LDS Church begins using a 3rd new temple film

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • One opinion west jordan, UT
    July 28, 2014 4:51 p.m.

    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.

  • texas convert Stephenville, TX
    July 22, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    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 consequences.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 21, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Dennis Harwich, MA
    July 20, 2014 10:11 a.m.

    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.

  • donn layton, UT
    July 18, 2014 3:12 p.m.

    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 The old covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13), The new covenant has been established (Heb 8:6)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)

  • Thinkman Provo, UT
    July 18, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    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.

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    July 18, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 18, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    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.

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    July 18, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    donn, Redshirt1701:

    animal sacrifice is over forever!

    3 Nephi 9:

    [15] 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.

    [17] 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.

    [19] 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.

    [20] 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,

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 18, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    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 things more?

  • donn layton, UT
    July 17, 2014 11:09 p.m.

    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) .

  • Notsignificant usa, NV
    July 17, 2014 10:28 p.m.

    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.

  • UT Brit London, England
    July 17, 2014 2:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    July 17, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    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 layton, UT
    July 17, 2014 1:38 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.

    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).

  • Karr Orem, UT
    July 17, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    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.

  • trekker Salt Lake, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:41 a.m.

    The last couple times i went I haven't seen the one with Corbin Allred in it. Are they still using that one?

  • UT Brit London, England
    July 17, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    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 new director.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    July 17, 2014 7:24 a.m.

    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.

  • CJay Logan, UT
    July 17, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    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.

  • Gene Poole SLC, UT
    July 17, 2014 12:22 a.m.

    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?

  • mominthetrenches South Jordan, Utah
    July 17, 2014 12:09 a.m.

    @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 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!

  • IQ92 hi, UT
    July 16, 2014 7:21 p.m.

    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.

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    July 16, 2014 5:50 p.m.

    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 again'.

  • Aurelius maximus Berryville, VA
    July 16, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Agent Gazman the 12th Tamworth, 00
    July 16, 2014 3:02 p.m.

    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 Endowment session.

  • Clifton Palmer McLendon Gilmer, TX
    July 16, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    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 ...

  • Joey K Sandy, UT
    July 16, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    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.

  • abtrumpet Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 2:42 p.m.


    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 :)

  • Jamescmeyer Midwest City, USA, OK
    July 16, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    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 producing these?

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    July 16, 2014 1:42 p.m.

    "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).

  • Razzle2 Bluffdale, UT
    July 16, 2014 1:06 p.m.

    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.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2014 1:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 12:45 p.m.

    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.

  • That's A Good One Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2014 12:40 p.m.

    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.

  • bbj United Kingdom, 00
    July 16, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    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 mill".

  • BioPowertrain Detroit, MI
    July 16, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    @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.

  • mancan HC, UT
    July 16, 2014 12:02 p.m.

    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!

    July 16, 2014 11:58 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 16, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    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.

  • slk Phoenix, AZ
    July 16, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    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.

  • MO Jackson Valhalla, NY
    July 16, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    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!

  • MO Jackson Valhalla, NY
    July 16, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    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 following day!

  • Left Field Cocoa Beach, FL
    July 16, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    As always, the book is better than the movie.

  • Johnny Triumph American Fork, UT
    July 16, 2014 10:40 a.m.

    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.

  • rubyscarab Chicago, IL
    July 16, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    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.

  • BioPowertrain Detroit, MI
    July 16, 2014 10:29 a.m.

    @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.

  • Utah Native Farmington, UT
    July 16, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    I have had less of a struggle being alert, attentive, and reverent in my mind since the new films came out.

  • birder Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    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."

  • BYUalum South Jordan, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    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 newspaper!

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    July 16, 2014 9:42 a.m.

    Somehow a strange typo found its way into my comment. Instead of "but the creation exists," it should say, "but the confusion exists." Sorry.

  • AZguy Phoenix, AZ
    July 16, 2014 9:31 a.m.

    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.

  • Whoa Nellie American Fork, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:15 a.m.

    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.

  • Lew Scannon Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:08 a.m.

    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?

  • Go Big Blue!!! Bountiful, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Tom Johnson Spanish Fork, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Don Bugg Prince Frederick, MD
    July 16, 2014 8:57 a.m.

    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.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    July 16, 2014 8:48 a.m.

    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.

  • SportzzFan HERRIMAN, UT
    July 16, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    I appreciate the 1st new presentation, the 2nd is too melodramatic. Looking forward to the 3rd.

  • haggie Visalia, CA
    July 16, 2014 8:32 a.m.

    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.

  • thornfield Ames, IA
    July 16, 2014 8:19 a.m.

    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.

  • bbj United Kingdom, 00
    July 16, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    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!

  • a serious man Rexburg, ID
    July 16, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Dave Duncan Orem, UT
    July 16, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    @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.

  • jeanie orem, UT
    July 16, 2014 7:49 a.m.


    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.

  • Pavalova Surfers Paradise, AU
    July 16, 2014 7:01 a.m.

    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.

  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    July 16, 2014 5:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Chachi Charlottesville, VA
    July 16, 2014 5:08 a.m.

    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.

  • BioPowertrain Detroit, MI
    July 15, 2014 11:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Aggie5 Kuna, ID
    July 15, 2014 10:30 p.m.

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

  • thelogicalone salt lake city, UT
    July 15, 2014 9:54 p.m.

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

  • KellyWSmith Sparks, NV
    July 15, 2014 8:50 p.m.

    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.