KoZ Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure how this relates to me wanting to study up on the symbols in the endowment (which is what you quoted).Sorry if I'm missing the point or being a bit dense.Simply put... we do not always want what we think we want and ask for. Like children, our eyes are bigger then our appetite. It would require more then were willing to give or embrace and Father knowing this gives milk to some while others meat. Hence the use of allegories and parables to allow those with the blessings to receive and those without such to not receive and be harmed. If everything was made plain, most would be condemned because they would have no excuse... mercy is the heart of the law, faith is the motivation by which repentance is possible. Deeds done before the foundation of this world follow us here, and deeds done here will likewise follow us hereafter. Like a snowball rolling down a steep hill, momentum is with some but not all. Shalom Canard
Calm Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 (edited) that we're only in there for a couple of hours so only a summary of the original events were covered?This...even if one was going for a historical depiction (which I don't believe the endowment is though it may have references to some historical stuff), there isn't enough time to present anything more than a very brief summary which renders it inappropriate imo for teaching history if it was trying to.We're watching a play - not a documentary.I agree.Even if the characters are actual individuals from the past (and I am open at this point to a lot of different idea), this does not mean this is exactly what happened to them or that this isn't more about them being used as symbols for all of humanity, etc. Edited August 6, 2013 by calmoriah
Doctrine 612 Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 The video is ok, it takes some getting use to, but satan is played by corban Allred
changed Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 Obviously not asking for details, but perhaps, for convenience for interested parties, anyone here who can report if they know for certain their Temple has implemented the updated presentation, to perhaps give an incentive to those who may not have gone for a while.I attended today! and I loved it, I didn't know about anything new until I was in there watching it. They added lots and lots of music - really really good music, lots more nature photography/footage of beautiful landscapes, awesome animals, etc. etc. heaven is more "heavenly" and cool, and the acting was AMAZING! The way they said everything put an entirely new spin on a few things, I actually found myself tearing up for part of it because of their face expressions/mannerisms/emotion in it, very touching and thought provoking. LOL, perhaps that was why endowment was packed today, why does everyone else know these things before I do?
changed Posted August 6, 2013 Posted August 6, 2013 'Course, for those few who are fortunate enough to see it performed live, it's diffurnt every time! (Any professional actor could do it with no sweat, but seeing geezers do it ... now that's an experience! )I did finally experience my first live one this summer, and have to admit, it was pretty cool. There are a few things in the live one that are different from the others too - I loved going through the different beautiful rooms.
Kate Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 May I add to your most excellent list Elder Packer's The Holy Temple (the full 270 page book, not the pamphlet)?I also would like to add a good read for those who didn't have a positive experience their first time in the Temple. This book will definitely enlighten those who have gone through and found it "weird". I have read all of the other suggestions and found them wonderful as well. Gaskill's book is amazing. The footnotes could be a book all on their own and offers a wealth of information. I highly recommend this book to everyone.
Freedom Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 The only standard we have to determine if the endowment is true history is to compare it to what we know through scientific study. The latter tells me that the former is not history. 1
David T Posted August 7, 2013 Author Posted August 7, 2013 (edited) The only standard we have to determine if the endowment is true history is to compare it to what we know through scientific study. The latter tells me that the former is not history.It's also helpful to note that every scriptural version of the Garden story/creation is substantially different. They're all 'reboots' so to say - same basic character, same basic events, but given a completely new message and relevance for the new audience. Trying to create a scriptural Harmony of Creation is sort of pointless. Edited August 7, 2013 by David T 1
oremites Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 Might I ask, who says it cannot be both?No one that I know. I'm sure a temple ceremony could be created that is both symbolic and an accurate portrayal of history. The temple ceremony we have now is not both and I don't believe was ever intended to be.
cinepro Posted August 7, 2013 Posted August 7, 2013 The video is ok, it takes some getting use to, but satan is played by corban AllredWait, seriously?
Judd Posted August 8, 2013 Posted August 8, 2013 Wait, seriously?Wondered this too (but didn't know who he was). People are talking about this elsewhere, as well.
Garden Girl Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Wondered this too (but didn't know who he was). People are talking about this elsewhere, as well.Who is Corban Allred?GG
cinepro Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Who is Corban Allred?GGHe was a moderately successful LDS actor in the late 90's. I worked on the DVD for with Kurt Douglas, and Dan Aykroyd where Corbin played their son and grandson. There's a scene in a brothel with a scantily clad Jenny Mcarthy that I'm sure was very memorable for him.
Duncan Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 He was a moderately successful LDS actor in the late 90's. I worked on the DVD for with Kurt Douglas, and Dan Aykroyd where Corbin played their son and grandson. There's a scene in a brothel with a scantily clad Jenny Mcarthy that I'm sure was very memorable for him. and who could forget Men In Tights?!
Tacenda Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Wouldn't this sort of kill an actor like him of his career? Maybe the church pays very well. But probably not well enough for that sacrifice, if they do. It just seems like he is too young to go and brand himself, lack of a better term, like that. Now if he wanted to play an unseemly character in a movie, people will wonder about him. Frankly, I see his career going down after this, but hope I'm proven wrong.
Duncan Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 Wouldn't this sort of kill an actor like him of his career? Maybe the church pays very well. But probably not well enough for that sacrifice, if they do. It just seems like he is too young to go and brand himself, lack of a better term, like that. Now if he wanted to play an unseemly character in a movie, people will wonder about him. Frankly, I see his career going down after this, but hope I'm proven wrong.hopefully he'll pick the roles he wants but he'll probably not even mention this part on his resume. He isn't like Alan Alda or Michael J. Fox where he would be asked everywhere about it or even recognized, truth be told I hadn't even thought about him until someone mentioned him!
Garden Girl Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 (edited) Wouldn't this sort of kill an actor like him of his career? It just seems like he is too young to go and brand himself, lack of a better term, like that. Frankly, I see his career going down after this, but hope I'm proven wrong.Now why would you think that?One of my favorite "oldies" is Darryl F. Zanuck's 1940 (renewed 1968) production of "Brigham Young, Frontiersman" which starred Vincent Price as Joseph Smith, Tyrone Power, Linda Darnell as the "outsider", and Dean Jagger as Brigham, John Carradine as Porter Rockwell, Mary Astor as Brigham's first wife (the film portrayed Brigham with 3 wives, and later when asked how many he replied, 11), Jane Darwell, and Brian Donlevy. It was a pretty decent production and portrayed the Mormons in a positive light... none of these actors had their careers "killed,"... in fact several years after playing Brigham Young, Dean Jagger joined the Church and to my knowledge stayed faithful. All went on to star in many subsequent roles for years. They didn't seem to be negatively "branded"...GG Edited August 9, 2013 by Garden Girl 1
Calm Posted August 9, 2013 Posted August 9, 2013 (edited) Wouldn't this sort of kill an actor like him of his career? Maybe the church pays very well. But probably not well enough for that sacrifice, if they do. It just seems like he is too young to go and brand himself, lack of a better term, like that. Now if he wanted to play an unseemly character in a movie, people will wonder about him. Frankly, I see his career going down after this, but hope I'm proven wrong.If you read his IMDB file or wiki, I can't remember which, his emphasis these days is in medicine, possibly going to get an MD. He just takes roles on occasion.He seems like a very committed and good hearted young man. He went on his mission at the 'peak' of his popularity/career so somehow I doubt making those kinds of decisions are too tough for him. Edited August 9, 2013 by calmoriah 2
Doctrine 612 Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) If asked to play a part in the temple video I would choose satan as well, I would have lots of fun with it and give lots of sly smerks and plus you get to wear all those cool costumes. Edited August 10, 2013 by Doctrine 612
Duncan Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 If asked to play a part in the temple video I would choose satan as well, I would have lots of fun with it and give lots of sly smerks and plus you get to wear all those cool costumes.and people would know you're good enough to be as bad as possible, I can just overhear the conversation now, "how did you get a recommend and you play a very convincing Devil and I feel guilty when I eat at Wendy's?" 1
cinepro Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 Wouldn't this sort of kill an actor like him of his career? Maybe the church pays very well. But probably not well enough for that sacrifice, if they do. It just seems like he is too young to go and brand himself, lack of a better term, like that. Now if he wanted to play an unseemly character in a movie, people will wonder about him. Frankly, I see his career going down after this, but hope I'm proven wrong.Gordon Jump never had trouble paying the mortgage...
CMZ Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 Sounds like they're under instruction not to specifically talk about it.Possibly. I think they may not want to sensationalize the temple ordinances because of a "new film" and then have people choosing to go because of it or choosing not to go because they've heard their temple doesn't have it yet. Just a guess.
CMZ Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 Might I ask, who says it cannot be both?Yes, it is symbolic and contains reference to actual historical events.
Kenngo1969 Posted August 10, 2013 Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) In a perverse way, I kinda like Tacenda's logic (even though I disagree with it): "Aww, heck! Career's goin' down the tubes anyway! Might as well play Satan!" P.S. I'm quite sure, to a point bordering on certainty, that no one's ever been involved in a Church production for the money. Edited August 10, 2013 by Kenngo1969
Recommended Posts