What is your perception of the man Adam?

[Archaea]

Is he the first of our "race", whatever that is intended to mean?

Is it a calling?

Were there multiple Adams?

Do you speculate that there is anything to the Adam God concept which Brigham Young taught? If so, what part?


Is it simply a myth, showing rebirth by submission to the will of God?

We are each to imagine ourselves as an Adam, what does this mean?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Is he the first of our "race", whatever that is intended to mean?

Is it a calling?

Were there multiple Adams?

Do you speculate that there is anything to the Adam God concept which Brigham Young taught? If so, what part?


Is it simply a myth, showing rebirth by submission to the will of God?

We are each to imagine ourselves as an Adam, what does this mean?

I think there was a man we now identify as Adam who is our mutual ancestor. A lot of this belief is based on the idea of Michael, or of the Ancient of Days. These teachings seem to suggest that Adam is one single entity.

But that doesn't preclude the idea that the story of Adam is not symbolic of mankind in general. That's be pretty hard to argue, given that his name means mankind.

As for the Adam God theory . . . I don't believe Adam is the same person as our Heavenly Father. He is the mortal progenitor of humankind, but not the spiritual progenitor.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't give any historical creedence to the Temple story--it is simply theater and should not be given any weight as scripture or as history.

I tend to agree with this. It is not a literal account of history, but rather a rendition of accounts sculpted to teach.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't give any historical creedence to the Temple story--it is simply theater and should not be given any weight as scripture or as history.

I agree that the Temple Endowment is theater, but I object to the notion of it being "simply" such. It is powerfully and complexly theater, theater that affirms that God does not only communicate through the medium of writing, but also through enactment, voice, and image.

Please forgive the nit pick.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Adam

It might have been powerful at one time, before the transistor and vacuum tube.

In today's world of movies and video games, the visual and intellectual stimulation of the Temple ceremony is not powerful at all. Maybe the signs and tokens and funny hats impressed the minds of previous generations, but they do not generally impress this generation at all.

They should eliminate much of the superfluous content of the current endowment, focus on the covenants and names and do the thing in 30 minutes.

Your claims are misplaced. I'm not referring to stimulation and am not measuring the power of theater through "impression." As a fellow who is weeks away from his PhD in Communication Studies, with an emphasis in media studies, I am very aware of the technologial issues.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your claims are misplaced. I'm not referring to stimulation and am not measuring the power of theater through "impression." As a fellow who is weeks away from his PhD in Communication Studies, with an emphasis in media studies, I am very aware of the technologial issues.

What aspects do you deem the temple "powerful" theatre?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

It might have been powerful at one time, before the transistor and vacuum tube.

In today's world of movies and video games, the visual and intellectual stimulation of the Temple ceremony is not powerful at all. Maybe the signs and tokens and funny hats impressed the minds of previous generations, but they do not generally impress this generation at all.

They should eliminate much of the superfluous content of the current endowment, focus on the covenants and names and do the thing in 30 minutes.

I think the current generation might disagree with you.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

What aspects do you deem the temple "powerful" theatre?

I could go off on this subject for a loooooooooooong time, but I'm in a bit of a time crunch this morning.

I can do a series of posts on this after my defense. I could take up Goffmann, Schiller (who you're probably familiar with, Arch,), Brecht, Innis, Virilio, Benjamin, Carey, Schechner, Burke...

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Adam

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it. . . .

If it is powerful in a way that doesn't make an impression, does it matter?

If it is powerful to those who study ancient Egypt and those who study theater/communications, but boring for the vast majority of others, you can blame the others or admit that your show is out of date.

Of what "vast majority" do you speak? I've not taken a scientific poll, but I am of the understanding that most find the temple presentation to be quite powerful.

[Archaea]

Most say they find it powerful. That is what you're supposed to say.

It has a great spirit, and if you study ancient Egypt or media presentation, you can find and see the sympbolism. You're a classicist so it appeals.

However, I know many, many members who don't find the endowment ceremony meaningful at all, but enjoy the trip to the celestial room, which is and are beautiful.

To enjoy the endowment ceremony, one must work at it. And invest lots of study in its history, which we are not supposed to discuss.

If and when they revise the ceremony, how would they revise it?