Mormon Temple Film (1969) User Reviews

Totally Secret

[danschuring · 3/10 · 11 July 2022]

One of the viewers wrote, "The temple ceremony is sacred, not secret."

I call total BS on this.

"secret adjective 1a: kept from knowledge or view : HIDDEN b: marked by the habit of discretion : CLOSEMOUTHED c: working with hidden aims or methods : UNDERCOVER a secret agent d: not acknowledged : UNAVOWED a secret bride e: conducted in secret a secret trial 2: remote from human frequentation or notice : SECLUDED 3: revealed only to the initiated : ESOTERIC 4: designed to elude observation or detection a secret panel 5: containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security" (per Merriam-Webster)

By definition, the temple ceremony is secret. The reviewer either doesn't know what they're talking about, or they're being deceptive. Either way, their credibility is blown.

Yes, the temple ceremony is also sacred to many devout believers. This fact does not require respect. I respect the reviewer's right to believe and cherish whatever they want, regardless of how ridiculous the belief may be. But, until you can provide evidence for the veracity of said extraordinary belief, the belief merits no respect as to its validity. Case in point, Brigham Young, the second president of the Mormon Church, taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. He thought this belief was so important, he even had it incorporated into the Mormon temple ceremonies (Google FAIR LDS's "Brigham Young's Adam-God theory").

I respect that Brigham had a right to believe whatever he wanted to believe, but the belief merits no respect at any level. Even the LDS Church has repudiated the doctrine.

Side note - I gave the movie 3 stars. It's boring, repetitive, and provides little, if any, new information. But, Gordon Jump was in this old version. He rocked, even if a few of his beliefs merited no respect.

This film seems like a reheated Masonic Temple ceremony

[Deacon-Collar · 1/10 · 24 January 2007]

The acting, sets, and costumes were excellent but these things can never compensate for the lame screen play by Joseph Smith, Jr. This is so despite significant rewrites through the years by other writers. The story itself is like a bad version of Milton's "Paradise Lost" which ties in closely with Masonic Temple ceremonies.

The viewings I attended were very interactive with a costumed audience and not unlike "Rocky Horror Picture Show" in that regard although the participants only wore white and were much more sober than a typical RHP crowd. Both are definitely cult classics considering the many viewings they receive.

The acting is decent. Lena Tulaunen Rogers is totally steamy in the role of Eve. She left me wanting to see more. Ron Frederickson as Lucifer chilled my blood in one scene in which he turns to the audience and warns them about disclosing the secrets revealed in the film. I liked Gordon Jump (in the role of Peter) much better as the inept boss in "WKRP in Cincinnati". Definitely a poor casting choice.

This film can only be viewed as a sort of cult classic. If you can't enjoy it on that level my advice is steer clear of it.

Saves your soul, emptiness follows

[MysuperID · 9 July 2009]

Bad acting, worse screen writing. The beginning is a collage of pretty landscapes and animals. But the warm fuzzies soon go away as the rest of the plot makes no sense and leaves you gaping your jaw at the inconsistencies. The acting seems rigid and is laughable at points. I blame the director more than the actors, they were working with a horrible script. The film has a few "participate with the movie" moments that are too contrived. You are expected to pledge your entire life and your talents and all that you have to the LDS church, without being told beforehand. The clothing packet is very awkward and you have to use it correctly or else you'll be given scorn from the movie administrators. While the temple film is supposed to be a spiritual experience, it lacks severely in that department. There are boring dialogs and strange handshakes, but no teachings from the Savior Jesus Christ. But there are long acts with Satan included heavily. It seemed more a movie to make people afraid of not doing temple covenants rather than give a good experience. Unless this comes out on DVD, I would never recommend this theater experience to anyone.

Nothing a good old whitewashing can't take care of

[anyonehaveanswers · 1/10 · 23 February 2018]

Honestly, this movie is just bad the whole way around. The production quality is terrible. the script is dated and even though being updated, it still just blows.

The honest thought that Jesus was white (like old Michael Jackson white) is just absurd. He was from the middle east, he was not pale white like this film wants you to believe.

Then the whole fact that Jesus sends his disciples down to Adam and Eve, they are able to shake hands and all, load of crap. These guys have not even been on earth yet to have a body, and if you ever learned the crap from Joe Smith, if they are not a resurrected being, they cant shake hands. So right there this movie contradicts the exact teachings that come from the church that produced it.

Lets not forget the total cost of viewing this thing too, 10% of everything you make. No, not $10 like a normal movie ticket, 10% of EVERYTHING you bring home in the form of a paycheck (this also goes against what Joe Smith taught, but that's a topic for another discussion).

The movie itself is so boring, that watching it causes at least one person in the theater to fall asleep every showing. The only saving grace is the small workout routine that you get having to stand up and sit every so often. But the clothing that you put on by the end of it (yes, it has you get dressed while going through it) is just ridiculous.

For those of you who want to see this film without the 10% income charge, youtube "New Name Noah" and you can find the whole thing for free.

The strangest movie you'll never see

[lutheranchick · 1/10 · 4 April 2006]

This film is only available to those who are "temple worthy" members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormons). It is shown to attendees at the Mormon temples throughout the country. While perhaps millions of people have seen this film (or the original live-action version), you will never see it on television, never be able to rent it from Blockbuster or Netflix, and never download it from a web site. Even devout Mormons will concede that this film is not well-produced and many consider it the low point of their temple experience. Nonetheless, that it is supposed to be a secret, and it is a secret kept by millions of people, makes this probably one of the most important low-budget films in American history.

Entertainment? No. It serves a higher purpose.

[ilikechickentacos · 10/10 · 21 May 2005]

I'm certain that you have been on an airline flight within the last ten years. Therefore you have probably seen the in-flight safety video. As we all know, those videos are horrid. The acting is awful. The production values are cheap. The music—at best—sounds like elevator muzak. So why do they keep showing it every time you board a flight? Probably because the video's value in saving your life outweighs its need in being commercially entertaining. The same is true of the temple video. One doesn't go to a Latter-day Saint temple to be entertained any more than one turns on "Friends" to discover the meaning of life.

What, then, is the purpose of a temple video? Originally, live actors carried out the temple ceremony. However, since the church has grown to 12 million members, and roughly 120 temples span the globe, it is impossible to extensively staff each temple with not just caretakers, cleaning crew, maintenance, but actors as well. Hence, the video was created, and done simply so that it could be dubbed in various languages.

Many wonder what happens behind those "closed doors" and what that "Mormon cult" is doing to brainwash its members. The temple ceremony is sacred, not secret. A trip to the temple is open to all who wish to enter (including a viewing of the temple video), as long as they have taken the necessary steps of baptism into the church and adhere to gospel standards.

Those who have not taken any sort of steps to spiritually prepare themselves (or, those who "sneak in" or lie to their priesthood authorities in a personal interview) often find the ceremonies of the temple dry, boring, and pointless. Those who make some effort to adhere to the gospel, however, leave the ceremony refreshed, motivated, and renewed. Those who have actually cracked open the scriptures at some point and actually tried to read a few passages will note many symbols and references given throughout the temple ceremony (including the video). To the dismay of anti-Mormons, the video contains no juicy secrets, crazy end of the world prophecies, or (according to some virulent anti-Mormons) sordid sex scenes. To the conspiracy theorist, it is a huge letdown. That's why so much anti-Mormon media contains so many inaccuracies and insinuations. There simply isn't enough stuff to fuel their hate, so they have to invent it.

Since its inception in 1830, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been the victim of much persecution. Not many know, but in Missouri it was actually legal to kill a Mormon (It's not a joke, it was actually legal to take someone's life based on their religious belief. You don't agree with your Jewish/Buddhist/Jehovah's Witness friend? Why not kill him?) Today it is more verbal than physical. There are many who do not agree with the tenets of the LDS Church. That is perfectly fine, to each his own. However, the average person (LDS or not) should probably question why some people go to all the trouble of mocking LDS temple ceremonies, drive hundreds of miles to disrupt LDS conferences, and spit on artifacts Mormons hold sacred in front of their holy sanctuaries. Could it be that these close-minded, hate-filled "Christians" are the same type of people who would have called for the crucifixion of that controversial "menace to society", Jesus Christ, were they living 2,000 years ago?

Watch Leah Remini (or anything else) instead...

[wizbies · 1/10 · 30 November 2018]

This movie is dull (bring your phone), low quality, and high priced (10% of your income). There are similar movies on Youtube about the Garden of Eden experience which are a lot shorter and you don't need to wear really weird green aprons. Some mormons claim a victim mentality (a common mindset) about how it is sacred. They are entitled to their opinion, but if you just are looking for something thought provoking, I'd go through Netflix and watch basically anything else. I assure you that the show you choose will have more meaning than the Mormon Temple Movie. Wild wild west is particularly good.

Boring yet very expensive

[Apollocandybar · 1/10 · 25 October 2022]

I've seen this film dozens of times at a very high cost, yet never enjoy it. Dull, contrived, poor acting, weird handshakes and circles of spooky prayer. The best part is operatic Satan speaking directly into the camera, warning viewers he will "reign down with BLOOD AND HORROR on this earth!" Classic. Otherwise wholly dull. Eve is an automaton who only speaks to Adam, not straight to God. God and Jesus wear hip white lamé gowns but go barefoot, inexplicably. Best part is a few breaks to be shown secret handshakes by elderly temple workers. 0/10 recommended. Use your 10% income to pay bills, travel, uplift the poor.

Definitely not worth the entrance fee!

[breakingdawnfailed · 10 October 2010]

I was a BIC, lifelong member of the Church of Joseph Smith of Latter day Suckers. My parents were members, and we were raised in it. I grew up singing songs about sunbeams and popcorn popping on the apricot trees. (WTF?) I gave hours and hours and hours of my life (usually in 3 hour blocks EVERY Sunday, except conference weekends, which were endless...) I held onto my chastity, eschewed tobacco and caffeine, and often said, "I can't, I'm Mormon." And when I was 19, I was preparing to marry my RM in the temple.

I was told I would learn things that would strengthen my relationship with Heavenly Father. I was told it was an experience that would transcend anything I had known on earth. I was told that I might see Jesus himself walking the halls of the temple. (No, really.) What did I get? I got to dress in a horrible white outfit (expect for the green apron) and cover my face with a veil in Heavenly Father's presence, and watch a terribly made B movie. I was taught handshakes and passwords that I would need to get into the celestial kingdom. I made bloody oaths to never reveal what went on in the temple. I got a new name (Mary). And it was on that day, looking around myself at all the fools in baker's caps, doing gruesome mimes and promising to give all I will ever have to the CHURCH (not to HF), that I realized something was terribly wrong. With my friends and family and fiancé waiting for me, however, I had no choice but to go along with it. 19 years of abuse by my "priesthood holder" later I resigned, taking my children with me.

Now I stand before God with no veil over my face. This video will forever go down as one of the biggest jokes I have ever seen. Foolishness, ever last second.

Please don't treat this like a theatrical presentation, because it isn't one

[kou_mingzhi · 23 June 2005]

This film is part of someone's personal devotion. I would hope that, however weird or twisted some may consider that devotion to be, any viewing or commenting on this entry would at least accord it the respect that they would hope would be accorded to their own personal devotion, religious or otherwise. It is disrespectful and irrelevant to treat it in the same fashion in which you would treat a film that was intended as a salable entertainment experience for public consumption. It was never intended as a commercial product, or an entertainment experience, or anything remotely similar thereunto. If treating that which is important to others in this sort of mischaracterized and derogatory fashion cannot be avoided, please have the common courtesy not to do so in a public setting. No one who has seen this in the setting in which it was designed to be viewed, or is involved with what it represents, is interested in outside commentary on it.