton’s population.
It was probably around 1943 when Layton surpassed Kaysville in total population. By 1950, Layton’s population was 3,456, as compared to 1,898 for Kaysville.
Layton City reached another milestone in 1985, when it surpassed Bountiful as the largest city in Davis County, with an estimated 36,000 residents.
In 2018, Layton has more than 76.000 residents, as compared to Bountiful’s 45,000 and Kaysville’s 32,000 populations.
-And, because of its larger land area and room for growth -- sometime in the future, Layton will likely surpass Ogden as the largest Utah city north of Salt Lake City ... with approximately 120,000 residents.
As such, unlike pioneer cities like Brigham City, which had century old Church prophecies about one day having its own temple, Layton is just too contemporary of a city to have had any such occurrence.
Notwithstanding this history lesson, a few references on the Web claimed Layton City would one day receive its own LDS temple years prior to the official announcement.
The first such Internet reference was probably from Matt Martinich on March 1, 2009 – just over 9 years before the official announcement of a temple in Layton. On his “LDS Church Growth” blog (ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com) and under the heading of “Potential new temples,” he claimed no special revelation for that claim, just that he had identified four key factors that: “contribute to the likelihood of a new temple announcement in a given location: Long distance from an existing temple, a large number of stakes and districts, stakes which have existed before 1981 in given location, and busy Saturday endowment schedule at the closest temple.”
And, Layton met those 4 criteria.
-Still another “before the fact” prediction for a temple in Layton came on thisweekinmormons.com, under the heading of
“UTAH NEEDS THREE MORE TEMPLES,” by Geoff Openshaw, on April 1, 2016 – exactly two years before the official announcement.
Openshaw wrote: “LAYTON. This one is a given (for a temple). This is one I actually believe in. The name “Layton” doesn’t carry a lot of caché, but the northern Wasatch Front is overcrowded when it comes to the number of stakes feeding into its temples. We should smooth that out.”
After the official temple announcement was made, Church members began to speculate about where exactly the Layton temple would be built.
Just like with the Bountiful Temple more than a quarter of century earlier, the Church surely already had land secured for a temple years before any official announcement.
A KUTV new story a day after the announcement (April 2, 2018), quoted Layton Mayor Bob Stevenson as saying yes the LDS Church already has land for a temple, though he was sworn to secrecy as to exactly where.
“We can narrow that part all the way down to it's in Layton. Not in Kaysville, or Clearfield, or Syracuse, it's in Layton, and people will really like the location,” he said. "I think that when the F-35 pilots fly in, I think they will be able to see it,” Mayor Stevenson told KUTV.
 “I will say this, the church has acquired the property and so that piece of property is a done deal,” he continued.
Mayor Stevenson’s last comment to KUTV was: "That is their announcement as far as that goes so we have to let the church announce where the location where it's going to be.”
KSL-TV also talked to Mayor Stevenson about the new temple that same day. In that interview he called the announcement of a Layton temple "stunning," adding that it is "by far the most exciting announcement we've had in our community.
"I think that maybe we could even hear a roar coming from not only the Conference Center, but coming from Layton, Utah," he said.
The LDS Church sometimes prefers temples on lofty hillsides or bench areas, as with the Bountiful and Draper temples.
However, the Church also built temples in center of the valley areas, as with the Jordan River and the Oquirrh Mountain temples.

It would be kind of ironic if the Layton Temple is located anywhere near "Gentile Street." This road actually received its name in the 19th Century as where some non-LDS families lived in W. Layton.


  The most likely Layton LDS Temple site, east of the Smith's Store, near Rosewood and where Oak Hills Drive and Gentile Street split off. Multiple sources claim this is indeed  the site.

                                Another view of the most likely temple site in Layton.

                  Street sign view, with possible temple site to the right.

     Horses graze on possibly sacred ground just south of Gentile and Oak Hills streets.

-According to various sources, the LDS Church may have pondered over a temple site in Layton for some 11 years. LDS Church President Thomas Monson may have also visited the site shown in the pictures above.
Actual legal closure on that land may have taken place the Friday before the General Conference announcement.

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Monday, March 26, 2018

LDS Apostolic reflections on the affliction of cancer

ELDER Neal A. Maxwell of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve spoke candidly to the Deseret News about his cancer, in 1999, some 5 years before his passing in 2004.
And, contrary to what many people may suspect, he considered his cancerous disease to be more of a blessing than anything else.
Speaking at the annual National Cancer Survivors Day for Utah at Hogle Zoo on June 5, 1999, he said one of the blessings of cancer is that it can help a person sort out the big things from the little things in life.
Here's more of the original Deseret News interview:
"We have a different perspective, a sharper focus," he said about cancer patients. "I've been given by the Lord a delay en route."
Elder Maxwell, age 72 at the time, said hair is one of those things that doesn't seem as important after suffering from cancer. A loving conversation with your family, however, ends up seeming very critical.
He was diagnosed with leukemia three years ago. It was caught fairly early but was progressing very rapidly. He had multiple chemotherapies and ended up spending 46 days in the hospital.
Elder Maxwell was only able to work part time in his church duties until 10 months ago when he regained his strength and returned to full-time status.
"I feel much better now," he said.
He's still receiving some chemotherapy but remains very hopeful.
"Each of us faces an eventual exit route," he said of life.
Elder Maxwell said quite a number of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been stricken with cancer, including President Spencer W. Kimball, Elder Bruce R. McConkie and President Howard W. Hunter.
"There's no immunity from suffering," he said of church leaders. "Only variation from suffering. How we handle it is the key."
He's especially thankful for the special care his wife, Colleen, whom he describes as a "Florence Nightingale," provided him.
Elder Maxwell said leukemia also has given him a much greater appreciation of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Another blessing he made reference to from his illness was a better capacity to receive help from others.
"We must learn to receive," he said.
He said he also has a greater respect for the doctors and nurses who deal with cancer patients on a daily basis. He credited the advances of medical science for also helping more cancer patients recover.
"I'm wiser by the experience," he said.
The church leader advised cancer patients against wondering why me and why now? He urged patients not to allow tomorrow to overhang today and to continue to avoid self-pity.
He had told the organizers of the event that he wasn't looking for any special treatment or recognition there. He was just glad to attend such an event where special kinship can be felt.
"I draw from their fellowship," he said.
Indeed, he was not dressed in the usual suit and tie apparel of the general authority, but rather a jacket, T-shirt and casual pants. He even carried and sometimes wore a baseball cap.
-Written by Lynn Arave and published in the Deseret News, June 6, 1999.
SIDE NOTE: As a reporter, I was fortunate to be able to speak one-on-one and privately that day with Elder Maxwell for about 7 minutes. I also thought of a great final question just as others noticed Elder Maxwell and came flooding over, swamping him in a sea of zoo-goers -- and it was interview over. I don’t recall what that unasked query was, but I guess I was not supposed to ask it ….
Some years later, I would attend a memorial service for Elder Maxwell (not sponsored by the LDS Church) at the University of Utah. I was surprised how well he had impressed many non-members of the Church. I’m sure he is currently reaching out to many others now in the Spirit World, as perhaps only his gentle, poetic style can do. --Lynn Arave.

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Not enough Church members partake of the ‘meat’ of the Gospel?

                           One of W. Cleon Skousen's doctrinal books (and still for sale on Amazon).
NOT enough members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints partake of the meat of the gospel, W. Cleon Skousen, LDS author/scholar, said.
He spoke on April 3, 2003 to the B'nai Shalom group of Jewish converts at their semiannual meeting on "Lessons I've Learned from Life" at the Capitol Hill First Ward Chapel of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Skousen, then age 90, was energetic and focused. (He died less than 3 years later in 2006.)
"I plead with you," he said. "Take the time to get into the meat."
Skousen has written 42 books on LDS doctrine and teachings, and he said they all touch on meaty aspects of the gospel. It was Elder John A. Widtsoe, an LDS apostle from 1921 to '52, who taught him to study. Skousen believes Elder Widtsoe understood the gospel of Jesus Christ better than any other apostle of his time.
He said a key difference is that milk eaters of the gospel only ask "what" to do next, while meat eaters also ask "why."
"A few Saints get to the meat level," Skousen said. "The why and the how people are the ones that are really progressing in the gospel."
Why don't more get into the meat?
"Because most people aren't interested in meat," he said.
"There are some boring speakers. That's 'cause they get on milk and can't get off it. . . . It's the duty of everyone to be a good sacrament meeting speaker."
He said the big test in life is to endure to the end, but many are too busy with sporting events — even on Sunday — to do that.
"Don't let the holy day become a holiday."
Exercise, or just doing what the Lord has told you to do, is also essential.
"Church service is so important, and we should be active in the community, too."
Skousen also said he's a firm constitutionalist and initially believed it was wrong to be pre-emptive with Iraq and go to war over there.
"But I feel good about it now. . . . Serve your country."
Regarding keeping a year's supply of food, he advises those with old and outdated storage to just throw it away and start over.
"The wonderful thing is that you didn't have to use it," he said.
Skousen also advises church members to keep journals and said he has 150 journals outlining many details of his own life.
"We have a lot of things we have to sharpen up."
He's keen on both the leadership and progress of the church today.
"What a magnificent (church) leadership we have today. I see nothing but progress happening in the kingdom."
Skousen also touched briefly on his service as Salt Lake City's police chief in the mid-1950s by saying it wasn't his idea — LDS Church President David O. McKay asked him to do it.
He also was a longtime professor in the department of religion at Brigham Young University.
-Witten by Lynn Arave and published in the Deseret News, April 12, 2003.

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.

Clarifying the story of Moses and ‘The Ten Commandments’ from Hollywood’s version

1956 Deseret News Archives photo showing (L-R) Mrs. and Mr. Cecil B. DeMille, Charlton Heston and LDS Church President David O. McKay in Salt Lake City for the "Ten Commandments." premiere.
IF you've ever watched the classic movie "The Ten Commandments" by Cecil B. DeMille, it is so engaging it may have become your definitive version of the story of Moses.
But the 1956 film, starring Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner, sprinkles more than a little fancy among its facts.
From a romance that never existed and concocted characters to an instant parting of the Red Sea, the movie is riddled with fiction.
It is, in fact, a cinematic masterpiece in everything except accuracy. It won an Oscar, three other major movie awards and was nominated for another seven awards.
No later movies about Moses even come close.
LDS Church members tend to read mostly the Book of Mormon and too many members are clueless about what the Old Testament story of Moses truly states.
 In Hollywood's defense, perhaps making an almost three-hour movie out of a few dozen Bible chapters requires some invention just to fill the time and keep viewers engaged.
Historically, ABC-TV airs the classic movie, the highest grossing film of the 1950s, each year during Easter weekend. (The one year ABC didn't air the movie — 1999 — it received a browbeating.)
There’s also somewhat of a Utah connection to the movie. There’s good evidence that its producer, Cecil B. DeMille, wanted to eventually make a major motion picture of the Book of Mormon. In fact, he and his wife, plus Charlton Heston, came to Salt Lake City for the movie’s premiere and met with LDS Church President David O. McKay (see picture above from the Deseret News Archives).
Now, in an effort to shed some light on what's Holy Bible and what's Hollywood, here is a sampling of differences between the Kings James version of the Old Testament and the classic Hollywood “Ten Commandments” movie:
 According to the commentary on the 2004 DVD release of the film, the movie's script was enhanced by non-biblical sources, such as: Josephus, the Sepher-ha-Yashar, the Chronicle of Moses and the Quran. Also, some parts in the script are mere inventions.
 The movie refers to all the kings of Egypt with specific names, while the Bible refers to each one only as "Pharaoh."
 No wives of any kings are mentioned by name in the Bible, while a star in the movie is "Queen Nefretiri," obviously a variation of "Nefertari," the wife of Rameses II, according to Egyptian history. The Bible mentions no extra romance of Moses with anyone, though Nefretiri's love of Moses is one of the dominant components of the DeMille movie.
 Moses' mother is said to be Yoshebel in the movie, while Exodus 6:20 states it was Jochebed.
 The daughter of Pharaoh is only mentioned in the Bible when she rescues baby Moses from the river. In the movie, she eventually goes with the Israelites out of Egypt.
 There is also no biblical mention of Moses having any early relationship with any of the Pharaoh's sons.
 Moses apparently didn't have the choice to marry any of Midian's seven daughters; he was given the offer of a specific wife. Exodus 2:21 states: "… and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter."
 In the movie, Moses is said to be a successful military commander, but that reference comes from Josephus, not the Bible.
 The movie shows Moses openly fighting an Egyptian, killing him and then being arrested and exiled. Yet Exodus 2:11-15 says that Moses saw no one else when he killed the Egyptian and that Moses fled afterward, since the Pharaoh sought to kill him.
 Some characters, like Baka (portrayed by Vincent Price), are not mentioned in the Bible.
 Joshua never came to the land of Midian to persuade Moses to return to Egypt. God sent Moses back to Egypt (Exodus 3:10).
 The movie doesn't accurately portray Moses as being "not eloquent" in speaking (Exodus 4:10).
 The movie only shows four of the 10 plagues of Egypt. Not only were there time constraints, but Hollywood at the time could not re-create some of the special effects needed to show some of the plagues.
 Moses doesn't tell Pharaoh that his word will bring the last plague or that Pharaoh decreed that all firstborn of Israel would die. God alone executes the final plague (Exodus 12). Furthermore, the Bible offers little beyond saying the firstborn of Pharaoh died, while the movie focuses extensively on this son's death.
 The movie shows an instant parting of the Red Sea. However, the Bible states that the strong east wind took all night to part the waters (Exodus 14:21). (That means the Lord kept the Pharaoh and his army at bay a really long time.)
 The Pharaoh is not shown as drowning with his army in the movie. Even though Exodus does not state that Pharaoh did drown, Psalm 136:15 implies that Pharaoh did drown with his army.
 Israel sang and danced to celebrate the defeat of Pharaoh and his armies (Exodus 15), but the movie portrays them as simply standing in silent amazement.
 The movie also does not show Israel's battle with Amalek or of God supplying Israel with manna, water and quail.
-Written by Lynn Arave and originally published  in the Deseret News, March 27, 2010.

NOTE: This article and all of the NighUntoKolob blog are NOT an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are the author's conclusions and opinions only.