My husband just came home from the Temple today and announced there was a new
film. We had just been to the Temple yesterday with the other film and I
thought he was nuts when he told me there was another new one. I'm excited
to see it. I'm going tomorrow.
Because I belong to a temple which has live sessions, I just saw the first new
film on Saturday. Now they have another one. This is great! I can hardly wait
to see it.
I recently went through for my first time as an adult. Went to Manti and Loved
it! I hope Manti and Salt Lake always stay the same. In any case, love it!
Heidi,Mormon missionaries have wanted to chatter with me in numerous
occasions. Your baptisms are sacred right? And yet the missionaries always want
to chatter about those. And your scriptures are sacred are they not? And yet you
Mormons have no problem chattering about those.Why is it when
something that would be very controversial in Mormonism is discussed, you people
bring out the "it's sacred" or "it's in the past" or
"he was speaking as a man" excuses?Lets chat about the
temple. Just as you people want to do about other sacred Mormon topics
Chris,You asked the same questions six months ago in the comments
section that announced the first new film, and several commenters posted well
constructed responses. Please go back and review those posts for answers,
Heidi the temple worker, if the Deseret News publishes an article about this
doesn't that make it fair game to discuss it? My understanding is that the
new film contains more non-white actors. That will be a welcome change for the
non-white members of the church which are probably the majority of the
membership by now.
Oh, come on, Heidi. You're just as interested in it as the rest of us.
Enough with the admonitions already. We're all adults.
Chris B.Heidi offers caution for sacred temple ordinances and
experiences. It's up for discussion whether mentioning a new movie is a
good idea or not.It is natural for non-members to ask about the
temple and wonder why only members can attend. There should answers available
without spoiling potential future blessings as a member if a person asking
decides to convert. The temple is not secret but sacred, which is why details
are not discussed outside. So, why is this so?Consider the
following analogy. Would you tell a young child about the joys of sexual
relations in marriage when they are clearly not old enough to receive such
information, without it causing confusion and the possibility of distortion with
resultant thinking and emotional patterns? Likewise, truly
understanding and appreciating the blessings provided by temples requires
sufficient spiritual progresison or such could easily be misconstrued to the
determinent of a person who is not ready to receive the experience spiritually.
That's why new members wait a year for most temple ordinances.So, what do you want to know? As I ask this, please understand there many
things I cannot discuss because of promises made to God.
Chris B,I'm not sure you'll get a very satisfying answer
to questions posted in this forum. I suggest you talk to a Mormon you already
know and trust they will try to answer. Plus, a dialog is a better way to talk
vs. these comments (we're limited anyway on the number of posts per
I know this is nearly heresy but I don't like the newest film (saw it
Tuesday night). I'll keep my reasons to myself except to say that it had
little to do with cinematic style and more to do with the way I felt as I
watched it.That being said, I cannot deny the experiences I've
had and continue to have. If every other Mormon in the world left the church, it
would not change what I know to be true through my own revelatory experiences.
Because I know this church and its doctrines to be true, I will still attend the
temple and participate in the ordinances.
I go to the Temple to do vicarious redeeming work for the dead, not to be
entertained...BUTI gotta admit, just like having
different "actors" in every live session -- switching it up the
film "actors" every 20 years keeps an old dog like me on my toes, and I actually learn something new simply because it IS different.
I have enjoyed the new film immensely. The depth of emotion and spirituality it
conveys are truly beautiful. Can't wait to see the even newer one!
Chris,While there are some things that cannot and ought not be
discussed outside of the temple, there is much that can be discussed. If you are
interested in learning more, I'd start here:http://www.lds.org/church/templesIf you still have questions, please
feel free to ask.We don't discuss details of the temple
ceremonies or wording because those things are indeed sacred and must be
experienced in that sacred location to be fully understood and appreciated. The
words and other aspects of the ceremony are only parts of the experience. The
Holy Spirit cements all of those pieces together to provide the participant with
a refining and instructional spiritual experience. The teaching that occurs in
the temple is done primarily by the Spirit, using the symbols of the ceremony to
provide very personal and enriching instruction. Outside of the temple, one will
neither get the full experience nor appreciate the full import of what is being
shared, and confusion will often result. It is a disservice to someone to share
specifics of the ceremony outside of that sacred location.
Chris B:I remember you asking this question about the temple a while
back. Will you just get baptized already? Then you can prepare for 1 year and
we'll go to the temple together and discuss everything you'd like.In the meantime, for your initial temple preparation lessons, here are
some suggestions Elder Russell M. Nelson (an apostle) gave in his talk
"Personal Preparation for Temple Blessings" in April 2001:'I like to recommend that members going to the temple for the first time
read short explanatory paragraphs in the Bible Dictionary, listed under seven
topics: "Anoint," "Atonement," "Christ,"
"Covenant," "Fall of Adam," "Sacrifices," and
"Temple." Doing so will provide a firm foundation.'Do
you know how to access the Bible Dictionary through LDS.org? Let me know what
you think about this reading and we can go forward from there.
Jesus said, "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and
rend you." Keep that in mind when you discuss sacred things. If some think
that not giving that with is holy to dogs and swine means we are being
"secretive, or hiding something", so be it!
To the comment on the missionaries chattering about the Gospel, I would say to
this person, please listen. They have a lot to tell you.
EternalPerspective,If Deseret News decided to #1, report the new film and
#2, allow comments on it, it is obviously not up for discussion whether we
should mention it or not. I'm sure they trust us to be appropriate and
considerate in our discussion. Although I do agree that Chris will probably not
get a satisfactory answer based on previous comments on other articles. And
that's as it should be. And your analogy is a good one as well.
There is an artistic element to the video presentations. Music...special
effects, etc. are NOT part of the sacred ordinance.You might say that a
more modern script (1990s) and modern AV effects hold the interest of patrons,
but do nothing for the dead.If we wanted to accelerate the work, would we
not create a video that is shorter and more to the point? It has been reported
that the longer films are to allow translation of foreign phrases. Would it be
that hard to make a video for English only that is shorter? The six room temples
could then get more work done.
Chris,As a member of the church there is a big difference between
the sacredness of the temple and the sacredness of baptisms and scriptures.
Don't get me wrong, baptism and scriptures are very sacred but it's
not the same thing.
Having seen many different films going back to 1980, I do like the change and
variety available. It is particularly important for these films to have not
only beautiful scenery but beautiful music as well. I also 2nd what Sean
Jackson said. Keep the Salt Lake and Manti Temples as live sessions.
@Chris B:I understand your question.There are many
things which should not be in the news which are sacred.I'm
shocked at some of the things published.
Chris,What I have always found odd about the naysayers is their
willingness to downplay the sacred temple, yet Christ went to the Temple. In
fact he preached 'Further light and knowledge" in the Temple...His
parents found Him in the Temple teaching the Pharisees, who viewed him as
well-versed and very knowledgeable. Why, then, is it so hard for all the
naysayers to believe that Jesus Christ wants His followers to go to Temples?
Listen, carefully, and you will find the answer...stop the bigotry and
Hate...Christ taught temperance, yet you show no mercy with respect to those
whose beliefs you do not understand or even want to understand. If you want to
know about Mormons, then go to a Mormon Church and take the Missionary
Discussions...Be HONEST and see if you, too can't be converted to the
Gospel of Christ...Just follow the admonition of Christ to Peter..."Come,
Chris B., you seem stuck on the word "sacred." It's a matter of
degrees. It's true that there are many public aspects of the LDS Church
which members consider sacred, but the temple ceremonies are *too* sacred to be
publicly discussed. If it's about semantics, the word "sacrosanct"
might be a better term for the temple: most sacred or holy; inviolable; treated
as if holy; immune from criticism or violation.
Saw the New film too, in fact several times this month. The male lead appears to
be Hispanic, think Antonio Banderas as does the Female Lead. The Chief
Antagonist appears to be a little Napoleon. I would recommend members attend the
Temple Screenings and study the nuanced performances of the actors. I give the
whole production two thumbs up.
Chris, my sincere challenge to you, (as it appears from your posts that you have
interest in the LDS Church), is that you meet with a set of LDS missionaries,
either Sisters or Elders, listen to and participate sincerely with the lessons,
read and pray sincerely about the Book of Mormon. As you do so, you will receive
a witness of its truthfulness by the Holy Ghost. Then receive baptism and
confirmation into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and after one
year of faithful membership, you will be able to attend a temple and experience
and receive the temple ordinances for yourself. I testify that it will change
your life positively forever. You will in retrospect understand that it will
have been the best decision you have ever made in your life. I testify that the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored fullness of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the only true and living church of Jesus Christ on
The story read in essence that since the 1970's part of the Temple
instructionwas done by pre-recorded film/tape type presentation. A
biographical documentaryon Gordon B. Hinckley said one his assignments in
the mid 1950's was to get the Templeceremony in a number of the
European Languages for the opening of the Swiss Temple which was in 1955
and that this was the beginning of using film and tape recording to
accomplish the task.The Los Angeles Temple was using the films by
the mid 1960's and the Oakland TempleBegan Operation with the use of
the films in 1964! That Temple was Designed Around the concept of using
the films.So the news article should read "Since the 1950's
and Early 60's the Temples have been usingfilm/tape recordings in the
Temple ceremonies" or something like this.Thank You and Lord
You are not alone Say No to Bo! I thought I was alone in disliking the new
video (from 6 months ago). It's something I've got to work on; I felt
so impatient, feeling it was trying too hard to be emotional, and since I knew
the words before they said them, it really seemed to drag on. I have your same
questions. I need to get over it, as I've only done initiatories since
i do not understand why. from what i was told it is because some were offended
that adam and eve hugged in the garden of eden. really ! come on people ! grow
a lot of the presentation is for the purpose of subjective processing. many
people say they learn something new every time they participate. altering the
imagery fosters looking at things from a different, and therefore broader, point
of view. In the least case, providing the ceremony to the general public would
lead to 'cast in stone' interpretations, etc, which would impinge on
attendees' exercising a Free Agency experience. practice is important in
all of the disconsonance experienced with the new imagery is an invitation to
entertaining a new, larger, perspective on the experience. the temple would
seem a safe place to do that. maybe?
CincyRed13: Jesus and Christianity has nothing to hide.. I said nothing in
Secret.(John 18:20 NIV) All sufficient grace.When I talk to Mormons
about what goes on in the temple? They claim they can't talk about it
because it's Sacred. I ask them what is the most important and
Sacred thing about their gospel. Is it not Jesus? In their eagerness to prove
themselves to be Christian, they inevitably say yes. To say otherwise is to make
their claims to be Christian seem ridiculous, for nothing can exceed the
importance and sacredness of Jesus Christ. Then if they are willing
to openly discuss the most sacred aspect of their belief, why then can't we
discuss something much less sacred openly with respect? The bottom line is that
they are sworn to Secrecy not to reveal what goes on in their temples. They are
not sworn to Sacredness. When you are forbidden to discuss
something, it is Secret. When you can openly discuss something with reverence,
it is Sacred. J S and Brigham Young were Masons and
"borrowed" a number of oaths, and secret handshakes from the Masonic
I don't know why they're calling this or the other one a
"film" if it's really a video. But I know someone VERY closely who
was IN the very FIRST recorded temple production, and that really *was* a
film!What was a closely guarded secret during production is now okay
to mention. Without divulging sacred content, of course, we can talk about who
the actors in these films and videos are once they have put them into use.I was once inside the body of the original "Eve" almost 40 years
ago (next month)!I mean that the original Eve in a temple *film* was
played by my own mom, Marielen (pronounced "Mary Ellen") Wadley
(pronounced "Wawdlee") Christensen, the lady who later converted
scrapbooking from an old hobby into today's industry over 30 years ago with
the first scrapbook supply store!Marielen and my dad, A.J. (Anthony
Jay) also just had the 50th anniversary of their wedding on December 6 last
year!Those of Rubberband's Roger Archibald (my hometown S.
Fork) had *theirs* the next day!We have other December anniversaries
too (17, 18, and Christmas Eve), and I want to add one by getting married on
sharrona is correct. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing
to do with secret keywords, secret names, secret handgrips, and secret arm
signs, that Joseph Smith copied from the masonic lodge rituals. Brigham Young,
Heber C. Kimball, and Hyrum Smith were all members of masonic lodges BEFORE they
were baptized into the Church, and they had a strong influence on Joseph Smith,
who incorporated their views into the endowment ceremony.
Other cultures have ceremonies which are sacred and because of the sanctity,
they are not to be discussed. People have to show by some sort of a test that
they truly want the sacred knowledge. The example that comes to mind is a
custom from the South Pacific, if someone wanted to become a shaman one of the
tests was that they were left alone in a haunted graveyard at night. One had to
really want the knowledge to endure a test like that.The view that
they have is that one won't benefit from the sacred knowledge unless they
have prepared themselves for it and it may even hurt them to know. So in the
Mormon church there are tests of worthiness: full tithe payer, honest, chaste,
word of wisdom, etc. (I don't represent the Mormon church, this is my
interpretation of what I see.)
Coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter, James, and John are told
to "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the
dead." It was an issue of time and place.The temple is also an
issue of time and place.Anyone with an internet connection can find
much of it online. But in those are nothing of the power and insight due to the
presence of the Holy Ghost in the temple and if we are worthy of it.
Enough of the sacred vs secret argument. In the temple I make covenants with God
that are good things and which I believe help me to become a better person. What
do you think I'm trying to hide? That I love my wife and am committed to
being faithful to her? That I want to follow the commandments? That I want to be
like Jesus? Everything we do in the temple is aimed at committing to become a
better person. Going into the specifics of how we do that shouldn't make a
difference to you if you haven't been there. Didn't the TV show Big
Love show what happens there for all to see? If I remember correctly, the nation
burst into an indescribable uproar of how crazy the we are....not.
What's the big deal?It's all on the internet if anyone does
simply does a google search for it.You find what you want.Good for good, Bad for bad.The point is -- Why?What is
your intent.That is how we will all be judged.The intent of
Contrary to what some critics are saying, LDS can and often do speak a great
deal about temple work. There are a few things where you do covenant to not
reveal certain aspects of the ceremony/rite. Why? I personally believe it is to
impress upon the person the sacredness of the experience and to encourage people
to keep their word and their covenants. That said, over the years, some
individuals have not kept their word and have "exposed" the temple
ceremony/rite. These have been published in numerous places over the years.
Also, when searching for temple hours on a search engine, I stumbled upon a
video of the endowment session. Someone, who didn't keep their word,
recorded the session and uploaded it to youtube. So, for the critics, if you
must find out what is going on, you can. Not having a deep spiritual connection
to the work, the ceremony will likely not mean much to you.
sharrona.....who borrowed it from the origional masons. That's
why the similarity.Which brings up a point. Why would anyone
reading this who is not a member of the LDS Church even care about this?
To: Eternal Prospective....very well said. And your best point was - the Temple
is a Sacred (not secret) place. There is so much curiosity. The Book of Mormon
is sacred to me yet I am able to teach and share what is in it. Hopefully there
will be enough people who are inquisitive and wondering that they may choose to
read the Book of Mormon - there lies an answer to their questions and curiosity.
I am so grateful to a Mother who raised and taught me the Truth and encouraged
me to learn on my own and be a good example.
RE: Twin Lights, Tell the vision to no man, “Until the Son of man be risen
again from the dead” (the resurrection)’.(Mt 17:9).The
issue was the transfiguration and to convince them that he was the Christ,the
Son of God. Besides, if they had told it then, it would have provoked the Jews
and endangered his life. His time was not yet come.The Temple, he
said that one greater than the temple has come! Jesus Christ. It is in
Christ’s church–as Jesus’ mystical body–that
we(Christians) find the fulfillment of the O. T. prophecies regarding Jerusalem
and the Mountain of the Lord. The promise of a land, will be fulfilled in a new
heaven and earth in the consummation (. Rom 4:13; Heb 11:9-10).
Christ’s body is the true temple. “For we are the temple of the
living God” (2 Co 6:16).That to which the temple had pointed, is now a
reality through the work of the Holy Spirit/Ghost, same Greek word (pneuma).RE: SCfan,speaking the truth in love…Eph 4:15. I left the church
when,I was born again..
Sharrona,I am aware that he was speaking of the resurrection.Reference his life being in danger? Maybe. But he later says reference
his life that “No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of
myself.” Also, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father,
and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”Yes, Christ was greater than the temple. But his disciples continued to
attend the temple after his death and resurrection. Why if the temple was no
longer of any importance?None of this addresses my point. There
were some things taught by Christ that were for certain people and at a certain
time and place.
Too all of you guys talking about the Prophets borrowing signs from the
Mason's, just think of what and who the Mason's are. There are several
texts and manuscripts that date the begin's of the freemason group all the
way back to Jabal the son of Lamech who was a descendant of Cain.The
Cooke manuscript state's that Euclid learned of masonry from the Egyptians,
and they intern learned it from Abraham, Abraham was a Prophet of God who went
to a quote temple and was instructed by God. (Genesis 12) So maybe the Prophets
didn't borrow from the Mason's, they just reinstated what God had
already set forth as the temple ceremony, and in all reality the Mason's
(Euclid) borrowed from God.Food for thought the Cooke Manuscript is
rather interesting and everybody should take a quick peek at it.
RE: Twin Lights,… “The total destruction of the temple by of Titus
in A.D. 70, this prophecy of Jesus has long since come to pass. No Jewish Temple
has stood on the Temple Mount to this day. The emphasis in the N. T.
after brief accounts of the early history of the church in Jerusalem in the Book
of Acts shifts away from Jerusalem and Jewish community life. The temple in
Jerusalem is no longer the central focus point for God's presence in the
world.This time period when Israel would have No temple nor
sacrifice was predicted by (Hosea 3:4-5 TLB)… “ Israel will be a
long time without a king or prince, and without an altar, Temple, priests, or
even idols! Afterward they will return to the Lord their God and to the
Messiah(Jesus), their King, and they shall come trembling, submissive to the
Lord and to his blessings in the end times.”… I saw No
temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (Rev
21:22)The Temple for Christians is Jesus. “destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19).
How has the film changed? The article mentions that there have been no changes
to the script, but it leaves out any specific changes that have been made. Are
the characters different? Is the plot different? What exactly are the changes to
the new movie? This article left me with more questions than answers.
Is this new film in 3D?
Sharrona,Thank you. I know the temple history.No
argument that there was a shift (and obviously after the temple was destroyed),
but the point is simple - the temple continued to have meaning to Christ’s
disciples (including Paul) after Christ’s death and resurrection. If not,
they would not have gone.And, it certainly had meaning to Christ
(one of the few times he showed anger).But none of this gets to my
point. There were some things taught by Christ that were for certain people and
at a certain time and place. Right?
Let's be clear here. Freemasonry only goes back to the 1700's. Some
sources trace it back as far as the 1400's but that certainly does not
pre-date temple rites in the Old Testament. Can't truly state that LDS
temple ceremonies were borrowed by Joseph Smith from freemasonry when
freemasonry is not the origin of the rites being discussed here.
I see some postings that criticize or analyze the temple movie. I think we need
to be careful in doing so. 1. We probably should take the same
kind of advice Nephi gave in the title page of the Book of Mormon regarding
God-given revelation. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of
men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at
the judgment-seat of Christ."2. I don't believe we really
have the perspective or background (nor the prerogative) that the church leaders
have when they change the films. I am confident they are very careful, take
time, are very thoughtful, and seek for revelation when they do. We
would do better to listen and learn than to critique. Just my thoughts.
On another note, regarding the public or private nature of scriptures and
baptism, scriptures and baptisms versus temple ordinances are apples and
oranges. in one important way, In my opinion, scriptures and baptisms are
designed/created by our Heavenly Father to be public. Scriptures are meant to
teach all people everywhere, and baptism, to publically make certain covenants.
I believe the temple ordinances were designed and created by God as personal
experiences to make some very sacred, personal covenants.
RE: Twin Lights, certain time and place.Apples and oranges, You need
to focus on sociological historical context compared to, “Morals and
Dogma”.Jesus knew that publicity over such miracles might
hinder His mission and divert public attention from His message. Mark records
that this is exactly what happened.. As a result, Christ had to move His
ministry away from the city and into the desert . Plush Christ had
cleansed the leper, required - to go at once to the priest, and not to make
delay by stopping to converse about his being healed. he did not go at once,
men would go before him and prejudice the priest, and prevent his declaring the
healing to be true . It was of further importance that the priest should
pronounce it to be a genuine cure., Jesus did not want people
focusing on the miracles , but rather the message He proclaimed and the death He
was going to die. The same is true today. God would rather that we be focused on
the healing miracle of salvation through Jesus Christ instead of focusing on
other healings and/or miracles.
Sharrona,I am unclear what the relationship is of “Morals and
Dogma” to our discussion.The leper is a more complex case
(partly for reasons you cite) which is why I did not use it.I am
just talking about the transfiguration which is not a miracle Christ performed
but a revelation to which Peter, James and John were witness.I agree
that there were reasons for what Christ did. But it does not change the fact
that this was a specific revelation to a small group (the select of even the
apostles) and they were not to talk about it.The temple not being
openly discussed is therefore in keeping with precedent set in the NT.And you have not addressed why the apostles continued to go to the temple
after Christ’s resurrection.
Creeper51Just FYI, the masons originate from the 15th to the 18th
centuries, and they did not exist before that, let alone back to bible times.
Joseph Smith did borrow many of the things in the temple from the masons, and
then adjusted them for use in the LDS religion. One has to wonder why Joseph had
to become a mason to do that, rather then just having it revealed to him like
other things were.
"When I talk to Mormons about what goes on in the temple? They claim they
can't talk about it because it's Sacred."Sharrona -
You are obviously a biblical scholar, and so being, you obviously
understand that when Jesus taught the folks he did so in parables. And you know
that parables contain certain words and phrases that are metaphors, and only to
be understood by those "who have ears to hear", or in other words
Sharrona - he spoke to folks (like you) in code, or "secret" language. I
explain in "simple" terms so even you will understand.Jesus
knew that revealing "secrets" to certain people would only serve to
provide the needed fodder for them to trample on sacred things. Every temple is OPEN to the general public for weeks prior to being dedicated
for the work to be done, and tour guides OPENLY answer questions from all of the
visitor as they tour every area inside each temple. There are no
"secrets". Chris B - I would love for you to join the
church. I just know that by so doing you will see the light and become a Mighty
BrahmabullSandy, UT"Joseph Smith did borrow many of the
things in the temple from the masons, and then adjusted them for use in the LDS
religion. One has to wonder why Joseph had to become a mason to do that, rather
then just having it revealed to him like other things were."Is
there written proof what you say about Joseph Smith? Thanks. Just wondering.
Let us be clear about this and that is that no one knows for sure when the
freemasons came into being. There are in some channels that they date all the
way back to when Solomon's Temple was first built.The time
period that has been mentioned by some of the above posters is really nothing
more than a theory. There is some basis for it but it is still a theory.Again if you look at scripture and the revelations given to Joseph Smith
you find that the biggest key is the restitution of all things. That means that
the temple ordinances had to be restored to the earth. The ordinances Joseph
Smith used had been on earth before and had to be restored, just as the
priesthood and all priesthood keys. They had to be restored. The fullness of
the Gospel has been on the Earth during certain dispensations starting with Adam
and Eve, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Jesus (The Son of God) and now the last
dispensation (The fullness of time). Again it had to be restored in its proper
sharrona, et. al. non-Mormon ChristiansI enjoy reading comments of
those who are not Mormons. I myself was an atheist until not long ago when my
eyes were opened to the truth. We as Mormons do not seek to take away anything
from all who have followed Christ. Rather, we invite every soul to investigate
our works for truth by immersion and study, not vicariously through the
internet, propaganda, rumors, slander, and so forth.It is of a
certain truth the Bible is a chronology of the Lord's dealings with ancient
inhabitants of areas surrounding Jerusalem. Patterns included (a) Living
prophet, (b) New scripture, (c) "Church" organization, (d) Covenants
made with God, (e) Persecution by the world, (f) Revelation by the power of the
Spirit. There are many others as well.Why do so many in this day
deny that God works on earth by the very same patterns that exist in the Bible?
Why do they go to such great lengths to dismiss and discredit without firsthand
investigation for truth? One must ask themselves, am I truly ready to follow
the Lord's will or remain content to do my own and that of the world?
It's about reverence for sacred things..so much so that we do not make
temple worship common place, open to scrutiny or mockery of all.
I look forward to being able to see this, and the other film, in the next couple
of months or so. I saw the '80s version of the film when I was endowed; it
was definitely in desperate need of an update. I wonder what part of the
endowment this second film pertains to though…
Here is what we learn in the Temple: The first couple chapters of Genesis and
The Book of Abraham and maybe the Book of Moses. The films represent various
interpretations of those scriptures and is why some of us learn something new
when we go to the Temple. The latest new film is very different and demonstrates
that what we think we read in the scriptures and what really happened can be
quite different.The covenants we make in the Temple are to obey
God's Law as contained in the scriptures and those covenants are what we
consider sacred. You want to know what we learn in the Temple? Read the
Eternal Percpective:I second your comments. I, too, was an atheist
until the Missionaries told me that God lives and speaks to His Prophets. Up
until then it was easy to believe God was dead, or there was no God, based on
teachings of other religions (including Christian) where they "deny the
power thereof".My thinking at the time was a true religion would
know who God is and what the purpose of life was. Even to this day, the many I
talk to, cannot answer explain the purpose of life (BTW, which is also taught in
the Temple) nor can they comprehend God (ie trinitarianism).
I love just about everything about new movie #1 except: (please see my previous
comment in the other comments section relating to the new movie.)As
for new movie #2, which I have only seen once, I kinda like the young-ish,
pal-ly (is there such a word?) pal-ly, buddy buddy feel about it; the character
I felt was over-played in movie 1, I loved in movie 2; I also liked what felt
like a quick progression through the first part of the movie (could have
imagined this, of course); but I missed Eve from movie 1.