- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was very shocked. I had not gone to a temple endowment since sometime last year. I went this morning and the freeze-framed format reminiscent of the film projectors fro the 1970s bugged me. I also was shocked at some other changes. The good news is the endowment is faster now. So do not fall asleep during it. So, I guess to have efficiency you get rid of moving pictures and use stills. I just had a hard time taking it seriously since as young men we made fun of the old film projectors that you had to turn at the “beep” sound. Is is just me or did others find this disturbing? I get it that the endowment is for instruction, so therefore the entertainment should be lessened, but once you have the entertainment of a moving picture medium and then it is changed to a slideshow style presentation, you are feeling robbed of the entertainment value. “Just saying.” It felt like a step backward technologically and artistically speaking. I also do not like the new age type music that does not go anywhere. I like music with crescendo and decrescendo, and more feeling. The music was just blah. I found myself missing Michael Ballam, and even the other guy that portrays Peter in the Lamb of God, or For This End I was Born. They made changes about 6 months ago. Here’s a thread that has some discussion on it: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9296viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9296” class=”bbcode_url”> My personal theory is that the slideshow is only temporary, that leaders wanted changes to happen immediately without waiting for a new movie production to be complete before they implemented the changes. If that’s the case I suspect that they’re creating a new film (or films) now and that they will replace the slideshow when they’re ready.
I’m not a fan personally. I believe part of the motivation is that this format will work better with presentations in multiple languages, whose dialog will vary greatly in length. A shame really, because the film is the only part of the endowment, I enjoy rather than endure to the end. I used to enjoy looking at the beautiful landscapes and wildlife footage.
I can accept the lower visual quality in exchange for the changes they made to the wording and the length. If they make a new movie, great. If not, the positive changes are the most important thing to me. I would hope that at some point they will re film the people portion so as to have live action, by I quite like the other still shots. Many of which have action within them. I suspect the only way they could change the dialog and shorten the pauses between phrases without re filming was to do still shots. I generally close my eyes and just listen because it bothers me to not see movement. However I much appreciate the shorter length overall. My bladder can only wait so long. Old Timer wrote:
I can accept the lower visual quality in exchange for the changes they made to the wording and the length. If they make a new movie, great. If not, the positive changes are the most important thing to me.
Anything to get us through it faster is good in my view. The repetition used to drive me crazy, and I stopped going partly due to always being nudged to wake up. I hate being in places where everyone is watching me, ready to pounce as soon as I make a mistake. Same reason I didn’t want to be a veil worker any longer.
What bothers me most with endowment sessions is that I get claustrophobic knowing I can’t come and go as I please. I feel trapped and get nervous. I don’t feel peace and relaxation, instead I feel anxiety. My wife feels the same as me. I understand it’s very temporary. Nelson pulled the change plug faster from out of nowhere. He’s done this twice now. He did it the new adult Sunday School program, too. The created a 50 week manual. Having no hint that 2 hour church was about to be unleashed. From what I’ve heard lots of areas are scrambling to finish or reconstruct after the blizzard of changes. I don’t go to the temple anymore. Sort of a protest thing. But I can not imagine it is any worse than the live sessions. I went to the live sessions in the Manti temple many times. That was somewhat tedious. I enjoyed the films much better. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I love that the sexist elements have been significantly removed from the endowment. That is as close as it gets to changing doctrine. I would be willing to sit through a number of tedious meetings to help bring about that change. Roy wrote:
I love that the sexist elements have been significantly removed from the endowment. That is as close as it gets to changing doctrine. I would be willing to sit through a number of tedious meetings to help bring about that change.
To me it seems they just left out a few words to appease women but the intent of what is said is exactly the same.BJE wrote:
Roy wrote:
I love that the sexist elements have been significantly removed from the endowment. That is as close as it gets to changing doctrine. I would be willing to sit through a number of tedious meetings to help bring about that change.
To me it seems they just left out a few words to appease women but the intent of what is said is exactly the same.
I disagree and that is ok.There was a time when women covenanted to obey their husbands as he obeyed the Lord.
Then it was changed to “hearken” to their husbands as he hearkened to the Lord.
Currently both men and women covenant to obey God. There is no intermediary for either gender.
Also in the sealing women used to “give” themselves to their husbands who would receive them. A woman could only give herself once to a single man. A man could hypothetically receive multiple women and this was a major aspect of polygamy. Both genders now “receive” their spouse.
To me these changes are significant changes in the wording of what we understand to be ordinances. We are told that to change ordiances except at God’s explicit direction is a grave sin of apostacy. If there is no change in the doctrine but rather that we are changing ordinances simply to “appease” earthly individuals then that would seem to be a problem. The first presidency released a statement that said, “Prophets have taught that there will be no end to such adjustments as directed by the Lord to his servants.” This implies that the most recent changes were the subject of revelation by God.
It is ok to disagree on this matter. It is ok to disagree and both be members in good standing in the church. The fact that we can disagree on this and both be good upstanding members of the church says something IMO.
I haven’t done the new sealings so I can’t comment on that. However there is a specific place in the endowment where just a few words left out and to me the meaning is unchanged but I don’t feel free to be so specific here as to the wording of the ordinances. Roy wrote:
There was a time when women covenanted to obey their husbands as he obeyed the Lord.Then it was changed to “hearken” to their husbands as he hearkened to the Lord.
Currently both men and women covenant to obey God. There is no intermediary for either gender.
Also in the sealing women used to “give” themselves to their husbands who would receive them. A woman could only give herself once to a single man. A man could hypothetically receive multiple women and this was a major aspect of polygamy. Both genders now “receive” their spouse.
To me these changes are significant changes in the wording of what we understand to be ordinances.
I agree with you Roy, these are good changes.Do the women still veil their faces during prayer?
Quote:Do the women still veil their faces during prayer?
No. Not ever. They still put on the hats/veils but they never cover them. I think we should drop the hat/veil thing all together. As usual no one has called to collect my input.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.