A recent film inside a Mormon temple detailing rituals and doctrines

VIDEO by Newnamenoah – the 8 minute video clip. See full film (1 hour 16 min) at the bottom of this post.

Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA....

Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Taken by myself with a Canon 10D and 17-40mm f/4 L lens. This is a 3 segment panorama. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

An intriguing look at Mormon beliefs that shows that the Church of Latter Day Saints has a whole ‘nother gospel, and it is certainly not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It is pretty uncomfortable to watch how Mormonism borrows from Christianity and Judaism, yet denies the most central tenets of both religions. In Mormonism, the god Elohim is not all knowing (makes for a pretty weak god) and Michael is believed to be equal to Jesus. Some weird rituals are alarming, like where man calls on God „Oh God, hear the words of my mouth” and then Satan shows up and says, „I am the God of this world”. Five minutes later, everyone in the room is wearing the same sort of „apron” and chanting „Oh God, hear the words of my mouth.

It seems like this film is used as a training tool to those that are chosen to participate in these secret rituals. By the way, yes, plenty of masonic symbols are part of the rituals here too.

Purpose for posting this? We need to have a rudimentary understanding of other ‘faiths’ and have a basic understanding of what a Mormon believes in order to have conversations about the Christian Gospel of Jesus Christ with them.

VIDEO by Newnamenoah Secretly filmed in 2012 by an ex Mormon. Filming contains the movie that is shown to Mormons to teach them about Mormonism. The first 20 minutes cover the Mormon version of creation and the fall of Adam and Eve, in which the actor playing Satan introduces/talks about interaction with God in other worlds (planets)-a Mormon belief. At the 24th minute, the movie stops and the action begins inside the Mormon temple with the secret participants, who were not allowed to share any of the information with anyone else, including their families. There are secret handshakes and passwords for different rituals. Video length 1 hour 16 minutes.

Full film (1 hour 16 min)

The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon

Although many of us may not encounter a person of the mormon faith, it is good to know how it differs from christianity and to be prepared to share our own faith with respect and based on knowledge rather than caricatures and misunderstandings. We have come to meet (i.e. see through the media during this election cycle) that there are some very moral and upright Mormons living out their faith in the public square. So, therefore it is important to know and understand the real difference between our faiths. Most devout people of different faith truly believe in the teachings of their faith and so we do need a basic understanding of the tenets of their own faith in order to talk to them about our own faith in Jesus Christ. This video is just one small step in that understanding on a subject this blog has never broached before.

English: Title page of a 1830 copy of The Book...

English: Title page of a 1830 copy of The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This video is made by Living Hope Ministries, a ministry of exmormons who in many cases still have spouses and family members who are Mormons and the video is intended to show the difference between christianity and mormonism. I think it’s a helpful tool in understanding these differences in the even that you would have a conversation with someone who is of the Mormon faith. Is the Book of Mormon based on something historical? Does the text tell a true story of the past? And can someone believe it spiritually? An in depth look at how the Book of Mormon was written.
Published on Nov 2, 2012 by 

 

Why Conservative Churches Are Growing- The Christian Post

In an April 26 guest opinion  post for the Christian Post, R. Albert Mohler explains why Conservative Churches are growing-

By the late 1960s, liberal Protestants began asking a rather difficult question. Why were the conservative churches growing? In retrospect, one aspect of the liberal Protestant crisis was reflected in that very question. The mainline Protestant denominations would have been better served by asking why their own churches were declining.

Commissioned by the National Council of Churches, researcher Dean M. Kelley set out to find out why conservative churches were growing, even as the more liberal churches were declining. In his 1972 book, Why Conservative Churches are Growing: A Study in Sociology of Religion, Kelley argued that evangelical churches grow precisely because they do what the more liberal congregations and denominations intentionally reject – they make serious demands of believers in terms of doctrine and behavior.

“Amid the current neglect and hostility toward organized religion in general,” Kelley noted, “the conservative churches, holding to seemingly outmoded theology and making strict demands on their members, have equalled or surpassed in growth the early percentage increases of the nation’s population.”

With amazing insight and candor, Kelley spoke for mainline Protestantism when he noted that it had been generally assumed that churches, “if they want to succeed, will be reasonable, rational, courteous, responsible, restrained, and receptive to outside criticism.” These churches would be highly concerned with preserving “a good image in the world” – and that meant especially within the world of the cultural elites. These churches, intending to grow, would be “democratic and gentle in their internal affairs” – as the larger world defines those qualities. These churches will intend to be cooperative with other religious groups in order to meet common goals, and thus “will not let dogmatism, judgmental moralism, or obsessions with cultic purity stand in the way of such cooperation and service.”

Then, Kelley dropped his bomb: “These expectations are a recipe for the failure of the religious enterprise, and arise from a mistaken view of what success in religion is and how it should be fostered and measured.”

Kelley then presented his considerable wealth of research and reflection on the phenomenon of conservative growth and liberal decline. “Strong” religious movements make demands of their members in terms of both belief and behavior. These churches demand adherence to highly defined doctrines that are to be received, believed, and taught without compromise. They also understand themselves to be separate from the larger secular culture, and the requirements of membership in the church define a distance from secular beliefs and behaviors.

The liberal churches are, by their own decision, opposed to these very principles. The mainline Protestant churches desired to be taken seriously and respected by the intellectual elites. They wanted the benefits of cultural acceptance and esteem. They lowered doctrinal and behavioral requirements and made membership more a matter of personal preference than of theological conviction.

Kelley concluded: “To the person who is concerned about the future of the ecumenical churches, this theory can offer little encouragement. The mainline denominations will continue to exist on a diminishing scale for decades, perhaps for centuries, and will continue to supply some people with a dilute and undemanding form of meaning, which may be all they want.”

In a recent column in The New York Times, David Brooks raised similar issues, this time in the context of a review of “The Book of Mormon,” a popular production on Broadway. In Brooks’ view, the show “ridicules Mormonism but not the Mormons, who are loopy but ultimately admirable.”

In the course of his column, Brooks made this observation:

Many religious doctrines are rigid and out of touch. But religion itself can do enormous good as long as people take religious teaching metaphorically and not literally; as long as people understand that all religions ultimately preach love and service underneath their superficial particulars; as long as people practice their faiths open-mindedly and are tolerant of different beliefs.

Hang in there – David Brooks is headed somewhere with this argument. He noted that many Americans “have always admired the style of belief that is spiritual but not doctrinal, pluralistic and not exclusive, which offers tools for serving the greater good but is not marred by intolerant theological judgments.”

And he is right, of course. This is an eloquent description of the religious disposition so well documented by Dean Kelley almost 40 years ago. This describes the mainline Protestant aspiration – to be seen as serving the public good without the taint of theological judgment.

But then Brooks dropped a bombshell of his own:

The only problem with “The Book of Mormon” (you realize when thinking about it later) is that its theme is not quite true. Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn’t actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.

Further: “The religions that thrive have exactly what “The Book of Mormon” ridicules: communal theologies, doctrines and codes of conduct rooted in claims of absolute truth.”

Note that Brooks defined the “strong” profile of belief with terms such as “rigorous,” “arduous,” and “definite.” With considerable insight, Brooks informed his readers that rigorous theology “provides believers with a map of reality,” “allows believers to examine the world intellectually as well as emotionally,” “helps people avoid mindless conformity,” and “delves into mysteries in ways that are beyond most of us.”

Meanwhile, arduous codes of behavior and conduct “allow people to build their character.” Brooks explains that “regular acts of discipline can lay the foundation for extraordinary acts of self-control when it counts the most.”

Brooks concludes with a look at Africa, where conservative Protestantism is thriving. The Broadway show portrays the Africans accepting the liberal form of belief that would comfort the cultured antagonists of religion. Brooks knows that it is not so:

I was once in an AIDS-ravaged village in southern Africa. The vague humanism of the outside do-gooders didn’t do much to get people to alter their risky behavior. The blunt theological talk of the church ladies – right and wrong, salvation and damnation – seemed to have a better effect.

In the span of just a few paragraphs, David Brooks made the same argument that Dean M. Kelley made in his book-length report on research nearly four decades ago.

There is a wealth of insight in both analyses. In the present context, evangelical Christians face many of the same questions asked by the liberal Protestant denominations in the 1960s and beyond. The main question is always deeply theological: Do we really believe that the message of the Gospel is the only message that offers salvation?

At this point, the limits of sociological research become clear. A sociological analysis can distinguish between stronger and weaker forms of faith and belief and can measure qualities such as rigor, ardor, and definiteness. Sociology can trace developments and offer research-based predictions about the future.

What sociology cannot do is deal with the most important question of all – the truth question. That is where Mormons and evangelical Christians part company. Orthodox Jews, Jesuits, and Jehovah’s Witnesses all fall on the “strong” side of the sociological divide in their own way, but each has a completely distinct worldview based upon very different understandings of the truth. Mormons and Methodists have very different theologies, to say the least, but it takes a theologically informed Mormon and Methodist to know the difference.

Dean M. Kelley and David Brooks, each writing for a very different audience, have much to say to evangelical Christians. But, in the end, sociology can get us only so far and no further. The rigor, ardor, and energies of evangelical churches must not be held merely in a desire to hold to a form of religion that will grow, but in a biblical commitment to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel and to share that saving truth with the whole world.

We are left with what David Brooks described as the “blunt theological talk of the church ladies” in that African village – “right and wrong, salvation and damnation.” Such is the Kingdom.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.’s weblog at www.albertmohler.com. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.



Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari