LDS Church begins using another new temple film

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • kiwi111 Auckland, New Zealand, 00
    April 10, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    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.

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Feb. 17, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    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).

  • maclouie Falconer, NY
    Feb. 17, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    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 scriptures.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 24, 2014 4:20 p.m.

    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…

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Jan. 22, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    It's about reverence for sacred much so that we do not make temple worship common place, open to scrutiny or mockery of all.

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    Jan. 21, 2014 4:55 a.m.

    sharrona, et. al. non-Mormon Christians

    I 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?

  • bj-hp Maryville, MO
    Jan. 20, 2014 8:17 p.m.

    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 context.

  • Grandma 20 Allen, TX
    Jan. 20, 2014 7:06 p.m.

    Sandy, 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.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Jan. 20, 2014 6:23 p.m.

    "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 Cougar!!

  • Brahmabull sandy, ut
    Jan. 20, 2014 1:44 p.m.


    Just 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.

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Jan. 20, 2014 9:34 a.m.


    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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 20, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Here Sandy, UT
    Jan. 19, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    Jan. 18, 2014 8:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 18, 2014 6:32 p.m.


    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?

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:22 a.m.


    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?

  • Uncle Rico Provo, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 11:17 a.m.

    Is this new film in 3D?

  • truth in all its forms henderson, NV
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 8:42 a.m.

    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).

  • Creeper51 Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 17, 2014 4:34 p.m.


    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.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 12:51 p.m.

    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..

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    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.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 10:12 a.m.


    .....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?

  • Bloodhound Provo, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    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 your heart.

  • tyler11385 Springville, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Jan. 17, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 17, 2014 4:27 a.m.

    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.)

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:19 p.m.

    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.

  • MaxxFordham OREM, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    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 12/13/14!


  • sharrona layton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    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 Lodge.

  • Bob Pomeroy Bisbee, AZ
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    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?

  • Bob Pomeroy Bisbee, AZ
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    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 that regard.

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:30 p.m.

    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 up !!!

  • JJS Hamer, ID
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:07 p.m.

    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 that experience.

  • David in CA Livermore, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    The story read in essence that since the 1970's part of the Temple instruction
    was done by pre-recorded film/tape type presentation. A biographical documentary
    on Gordon B. Hinckley said one his assignments in the mid 1950's was to get the Temple
    ceremony 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 Temple
    Began 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 using
    film/tape recordings in the Temple ceremonies" or something like this.

    Thank You and Lord Bless!!

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    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 earth.

  • BYU Track Star Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonyme Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Capt Moroni Perris, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:47 a.m.


    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, Follow me."

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Jan. 16, 2014 9:55 a.m.

    @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.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    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.

  • CincyRed13 SLC, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:34 a.m.


    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:13 a.m.

    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.

  • Doug Zumbrun marion, IN
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:04 a.m.

    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.

  • grandmagreat Lake Havasu City, AZ
    Jan. 16, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:57 a.m.

    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!

  • 1.96 Standard Deviations OREM, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    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 Let me know what you think about this reading and we can go forward from there.

  • mpschmitt Boston, MA
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:26 a.m.


    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:
    If 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.

  • MaryannT ,
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:25 a.m.

    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!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    I go to the Temple to do vicarious redeeming work for the dead,
    not to be entertained...


    I 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.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:41 a.m.

    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.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:39 a.m.

    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 article).

  • EternalPerspective Eldersburg, MD
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Shuzzie53 HAYWARD, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:23 a.m.

    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.

  • SLCPorter SLC, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Trouble Vancouver, WA
    Jan. 15, 2014 11:07 p.m.


    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,

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 10:35 p.m.


    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

  • Sean R Jackson Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    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!

  • Serenity Manti, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 8:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Jan. 15, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    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.