Temple Video

[Blah]

I'll try to remember to double-check this weekend, as I asked once. If I recall correctly, it has to do with the difference in technology requirements between the two films and updated player/projection equipment. So different temples may be upgrading on a different schedule.

All temples are gradually being upgraded to HD. So this makes perfect sense.

[theplains]

I think it would be unwise to ascribe literal doctrine to the video. For example, the official doctrine (from SWK and published by the Church) regarding Eve being taken from Adam's rib is that it's figurative.

Why did God cause a deep sleep to come upon Adam and then take out one of his ribs?

Thanks,

Jim

[halconero]

Why did God cause a deep sleep to come upon Adam and then take out one of his ribs?

Thanks,

Jim

To quote an African American convert from my mission:

"Because he was black. Have you ever tried to take a rib from a black guy? Ain't happenin'."

[canard78]

Why did God cause a deep sleep to come upon Adam and then take out one of his ribs?

Thanks,

Jim

The creation video in the temple isn't a documentary. Let go of the literal event and think about what that event symbolises.

It troubles me when I hear people talk about the temple video as if it's a factual account to take meaning out of. I believe that it's only in taking the symbols and metaphors from the characters, setting and events that it can have personal meaning to us.

We should imagine ourselves to be Adam and Eve... we should imagine Adam and Eve to be us. It's a parable about us. Our creation, our birth, our innocence, our moment of leaving God's presence and starting our journey in this lone and dreary world before progressing, if possible towards the Celestial realm. The moment we try to watch it as historical, we put a barrier between ourselves and the symbolism.

The temple prep manual says:

In a symbolic way, the teachings and rituals of the temple take us on an upward journey toward eternal life, ending with a symbolic entrance into the presence of God. The characters depicted, the physical setting, the clothing worn, the signs given, and all the events covered in the temple are symbolic. When they are understood, they will help each person recognize truth and grow spiritually.

http://www.lds.org/m...ymbols?lang=eng

The characters depicted and all events are symbolic.

As I've said elsewhere, this doesn't mean they didn't also literally happen... but we don't have to worry about whether they did or not. We have to worry about what the symbolism is within the accounts given to us which may or may not be accurate accounts of what might or might not have actually happened. The lessons are only valuable in the symbolism. The symbolism becomes more powerful by it being taught as an actual, historical event.

Edited January 12, 2013 by canard78

[Tacenda]

The creation video in the temple isn't a documentary. Let go of the literal event and think about what that event symbolises.

It troubles me when I hear people talk about the temple video as if it's a factual account to take meaning out of. I believe that it's only in taking the symbols and metaphors from the characters, setting and events that it can have personal meaning to us.

We should imagine ourselves to be Adam and Eve... we should imagine Adam and Eve to be us. It's a parable about us. Our creation, our birth, our innocence, our moment of leaving God's presence and starting our journey in this lone and dreary world before progressing, if possible towards the Celestial realm. The moment we try to watch it as historical, we put a barrier between ourselves and the symbolism.

The temple prep manual says:

http://www.lds.org/m...ymbols?lang=eng

The characters depicted and all events are symbolic.

As I've said elsewhere, this doesn't mean they didn't also literally happen... but we don't have to worry about whether they did or not. We have to worry about what the symbolism is within the accounts given to us which may or may not be accurate accounts of what might or might not have actually happened. The lessons are only valuable in the symbolism. The symbolism becomes more powerful by it being taught as an actual, historical event.

Well, that's new to me since being on this board. The symbolism of the temple wasn't ever spoken to me. Back in '84 there wasn't that kind of preparation. I've always taken it literally because it's a house of cards if we don't. What about Cain & Abel? If I don'f take it literally than I feel totally lied to. And I'm getting sick of the lying or leaving things out in this church. And of being a naive baby in learning of the real history/doctrine. La, la, la, la, I can't hear you..... Edited January 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[canard78]

Well, that's new to me since being on this board. The symbolism of the temple wasn't ever spoken to me. Back in '84 there wasn't that kind of preparation. I've always taken it literally because it's a house of cards if we don't. What about Cain & Abel? If I don'f take it literally than I feel totally lied to. And I'm getting sick of the lying or leaving things out in this church. And of being a naive baby in learning of the real history/doctrine. La, la, la, la, I can't hear you.....

Hi Tacenda, the last thing I wanted was for you to fee lied to. No-one in any position of leadership is saying the events didn't literally happen. They teach a historical Adam, Eve, Cain, Able.

But equally I'm not sure they've said anywhere that the Temple events depicted are historical. They have on the other hand been taught they are symbolic. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. The temple clothes are literal items of clothing, but also symbolic (in the basic sense, white clothes suggesting purity).

What I'm trying to say is that even if the events are literal/historical we need to focus on what they teach as metaphors or parables. That's where the value really lies.

The Endowment remains, for me, one of the greatest testimonies of Joseph's inspired prophetic calling. Yes there are masonic parallels and yes Joseph was possibly motivated to seek a symbolic ceremony for developing the doctrinal understanding of the saints. But... what Joseph delivered as a ceremony was far, far deeper and stronger than anything he had picked up from a few sessions with the Freemasons. If you exclude all the masonic parallels, you still have some amazing content that fits in, brilliantly and symbolically, with the themes of the gospel and the scriptures.

Have a read of these for indications of some symbolic applications. These are two articles/chapters by Hugh Nibley. Eye-opening stuff:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=21&chapid=8

And... http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1148

Enjoy...

[blooit]

This has already been alluded to, but for me (when I was a newly endowed member) having two films helped me know what was actually part of the endowment, and what was drama. The symbolism that is consistent between the two films must be part of the actual endowment, while things like hair color, scenery, etc. are just for effect. Very wise IMHO.

[Tacenda]

Hi Tacenda, the last thing I wanted was for you to fee lied to. No-one in any position of leadership is saying the events didn't literally happen. They teach a historical Adam, Eve, Cain, Able.

But equally I'm not sure they've said anywhere that the Temple events depicted are historical. They have on the other hand been taught they are symbolic. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. The temple clothes are literal items of clothing, but also symbolic (in the basic sense, white clothes suggesting purity).

What I'm trying to say is that even if the events are literal/historical we need to focus on what they teach as metaphors or parables. That's where the value really lies.

The Endowment remains, for me, one of the greatest testimonies of Joseph's inspired prophetic calling. Yes there are masonic parallels and yes Joseph was possibly motivated to seek a symbolic ceremony for developing the doctrinal understanding of the saints. But... what Joseph delivered as a ceremony was far, far deeper and stronger than anything he had picked up from a few sessions with the Freemasons. If you exclude all the masonic parallels, you still have some amazing content that fits in, brilliantly and symbolically, with the themes of the gospel and the scriptures.

Have a read of these for indications of some symbolic applications. These are two articles/chapters by Hugh Nibley. Eye-opening stuff:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=21&chapid=8

And... http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=103&chapid=1148

Enjoy...

I've always struggled with the idea that I must listen to the counsel of my husband and he must listen to the counsel of the Father. Is that symbolism and what does it mean? It separates me from going straight to the Lord. And yes, I know it's only in righteousness, and because Eve partook first. But according to LDS philosophy, Eve did the right thing. How come I'm punished for it? Especially since in the Articles of Faith we're not to be punished for Adam's transgression? Edited January 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[glitterNgold]

I used to work in the temple but now no longer own a valid temple recommend so this kind of thread makes me feel a little nostalgic.

[canard78]

I've always struggled with the idea that I must listen to the counsel of my husband and he must listen to the counsel of the Father. Is that symbolism and what does it mean? It separates me from going straight to the Lord. And yes, I know it's only in righteousness, and because Eve partook first. But according to LDS philosophy, Eve did the right thing. How come I'm punished for it? Especially since in the Articles of Faith we're not to be punished for Adam's transgression?

Yes it's symbolic, no it doesn't separate you from going straight to the Lord. How can a Relief Society president receive guidance for her calling? Certainly not by seeking her husband's council on how to lead and serve the sisters. There's nothing stopping you going directly to God in any of our doctrine (including that metaphorical line in the temple drama).

It could be symbolic of... priesthood role in the home. Symbolic of the role of patriarch in leading the family and caring for it both spiritually and physically.

I don't know what every conversation and every action in the drama symbolises. I probably never will.

The action Eve took in 'partaking of the apple' was in effect the choice that lead to her ability to be mortal, but also a mother. It also was the moment that her eyes were opened and she was accountable for her actions. This reminds me of (or perhaps represents) two things.

- Our moment of baptism (whether 8 or adult) when we become accountable and go from innocence/God's guaranteed presence (if we die) to accountability and more knowledge of the 'lone and dreary world.'

- Her (and all women's) ability to become a mother. Eating the apple has always had a strong symbol of sex in Christianity (which we tend to distance ourselves with, due to the negative connotations). While eating the apple may not directly be a 'euphamism' for sex, it was at least the moment that symbolises male/female sexual/carnal awakening and accountability. Therefore, at the moment of eating the apple Eve set in motion the abilty to have children (Nephi says without this they would never have had kids). That whole sequence represents the roles discussed in the family proclamation.

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Eve/woman choses to be a mother and invites the man to join in her in that act and process. Without getting too technical... procreation is at the woman/mothers invitation. She welcomes and hosts the process. Therefore she takes on that responsibility and asks Adam/Man to join her in the huge responsibility and accountability of become a little like God in creating life (and being accountable for that). In accepting to join Eve/woman on that journey, Adam/man agrees to care for and nurture Eve/woman in the process. It's not a perfect analogy, but it works for me. I understand why some women feel uncomfortable if the instruction is considered to be a literal commandment. It's not necessarily literal. It's symbolic. Just like everything else in the drama. Ancient (Egyptian/Greek) dramas are almost always metaphorical and teach a lesson. Think about Hamlet's plan to have a 'play within a play.' His intention is to portray a principle and elicit a reaction from his mother. Read the Nibley links in my previous post, it will make the temple drama far more than a (confusing) documentary of the earth's creation and foundational events. I don't believe it was ever intended to be taken as such.

One thing I do when I go through an endowment is to start from a certain frame of mind. I start it by thinking: "I'm going to watch this as a.... (father/husband/home teacher/son/friend etc)... what lesson can I learn from this about being a better (father/husband etc)." Every time I do that I come away having noticed something in the story about how to do better at that part of my life.

Edited January 12, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

This has already been alluded to, but for me (when I was a newly endowed member) having two films helped me know what was actually part of the endowment, and what was drama. The symbolism that is consistent between the two films must be part of the actual endowment, while things like hair color, scenery, etc. are just for effect. Very wise IMHO.

I wish they would make a new video of either the Salt Lake or Manti 'live session.' That would be the best approach. The real people and simplicity of it helps to not worry about the filmography.

[Tacenda]

I wish they would make a new video of either the Salt Lake or Manti 'live session.' That would be the best approach. The real people and simplicity of it helps to not worry about the filmography.

I attended the Salt Lake Temple alone when I was at the height of my testimony struggle. I only remember going once before with my mom and sister, so many years ago and had forgotten how ornate (for lack of a better word) and beautiful the temple was on the inside also. It was strange though, when afterwards I rode the elevator down with Adam and Eve at the Conference Centers parking lot. Interesting day for me to say the least. Especially going alone, hardly ever do that.

[Tacenda]

Yes it's symbolic, no it doesn't separate you from going straight to the Lord. How can a Relief Society president receive guidance for her calling? Certainly not by seeking her husband's council on how to lead and serve the sisters. There's nothing stopping you going directly to God in any of our doctrine (including that metaphorical line in the temple drama).

It could be symbolic of... priesthood role in the home. Symbolic of the role of patriarch in leading the family and caring for it both spiritually and physically.

I don't know what every conversation and every action in the drama symbolises. I probably never will.

The action Eve took in 'partaking of the apple' was in effect the choice that lead to her ability to be mortal, but also a mother. It also was the moment that her eyes were opened and she was accountable for her actions. This reminds me of (or perhaps represents) two things.

- Our moment of baptism (whether 8 or adult) when we become accountable and go from innocence/God's guaranteed presence (if we die) to accountability and more knowledge of the 'lone and dreary world.'

- Her (and all women's) ability to become a mother. Eating the apple has always had a strong symbol of sex in Christianity (which we tend to distance ourselves with, due to the negative connotations). While eating the apple may not directly be a 'euphamism' for sex, it was at least the moment that symbolises male/female sexual/carnal awakening and accountability. Therefore, at the moment of eating the apple Eve set in motion the abilty to have children (Nephi says without this they would never have had kids). That whole sequence represents the roles discussed in the family proclamation.

"By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners."

Eve/woman choses to be a mother and invites the man to join in her in that act and process. Without getting too technical... procreation is at the woman/mothers invitation. She welcomes and hosts the process. Therefore she takes on that responsibility and asks Adam/Man to join her in the huge responsibility and accountability of become a little like God in creating life (and being accountable for that). In accepting to join Eve/woman on that journey, Adam/man agrees to care for and nurture Eve/woman in the process. It's not a perfect analogy, but it works for me. I understand why some women feel uncomfortable if the instruction is considered to be a literal commandment. It's not necessarily literal. It's symbolic. Just like everything else in the drama. Ancient (Egyptian/Greek) dramas are almost always metaphorical and teach a lesson. Think about Hamlet's plan to have a 'play within a play.' His intention is to portray a principle and elicit a reaction from his mother. Read the Nibley links in my previous post, it will make the temple drama far more than a (confusing) documentary of the earth's creation and foundational events. I don't believe it was ever intended to be taken as such.

One thing I do when I go through an endowment is to start from a certain frame of mind. I start it by thinking: "I'm going to watch this as a.... (father/husband/home teacher/son/friend etc)... what lesson can I learn from this about being a better (father/husband etc)." Every time I do that I come away having noticed something in the story about how to do better at that part of my life.

Skimmed through Hugh Nibley's essay earlier today. I just don't have the patience to read like I should. But got something from it, thank you.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But according to LDS philosophy, Eve did the right thing. How come I'm punished for it?

Why do you conclude that it's a punishment to have someone who is responsible for loving and watching out for you?

I'm not sure this thread is the place to post it, so I'll PM you something I wrote on a different forum a few years ago. Please read it if you can.

[CV75]

Why did God cause a deep sleep to come upon Adam and then take out one of his ribs?

Since it is symbolic, it can mean anything, really. Hopefully we’re inspired or well-informed when we’re using religious, spiritual or scriptural symbols. I’m not saying I’m either, but this could mean:

1. The Lord isn’t revealing exactly how human life began, or the process is hidden from us.

2. The Lord is placing Adam and Eve on equal ground since being asleep at the time, Adam was no more an active participant in Eve’s creation than he was, and can take zero credit.

3. Adam came forth from the dust of this Earth while Eve came forth from Adam in Eden; the “sleep” could have been the process of transporting Adam from this newly created Earth to Eden (and the Fall transported them as a couple to Earth).

Just a couple of possibilities. Of course it could be literal as well.

[canard78]

Since it is symbolic, it can mean anything, really. Hopefully we’re inspired or well-informed when we’re using religious, spiritual or scriptural symbols. I’m not saying I’m either, but this could mean:

1. The Lord isn’t revealing exactly how human life began, or the process is hidden from us.

2. The Lord is placing Adam and Eve on equal ground since being asleep at the time, Adam was no more an active participant in Eve’s creation than he was, and can take zero credit.

3. Adam came forth from the dust of this Earth while Eve came forth from Adam in Eden; the “sleep” could have been the process of transporting Adam from this newly created Earth to Eden (and the Fall transported them as a couple to Earth).

Just a couple of possibilities. Of course it could be literal as well.

Nice. I was trying to think what the sleep might be. I like the idea of certain things being knowledge not needed at this time - an imposed 'blindness' to aspects that don't matter.

[CV75]

Nice. I was trying to think what the sleep might be. I like the idea of certain things being knowledge not needed at this time - an imposed 'blindness' to aspects that don't matter.

Yes, a veil or sorts. No need that there be only one! A stupor of thought is a kind of veil as well.

In the case of Adam's being alone and then sleeping, he didn't know what he was missing but was certainly happy when he finally woke up! Waking up is symbolic too.

[theplains]

http://www.lds.org/m...ymbols?lang=eng

The symbolism becomes more powerful by it being taught as an actual, historical event.

Thank you for that link. One passage says, "The temple clothing is also symbolic. When we enter

the temple, we change from street clothes into white temple clothing, which is a symbol of purity".

What type of clothing do you suppose the early saints wore to the temple prior to its destruction

in 70 AD?

Jim

[Duncan]

Thank you for that link. One passage says, "The temple clothing is also symbolic. When we enter

the temple, we change from street clothes into white temple clothing, which is a symbol of purity".

What type of clothing do you suppose the early saints wore to the temple prior to its destruction

in 70 AD?

Jim

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/ex/40?lang=eng

read this and whatever they wore must have been fine

[Calm]

I've always struggled with the idea that I must listen to the counsel of my husband and he must listen to the counsel of the Father. Is that symbolism and what does it mean? It separates me from going straight to the Lord.

How will you know that your husband's counsel comes from the Lord unless you go to the Lord first and ask him? How will you know his righteousness unless you seek first God's judgment on it?

Following his counsel doesn't mean you don't have to listen to the Lord as much as he does or that your husband comes between you and the Lord, you have to go to the Lord first before agreeing to the counsel just as he has to go to the Lord first before deciding on the counsel he will give.

IMO, it is simply speaking about who is given the opportunity to present the Lord's Will in the discussion a couple is having, both are required to learn the Lord's Will first, then the husband presents it in the discussion and the wife acknowledges it is the Lord's Will because she has learned that it is for herself.

Edited January 13, 2013 by calmoriah

[theplains]

http://www.lds.org/s.../ex/40?lang=eng

read this and whatever they wore must have been fine

That passage has the wrong context. It talks about the priests (women are excluded) wearing coats,

being anointed,and washing their hands and feet when they entered the tent. It says nothing of

them wearing white garments.

Regards,

Jim

[Duncan]

That passage has the wrong context. It talks about the priests (women are excluded) wearing coats,

being anointed,and washing their hands and feet when they entered the tent. It says nothing of

them wearing white garments.

Regards,

Jim

it says garments and everything looks good with white! Where is your sense of Fashion?

[Tacenda]

How will you know that your husband's counsel comes from the Lord unless you go to the Lord first and ask him? How will you know his righteousness unless you seek first God's judgment on it?

Following his counsel doesn't mean you don't have to listen to the Lord as much as he does or that your husband comes between you in the the Lord, you have to go to the Lord first before agreeing to the counsel just as he has to go to the Lord first before deciding on the counsel he will give.

IMO, it is simply speaking about who is given the opportunity to present the Lord's Will in the discussion a couple is having, both are required to learn the Lord's Will first, then the husband presents it in the discussion and the wife acknowledges it is the Lord's Will because she has learned that it is for herself.

I like this and deep down feel that some men might need to be in charge righteously so that they will rise to the occasion and be responsible. Women seem to have it inherently as mother's of their own children or other's children. Today I went to the movie about the take down of Osama Bin Laden. The reason they caught him is because of a woman. This woman wouldn't give up the search and if it weren't for her, he'd still be out there. I think women are powerful enough and that part in the temple can make sense in a different way for me.

[Tacenda]

Why do you conclude that it's a punishment to have someone who is responsible for loving and watching out for you?

I'm not sure this thread is the place to post it, so I'll PM you something I wrote on a different forum a few years ago. Please read it if you can.

I saw your PM. I scanned through but will need to spend time since there's so much to read and think about. I appreciate your efforts and hopefully won't let it go to waste!

[canard78]

That passage has the wrong context. It talks about the priests (women are excluded) wearing coats,

being anointed,and washing their hands and feet when they entered the tent. It says nothing of

them wearing white garments.

Regards,

Jim

Symbols change with times and seasons. I've always been fine with changes made to temple processes because the needs of members and their ability to see meaning in the symbols based on their culture and environment will be different. One reason I struggle sometimes with Isaiah is that I don't know enough of his culture to get his symbols. The more I study his culture, the better I get his symbols.

Elder Uchtdorf often speaks in aviation symbology. That would have made no sense to the 1830s church, but makes lots of sense today.

As Duncan referenced:

Exodus 40:

13 And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and ^aanoint him, and sanctify him; that he may minister unto me in the priest’s office.

14 And thou shalt bring his sons, and clothe them with coats:

They had symbolic clothing. It doesn't need to be the same as used today. What we use today could be different next year.