I haven't seen the new movie and I can't wait to see it. I will go as
soon as I can as I love going to the Temple. The new movies have all added much,
without changing a word, they are each an entirely new revelation. As it is hard to imaging life without the truth of the restored gospel, I
can't see how members live without the Temple. I try to go every week and
draw closer to the Spirit and drink from the waters of Life. There
are several reasons for creating multiple movies and I applaud the use of the
technology to bring out concepts that are so uplifting and inspiring.
I believe the Swiss temple was the first to use a film presentation, dedicated
Saw it today. They all serve a purpose I guess. I like the last version before
I've been hoping the actors in the 3rd movie would be of African or Latino
or Polynesian or Asian or Middle Eastern heritage. That'd be a great way
to boost their sense of mainstream inclusion as 1st-class members of the Church.
I would like to see a temple film with more racial diversity among the actors.
There's no doctrinal reason they have to be of northern European descent.
I don't know what was wrong with the first new one, much less why they
needed two additional new ones after it. They used the old one for about 30
years it seemed. The quality of the special effects and the acting wasn't
any better in the second new one than in the first. This doesn't seem
necessary, but whatever…it's not my decision to make.
Not trying to be a critic here, but after seeing the first "new"
version, i found it to be quite dramatic. There were parts that could have been
left out i thought in order to cut some time out of the 10 minutes or so added.
That being said, being in the temple is such a blessing and I love going.
Pavalova,The time was increased to allow for translation into other
languages that require more time than English. My understanding is
there is more than one version not only because it gives a different
perspective, but also if a film can no longer be used for some reason the church
has options. I like that there are more, it was getting hard to stay awake
watching the same one for years.
@BioPowerTrain The one that came out a year ago has polynesian-ish looking Adam
and Eve characters, and looks like it could be mostly filmed in Hawaii. Some parts of both of the new films seem a little more dramatic than
necessary, but each seem to stress different points, and make me ponder things
that previous temple films seemed to gloss over. I got a ten-minute-long lump in
my throat last year when I first saw the "new" one.I'll
take some time today to go see the new one today, since this will probably be my
last chance to go in the next few weeks. FYI, it is showing in every session
today at the Timpanogos Temple, according to the receptionist who answered my
call this morning.
I know it isn't about the movie, but the message. But I simply cannot watch
the second new one released. The acting is so melodramatic and the filming so
bad that I just have to look away. The depictions of Deity are just
embarrassing. I literally had to close my eyes and just listen. I
think it's a bad move to try to make the films more interesting by
increasing the melodrama. I love the temple as a quiet place of worship, but the
new films really interfere with that experience.
I would just hope that people will not get so enthralled with these different
presentations that the sublime purposes of the endowment get a bit lost. I have
heard people expressing their disappointment when they've attended a
session where the "old film" was shown, almost as if that version was
somewhat inferior. The endowment is the endowment is the endowment!
I so appreciate the new temple instruction films, especially considering they
must be among the most frequently viewed films on the planet. I know personally
that great care, time, inspiration and sacrifice went in to making these.
Maybe all the actors should be Hebrew. That way we would have it at least
historically correct back to the Savior. Or we can just complain that our
feelings are so sensitive that the movie makes me believe I am not 1st Class
LDS. Better yet, lighten up people and go to the temple and learn about
humility, seek for personal edification and contemplate your calling/family/etc.
I appreciate the 1st new presentation, the 2nd is too melodramatic. Looking
forward to the 3rd.
This is good. I wish there were 30 different films each done a little
differently. Watching the same movie hundreds of times is bound to make peoples
minds wander. And we all know that the really important work of an endowment
comes after the film, which is basically just an educational tool to set up the
important things that follow. I've seen people nodding off during the
film. How could they not unless given something different to keep their
My fear about endowment films is that the more we make them movies, with
elaborate costumes, sets and special effects, the more we risk distracting
people from the ordinance itself. The story presented in the endowment is
symbolic, has multiple meanings, and represents more than one person, place or
time. This is easier to comprehend if it's simply presented in a
straightforward way by actors dressed in white, as it is in the Salt Lake or
Manti Temples. The earliest temple films, produced in the 1950s
(not the 1970s, as the article suggests), were just filmed versions of actors
presenting the ordinance as they would in a "live" endowment session. I
sometimes wonder if we would be better off returning to that approach. Having
multiple films can help people distinguish between what's ordinance and
what's movie, but the creation exists in the first place because we make
the films so elaborate. We don't expect any other Priesthood ordinance to
be thrilling entertainment, so maybe we should consider taking a much plainer
approach with this ordinance.
It is interesting to read these comments. Unlike some of the commenters, I
don't like the first "new" one, but I love the second "new"
one. Maybe it is just a matter of taste and maybe that's the reason our
Church leaders have given us more than one film to view; some films will appeal
to some and the other films will appeal to others.
Saw the new film last night. Each of the new 3 films show different
perspectives and put a different flavor to each character. One of the first two
new films was a tad too dramatic for my taste, but it is fun to see
Sorry to be a film critic on something like this, but the two new versions
I've seen are rather overacted. They try too hard to evoke emotion that
isn't warranted. They are also ploddingly slow to the point that they have
messed up the temples' previously regular scheduling. Could we go back to
the old ones, please?
Serious man,I to do not like the second new film as well as the
first, but both have given new insights into the ceremony because of the acting.
Perhaps you should consider those who have approved these films and why, before
by condemning them as a "bad move to try to make the films more interesting
by increasing the melodrama". Our man-made efforts may be imperfect but our
intents and devotions can be.
I appreciate the variety because it reminds me that the film is an
interpretation. God did and said specific things, but we don't know the
exact details. The 2nd film is a bit melodramatic for me, but it
may mean more to someone else or bring light and knowledge into someone
else's life and I appreciate that.
Somehow a strange typo found its way into my comment. Instead of "but the
creation exists," it should say, "but the confusion exists." Sorry.
I did not care for this article being printed in a daily paper. It should have
been published in the Church News or Ensign. I personally do not think we as LDS
temple-attending members should be movie critics in a public forum as this
The new presentations are more dramatic than I would prefer, but as others have
stated, we must focus on the real purpose. They are also longer, supposedly to
accommodate language translation. For perspective on the length, those who are
oldsters may remember that a "live" session in Salt Lake used to take
nearly 3 hours. Look at it as contemplation time. For those who must travel long
distances to a temple, or who are able to go only once in a LIFETIME, they could
ask why we are even having this "conversation."
I have had less of a struggle being alert, attentive, and reverent in my mind
since the new films came out.
@Haggie: Of course the endowment itself is what really matters. However, I feel
comfortable saying this: the decision not to use black actors is a dismally
blown opportunity, to further put one of our very few shameful legacies in the
rear-view mirror, in a extremely tangible way, for no extra money or effort at
all. Just replace the Northern European heritage actors with African heritage
actors. So easy to do. In fact, having black actors in the first new movie
released would have sent an even stronger message to every faithful church
member to get over any lingering active or passive race hesitancy they may still
possess and move forward along with the rest of the Church.
If you are able to go frequently enough to view multiple versions, be grateful
that you have them at all. It is better to consider the message before
critiquing format. I'm grateful for this article as my temple just shut for
cleaning for a month and I won't be able to see the newest film until that
is done. It's good to have something to look forward to, and to be kind and
supportive of everyone who has worked very hard for this to happen. It may not
be your personal preference in every format, but God is trying to communicate
with us and I'm grateful that He loves us enough to give us different
versions for the multiple millions (billions?) of personalities of His children
that are alive and dead.
I think it's not about the presentation but more about the attention I
approach it with. Some of my strongest impressions came while working in the
Temple, not as a patron. I was listening and watching with a different mindset
than I had previously had as a patron. Now as I attend I try to be mentally
prepared, physically ready to watch for things to learn rather than waiting to
be taught something. This has changed my views of the Temple no matter the
presentation I'm watching.
As always, the book is better than the movie.
The new Adam and Eve are in my ward here in New York right now. They are a
wonderful couple. They are from Arizona which is where I use to live before
moving to NY for my husband's job. They filmed that temple film a couple
of years ago, before moving to NY. The Manhattan NY temple was one of the first
ones to show the film (last summer). I'm glad to see that more temples
will be showing it now. I enjoyed the new film very much. It was kind of weird
seeing them on the screen at the temple and then seeing them in church the
The actors that play Adam and Eve are in my ward here in New York. They filmed
that temple film a couple of years ago before moving here. They are a wonderful
couple, although they are not professional actors. He use to play quarterback
for BYU and she is a former Miss Arizona. The Manhattan NY Temple was one of
the first to show the film last summer. I'm glad to see that it will be
shown in more temples now. It was weird to see the film for the first time on a
Saturday and then see them at church the following day!
1. I totally agree with BYUalum.2. So many of these comments are reaching
out to "steady the ark." They make it sound like the production crew
inserted all kinds of dramatic twists and turns while the Brethren were all out
of town. Please, people, if we truly recognized the approval process required
for a project like this, not to mention the vision and inspiration that went
into it, we'd spend more time pondering and less time carping.
If you really want a treat, go to the Salt Lake Temple and participate in a
temple session that is all live. It is presented entirely by retired people
from memory, with no acting training.
I have been quite moved by both of the new versions I have seen. I have
actually had some additional insights come to me because of the emotion shown by
the actors. I think it is a very astute action by the Church.
Younger members are much more tech savvy and visual. To up the production value
of the temple presentation is a plus for them to remain engaged and attending
The temple presidency at my local temple told my stake presidency that
attendance spiked after the new films were released, but by this spring things
were back to normal. Hopefully people will start making the effort to go a but
more often. Maybe the effort to spur the youth to do genealogy and take the
names they find for baptisms will have a spillover effect with their parents
going to do the other ordinances. The more often I go, the greater strength I
feel to keep the covenants I have made. P.S. As an executive
secretary for my stake presidency, please be sure to renew your recommend
promptly when it expires. These guys already do so much, try not to make them
feel like they have to bend over backwards for you because you have a wedding to
attend tomorrow but your recommend expired 6 months ago!
@Dave Duncan & Haggie: With respect, it's a matter of empathy. I might
not feel 100% included as a first-class member of the Church if all the actors
in all 3 of the new films -- plus all previous films -- were people of color,
with black hair, dark brown eyes, and varying beautiful and exotic shades of
skin color, even if a couple of them were whitish-looking.
Someone mentioned earlier that the increased length of the newer presentations
meant that temples had to revise their schedules - as if this were not a
particularly welcome development. In our nearest temple, instead of
holding hourly sessions, they are now held every ninety minutes.Interestingly, I've been told that the reduced number of sessions has not
led to an decrease in attendance. Furthermore, there are those (including
myself) who feel that this makes for a more unhurried temple experience. Instead
of people rushing "to get on the next session", there is time for
meditation and reflection.Likewise, people are able to experience other
ordinance areas in the temple, rather than treating it like an "endowment
I appreciate the different thoughts that are stirred up in my mind, causing
pondering and contemplation, from each different version of the film. It's
impressive to me how the exact same words, said with different voice inflection,
or with different hand or body gestures, and with different background music
causes me to consider things of eternal importance that I might not have thought
about in one of the other versions.For example, the bitter
disappointment on Lucifer's face when he realizes that Adam and Eve are on
to him and aren't going to rely on him for their information any longer,
but are going to look for increase in light and knowledge from a far more
reliable source.Melodramatic to some is inspiring to others I guess.
I appreciate the diversity in acting, drama, and music that offers multiple
possible meanings (and blessings) to me in each of the new versions.
I personally appreciated the 2nd new movie, and the emotion shown by the actors
helped my in my understanding of the scenes being portrayed. I, like some of
the other posters, wish additional versions would be made with a racially
diverse cast, which would be more reflective of the Church at large.
In a discussion about "content vs. composition" (a discussion which may
be less than appropriate regarding temple worship, in my opinion), content wins
every time (again, in my opinion). If you have a great feast set before you,
does it really matter whether it is served on fine China platters, or fine
silver platters, or fine crystal platters, or fine teakwood platters, or some
other "lesser" dinnerware? The feast is what really matters.
As a person with extreme ADHD I am interested to know their is variety in the
temple films. However, to see any film that is more than 30 minutes is so
physically painful to me. I thank the Lord that I can participate in the other
temple ordinances on a regular basis and in genealogy. He must truly
love all of us.
"And, behold, I send the promise of my Father [the Holy Ghost] upon you: but
tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued [aka, endowed] with power
from on high." (Luke 24:49).This is the one and only true
"endowment" and the only one firmly believed in and gloriously received
after water baptism by one having priesthood authority in The Church of Jesus
Christ (WHQ: Monongahela, Pennsylvania).
mancan, your comment about the (temporary)increase in temple attendance after
these recent versions of the endowment presentation caught my interest, because
of the work that's been done recently in encouraging genealogical research
and record indexing. "Work for the dead" seems to be an issue of great
importance right now. Perhaps that's part of why they've been
@haggie, The film can't be in Hebrew. It's about the
beginning of time, right? Hebrew didn't exist then. Nor did English, but at
least we all here understand it. Not so for Hebrew :)
The big question is how long is the new film compared to the others?Once
you have watched the older versions every few weeks for 12 years, then the new
one comes along which is 12 minutes slower, it seems very slow. It feels like
you are waiting an eternity for each word to come out. I had assumed that in our
busy world they would be trying to streamline the process by removing some of
the redundancies, instead of making it longer.
I received my endowment in November 1984, by film. A few weeks later, I attended
a session in the Salt Lake Temple.I know that the endowment as
presently presented is exactly what the Lord wants for us now. Comes the day He
wants us to have something different (including non-Nordic presenters), He will
make His wishes known to the Brethren, and they will provide it.Having said all that, sometimes I miss the old endowment ...
I wasn't aware that two new films had been made now three films made. I
have only seen one of the new films once and have no idea if it's the first
new film or the second new film. Didn't even notice that it was a longer
@ jeanie"I like that there are more, it was getting hard to stay
awake watching the same one for years."That is a very good point
about staying awake. I am still quite a young person with some attention span
but my parents are getting pretty ancient and they fall asleep in all sorts of
movies.They do better when there is something going on. I think
unless it is an action movie my Dad has a hard time staying awake :).I can see how with everything going on in the world and how different it is
from 30 years ago how it would be completely important to update the film so
that more people can understand and be able to focus on what is going on.Plus it gets people thinking about the endowment where they would be a
lot less likely. If our brain sees the same thing over and over again we often
don't take the time to think about it.
Boyd K. Packer once quoted: 'The sermon had ended, the priest had
descended. Much delighted were they, but preferred the old way.'I feel a bit uncomfortable with those who have undertaken the role of film
critic. The church wasn't trying to win an award for the acting or the
sets or the special effects. I enjoy each of the two new films that I have seen
as each one causes me to consider things that I have not before. I am excited
to see the third to experience the nuances of what things this one might
encourage me to ponder.For what it might be worth, I also enjoyed
the two previous films, and the two that were used before that. Each one has
its strengths and I came to appreciate that. I hope I never hear a comment
again inferring that with this new film 'I can enjoy going to the temple
Since the second film came out, the wife and I now choose other ordinances.
Hopefully, the third will not have such over the top acting and CGI. Sorry.
@BYU Alum-100% agree! I think it is in poor taste and would have been more
appropriately written up in an official LDS publication such as the Church News
or on lds.org in their Media section. I feel like these things are
changed/updated for a reason and not up for public critiquing, especially not
via the news outlets!
What intrigues me about the commentary by the readers is that we as members of
the Church hear doctrines presented to us in various meetings and classes. All
presented by different members, teachers and leaders in the Church. Rarely do I
hear someone say: "Oh, you know so-and-so taught that particular doctrine a
little differently. It needs to be taught the way it was originally taught by
(insert name of Leader of the Church). The restored Gospel of Jesus
Christ has living Apostles and Prophets leading this Church. It is a dynamic
church. The Church that will welcome the Savior upon His return may be different
in some ways.Doctrinally sound and Eternally focused. It will also
be lead by men and women called of God who listen to Our Father-in-Heaven and
Savior. Then follow that inspiration. So it is with the new films.
There is change - inspired change. Not in the wording. Not for show. But for our
edification and instruction. They are not there for our critique but for our
learning. What can you learn anew from them? How would you respond if the Savior
was sitting next to you?
Quite appalled by IQ92 attitude! Myself, knowing that I have and do sustain the
first presidency and leaders of the church who have approved each of these
films, am amazed that someone would choose to criticize any one the films in the
temple! Although some films may be preferred by some people more than others, I
would hope that no one else with a sincere testimony of temple work would make
such a comment or decision. I am so grateful to live close enough to a temple
to go as often as I choose, and appreciate all that has been provided for our
further learning and understanding of these imperative things our Savior has for
us to learn and make covenants for.
I serve in one of the temples in the central US. Everybody wanted to see the new
film. Attendance was up for a couple of months.The second film created
less of a buzz but still boosted attendance.In a way that was
disappointing. People were coming to the temple for the wrong reason. I suppose
the ordinance was still valid for the deceased.Is the Lord desiring to
punch up the message with better actors? I don't think so. The 80-year-old
actors in Salt Lake and Manti present the same ordinance.In our
media-intense age maybe the Brethren are trying to satisfy the younger members,
but somehow that seems to cheapen the message.Some of the nuances really
do change the doctrine and create confusion. The Brethren are charged with
keeping the doctrine pure. This would seem to be at cross-purposes.
The films before these new ones were bad enough but the new ones make me laugh
at the overacting.@Gene Poole"What can you learn
anew from them?"That the church needs to find better actors or a
The last couple times i went I haven't seen the one with Corbin Allred in
it. Are they still using that one?
I love the old movies and the new movies and the live session. The movies are
not for entertainment or critiquing purposes. They are for learning the things
the Lord wants each of us to know. To me having a new movie is similar to
buying a fresh set scriptures. It gets you to look at things in a new way even
if they are the same words.
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.The True Temple for Christians is Jesus.
“destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John
2:19)."... Jesuswas speaking of his own body (John 2:22).
To "donn" go to the LDS website. There is a lot of material there that
explains what goes on in the temple. You can also go to the South Visitor
center at Temple Square and see a model of the interior of the Salt Lake
temple.However, just to get you started, the in the temples
ordinances are performed for both the living and vicariously for the dead. The
ordinances performed there include baptism, confirmations, marriages, sealing
children to parents, and the endowment. Baptisms and confirmations in the
temple are performed for the dead only.Plus there is a cafeteria in
the large temples and a laundry room to wash the clothes used the baptistery and
temple clothes that some people rent.Anything else you want to know?
Donn if you really want to find out about the temple there are many websites
catering to your needs. Youtube would be a good place to start.
Some of these comments demonstrate a lack of understanding of the subtle
messages in the temple ordinance that are not even noticeable if you are not
very observant, and often become apparent only after years of attending
regularly. If you notice in these movies, each one highlights a different point
and is very significant.
RE: Redshirt1701, Anything else you want to know? Yes,God repeatedly
stresses that the Old Covenant is finished. It is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). The
sacrificial system was "imposed until the time of reformation" (Hebrews
9:10). Christ's sacrifice was the once-for-all.But, Joseph
Smith,“ These sacrifices',as well as every ordinance belonging to the
Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of
Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers,
ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers
of the Melchisedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the
restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It
is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all
its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the
Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely,
sacrifice, will be continued.?” (Hof C v 4 p.211-212) .
To "donn" you are making the same mistake that many people make. The
"Old Covenant" is the law of Moses. The Law of Moses is what was
completed, the law of sacrifice predates the Old Covenant is still to be fully
restored.Joseph Fielding Smith said "Now in the nature of
things, the law of sacrifice will have to be restored, or all things which were
decreed by the Lord would not be restored. It will be necessary, therefore, for
the sons of Levi, who offered the blood sacrifices anciently in Israel, to offer
such a sacrifice again to round out and complete this ordinance in this
dispensation. Sacrifice by the shedding of blood was instituted in the days of
Adam and of necessity will have to be restored. The sacrifice of
animals will be done to complete the restoration when the temple spoken of is
built; at the beginning of the millennium, or in the restoration, blood
sacrifices will be performed long enough to complete the fulness of the
restoration in this dispensation. Afterwards sacrifice will be of some other
character." (Doctrines of Salvation 3:94)Does that clarify
donn, Redshirt1701:animal sacrifice is over forever!3
Nephi 9: Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the
heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father
from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the
Father glorified his name. And as many as have received me, to
them have I given to become the sons of God; and even so will I to as many as
shall believe on my name, for behold, by me redemption cometh, and in me is the
law of Moses fulfilled. And ye shall offer up unto me NO MORE
the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be
done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt
offerings. And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken
heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a
contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost,
To "Michigander" then how do you explain the statements by Joseph
Fielding Smith and Joseph Smith?But in 3 Nephi 24 it states "2
But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?
For he is like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap. 3 And
he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons
of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an
offering in righteousness." That sounds like they will be starting up
sacrifices again. Which was repeated in D&C 13:1.You may not
understand those scriptures the way I do, so please explain what the Prophets
mean when they say that there will be sacrifices again and what the 2 scriptures
mean that I have referenced.
Red Shirt, will try to explain it briefly. The important verse 1
also needs to be included.And it came to pass that he [JESUS]
commanded them that they should write the words which the Father had given unto
Malachi, which he should tell unto them. And it came to pass that after they
were written he expounded them. And these are the words which he did tell unto
them, saying: Thus said the Father unto Malachi -- Behold, I will send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom ye seek
shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye
delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of Hosts." (3 Nephi
24:1)."my messenger" is the Choice Seer, the future
full-blooded American Indian Moses."his temple" is the Lord
meeting the "CS,AIM" in person face to face at Jesus' 2nd coming to
earth. temple = CS,AIM's body! "sons of Levi" are the
priesthood of The Church of Jesus Christ (WHQ: Monongahela, PA)."offering" are the PRAYERS of the priesthood when blessing the
sacrament, anointing someone for healing, ordaining someone to an office,
confirming the Holy Ghost, etc.
The old movies from 1990 had multiple changes from the pre-1990 movies that also
included some doctrine and ordinance changes.Do these new movies
have doctrine and ordinance changes from the movies that were used for about 23
years since 1990?If so why the changes? It seems to me that no
doctrine or ordinance changes should have happened from the pre-1990 to the 1990
- 2013 movies.
RE: Redshirt, The old covenant was built around the core of the Ten Commandments
(Ex 34:28). The old covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), The new covenant has
been established (Heb 8:6) Since the destruction of the Second
Temple in 70 CE, religious Jews have expressed their desire to see the building
of a Third Temple on the Temple Mount and the resumption of Korban (sacrificial
worship). Because they have no sacrifice(Messiah/Jesus) for sin.The
Aaronic or Levitical priesthood ended with the death of Christ. The entire
function , and the term Cohen means, ’one who stands up for another, and
mediate the cause.” Before the *Great Sacrifice ,the priest had to stand
in the gap for the people and offer animal sacrifices. Do Mormons still carry
out this function. No! Therefore their office is insignificant. JS understood
this. . .”… I saw No temple in it, for the
Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple (Rev 21:22)
I'm confident that "God" has no use for "movies" for
individuals to perform their saving ordinances. If you don't have time to
go through a live session you don't have time for the Lord.In the
Kirkland temple the session was about 6 hours long. What would it matter
considering the importance of the ordinance being taken advantage of during this
dispensation. I'm somewhat relieved that I had it done back in 1971.
I don't think all the changes are pertinent to the Plan of Salvation.
To "donn" the holders of the Aaronic Priesthood did more than just offer
sacrifices. The Aaronic Priesthood was charged with caring for temple. It was
the Levites that carried the ark, and set up the temple while they were
wandering for 40 years.Actually, the Aaronic priesthood does stand
"up for another, and mediate the cause". The Aaronic priesthood has the
responsibility to perform the sacrament ordinance (a remembrance of Jesus's
sacrifice for us) and also has the charge of caring for the members of the
congregation. Those two responsibilities show how currently in the LDS church
the Aaronic priesthood stands for us.
While I agree the latest version is more dramatically portrayed than the old
version, I feel strongly it is an attempt to demonstrate the difficulties
experienced by Adam and Eve when faced with their circumstances, choices, and
The new films are news and people who attend have been talking about them. It
is news and it is always nice to get the news staight.