- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I had forgotten the following, but I came across it today while reviewing Pres. Hinckley’s time in the First Presidency: The Swiss Temple presented a dilemma for the Church, since the membership who were to attend that temple spoke ten major languages. The endowment at that time (early 1950’s) still was presented live, and it would have been an administrative nightmare to have it available in ten languages – or to have translators voicing different languages in the same session.
Elder Hinckley chaired the committee that was tasked to find a solution, and their discussions were the catalyst for the creation of the endowment movie and the use of individual headsets that could provide translations for multiple languages in the same session.
Just thought some of you might be interested in that tidbit.
A sensible choice for practical reasons, but I would love to see a live endowment. Every theatrical performance is unique. Have you ever discussed endowment with someone who was endowed pre-1990? Always wonder what people think of the changes.
SamBee wrote:A sensible choice for practical reasons, but I would love to see a live endowment. Every theatrical performance is unique.
Have you ever discussed endowment with someone who was endowed pre-1990? Always wonder what people think of the changes.
A live endowment is not what I would call a theatrical performance. It is just senior citizens dressed in white suits saying the words. Very monotone. Once in awhile you get someone with a little spunk and they try to ham it up a little. So compared to the live performances the movies are Shakespeare.
I went through long before 1990. I probably went through the temple many more times with the blood oaths intact as without. Sure it was a little bizarre but the whole thing is bizarre to me. People say it is much better now and that is probably so, but I am not a temple person at all so micro improvements do not do much for me.
SamBee wrote:A sensible choice for practical reasons, but I would love to see a live endowment. Every theatrical performance is unique.
Have you ever discussed endowment with someone who was endowed pre-1990? Always wonder what people think of the changes.
I was endowed in 1983 and I have been to a couple live sessions in Salt Lake.
Pre-1990s: The only significant differences are the elimination of the blood oaths (they symbolically detailed what type of death one would suffer for divulging the different signs and tokens, and I hope I’m not saying too much here, if so mods feel free to edit) and that the movies have improved a bit each time. I agree with Cadence, the blood oaths were a bit bizarre.
Live session: Again, Cadence hit it on the head – they really aren’t acting, they are just saying the lines (and not very well IMO) and they’re dressed in white. I do like the symbolism of moving from room to room (instead of the light just getting brighter) and I do like the art work. I also like picturing the thing in my own mind as opposed to the movie, although the movie has influenced my mind’s picture – sort of like reading Harry Potter after seeing the movies. I do think live sessions help me focus more on the symbolism, so I sometimes close my eyes during a regular session. Where I live there are no opportunities for live sessions anyway.
I too agree with Cadence. I went through in 1972 in SLC. There was nothing theatrical about it. In fact, members of my wife’s family had been through it so many times, they were falling asleep.
That was quite an impression for someone going through for the 1st time.
For me, the films are better. It helps me to focus on the majesty of the creation & earth’s beauty.
I was also endowed pre1990s. My first experiences were with live sessions. They generally were not particularly interesting to watch and thus I don’t miss them much. I did like moving from room to room as we used to. I guess I didn’t give the blood oaths that much thought but I do like the streamlined version of the endowment they have now. I used to see both of the earlier movies which, in my opinion, were only one small step above watching the live session. The movies that came out in the 1990s were much more engaging. And for what it’s worth, I don’t like the new movie as well as the 1990s films but it’s still better than the pre1990s films.
I must admit I’m glad I never had the blood oaths! Thanks, interesting to hear what it used to be like. Usually discussion of this is in the negative.
I knew it would not be well acted. But strictly speaking even mumbled lines make for variations. In the films I make a point of looking at small details in each to keep me interested.
The acting in the film I saw today was more nuanced, and fairer to Eve.
As I thought about this more, there was one more change I remembered. When I was endowed there was some direct reference to other Christian beliefs and criticism in the film, which are now gone. The role of the minister teaching people was larger and he had more interaction with Peter, James, and John. The current set up at least suggests “false priests” which distinguishes them from well meaning ones. There are, and have been, evil ministers of religion – the Torquemadas, Jim Jones, pedophiles and the less obvious ones – who oppress. SamBee wrote:The current set up at least suggests “false priests” which distinguishes them from well meaning ones. There are, and have been, evil ministers of religion – the Torquemadas, Jim Jones, pedophiles and the less obvious ones – who oppress.
This guy wasn’t presented as all that evil, today’s version is just watered down a bit. We were clearly meant to believe, however, that his teachings were false and we needed the truths the heavenly messengers were bringing. I think the point is still made, just with less veiled mockery of Catholicism and Protestantism.
I actually read about this in the back of the Ensign a few years back. It was a milestone annoversary of the Swiss temple and they mentioned how that was the one that pioneered the video presentation because of the multitude of languages. It’s nice to know that we aren’t so thoroughly wedded to the format of the temple that a major change – switching from live to video – is possible if it will accommodate the membership. It gives me hope that some of the elements I find troubling may eventually be changed.
One thing I find fascinating about the LDS endowment ceremony is that it resembles the ancient Christian rite of initiation. We know from various early Christian sources that the ceremony included being anointed on parts of your body and raising your arm to the square, and that it was reserved for members who were deemed ready and worthy to receive it because it conveyed knowledge that was not shared with the general public. Apparently the rite of initiation was a combination of the ordinance of baptism and the endowment ceremony. Initially, from what we find in scripture and in early Christian texts, baptism was a single, simple rite that was performed in public. But, in later centuries baptism was combined with another rite (the endowment) and because a private initiation rite.
Catholic scholar Marcus von Wellnitz recognized the parallels between early Christian initiation rites and the Mormon temple, and wrote an article about it that was published in
BYU Studies. Some fascinating discoveries relating to the temple endowment were made in the 1970s and documented in Dr. Roger J. Adams’ study “The Iconography of Early Christian Initiation.” Scholars found ancient murals that depicted scenes from early Christian initiation ceremonies. Some of them included the following elements: * People dressed in sacred clothing, including hats and robes.
* People dressed in sacred clothing approaching a veil with a hand extended from the veil.
* Symbols on the sacred clothing.
* People raising their right arms to the square.
* Background scenes showing Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.
* People being anointed.
mikegriffith1 wrote:Apparently the rite of initiation was a combination of the ordinance of baptism and the endowment ceremony. Initially, from what we find in scripture and in early Christian texts, baptism was a single, simple rite that was performed in public. But, in later centuries baptism was combined with another rite (the endowment) and because a private initiation rite.
Striking similarities. Would you suppose that these early christians received these “initiation ceremonies” through revelation as part of an eternal gospel or that they were guilty of adding pomp and circumstance to the simple and pure rite of baptism?
Either is possible depending upon your perspective.
I wonder where it came from though. The Greeks were far more into initiations (Mysteries as they called them) than the Hebrews…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.