Comments about ‘LDS Church begins using a 3rd new temple film’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 15 2014 5:55 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Sparks, NV

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.

salt lake city, UT

I believe the Swiss temple was the first to use a film presentation, dedicated in 1955.

Kuna, ID

Saw it today. They all serve a purpose I guess. I like the last version before this one.

Detroit, MI

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.

Charlottesville, VA

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.

Surfers Paradise, AU

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.

orem, UT


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.

Dave Duncan
Orem, UT

@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.

a serious man
Rexburg, ID

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.

United Kingdom, 00

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!

Ames, IA

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.

Visalia, CA

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.

clearfield, UT

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 attention.

Don Bugg
Prince Frederick, MD

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.

Tom Johnson
Spanish Fork, UT

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.

Go Big Blue!!!
Bountiful, UT

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 presentations.

Lew Scannon
Provo, UT

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?

Whoa Nellie
American Fork, UT

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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments