More temple changes

[CrimsonKairos]

Everyone I talked to had a strong dislike for the most recent video versions (except for one young in-law), but localization of and updates to a slideshow/motion graphics certainly are easier than a video.

Regardless of the reason I’m so glad I don’t have to watch “Eve” force tears when she asks “is there no other way?” 

Adam and Eve were like children, she wouldn’t have been thinking that deeply about it (or been able to), imho.

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, CrimsonKairos said:

Adam and Eve were like children, she wouldn’t have been thinking that deeply about it (or been able to), imho.

I certainly appreciate the sacred endowment in any of its presentations. Even my "least favorite" of the presentations was glorious and revelatory, surely above anything my own talent could have produced.

That said, this comment highlights why I personally prefer a lower-key approach to the endowment presentation. There are many truths presented for those with eyes to see, but of course none of us yet has eyes to see all those truths right now, today. As truth distills on me, it will often be different than what is revealed to you. At our level, I rather suspect that there is not only one single correct interpretation of meaning. I don't mean a sort of mealy-mouthed Kumbaya dance where I get "my truth" and you get "your truth", but instead a time of spiritual communion where my mind and spirit is led in a way that makes sense to and helps me, which may be different from the guidance provided to your mind and spirit that makes sense to and helps you. Truth is ultimately one; there cannot be "conflicting truths". But there obviously are true principles and statements that at times seem to us contradictory. Somehow, we need to allow for that.

I apologize if anything I have written has given the impression that I dislike this or that piece of how the endowment is presented or has been in the past (like the "definite least favorites" comment...I take it back, and will edit that post). In my best moments, that is certainly not the case. I do appreciate the quoted example of how CK has gained certain meaningful insights, even (maybe especially) insights that I have not yet learned. I'm grateful that the kingdom of God seeks to nurture that individual learning experience within us in many ways, including however it presents the sacred endowment. I don't mean to complain or find fault. I'm truly sorry if I have come across as such. The Brethren have my wholehearted support, however they choose to teach the eternal truths of Christ to us.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Vort said:

I don't mean to complain or find fault. I'm truly sorry if I have come across as such. The Brethren have my wholehearted support, however they choose to teach the eternal truths of Christ to us.

I'd add the same for myself in what I said. I don't understand all of they whys and therefors. But maybe that's part of the journey I'm on toward learning important eternal truths.

I, personally, disliked (still dislike) the complaining about any version of the endowment presentation. Though in my heart, I can't say I haven't felt certain complaints too. I think, for the most part, I've kept those complaints to myself. Where I've failed...I am also sorry.

What a blessing the endowment is. When you add the technology on top of that it's even more of a blessing. To look at it in any way but as a blessing is a shame-on-us moment. We are so blessed!

When we consider the sacrifices the early Saints had to make to build temples, and we get to drive some short distance and sit through a well produced (even if imperfect...which is (not to bring that debate here, but...) subjective) movie.... Yeah. So blessed.

 

[MarginOfError]

I suspect there are a couple of contributing factors for why people had such a distaste for the newer videos.

1. They were different and unfamiliar. When you change a thing that people gotten accustomed to, there's generally going to be some kind of backlash. Human nature is kind of reactionary. I remember when the video before the most recent two was released. It had a younger Satan who acted the part in a more contemporary manner, while the previous Satan had a more classical theater style. I remember some of these complaints then, too.

2. Different videos, with different actors, directors, and crews will sometimes have different emphases. Perhaps it's an inflection on a word that, in some languages, can have subtle (or not so subtle changes to meaning). I some of this happened in the newer videos, and people found that some of their favorite "truths" that they had taken from earlier versions were now less prominent. They may have felt like important teaching were being lost (not something I agree with, but I can empathize with the concept).

 

Personally, I enjoyed seeing the different versions, largely because they do have some subtle differences in presentation that have caused me to think more and consider new ideas. I would like to see the trend continue in even the current comic book format (sorry, that's what it felt like to me. I don't mind it. It's just a different artistic style). I would love it if there were multiple audio versions with different voice actors that explore different expressions of the characters. Even if we are to assume that the core events in the record are literal, there's very little to indicate that Adam and/or Eve's reactions to some events are known. And interpreting some of those things in different ways might help us unlock new truths or relate truths to our lives in different ways. Furthermore, some people might relate to a crying Eve, and others to a more stoic Eve, for example. 

Another thing I hope and pray for is that there will be more comic book slides produced that show more diversity in the characters. I know this will likely trigger anti-woke sentiment, but hear me out. We are encouraged to imagine ourselves in the place of Adam and Eve through parts of the endowment as we make covenants. And as we return to do proxy work, we study those covenants, the teachings of the Endowment, and how some of those allegorical/symbolic items relate to us. Seeing races and ethnicities represented in those roles could have a powerful impact in helping some people place themselves in those roles and expand their knowledge. I think something like this would have been a lot more cost prohibitive in full movie form, but the current format (where the backgrounds are separated from the characters), I think these substitutions are a lot more accessible, and I think the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.

[MarginOfError]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

True...but not as simple as you imply. Because the dubbing you speak of has to happen concurrently in time with the English version or vice versa, etc., in many cases.

The translated language listener sits with headphones on and listens in their language that plays in time with the English (or vice versa). So the core language and the English still must fill the same amount of time.

You are correct about this. I had more in mind not having to time pauses in the acting with the needed translation. In the current version, the audio can be mixed and blended as needed. With live acting, the actors sometimes had awkward pauses in the dialog that had to be timed in order to allow the dubbing. A move to straight voice acting removes that obstacle*

 

* undoubtedly creating other obstacles.

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Another thing I hope and pray for is that there will be more comic book slides produced that show more diversity in the characters. I know this will likely trigger anti-woke sentiment, but hear me out. We are encouraged to imagine ourselves in the place of Adam and Eve through parts of the endowment as we make covenants. And as we return to do proxy work, we study those covenants, the teachings of the Endowment, and how some of those allegorical/symbolic items relate to us. Seeing races and ethnicities represented in those roles could have a powerful impact in helping some people place themselves in those roles and expand their knowledge.

Anti-woke sentiment triggered!!!!! 

Argh. I'm SO freaking sick of "diversity" and "inclusion".

I'm not saying I'm against using different races to portray Adam and Eve or the like. I don't care about that. When the endowment was live actors the race of the temple worker was whatever it was. Obviously that meant mostly white because, you know, Utah... but I'm sure there were here and there other races who worked in the St. George, Salt Lake, or Manti temples...and no one cared. (Well, probably some legit racists cared...but mostly no one cared.)

But I do not, nor have I ever bought into the "so people can relate" ideology. I don't believe it.

I don't look like a movie star. Well, actually I've been told I look like Ron Perlman. Good golly I hope it's a "more attractive" version of Ron Perlman if that's true. So...what? I can only relate to movies that Ron Perlman stars in?

It's just a nonsense concept. I can't put myself into someone's shoes unless I look like them? I don't look like ANYONE but me! ......er....and Ron Perlman, I guess.

Does there need to be a fat Adam also for fat people to relate? And a super skinny one? What about an Adam with dwarfism? And one in a wheelchair. Oh...and a redheaded Adam. And one for each and every eye color. Oh...and then of course we definitely need a gay Adam and a trans Adam. Because...you know...what about the gay and trans, but obedient and worthy members?

Sheesh.

Okay...triggered rant over.

But you knew it was coming. 😆

Now that the rant's over.... I actually can see the church doing that for exactly the reason you suggest. Whether or not I feel it's legitimate or natural for people to need "representation" to relate, the fact is that our culture is being trained to think that way. I hate it. But it is what it is. And the church will, often, meet people at their level. So I can see it happening. And if it does, despite my natural annoyance at the matter, I'll do as I said earlier in this thread, put my own understanding aside, and trust.

On a side note, my daughter's favorite Disney princess is Tiana. (Well....actually I think she's moved to Elsa in the last little bit. But it was Tiana for a long, long time.) She had no problem relating to or loving Tiana just because Tiana's black and she's white. None at all. To her it's no more different than the fact that Elsa's hair is bleached blonde and hers is a dark blonde. She doesn't need her princesses to look just like her to love and connect with them. Of course she's entirely unware of race or racial issues too. It really is no different for her than hair color. The fact that people need "representation" for their race is racist.

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't look like a movie star. Well, actually I've been told I look like Ron Perlman. Good golly I hope it's a "more attractive" version of Ron Perlman if that's true.

I was told once that I looked like a less attractive version of Jeff Goldblum. I took it as a compliment. You could do a lot worse.

[Vort]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Anti-woke sentiment triggered!!!!! 

Argh. I'm SO freaking sick of "diversity" and "inclusion".

The problem is that many, many people, perhaps a majority (certainly a solid majority of the woke), believe that diversity is virtuous per se. The depth of stupidity in this idea is difficult to fathom, but there you have it.

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Now that the rant's over.... I actually can see the church doing that for exactly the reason you suggest. Whether or not I feel it's legitimate or natural for people to need "representation" to relate, the fact is that our culture is being trained to think that way. I hate it. But it is what it is. And the church will, often, meet people at their level. So I can see it happening. And if it does, despite my natural annoyance at the matter, I'll do as I said earlier in this thread, put my own understanding aside, and trust.

An admirable display of dedication. I agree in principle. I think. But why did God put his kingdom on the earth if not to teach his people to avoid perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training? Sometimes I have to actively remind myself that God is somewhat smarter than I am.

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The fact that people need "representation" for their race is racist.

In general, I think this is sterling truth. But I must admit that when I spent eleven or so weeks in Center City Philly, where my companion's and my white faces were often the only white faces we would see all day and where, though most of the people were friendly, a distinct minority were actively hostile toward us, I began to gain some perspective and a modicum of understanding about how racial minorities who grow up in a white majority culture, especially black people, might feel isolated and distrustful. I believe so-called reverse racism (a stupid term; "stupid" is getting a real workout today) is just as evil and just as repugnant as traditional racism toward minorities, but to some small extent is perhaps more understandable. Especially for small or unconscious acts of petty racism, I find myself a bit more inclined to overlook that which comes from racial minorities than that which acts toward racial minorities.

[MarginOfError]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Okay...triggered rant over.

Great! So if and/or when we get non-caucasian temple presentations, you and I can team up to mentor people in how to see themselves in other racial presentations!

I get that there are people that don't feel the need for the person on the screen to look like them in order to relate. It isn't particularly important to me either. But I do understand that it is impactful to some people. And it's such an unimportant detail, that I'd like to give it to them.

Not a temple example (for obvious reasons), but sometimes it can be interesting to view the world through the eyes of people who haven't spent their whole lives seeing the majority of media looking like themselves: Star Wars: Rogue One

So I'd encourage you to try to think less about why it bothers you and more about what impact it could make for others. I believe that when we have a reasonable ability to do things to improve another's ability to grow in the gospel, we should do them.

 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I was told once that I looked like a less attractive version of Jeff Goldblum. I took it as a compliment. You could do a lot worse.

I don't see it anyway. I think it's like when people tell me and my wife our not-genetically-related daughter looks like my wife and I'm like...yeah....they're both white with blond hair and blue eyes, two ears, two eyes, and one nose. It really depends on how much "like" counts in looking alike. Yes. I look like Ron Perlman...we're both white with similar hair color, blue eyes, two ears, two eyes, and one nose.

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ron Perlman

By the way, Ron Perlman may not be a traditional Hollywood pretty boy like, say, Tom Cruise, but he still has a rugged, masculine handsomeness that many women find attractive. As with Jeff Goldblum, you could do a whole lot worse than Ron Perlman. Embrace the comparison. Take it as a compliment.

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

So I'd encourage you to try to think less about why it bothers you and more about what impact it could make for others.

Nah. I'm steadily moving into the bitter-old-man stage of my life.

13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I believe that when we have a reasonable ability to do things to improve another's ability to grow in the gospel, we should do them.

Per @Vort's comment... Is it improving another's ability to grow in the gospel to cater to their perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training? I mean...maybe it is in cases. It certainly seems to be the case that the church has done just that sometimes.

Edited February 9, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[MarginOfError]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Nah. I'm steadily moving into the bitter-old-man stage of my life.

I'm confused about why you're using language that implies a present tense.  Past tense would seem more appropriate. 

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

By the way, Ron Perlman may not be a traditional Hollywood pretty boy like, say, Tom Cruise, but he still has a rugged, masculine handsomeness that many women find attractive. As with Jeff Goldblum, you could do a whole lot worse than Ron Perlman. Embrace the comparison. Take it as a compliment.

Haha. Yeah...he definitely pulls off the rugged masculinity better than I do.

Honestly my side comment implying it was an offensive comparison was entirely a joke. I really don't care.

And, having met you, btw. You look nothing like like Jeff Goldblum. Well....that's not true. You're white, have two eyes, two ears and a nose...........

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm confused about why you're using language that implies a present tense.  Past tense would seem more appropriate. 

True. When it comes to stupid ideas, I was pretty much the bitter-old-man starting about.....in junior high school.

[pam]

My understanding is there was some changes made this week.  I heard this from someone that goes to the temple almost every day during the week before work. 

[scottyg]

3 hours ago, CrimsonKairos said:

Everyone I talked to had a strong dislike for the most recent video versions (except for one young in-law), but localization of and updates to a slideshow/motion graphics certainly are easier than a video.

The general feedback was actually pretty straight across the board...very few patrons liked those videos, or even thought they were okay. Although we are to focus on the teachings being presented, the great majority of people complained that the acting was just so bad that it took them out of the moment. (this is from a member of the temple presidency who was told by an area presidency member) I must admit that ofttimes I would just close my eyes and listen because several of those actors seemed to be trying way too hard. I didn't mind one of the versions, but the others didn't sit well with me. If a large amount of people are disliking what is being presented, the spirit will not be present as it should be, hence the change to a slideshow.

 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

That said, this comment highlights why I personally prefer a lower-key approach to the endowment presentation.

I agree. I like my temple experiences to be as simple as possible. Many felt the new videos were quite pretentious.

Edited February 9, 2023 by scottyg
spelling

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

An admirable display of dedication. I agree in principle. I think. But why did God put his kingdom on the earth if not to teach his people to avoid perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training? Sometimes I have to actively remind myself that God is somewhat smarter than I am.

There was, really, one thing that bothers me in some of the changes to the temple. Among other related endowment changes that I won't specify, was the fact that women were doing a bunch of the jobs that used to be only men. And I should clarify why that bothered me... because it wasn't the women doing the jobs that bothered me. I mean on a logical level, why shouldn't women be able to scan recommends? Why shouldn't they be able to say, "Welcome to the temple. Please follow me to the endowment room"? There's nothing about those things that would even begin to imply only men should do them. Having women do them is, logically, reasonable, wise, and useful.

Rather, it was the automatic inference I made that it's catering to the perverse, stupid, harmful cultural training the world's been so anxiously engaged in. I have to suppress that inference. It must be some biases on my part.

But this particular issue (so-called women's "equality") is one that I cannot reconcile with the gospel. It feels like the concepts of presiding in the home, the patriarchal order, and priesthood authority, have lost pretty much all meaning. So were those concepts wrong? Or is there some catering going on for the weak among us. I legitimately don't know how to think on the matter. As a matter of practice, my wife and I are traditionalists. I call on who says prayers in our home. But am I just a relic holding on to outdated and mistaken practices in that sort of thing? And if so, does that mean I'm perpetuating things that are not correct to my children?

I don't know. I'm going with my best guess that I'm not. I know that some would very much disagree with me though...and, frankly, they'd have the church's current approach to such things on their side. It causes me some level of cognitive dissonance. That cognitive dissonance makes me overly sensitive to such changes in the temple.

Apparently the husband still presides in the home...but that means absolutely nothing.

[NeuroTypical]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

The problem is that many, many people, perhaps a majority (certainly a solid majority of the woke), believe that diversity is virtuous per se. The depth of stupidity in this idea is difficult to fathom, but there you have it.

Oh, the studies are out, the conclusions drawn, and the science seems fairly settled - diversity does indeed rock, and qualifies as a useful virtue.  But it depends on how you define the words.  Just looking at the business world: Diverse groups, defined as groups where people are comfortable disagreeing with each other, where the 'echo chamber' mentality is specifically rejected, where contrary opinions are sought and valued, where everyone gets to talk, those sorts of groups tend to outperform, out compete, bring better business results, and reduce employee overturn because people end up liking where they work.   Contrasted with "Diverse groups" according to how Ibrahim X. Kendi sees things, where a company is in a city that's 17% black and 15% hispanic, so your team of 100 dang well better have at least 30 blacks and hispanics or you're racist, doesn't really translate into anything beyond ill-formed rules, authoritarian laws, and coworkers who hate each other and themselves.

There's a fairly well established (but always growing) body of scientific literature on how diversity rocks in the competitive business world.  But it's important to note that the power of diversity comes from individual personality differences, not group identities.  Meaning, good diversity can come from having a quiet one, an extrovert, an atheist, a plucky young buck, a returned missionary, and a crotchety old lady.  The colors and genders don't matter that much.  Good diversity does not automatically spring from making sure you have a black one, a brown one, a woman, and a genderfluid one.  If they all think the same and have similar temperaments, you don't have diversity.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, scottyg said:

If a large amount of people are disliking what is being presented, the spirit will not be present as it should be, hence the change to a slideshow.

The LDS author Orson Scott Card wrote an essay in which he made the comment that singing or playing a hymn at Church should be an act of worship and never a performance. (Not those exact words, but that was the thrust of his comment.) I could not agree with him more. We should always seek to avoid turning a sacrament meeting talk or gospel doctrine lesson, or for that matter anything of any sacred significance, into performance art. The focus should never, ever be on us, except for those specific moments where it is appropriate. I suppose—and I am not trying to level any criticism here toward anyone—that some of what I was watching seemed a bit too much like a performance for my tastes.

Nibley claimed that The Church (meaning the ancient Roman Catholic Church) replaced spirit with emotion and rhetoric. I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to determine whether that is the case, but there is certainly truth in the idea. The irony is that such overwrought emotionalism is (in my view) the antithesis of a spiritual experience. I have on occasion heard in Church what I considered to be performances, and I think the experience was lessened thereby.

Again, I am not trying to be critical. In fact, I am trying not to be critical, but just point out my observations.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

the science seems fairly settled - diversity does indeed rock, and qualifies as a useful virtue.

I could not disagree more. Perhaps it's all in the definitions of words, as you say. But diversity alone is not helpful except in extremely narrow and mostly artificial circumstances. A fully loaded 747 represents a tremendous amount of human diversity, but there are only two or three people among that diversity that I would trust to fly the plane. Christ did not say, "If ye are not diverse, ye are not mine." In many ways, this mania in favor of diversity takes us ever further from our goal of unity with the Father and the Son.

[NeuroTypical]

I get it.  I'm speaking totally from the body of literature studying competitive edges businesses can get for themselves.   And I also really enjoy being a minority a lot of the time.  Outside of my church and family, I'm most comfortable being the only LDS in the room, or the only conservative.  

Edited February 9, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

I could not agree with him more. We should always seek to avoid turning a sacrament meeting talk or gospel doctrine lesson, or for that matter anything of any sacred significance, into performance art.

Goodness me...I could not disagree more. Interesting.

To me that's like saying we should all bear our testimonies in robot voices without any emotional inflection whatsoever.

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

The focus should never, ever be on us,

This is an internal thing though, not an external one. Someone who gives a moving, emotional performance of a song may or may not have pride in doing so. That doesn't affect the "performance" nature of the performance.

Putting "performance" and "worship" at odds one with another, as if they're mutually exclusive, is just not correct (no offense, Orson Scott Card).

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

Nibley claimed that The Church (meaning the ancient Roman Catholic Church) replaced spirit with emotion and rhetoric. I'll leave it to those more knowledgeable than myself to determine whether that is the case, but there is certainly truth in the idea. The irony is that such overwrought emotionalism is (in my view) the antithesis of a spiritual experience.

Once again...why do emotion and the Spirit need to be at odds and mutually exclusive? My experience is they go hand in hand. Emotion replacing the Spirit is a problem. But emotion AND the Spirit seems pretty legit for a lot of people. I know some people dislike it. My brother has the same sort of sentiment. But rejecting it as if it's not a reality for many feels mistaken to me.

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have on occasion heard in Church what I considered to be performances, and I think the experience was lessened thereby.

But do you recognize that, perhaps, those experiences may have been some of the most spiritual for others who interact with the world, emotions, and the Spirit differently?

As for myself, the emotionless, academic performances (because, let's be clear here...it's all performance at some level) leave me cold, asleep, bored, and make it harder to engage. And I think we'd agree either way....not engaged is a guaranteed way to not feel the Spirit. And that's my point. People engage differently and for different reasons.

Edit: Btw, "reverently" is a "performance" method. And I'm not suggesting all performance methods are appropriate.

Edited February 9, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

I could not agree with him more. We should always seek to avoid turning a sacrament meeting talk or gospel doctrine lesson, or for that matter anything of any sacred significance, into performance art.

Goodness me...I could not disagree more. Interesting.

To me that's like saying we should all bear our testimonies in robot voices without any emotional inflection whatsoever.

But that was not at all what was being said.

What is the real goal of our testimony that we are bearing in Church? Is it to testify of the Savior and bring the voice of the Spirit into the hearts of the listeners? Or is it to draw attention to ourselves? That latter thing need not be an attempt to draw plaudits or admiration. Merely saying "Look at me!" tends to draw attention away from where it belongs.

There are times that it may be appropriate to say, "I am an example of blah blah," either for positive or negative. But in all cases, the intent should always be to testify of Christ and his works, and not a bid for attention. When the hymn being sung or played becomes an opportunity for the singer or player to reveal his virtuosity or demonstrate deep emotional interpretations, it ceases to be an act of worship and becomes a form of immodesty and hypocrisy. That should always be avoided.

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Once again...why do emotion and the Spirit need to be at odds and mutually exclusive?

They certainly need not be at odds. The older I get, the more I find my emotions intruding on my spirituality. I think maybe this is a good thing, a way of integrating two aspects of my being that should be working together.

But emotion is often easily confused with the Spirit. I have witnessed this in Church since my earliest childhood days. I was put off by the hypocrisy of people who would stand crying and blubbering in testimony meeting but treat people unkindly and be much less than honest in their dealings with others outside of sacrament meeting. It seemed hypocrisy to me, at least. It taught me that feeling some emotion at the moment, or seeing others display emotion, was in no way an indicator of real spiritual involvement. That was a lesson I learned perhaps too well, and it has taken most of my sixty years to begin to unlearn it. My bias is still to distrust overt emotionalism labeled as spiritual experience, though I do recognize that as a bias and am exploring other options for how to perceive such things.