New Endowment Presentation Rolling Out Today (No Details)

[cinepro]

Also, are there any official publications of the church saying a film is used at all? I had the temple prep classes but it came as a complete surprise to me that I'd sit down and watch a film.

Oddly, most references to "Temple film" in LDS sources seem to refer to Temple records on microfilm.

There is this though:

Before the temple was remodeled in 1974 to accommodate the temple film, the temple patron would pass through five ordinance rooms in succession, each higher than the one before, finally emerging in the celestial room at the top of the stairs and leaving it by the magnificent door he had first seen. Thus his “progress” through the temple also symbolized his progress through different states of knowledge in mortality.

The Arizona Temple

So it's your fault for not having read the December 1977 issue of the Ensign.

Or the August 1974 Ensign.

Or the biographical overview of President McKay in the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay" manual from 2011.

Edited August 2, 2013 by cinepro

[Duncan]

Spill it!

I PM you!

well, I tried to!!! clean out your emails!!! please and thank you!

Edited August 2, 2013 by Duncan

[amag]

Posters,

Please remember this is not a feature film, but sacred instruction. Some of the comments show disrespect and spiritual immaturity.

Thanks.

Thank you for reminding everyone of that.

I guess I should have done a bit more due diligence on this site. I thought that this board would be more serious, but seems like most here just want to make lite of things I hold dear and sacred. My bad for thinking instead of checking.

[cinepro]

I guess I should have done a bit more due diligence on this site. I thought that this board would be more serious, but seems like most here just want to make lite of things I hold dear and sacred. My bad for thinking instead of checking.

What you call "making lite" may be others' way of ensuring the avoidance of idolatry.

[David T]

So it's your fault for not having read the December 1977 issue of the Ensign.Or the August 1974 Ensign.

Or the biographical overview of President McKay in the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay" manual from 2011.

Or the 1997 Article, "Houses of the Lord"

After considerable research and thought, the committee proposed using motion pictures for presenting some of the instruction. In 1953, working with technical advisers from southern California, Brother Anderson designed and supervised the construction of a one-twelfth scale model of a proposed media ordinance room. The scale model was studied in three-dimensional form and approved conceptually by the committee, who then invited the First Presidency (Presidents David O. McKay, Stephen L. Richards, and J. Reuben Clark Jr.) to inspect the model. At the conclusion of the demonstration, all three members of the First Presidency readily gave it their approval. With only two years before the Swiss Temple’s scheduled dedication, the temple committee supervised preparation of the first motion picture endowment ceremony, initially produced in a separate film for each of the languages. 12

Once the Swiss Temple was dedicated, it became quickly apparent that this new style of conducting temple ordinance sessions through motion pictures was a success, and media ordinance rooms became standard in all subsequent temples. The Oakland Temple, designed by Church architect Harold W. Burton and dedicated in 1964, contained two large ordinance rooms with a celestial room between them. The Provo and Ogden Temples in Utah, both designed in 1968 to 1969 by Church architect Emil B. Fetzer and dedicated in 1972, included six smaller media ordinance rooms, with 92 seats in each, that fed into a central celestial room.

Edited August 2, 2013 by David T

[cdowis]

Thank you for reminding everyone of that.

I guess I should have done a bit more due diligence on this site. I thought that this board would be more serious, but seems like most here just want to make lite of things I hold dear and sacred. My bad for thinking instead of checking.

Should have been posted in Social Hall.

[theplains]

And did they take out Adam's physical interaction with the pre-embodied apostles? Because from what I read in D&C 129, this is highly problematic.

Are you referring to verses 1&2?

"There are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely: Angels, who are resurrected personages,

having bodies of flesh and bones—For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit

hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. Secondly: the spirits of just men made

perfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory".

Assuming the Holy Spirit is not an angel, that would make him fall into the second category.

How was he made perfect?

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

If you are talking about 'Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy', that is not referring to whether or not Adam and Eve ever smiled in the garden.

No. I was referring to verse 23 - "And they would have had no children; wherefore they

would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery;

doing no good, for they knew no sin".

So before the Fall, if they were smiling, they had joy.

It's teaching that without the fall, being exalted (that state of being which is necessary before anyone can receive a fullness of joy) would not have been possible.

This would mean that Heavenly Father and Mother were also mortals who became exalted

Gods. The older version of Gospel Principles teaches, "We would need to leave our physical

bodies at death and reunite with them in the Resurrection. Then we would receive immortal

bodies like those of our heavenly parents. If we passed our tests, we would receive the

fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)" (p. 14).

This is because opposition is necessary (learning the difference between good and evil, bitter and sweet, etc.) in order to experience true joy.

Did your Jesus experience 'true joy'?

Thanks,

Jim

[theplains]

Joy is generally seen as something more eternal than temporary satisfaction or pleasure.

Seen by the scriptures or one's personal opinion?

Thanks,

Jim

[tyler90az]

Posters,

Please remember this is not a feature film, but sacred instruction. Some of the comments show disrespect and spiritual immaturity.

Thanks.

Give me a break

[tyler90az]

I am going to check this out

[amag]

What you call "making lite" may be others' way of ensuring the avoidance of idolatry.

Really, explain that to me please!

[ERMD]

I PM you!

well, I tried to!!! clean out your emails!!! please and thank you!

Done.

Wow. I had stuff in there from 2006!

[canard78]

Oddly, most references to "Temple film" in LDS sources seem to refer to Temple records on microfilm.

There is this though:

So it's your fault for not having read the December 1977 issue of the Ensign.

Or the August 1974 Ensign.

Or the biographical overview of President McKay in the "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: David O. McKay" manual from 2011.

Or the 1997 Article, "Houses of the Lord"

Wonderful, thanks both.

Until recently I only had this:

Gordon B. Hinkley’s years as a Church employee also included… producing the temple film, first used in the Bern Switzerland Temple because it served a multilingual audience.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/03-ee/president-gordon-b-hinckley?lang=eng

It had been playing on my mind because when teaching the temple prep classes a few years back I'd explained to the students that a part of the ordinance would be instruction through a drama on film. I had been wondering whether I'd crossed a line. Given the church have clear published references to the endowment drama on film I feel a little more at ease.

It's interesting that some members consider any mention at all of the events/depictions of the endowment are considered sacrilegious. Clearly there are parts to be kept secret by covenant. Other parts are sacred, but that doesn't mean they lose their sanctity by being discussed outside of the temple.

[canard78]

No. I was referring to verse 23 - "And they would have had no children; wherefore they

would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery;

doing no good, for they knew no sin".

So before the Fall, if they were smiling, they had joy.

This would mean that Heavenly Father and Mother were also mortals who became exalted

Gods. The older version of Gospel Principles teaches, "We would need to leave our physical

bodies at death and reunite with them in the Resurrection. Then we would receive immortal

bodies like those of our heavenly parents. If we passed our tests, we would receive the

fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)" (p. 14).

Did your Jesus experience 'true joy'?

Thanks,

Jim

It's not possible to have anachronisms in the film because it never claims to be a documentary in the first place.

I'd suggest that the day you stop trying to make a literal, historical analysis of the film will be the day you also appreciate it far more.

[halconero]

No. I was referring to verse 23 - "And they would have had no children; wherefore they

would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery;

doing no good, for they knew no sin".

So before the Fall, if they were smiling, they had joy.

I smile when I get nervous. When the mission president called me telling me that I had a new assignment I started freaking out on the inside, only to hear my companion ask me "why are you so happy about this?!" I wouldn't say I was joyful about the experience. Likewise, innocent happiness does not equal joyfulness.

This would mean that Heavenly Father and Mother were also mortals who became exalted

Gods. The older version of Gospel Principles teaches, "We would need to leave our physical

bodies at death and reunite with them in the Resurrection. Then we would receive immortal

bodies like those of our heavenly parents. If we passed our tests, we would receive the

fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)" (p. 14).

Many Latter-day Saints believe this.

Did your Jesus experience 'true joy'?

Watchout everyone, he's pulling out the "Other Jesus" trap card.

But seriously, my Jesus totally experienced true joy.

Thanks,

Jim

[bluebell]

No. I was referring to verse 23 - "And they would have had no children; wherefore they

would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery;

doing no good, for they knew no sin".

So before the Fall, if they were smiling, they had joy.

Again, you aren't understanding what the verse is talking about when it talks about 'joy.' It is something that transcends the ability or desire to smile.

But of course, since the temple film isn't trying to show what life was really like in the garden of eden, it really doesn't matter if Adam and Eve ever smile in it.

This would mean that Heavenly Father and Mother were also mortals who became exalted

Gods. The older version of Gospel Principles teaches, "We would need to leave our physical

bodies at death and reunite with them in the Resurrection. Then we would receive immortal

bodies like those of our heavenly parents. If we passed our tests, we would receive the

fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)" (p. 14).

Ok.

Did your Jesus experience 'true joy'?

Thanks,

Jim

There's only one Jesus. We don't each have our own.

Edited August 3, 2013 by bluebell

[David T]

Hey Cinepro:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865584057/LDS-Church-begins-using-new-temple-film.html

[cdowis]

Thank you for reminding everyone of that.

I guess I should have done a bit more due diligence on this site. I thought that this board would be more serious, but seems like most here just want to make lite of things I hold dear and sacred. My bad for thinking instead of checking.

The author of a thread has the ability to close the thread. Just click on moderator option at the bottom of the page.

Perhaps it's time to go, especially after someone responded to me with "give me a break".

[Garden Girl]

Our Temple, the Seattle Washington, has its upcoming maintenance closing soon: Monday, August 12, through Monday, August 26. I suppose we will then have the new film.

Looking forward to it!

I just called my Portland, OR temple to inquire if they had the new film and received a recorded message that the temple was closed for maintenance (until 8/20) so I imagine we will have the new film when the temple reopens. I, too, am looking forward to it...

GG

[ERMD]

Wonderful, thanks both.

Until recently I only had this:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/03-ee/president-gordon-b-hinckley?lang=eng

It had been playing on my mind because when teaching the temple prep classes a few years back I'd explained to the students that a part of the ordinance would be instruction through a drama on film. I had been wondering whether I'd crossed a line. Given the church have clear published references to the endowment drama on film I feel a little more at ease.

It's interesting that some members consider any mention at all of the events/depictions of the endowment are considered sacrilegious. Clearly there are parts to be kept secret by covenant. Other parts are sacred, but that doesn't mean they lose their sanctity by being discussed outside of the temple.

It is my understanding that the temple prep course is being reviewed (nothing to back this up; just something "I heard"). It seems to me that for fear of saying too much, people say too little.

Whenever I interview anyone to receive his/her living ordinance recommend, I pretty much walk him/her through the process, so he will have an idea what to expect. I have him read the first 6 chapters of the Book of Moses and give a 2-3 page list of scripture references to what they will see, hear, and do. Much of what is experienced there is already in the scriptures. When people see that, it is easier to accept and to put it in a big picture perspective.

Edited August 3, 2013 by ERMD

[mfbukowski]

It is my understanding that the temple prep course is being reviewed (nothing to back this up; just something "I heard"). It seems to me that for fear of saying too much, people say too little.

Whenever I interview anyone to receive his/her living ordinance recommend, I pretty much walk him/her through the process, so he will have an idea what to expect. I have him read the first 6 chapters of the Book of Moses and give a 2-3 page list of scripture references to what they will see, hear, and do. Much of what is experienced there is already in the scriptures. When people see that, it is easier to accept and to put it in a big picture perspective.

Perhaps this more dramatic movie will help people to see the "Drama" aspect of the endowment better. I once had a temple president tell me that it is "all symbolic" which on one hand is obvious and on the other is no so obvious. It it is "all symbolic" then none of it is literal. I found that interesting. It seems the problems arise when people take certain aspects literally.

[ERMD]

Perhaps this more dramatic movie will help people to see the "Drama" aspect of the endowment better. I once had a temple president tell me that it is "all symbolic" which on one hand is obvious and on the other is no so obvious. It it is "all symbolic" then none of it is literal. I found that interesting. It seems the problems arise when people take certain aspects literally.

Yep. "Drama" and "presentation" are important words to remember.

[Garden Girl]

It is my understanding that the temple prep course is being reviewed (nothing to back this up; just something "I heard"). It seems to me that for fear of saying too much, people say too little.

I agree... in fact, something I've mentioned here on the Board... when there is someone that I know who is taking temple prep and going to the temple for their own endowment, many times I will refer them to John A. Tvedtnes' paper "Early Christian and Jewish Rituals Related to Temple Practices." I think this paper should be reviewed as part of temple prep (available from FAIRlds.org). It's one of my favorites... I found many ah-ha moments in his research... and his 5 pages of citations and sources is very helpful for follow-up study.

His paper covers information on: Initiation, The Handclasp, Secret Words, Prayer Circle, Passing the Angels, Admitted into God's Presence, and Final Notes.

In his opening the tells that to date (1999) he had found fifteen early Christian documents that speak of baptism for the dead, along with several Mandaean and Jewish texts. He planned to include this information in an article "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity," scheduled for publication later that year in a FARMS temples volume.

I've also told several times how I appreciate reading Nibley's "Temples and Cosmos," particularly in regard to the prayer circle... These two items by Tvedtnes and Nibley have increased my appreciation and understanding of the endowment more than just what I received in my temple prep class... by far.

The beauty about this is that these two things are not talking about our current temple content per se, but reporting research into sources relating to early Christian and/or ancient practice.

GG

[mfbukowski]

Yep. "Drama" and "presentation" are important words to remember.

An excellent point- and indeed I have not thought much about the latter- but that does indeed put it pretty explicitly. That never clicked before- thanks!