Retract of the earlier post


I am retracting this post. It was written by my wife under my login and she was confused about what this movie is. She thought that this was a movie that was a spoof made on a ceremony that we hold sacred, but it is not. This listing is for a movie that is watched inside the Temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. We are of this faith, also known as the Mormons. I am sorry if this post offended anyone.

reply

Where and how did you see this?...And can i get a copy?

reply

Dear, I take it that you have never actually BEEN to the temple?

reply

I personally have never been through a Mormon temple endowment ceremony, so I am not an expert on this subject, but from what I have been told, the endowment orginally involved live people in the roles of the characters listed. The use of film was far easier. I have not seen this film, and I never will. From what I gather, it was only in use for some years before being retired and replaced, and will not be seen again. It was produced specifically for use in Mormon temples, and only used there. The plot summary sounds like an accurate description of the intent of the film as far as I have heard. It is not a rip-off of the Mormon religion, being produced by faithful Mormons under the direction of the leadership. It can only be termed a rip-off of another religion if the Mormon faith is a rip-off of another religion, or organization. I personally do not believe this to be the case. The content of this film and its use was /is considered sacred by believing Mormons.

reply

It sounds to me like where we're confused here is that this is actually the film they show in the temple. I think the first poster was offended because he/she thought it was yet another anti-Mormon film making fun of sacred things. No, this is the real thing, and Gordon Jump actually did play Peter in the 1969 version of the film.

Having a review of this film is irrelevant. To me it's a beautiful sacred experience, but not because of its cinematography or acting.

Yes, geode, the endowment is still live in some places.

Anyway, just chiming in...



Future readers: Because of all the sincere questions I see on other topics, and the anti-Mormons always trolling to destroy them, I've created a topic on my personal discussion board for anyone who has non-imdb questions about Mormonism. They'll just get deleted here. So come ask questions--it's heavily moderated, so any abusive people will be deleted immediately. Have fun!
http://www.colinandbethany.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=70

reply

I have known for decades that Judge Whitaker directed a version of the film used in temples, and that Gordon Jump appeared in it. I also heard that some people had complained that "Eve" was originally too "sexy" in this version and it was toned down as a result. I have also heard that this version was "retired" completely quite some time ago.

The first post read:

"Any movie that tries to rip of the sacred parts of any religion be it Christian, or Buddhist, or even Pagan is seriously disgusting. I cannot believe that someone would make such a ridiculous and incorrect presentation of something they obviously know NOTHING about. I hope no one takes this as absolute truth, because it's not. It's a warped version of some bitter person's take on a very sacred experience."

Yes, this person is confused about the nature of this film, but I don't think it is clear that it was perceived as an attack on Mormon theology. I still think just the opposite may be true, for there are Evangelical Christian groups that think the Mormon concept of creation and anything happening in Mormon temples is satanic, and a twisting of the truth they find in The Bible. Considering what the plot summary said:

"A montage of scenes depicting the creation of the world is followed by a dramatization of the travails of Adam and Eve, as they are tempted by Lucifer, ejected from the Garden of Eden, and taught by Peter, James, and John the secret tokens that will one day admit them to God's Celestial Kingdom. Audience members make the same covenants as Adam and Eve during the course of the film."

It should be clear to anyone that is LDS that the film was produced by the LDS church and supports their viewpoints. So I would say that the first poster either was not paying any attention before letting loose with that tirade, of is in fact an Evangilical Christian feeling that "the truth" as viewed from the biblical point of view was beimg distorted. I believe the way "protestant" preacher appeared in the film with the devil has caused some to criticise the content in the past.

"I've created a topic on my personal discussion board for anyone who has non-imdb questions about Mormonism. They'll just get deleted here."

Actually I have yet to see any non-IMDb questions about Mormonism deleted on these boards. I guess if they should violate one of the conditions of use this would happen, but I don't think "non-IMDB" is listed as a condition.


reply

Maybe I need to evolve my definition of what gets kicked off the IMDb. It seems anytime I jump in on a discussion on Mormonism, it gets deleted. Maybe they're all just getting deleted because someone invariably starts into a hate-speech tirade against LDS people. Maybe it's not the off-topic-ness that gets them deleted, but the trolls that yell and swear. Or maybe they just grow too large, too quickly. The one on The Passion of the Christ became the dominant theme of that board, with 500 replies within two weeks. I dunno.

Colin Jensen
colinjensen.com

reply

temple ceremonies. The problem is that they have sworn to secrecy not to divulge the signs and tokens in the ceremonies so, they are highly offended when someone presents clear information.

This 1969 film has been replaced, and there were major changes to the ceremonies in April 1990. Several things were removed: the preacher, hand movements acting out the penalties, and others.

Prior to April 1990, there was a Masonic type ritual involved in the penalty phase of the temple rituals that involved slitting the throat and disembowelment for revealing the signs and tokens.

As a member I attended Mormon temples over 300 times in many states and in Europe.

All information about the temple has been in books for years, and now is on line.

It is unfortunate that Mormons typically are so upset by this information being available.

If you want full disclosure about Mormonism, you can get it on line. There are many excellent sites that cover the original history and are well documented from Mormon sourses. Many, many books are available also. If you are interested in knowing more, you may email me. Hate mail will be deleted.

[email protected]

reply

And you exemplify the fundamental question well: Are you doing more harm than good in saying "temple rituals that involved slitting the throat and disembowelment for revealing the signs and tokens?" I mean, you could have phrased that more politely; we don't want people really thinking that a threat was made that these things would happen, just that symbols of these things are part of said scripture. I mean, Jews don't really have a system for electrocuting people for seeking to "steady the ark."

I have no fears about telling anyone what I believe. That doesn't mean I'll tell them the weird stuff. Catholics believe in transubstantiation--that they're literally eating Jesus when they take the sacrament, but your average 1,000 page book on Catholicism doesn't talk about that. True or not, it's not helpful.

I'm not reprimanding you, just asking why one would feel it necessary to send people to websites written by people who made those websites with the express purpose of hurting your people... and why you would feel it necessary to completely disregard the "milk before the meat" commandment from God, and just start blurting out stuff that will hurt the hearer?



Colin Jensen
www.colinandbethany.com

reply

And, as a disclamatory addendum, I never saw the 1969 temple film, so have no idea whether what the previous writer wrote was true--just that it didn't seem like it would actively deflate bias and contention, or actively bring souls to Christ. If the temple video changes with technology, so be it (I believe it's now run straight off a hard drive), but I don't know if script changes affect whether modern personal and public revelation is real.

Colin Jensen
http://www.colinandbethany.com/

reply

Well, I have and what she said is true. However, your previous post contained some very valid points. This is yet another hater disguised as someone trying to pass off helpful info out of the kindness of her heart. Any time anything regarding the church shows up on imdb, YouTube, etc., these Agent Mulder wanna-be's start swarming like yellowjackets at a barbecue. "Hey, man! I can show you some secret stuff about that church, man! Did you know the First Presidency sacrifices a nude virgin in the basement of the Church Headquarters? I bet you didn't know that, did you? See, you people are brainwashed! Here, smoke this." Etc., etc., etc. Yawn. Smack lips. Snore.

"Farts! Double farts! Turds! Double Turds!"
--Caddyshack, 1980

reply

I would guess that you are responding to an ex-Mormon who no longer believes that disclosing details of the temple endowment is something that will cause harm, and that honesty and an open approach are the best policy about this topic as well as others.

I have no fears about telling anyone what I believe. That doesn't mean I'll tell them the weird stuff.
You say that you feel you can be open in sharing beliefs, but then qualify this statement. Do you really think that any of the beliefs held by Mormons are "weird" ? What might this conjure up in the mind of the average non-Mormon if not more fully explained ?
Catholics believe in transubstantiation--that they're literally eating Jesus when they take the sacrament, but your average 1,000 page book on Catholicism doesn't talk about that. True or not, it's not helpful.

Actually I would guess any 1,000 page book on Catholicism (and most that are far shorter) do discuss the basic sacraments of The Church including The Eucharist and transubstantiation. The Catholic Church has not made a secret of this belief, which could be fairly contrasted to the LDS reluctance to divulging the content of the temple endowment.

It is my understanding that the "blood oaths" that were once present in the endowment ceremony did seem to be taken seriously enough to have caused considerable discomfort among enough Mormons to lead to the changes being made as a response.


reply

Oh, no, there are no secrets. Not at all. And like I said, whether a book on Catholicism mentions transubstantiation doesn't necessarily mean whether or not the book explicitly says "Catholics eat God." That's just not necessary, and would sound weird to those who only read it cursorily.

Likewise, nothing in Mormonism is weird. But there are things, in all groups, that can be taken out of context, and not always intentionally so. Those who skim the Book of Mormon, or for those who skim the Bible, will walk away with a different intention than the prophets who wrote the book intended.

The thing a reader will often not realize is that for every inspired man who writes his inspired beliefs about God, there is a paid lawyer by a capitalistic church who will twist words all day to make his client money. I'm serious when I say that. When I was a missionary people chased me with baseball bats all the time, and invariably they were sent from another church. At least as common are normal people who believe that contentious logic games are the path to truth, and will try to start pseudo-academic bickerings thinking that somehow they'll derive happiness therefrom. It just doesn't work that way. Those people only end up confused. Truth is a sense. One thing that separates Mormons from everyone else is that we have little concept of "blind faith" or faith for faith's sake--we expect people to only do what God personally tells them to. We also believe that all people can and should be expected to do whatever they feel necessary to get an answer from God. Once God tells them what's true, they join the church if that's what God told them. But not before... I know this is where God wants me to be because he told me so.


http://www.colinandbethany.com/phpBB2/

reply

The thing a reader will often not realize is that for every inspired man who writes his inspired beliefs about God, there is a paid lawyer by a capitalistic church who will twist words all day to make his client money. I'm serious when I say that.

Which religions are you thinking of that actually hire lawyers with the express purpose of twisting words to make money ?
One thing that separates Mormons from everyone else is that we have little concept of "blind faith" or faith for faith's sake--we expect people to only do what God personally tells them to.

Is "faith" really still the operative word if someone is personally told by God to do something ? I seem to remember a Mormon definition of faith as something that is unseen, a belief in something that cannot be proven.

reply

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which religions are you thinking of that actually hire lawyers with the express purpose of twisting words to make money ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wouldn't be productive for me to list them. It is reasonable to believe, especially in the one-church religions, that when bankrupcy is impending, people get hired and fired like in any other company. Maybe this is very rare, but, again, I've been overtly told by a lot of preachers that "I actually quit believing this years ago, but being a pastor for [church] is my career now." I personally read a thesis on Marin County, California, which polled clergy, and showed that over 50% of Christian clergy, and more than 75% of Jewish clergy, didn't even believe in "God as preached by [their] chuch"! That's why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is adamant about not having anyone in their organization paid to be there. We have no clergy, which is pretty amazing for a 12 million member church. We do that because we know that when money enters in, so does doctrinal compromise. Our church is entirely run by volunteers, who have nothing stopping them from leaving if they want.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is "faith" really still the operative word if someone is personally told by God to do something ? I seem to remember a Mormon definition of faith as something that is unseen, a belief in something that cannot be proven.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tough question. First answer, no matter how much knowledge you have, there will still be more need for faith--more stuff you don't know. You need knowledge to have faith, and vice versa. It's a chicken and egg thing, but not exclusive. I KNOW very few things--one of which being that the Book of Mormon is true. But it still takes faith that one particular interpretation or other of any scripture is the one I should follow. The more you act according to your faith, the more knowledge you'll receive (as a gift from God.)

And still, even if God tells you something, it takes a certain amount of trusting him to actually do it. And the more you know it's the will of the Lord, the tougher requests God is going to give you. Life is about progress, and God will progress you as quickly as you're willing. It's not impossible for you to be as spiritually led as any of the prophets and apostles from scripture. And speaking of scripture, that faith scripture is also in the New Testament, so not a Mormon concept.

reply

That's why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is adamant about not having anyone in their organization paid to be there.

Actually all of the General Authorities are paid a stipend or "living allowance" that is thought to be relatively generous. I would guess that it exceeds the salary paid to many pastors, whether they represent faiths with "one church" or not. Does calling this something other than salary really create a situation where these clergymen are not "paid" ?
We have no clergy, which is pretty amazing for a 12 million member church. We do that because we know that when money enters in, so does doctrinal compromise. Our church is entirely run by volunteers, who have nothing stopping them from leaving if they want.

Again, there are full time paid individuals that are an integral part of running the Mormon Church. In addition to the General Authorities, there are many clerical people in the church office building, etc. that do what they do for a living and are paid for the work they do. The Mormon Church clearly has clergy using the most accepted definitions of the word. Any bishop or stake president clearly qualifies, as do some other members of a ward. But I have never heard the Mormon Church claim to not have clergy, just to not have "paid clergy"...which also is not really correct when The General Authorities are considered.







reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually all of the General Authorities are paid a stipend or "living allowance" that is thought to be relatively generous. I would guess that it exceeds the salary paid to many pastors, whether they represent faiths with "one church" or not. Does calling this something other than salary really create a situation where these clergymen are not "paid" ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea whether or how much General Authorities are paid... Since you said you haven't been through the temple, I suspect you're not a member of the church, and thus probably don't know said fact either. If you can find me a current source indicating that, I'd like it. As far as I know those who financially need it are given jobs as church-owned companies, but they aren't "paid" for their positions within the church. And I have a hard time believing their pay is "generous," since guaranteed it's still way less than most of them make on the open market. Still, being in charge of a million people, they should have a clean house with an alarm system. Again, if you have a current source on whether anyone actually in the clergical line is paid, I'd like to see it. And whether that money is enough to encourage doctrinal compromise, or capitalistic aspirations, is a worthy question. When I worked for the church, my boss and his boss and his boss all made the same amount of money. That in itself is remarkable. But I know that local leaders aren't paid, since I've been financial clerk for 10 years now. They all volunteer 40+ hours a week and keep their day jobs, and sometimes can be pretty poor. I am currently living in an area where the Stake President (over 5,000 people) is a custodian at an apartment complex, and a few years ago our Relief Society President (over 300 women) worked at McDonalds. Neither of them live in houses or live lifestyles that would imply that they make any money other than from their day jobs.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mormon Church clearly has clergy using the most accepted definitions of the word. Any bishop or stake president clearly qualifies, as do some other members of a ward.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again it depends on which "accepted definitions" you're using. If you come to a Mormon church, there is no man whose job it is to preach from the pulpit--everyone in the congregation takes turns giving each week's lesson. The Bishop is the man who can perform marriages, hear confessions, and ask people to do stuff; but neither he, nor anyone else in the ward, is a full-time employee of the church, whose job it is to metonymically represent and promote the church to the congregation and the public. No one sits around all day studying the scriptures and writing speeches for a living. That's what I would call the street definition of "clergy."

The only paid people are, perhaps as you say, the full-time General Authorities, who couldn't reasonably hold a job because of their schedule; and the full-time secretaries, property-managers, travel agents, etc. Still, I have no reason to believe that anyone is paid anything more than is absolutely minimum for their position--anyone managing a million people generally makes $400 million in the real world, not $35,000.

When I was a missionary, I was paid nothing, so in the end my own living expenses cost ME basically $10,000 for the two years. Needless to say, at under $5000 per year, I lived in complete poverty relative to the US standard. When I taught at a Seminary, I was paid $7.50 an hour--not an amount that gave anyone influence over what I said. If you go onto http://www.lds.org/employment, you'll see that the pay the church offers, for jobs where it is reasonable to be paid at all, is not commensurate with the private sector. They pay enough to get good workers and to keep them happy, but that's still very little relative to what ANY of these people would be paid in the real world.

reply

That's why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is adamant about not having anyone in their organization paid to be there.

Well, I guess at the very least I have gotten you to shift away from your first statement above, and that payment of some kind is in fact made to many people within the LDS organization.
I have no idea whether or how much General Authorities are paid... Since you said you haven't been through the temple, I suspect you're not a member of the church, and thus probably don't know said fact either. If you can find me a current source indicating that, I'd like it. As far as I know those who financially need it are given jobs as church-owned companies.

No, like you I have no idea how much the General Authorities are paid. However, it has been acknowledged by the LDS Church from time to time that living allowances are paid.

"Because the Church has no professional clergy, it is administered at every level through LAY PARTICIPATION AND LEADERSHIP, and officials other than the General Authorities contribute their time and talents without remuneration. … Because the General Authorities are obliged to leave their regular employment for full-time Church service, they receive a modest living allowance provided from income on Church investments." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p.510) quasi-official documentation

The Salt Lake Tribune once published that a high-ranking leader also receives a home. Reportedly some of these are worth over a million dollars, but I have seen evidence that other apostles live in more modest homes than that.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 9, 1983 that the salary given to a Seventy was reported to be $40,000. If this was true, the amounts paid would probably be much greater today. I have seen speculation that the living allowance for an Apostle is at least twice as much as that of a Seventy. I agree with you that if we take the size and financial worth of the LDS Church and put this in perspective, an Apostle of Seventy would be equivalent to senior executives being paid more the estimates cited. On the other hand compared to the average income of an American worker, I think you could also term it generous.

I have seen speculation that for Apostles the "living allowance" today is in the 6 figures....I honestly do not know and I doubt the persons speculating that figure do either. Nobody outside of insiders in SLC probably have any idea how much the General Authorities are paid, since the LDS Church basically stands alone among major religions in not providing a public accounting of finances. It is a closely guarded secret leading to such speculation as above.

While she attempts to be objective, one can argue that Sandra Tanner is not unbiased on LDS subjects. She has written:

"The LDS Church boasts of not having a paid clergy. Many of them believe that when a man receives a salary from a particular group it compromises his integrity. LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer explained, 'In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches.'

Even though their leaders on the local level receive no pay for their services, this is not true of their top leadership. Many of the Mormons are not aware that their Prophet, Apostles and Seventies receive a salary. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism we read:

'Because the Church has no professional clergy, it is administered at every level through LAY PARTICIPATION AND LEADERSHIP, and officials other than the General Authorities contribute their time and talents without remuneration. … Because the General Authorities are obliged to leave their regular employment for full-time Church service, they receive a modest living allowance provided from income on Church investments.' (p.510)

Since the amount paid to the leaders is never divulged one is left to wonder what constitutes a modest living allowance."

And I have a hard time believing their pay is "generous," since guaranteed it's still way less than most of them make on the open market.


Of course they are not paid salaries in the open market. If you are talking about what they made when they held regular professions, I am sure that some commanded or could command more than their living allowance now pays them. I would guess that some others would not be paid as well, since their skills were not originally in a field that paid all that well and they had not risen to any great level of success before being called to serve as full time religious leaders. But I didn't mention the fact that senior Mormon leaders also are allowed to publish books and keep the proceeds from the sales. The amounts made in this pursuit can be considerable, with some of the books becoming relative best sellers among Mormons. For instance, Paul H. Dunn sold great numbers of books and tapes.
Still, being in charge of a million people, they should have a clean house with an alarm system. Again, if you have a current source on whether anyone actually in the clergical line is paid, I'd like to see it. And whether that money is enough to encourage doctrinal compromise, or capitalistic aspirations, is a worthy question.

I personally do not hold to the thought that being well paid would necessarily compromise any of the doctrine. Brigham Young had vast wealth, and I do not think it influenced his thoughts along this line. I detect a drift in your posts about money and its influence i.e. other church's lawyers attacking the LDS Church to make a profit that is quite new to me.

However, I guess money matters can cause trouble. Regarding another Mormon General Authority, a Seventy, The Wall Street Journal states (Nov. 9, 1983) "...Paul H. Dunn... whose church salary is $40,000 a year, was a director of Afco Enterprises, a real-estate venture until 1978. Afco collapsed four years later; and its owner, Grant C. Affleck, was recently indicted for mail fraud, securities fraud and bankruptcy fraud. Despite Mr. Dunn's 1978 resignation, records in the U. S. District Court civil suit here show that he continued to have ties with Afco until it entered bankruptcy proceedings in 1982.... and gave advice to directors after he resigned.... A few days before Afco entered bankruptcy proceedings, Mr. Dunn wrote a disgruntled Afco investor a letter calling Mr. Affleck, a fellow Mormon, 'fair and Christlike.' U. S. Attorney Brent Ward... says that about 650 investors lost over $20 million through Afco investments."
If you come to a Mormon church, there is no man whose job it is to preach from the pulpit--everyone in the congregation takes turns giving each week's lesson. The Bishop is the man who can perform marriages, hear confessions, and ask people to do stuff; but neither he, nor anyone else in the ward, is a full-time employee of the church, whose job it is to metonymically represent and promote the church to the congregation and the public. No one sits around all day studying the scriptures and writing speeches for a living. That's what I would call the street definition of "clergy."

Well, by your own definition the Apostles, Seventies, Presiding Bishopric, every Mission President and several others all would be "clergy" since they function "full time" and have religious duties including preaching.

Clergy as defined in a Cambridge dictionary:

clergy (plural noun) the religious leaders whose job is serving the needs of their religion and its followers; priests, ministers, rabbis, etc.

I don't see anything here about "full time" or "paid" or even "employee"....I think that bishops, stake presidents, and even Elder's Q. presidents would qualify as clergy under most definitions. Members of a Stake High Council basically roam and preach in various wards within a stake.
When I was a missionary, I was paid nothing, so in the end my own living expenses cost ME basically $10,000 for the two years. Needless to say, at under $5000 per year, I lived in complete poverty relative to the US standard. When I taught at a Seminary, I was paid $7.50 an hour--not an amount that gave anyone influence over what I said. If you go onto http://www.lds.org/employment, you'll see that the pay the church offers, for jobs where it is reasonable to be paid at all, is not commensurate with the private sector. They pay enough to get good workers and to keep them happy, but that's still very little relative to what ANY of these people would be paid in the real world.

Nobody disputes that the vast majority of the leadership of the Mormon Church is not paid anything for their service. You started out by saying that nobody in the LDS church organization was paid anything, but you now supply an official LDS site for employment positions. Yes, I would bet that some similar positions outside the LDS Church might pay more.

However, a position for a Senior Paralegal from the site you provided pays $2670 - $3337 per month depending on experience. The average for paralegals in many states is about $3,100 a month. This would be in the middle of the LDS position's range. It would appear that they are offering pretty much the same as non-LDS employers.

Shall we add the teaching positions at BYU and other LDS church schools ? The faculty and staff of BYU must be "temple worthy" and pass through religious worthiness as well as other academic qualifications. The faculty of BYU is paid pretty much the same as faculty in similar universities.

Institute Directors are paid positions (LDS institutes of religion). I had a friend once who thought about this option as a career. I always assumed that although not paid all that well, that they would be in the range of high school teachers, etc. Below are some thoughts from such a teacher.

"I made a pretty good income with CES. My base salary had been approximately $62,500, plus an extra $8,000 to $10,000 in summer income. We had grown used to living pretty well because in addition to my salary, Teresa worked as part-time as a Registered Nurse. We were comfortable financially but it just wasn’t worth it anymore.

My training and work experience for 27 years was in a narrow field. Working in CES is all about teaching religion with a Mormon slant, being clever and delivering the party-line to kids who come to with questions—follow the prophet. It doesn’t hurt if you are really good at sports and ping-pong either."

I would give the url for the site except for the fact that there are off-subject topics discussed.
Our church is entirely run by volunteers, who have nothing stopping them from leaving if they want.

You also said that the LDS organization was entirely run by "volunteers"...which is not really an accurate assessment of how bishops, etc. are "called" or selected in my opinion. Leaving a church calling, or the LDS church itself, is also not as easy as is implied in your statement in my opinion, or that of many others.

But back to the real subject of this thread. You posted earlier.
Having a review of this film is irrelevant. To me it's a beautiful sacred experience, but not because of its cinematography or acting.


And then later admitted.
And, as a disclamatory addendum, I never saw the 1969 temple film, so have no idea whether what the previous writer wrote was true--just that it didn't seem like it would actively deflate bias and contention, or actively bring souls to Christ. If the temple video changes with technology, so be it (I believe it's now run straight off a hard drive), but I don't know if script changes affect whether modern personal and public revelation is real.

So on what basis have you decided "it's a beautiful sacred experience, but not because of its cinematography or acting" ? Is it not possible that the cinematography and acting aided whatever experience people got from watching it ? Perhaps these aspects also detracted from it ? I heard from somebody that did see the film that many people thought that the actress that portrayed Eve was too sexy, that this distracted their thoughts and that the film was changed as a result. Is that true ?











reply

Okay, so we're totally in agreement now.

It bears mentioning that, again, in the interest of having no professional clergy, there is no professional training nor application process for clergical positions within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As you said, current leaders simply pray and then ask people to perform a certain duty or within a certain position. While BYU students are required to take extensive religious classes, BYU doesn't offer any religion degrees, besides an MA in Religious Education--but no undergraduate majors or minors, or degrees in Bible Studies, Divinity, or Theology. They just don't want to mis-associate righteousness. So there are no "professional clergy" in the sense that there is no professional track for becoming clergy, no application to become such, and no requirements nor expectations for clergical leaders to be chosen out of a pool of direct-subordinates or those who otherwise fulfill some literal list of "qualifications."

From my experience, a CES employee making $70K is probably including a large regional allowance. Standard pay for CES employees, high school or college teachers, with a doctorate and 20 years experience, maxed out last I checked at $54,000.

I would say "most" people don't do their callings that well, and definitely not on a professional level. So leaving a calling generally entails telling the Bishop you don't want to do it anymore, and he just asks someone else to do it. I'm sure in some areas the Bishop would try to convince you otherwise, depending on how many willing people there were to take your place, and of course why he thought you were quitting. But most people who don't want to do their job anymore just quit coming, and there are no immediate consequences to that.

Ditto with leaving the church--most people just quit coming, and that's that. They'll still get someone checking in from time to time, and most not-active members I've met appreciate that. If they want their names off church records altogether, they just have to write a letter to the church. No one is intentionally complicating that process either--with 12M members, I'm sure it happens a thousand times a day, and there's probably a clerk in the church's office building whose job it is to delete people all day. Most people I've met who say they're annoyed by church members visiting them are people who just haven't gotten off their butts to send in a letter requesting their names be removed. Once they send in the letter, it's handled efficiently.

reply

...about the original post in this thread that is. It would appear that somebody actually did think that this film was an attempt to make fun of the temple endowment as now explained in the edited message.

But this brings some questions to my mind. Did this film ever have a formal name ? How did anyone get the credits for the crew ? I doubt that these were ever attached to the film when it was presented within temples, and the only people that I have seen mentioned in connection with it are Wetzel Whitaker and Gordon Jump. Some of the cast members have faces that people should have recognized, other than Gordon Jump, since they appeared in other films produced at BYU for use by the LDS Church.

reply

What is weird in life?

Consider this, is it weird that two men have sex and a relationship together? According to some perspectives it is. Equally, is it weird that a married man of 38 (Joseph Smith) marries a 14 year old girl (again, to some it is but Mormon's in order to stay active must believe that what Smith did was ok and God's will - albeit if one wonders why God wanted Smith to marry a 14 year old the concept isn't supported or explained in any LDS scriptures). But LDS ideas are not the point of this site, we're here to review a movie.

I've been through the Temple so many times. I know what it is about in terms of the movie, the signs and tokens etc. But the reality is, it isn't the temple that is troubling, that is merely an interactive movie. The movie is based on the ideas of men like Emanuel Swedenborg and Rev Thomas Dick, and combined with the ideas drawn directly from the Masonic movements. So as a storyline for a movie it isn't an original idea and it doesn't credit the origin of those ideas.

I can see that Latter-Day Saints might take it seriously, but i have to admit that we're reviewing a movie here that we've seen and i have seen this movie. The guy playing Satan in my opinion puts in the best piece of acting. God (Eloheim) and Jesus (Jehovah) are tougher characters as they come across as very dry with stilted near robotic dialogue but again, this is because it is limited by the ideas of the LDS Founder and his ability to compress the ideas of other thinkers into this script.

For me the movie lacks depth. It hints at offering genuine philosophic insights, but those don't really come to the fore. If you've read Thomas Dick or Swedenborg then their original writings are more interesting. That's not to say that how Smith renders them isn't interesting, it is but it is a bit slow and it really doesn't offer closure. No real answers as to why things are the way they are. Why you need handshakes to get into heaven, or how or why literal children of God need to be sealed to each other if they are already God's children and part of the same family etc.

The Adam and Eve part requires suspension of disbelief as Mormonism is a biblical literalist faith and yet we know mankind did not appear on the earth just 6000 years ago (we know this through DNA, sediment layers, Fossil record, and Carbon dating), so when watching this movie and hearing it attempt to portray its storyline as real events, that can throw you out of the loop a little.

In short, although this is produced on video, it isn't a movie in a traditional sense, it really is just an interactive piece of religious footage.

reply

In short, although this is produced on video, it isn't a movie in a traditional sense, it really is just an interactive piece of religious footage.
It was produced on film. Interactive? In what way is it different than other films?

Oh Lord, you gave them eyes but they cannot see...

reply

As part of the entire presentation, the film pauses and you are required to mirror decisions and acts in the film. You can only stay in the room if you agree at each pause to comply. If you watch the videos online you can see how there is a film but then people get up and do stuff.

reply