Kirk Cameron's "Monumental"

[Steve53]

Not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers. I realize that his salvation is not being called into question; however, apostate means abandonment of one's faith. He has NOT abandoned his faith. Considering that, I am STILL baffled as to why this post is in this board!

I see no "dangerous doctrine", either. He is NOT leading people astray from salvation...so I question the judgement call here. Don't get me wrong...I have learned many things on this forum through the years. I do not post much b/c I am a mother of 3 boys I don't have a lot of time to do much of anything but take care of them! I am just flabbergasted at this post on this board!

The sub-forum heading also includes the phrase "Belief Systems" not just apostasy. Kirk's belief system is the problem and shows a lack of discernment as has been demonstrated in previous posts.

[billiefan2000]

http://worldviewweekend.com/worldvie...howsFlat-20934


Worldview Weekend Radio with Brannon Howse


Part Two: On today’s program Brannon shares nine of the twenty characteristics of false teachers embraced by the false church.


Part three will air on Wednesday. All of these twenty characteristics come from the Bible and Brannon gives the scriptures for you to write down. How can you protect yourself, your family, your friends, and your church if you do not know how to identify false teachers. Today’s program equips you will the facts you need to contend earnestly for the faith against false teachers.


But first; hear the clips of Kirk Cameron on with Michael Medved and Medved tells Kirk the Masons were behind the monument in Kirk’s film.


Medved also tells Kirk that some of the founding fathers were Masons and that the Masons wanted to support religion.


Medved says the Masons "were behind this Monument".


Medved was complimentary of the Masons and their involvement with the Monument to the Forefathers.

Kirk clears his throat, stutters and seems very taken back by Medved's comments. This is interesting because last week on his facebook page Kirk wrote, "…neither the film nor the monument have anything to do with Freemasonry."



We never said the film has anything to do with Freemasonry but the monument sure does and we have documented that and now Michael Medved tells Kirk the same thing.



On his facebook page Kirk Cameron wrote last week "No need to be troubled by the conspiracy theorists who have not watched the film, and do not understand the history of this beautiful monument."



I wonder if Kirk now thinks Michael Medved is a conspiracy theorist for saying the monument was funded and built by the Masons?


Medved, an orthodox Jewish man, was complimentary of the film but he did close the interview by telling Kirk that Monument to the Forefathers, the statue his film is based around, was ugly.


Kirk seemed to be taken back by this comment as well.

[HeIsEnough]

I actually heard the beginning of that broadcast on the way home today. He seemed to brush over it at first, then I turned it. Kirk needs a history lesson, or he knew from the beginning.

[Barachem]

Big oops there on Kirk's part.

Has anyone seen the movie yet?

[Sandra17012]

Big oops there on Kirk's part.

Has anyone seen the movie yet?

I have not seen it. Here is a review I found.


Monumental Confusion

A Review of Kirk Cameron's Documentary: Monumental

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worl...articleid=8123

[angelka71]

have not seen it. Here is a review I found.


Monumental Confusion

A Review of Kirk Cameron's Documentary: Monumental

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worl...articleid=8123

This review does a pretty good job describing the movie but the conclusions he draws makes me wonder if we even saw the same film. Lol. I'll explain where I differ from this review.

First off, we were late to the movie (had to wait for the babysitter and she was late) so we barely caught the tail end of the intoduction with Glenn Beck. I saw him on the screen, but honestly can't even tell you what he said bc we were looking for a seat, (the theater was full) and trying to get situated. Once we sat down, I decided I did want popcorn after all, but at this point, my husband was annoyed that I didn't get it when we arrived at the theater so he made me get it myself. (Hmph!) Anyway, this is to say that I missed Kirk Cameron's introduction to others associated with the move. I got back into the theater with my popcorn just in time to hear him say, "And now we introduce the movie Monumental."

The movie starts off with Kirk Cameron talking about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. He talks about how the right blames the left, big government blames big business, Hollywood blames the church, etc etc and he says that with so many blaming eachother, he hasn't heard anyone talk about any solutions to fix the country.

Next comes what I beleive would be the most offensive to some here. (except maybe for Glenn Beck's introduction) Kirk Cameron says he is frustrated by those in the church who see the direction our country is headed and refuse to do anything about it. They tell him that this is all a good thing because it means that the end is near and that soon we will all be with God. But he wonders, what if the end doesn't come right away; he has children and will one day have grandchildren and he wants them to have the same freedoms he has had. He talks about the trials the pilgrims/Puritans faced. How in England, it must have seemed like the end of the world to them bc the government and the church were together in power and that they were basically forced to swear their allegiance to the king. In fact, it was illegal to even own an english printed Bible, it was considered treason and many were in fact, imprisoned for it. But he says, they didn't just roll over believing this was the end and therefore just accept what the government and church were doing. He said through prayer and because of having the Word and being able to read it for themselves, they decided to make their way to a country where they could study and worship as they felt led to do by God.

The movie goes through some very touching and inspiring information regarding the faith of the Puritans...how God had led them and been faithful to them. The miracles they experianced. It was all very moving for both me and my husband.

The review above discusses the Monument and I agree completely with the review. I wondered if the information being given in the film interpreting what all the symbols meant was true. I hope it is all true bc the entire point of the "monument" was that we all needed to have faith in God, through the Word, let Him change our hearts. Then it showed the parents and grandparents teaching our children and grandchildren about the Word of God and that it is the parent's responsibility to educate the children (Kirk took that as a nod toward home schooling and not government schools). There was something else on the monument about laws and justice but I forget the specifics. The bottom line was doing all of those things is the only way to result in true freedom and a free society.

It then goes on to the founding fathers and David Barton and he shows a Bible that was the first English Bible printed in the US that was paid for by the US congress and was to be taught in schools! Barton was talking about how groups in the US are specifically trying to re-write history and are making a conscious effort to remove God from our culture when that is clearly not what the founding fathers intended.

The point that Kirk Cameron is trying to make in the movie is that the only reason the US has been as successful as it has is BECAUSE we have made Christ the head and that removing Him is the reason for our failings. If we want to restore our country, we must restore Christ as the leader in our personal lives and families. He specifically said, "It's not about a theocracy, that's what the Puritans left behind and what they were fighting against."

As we were driving home, my husband and I talked about how surprised we were bc we were prepared for the movie to be completely secular with little to no mention of Christ or the Bible or the gospel. But like my husband said, "How else are you going to get the secular, non-believing world to see a movie like this?" Then we both had a good laugh about how shocked an atheist would be to see it also believing it to be a secular documentary.

There were a couple of things about it that made me a little uncomfortable. First of all, the monument...just not sure about the true meanings of the symbols , but even still, many of the "symbols" were of an actual, open Bible so I didn't think that was suspicious.

Other than that, at the end of the film, Kirk Cameron says that this is the end of the film but only the beginning of the journey...he has more material at a website address he gives and even mentions small group studies. That may or may not mean anything, I would just have to look into it further.

Anyway, just wanted to let you guys know that I had seen it and the impressions I got from it. I hope some of the others here see it as I believe it will be showing in other theaters and I'm sure it will come out on DVD. Would love to hear what you guys think about it after seeing it for yourself. You know I like to run everything by my RR brothers and sisters.

[Mitsy]

Often the only thing some Christians or Saved Believers can agree upon is that we are Saved through the Blood of Christ alone.



Personally if Kirk Cameron has a wrong understanding of these Last Days then I pray for the Lord to help him come out of the wrong teachings he has heard and come to understand fully what the Bible has recorded about what will happen in these End Days.

PHP 1:9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ--to the glory and praise of God.

Praying this for Kirk Cameron.

[Take me away!]

This review does a pretty good job describing the movie but the conclusions he draws makes me wonder if we even saw the same film. Lol. I'll explain where I differ from this review.

First off, we were late to the movie (had to wait for the babysitter and she was late) so we barely caught the tail end of the intoduction with Glenn Beck. I saw him on the screen, but honestly can't even tell you what he said bc we were looking for a seat, (the theater was full) and trying to get situated. Once we sat down, I decided I did want popcorn after all, but at this point, my husband was annoyed that I didn't get it when we arrived at the theater so he made me get it myself. (Hmph!) Anyway, this is to say that I missed Kirk Cameron's introduction to others associated with the move. I got back into the theater with my popcorn just in time to hear him say, "And now we introduce the movie Monumental."

The movie starts off with Kirk Cameron talking about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket. He talks about how the right blames the left, big government blames big business, Hollywood blames the church, etc etc and he says that with so many blaming eachother, he hasn't heard anyone talk about any solutions to fix the country.

Next comes what I beleive would be the most offensive to some here. (except maybe for Glenn Beck's introduction) Kirk Cameron says he is frustrated by those in the church who see the direction our country is headed and refuse to do anything about it. They tell him that this is all a good thing because it means that the end is near and that soon we will all be with God. But he wonders, what if the end doesn't come right away; he has children and will one day have grandchildren and he wants them to have the same freedoms he has had. He talks about the trials the pilgrims/Puritans faced. How in England, it must have seemed like the end of the world to them bc the government and the church were together in power and that they were basically forced to swear their allegiance to the king. In fact, it was illegal to even own an english printed Bible, it was considered treason and many were in fact, imprisoned for it. But he says, they didn't just roll over believing this was the end and therefore just accept what the government and church were doing. He said through prayer and because of having the Word and being able to read it for themselves, they decided to make their way to a country where they could study and worship as they felt led to do by God.

The movie goes through some very touching and inspiring information regarding the faith of the Puritans...how God had led them and been faithful to them. The miracles they experianced. It was all very moving for both me and my husband.

The review above discusses the Monument and I agree completely with the review. I wondered if the information being given in the film interpreting what all the symbols meant was true. I hope it is all true bc the entire point of the "monument" was that we all needed to have faith in God, through the Word, let Him change our hearts. Then it showed the parents and grandparents teaching our children and grandchildren about the Word of God and that it is the parent's responsibility to educate the children (Kirk took that as a nod toward home schooling and not government schools). There was something else on the monument about laws and justice but I forget the specifics. The bottom line was doing all of those things is the only way to result in true freedom and a free society.

It then goes on to the founding fathers and David Barton and he shows a Bible that was the first English Bible printed in the US that was paid for by the US congress and was to be taught in schools! Barton was talking about how groups in the US are specifically trying to re-write history and are making a conscious effort to remove God from our culture when that is clearly not what the founding fathers intended.

The point that Kirk Cameron is trying to make in the movie is that the only reason the US has been as successful as it has is BECAUSE we have made Christ the head and that removing Him is the reason for our failings. If we want to restore our country, we must restore Christ as the leader in our personal lives and families. He specifically said, "It's not about a theocracy, that's what the Puritans left behind and what they were fighting against."

As we were driving home, my husband and I talked about how surprised we were bc we were prepared for the movie to be completely secular with little to no mention of Christ or the Bible or the gospel. But like my husband said, "How else are you going to get the secular, non-believing world to see a movie like this?" Then we both had a good laugh about how shocked an atheist would be to see it also believing it to be a secular documentary.

There were a couple of things about it that made me a little uncomfortable. First of all, the monument...just not sure about the true meanings of the symbols , but even still, many of the "symbols" were of an actual, open Bible so I didn't think that was suspicious.

Other than that, at the end of the film, Kirk Cameron says that this is the end of the film but only the beginning of the journey...he has more material at a website address he gives and even mentions small group studies. That may or may not mean anything, I would just have to look into it further.

Anyway, just wanted to let you guys know that I had seen it and the impressions I got from it. I hope some of the others here see it as I believe it will be showing in other theaters and I'm sure it will come out on DVD. Would love to hear what you guys think about it after seeing it for yourself. You know I like to run everything by my RR brothers and sisters.

I also saw the movie and I thought it was wonderful. Was not aware of the freemason stuff and will research that further. Angelka explained it perfectly - "The point that Kirk Cameron is trying to make in the movie is that the only reason the US has been as successful as it has is BECAUSE we have made Christ the head and that removing Him is the reason for our failings. If we want to restore our country, we must restore Christ as the leader in our personal lives and families. He specifically said, "It's not about a theocracy, that's what the Puritans left behind and what they were fighting against."

As for the comments Kirk made about Christians and end-times beliefs, I believe he wasn't saying that he doesn't believe that this won't happen, he just doesn't think it's right to just sit around and let the world "go to hell in a handbasket" when we can being doing good for our country. The fact is that yes, The Lord's timing is the Lord's timing and nothing we do or don't do is going to change the ending. But we don't know FOR SURE when this will all take place, and I know there are many Christians that live life without care for the future, as they feel that we have no future. I know several personally who don't save for retirement, don't vote etc. because they think the rapture is going to happen in their lifetime and God will pick the candidate that will be elected, etc. Kirk is saying that we should be fighting to the end for our freedom, and giving the Glory to the Lord, by putting Him first. We are the minority, like the puritans, and he encourages us as believers in God to come together to fight for our freedom by seeking God and putting Him first in our lives and families.

As for Glenn Beck on the show, I was surprised. I think Kirk should have been clear that by seeking God, The ONLY God, Jesus Christ, not mormon or jehovah witness Gods, but THE God, will there ever be true peace and freedom. It seems to me that he feels that the God of mormonism and other religions that have a god are all one and the same. That would be my guess as to why this thread would fall under apostasy.

[HeIsEnough]

You should read the thread again, Dominionism is a subtle error.

[EarsToHear]

I also saw the movie and I thought it was wonderful. Was not aware of the freemason stuff and will research that further. Angelka explained it perfectly - "The point that Kirk Cameron is trying to make in the movie is that the only reason the US has been as successful as it has is BECAUSE we have made Christ the head and that removing Him is the reason for our failings. If we want to restore our country, we must restore Christ as the leader in our personal lives and families. He specifically said, "It's not about a theocracy, that's what the Puritans left behind and what they were fighting against."

As for the comments Kirk made about Christians and end-times beliefs, I believe he wasn't saying that he doesn't believe that this won't happen, he just doesn't think it's right to just sit around and let the world "go to hell in a handbasket" when we can being doing good for our country. The fact is that yes, The Lord's timing is the Lord's timing and nothing we do or don't do is going to change the ending. But we don't know FOR SURE when this will all take place, and I know there are many Christians that live life without care for the future, as they feel that we have no future. I know several personally who don't save for retirement, don't vote etc. because they think the rapture is going to happen in their lifetime and God will pick the candidate that will be elected, etc. Kirk is saying that we should be fighting to the end for our freedom, and giving the Glory to the Lord, by putting Him first. We are the minority, like the puritans, and he encourages us as believers in God to come together to fight for our freedom by seeking God and putting Him first in our lives and families.

I just saw it tonight, also thought it wonderful and agree with your assessment. I learned a lot of interesting historical tidbits and am thankful for the Puritans and Pilgrims, who bravely came here against all odds and planted the seeds for a government to be in accordance with the laws of God.

They put today's Christians who don't even plan on voting to shame.

[clemson]

I just saw it tonight, also thought it wonderful and agree with your assessment. I learned a lot of interesting historical tidbits and am thankful for the Puritans and Pilgrims, who bravely came here against all odds and planted the seeds for a government to be in accordance with the laws of God.

They put today's Christians who don't even plan on voting to shame.

Jamestown was founded on Biblical beliefs and was in fact legalistic. You just don't hear about them because the south lost the war for southern independence.

[tbrian40]

What is this world like? I will give you an example. It is like Dauchau in 1942-43. What is this world like? It is like the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or Jim Jones' 'Utopia'. Dominionism destroys the uniqueness of the Truth. It creates false islands of peace and security. And then the devil comes along and wipes everything out. It is not going to get better. Do I sound bleak? The Word of God says it will be a time like no other. Our hope is not in this world--we are strangers in a strange land. It is going to get alot worse. Witness to the lost without going to their parties of 'mirth'. We are not to mix with unbelievers. I learned this the hard way. Be separate from the world and yet shine with His Light. Pray for the lost. Stand apart from the world and then the lost can see the difference of having Christ Jesus and not. These are dark times. This age is coming to an end. Revelation 4:1.

[Kliska]

The world is heading toward the end, inevitably. But, we are charged with reminding ourselves and other of our great hope; the Rapture. The return of Jesus to gather His own Church to Him, and to take us out before things turn bad for the whole world.

[LightOfMyLife]

The world is heading toward the end, inevitably. But, we are charged with reminding ourselves and other of our great hope; the Rapture. The return of Jesus to gather His own Church to Him, and to take us out before things turn bad for the whole world.

I agree! Titus 2:11-15.

[JTaylor]

Aside from his odd beliefs regarding the end-times, Cameron has (inadvertently) done a lot of damage to the Creationist movement. His introduction of the so-called "crocoduck" on CNN resulted in howls of laughter from the evolutionist camp. On Richard Dawkins' website you can actually buy ties and t-shirts featuring the crocoduck. Why did they find it so funny? Because if the crocoduck did exist, it would be very strong evidence against the theory of evolution (because evolution predicts that species that are far removed from each other in lineage cannot interbreed). If Cameron had bothered to spend ten minutes finding out what the theory of evolution is actually about, he wouldn't have made such a glaring error and caused so much embarrassment for the Creationist movement.

If you plan to present "evidence" against a theory, it would help if you first find out what it is that you are talking about. Creationists such as Duane Gish and Michael Behe are far more successful at pointing out the flaws in Darwinism, because they actually took the time to find out what the theory teaches and predicts. Cameron seems to have his own version of the theory of evolution that exists only in his own mind.

[Kliska]

Aside from his odd beliefs regarding the end-times, Cameron has (inadvertently) done a lot of damage to the Creationist movement. His introduction of the so-called "crocoduck" on CNN resulted in howls of laughter from the evolutionist camp. On Richard Dawkins' website you can actually buy ties and t-shirts featuring the crocoduck. Why did they find it so funny? Because if the crocoduck did exist, it would be very strong evidence against the theory of evolution (because evolution predicts that species that are far removed from each other in lineage cannot interbreed). If Cameron had bothered to spend ten minutes finding out what the theory of evolution is actually about, he wouldn't have made such a glaring error and caused so much embarrassment for the Creationist movement.

If you plan to present "evidence" against a theory, it would help if you first find out what it is that you are talking about. Creationists such as Duane Gish and Michael Behe are far more successful at pointing out the flaws in Darwinism, because they actually took the time to find out what the theory teaches and predicts. Cameron seems to have his own version of the theory of evolution that exists only in his own mind.

JTaylor, are you a creationist? If you are a Christian, please head to the new members forum and introduce yourself, please do include your testimony. If you are not a believer, you can introduce yourself in the Apologetics forum, and ask any questions you have there, as we do not allow nonbelievers to post outside of apologetics.

[JTaylor]

JTaylor, are you a creationist? If you are a Christian, please head to the new members forum and introduce yourself, please do include your testimony. If you are not a believer, you can introduce yourself in the Apologetics forum, and ask any questions you have there, as we do not allow nonbelievers to post outside of apologetics.

I am a Creationist. I'm simply pointing out that if we expect to make any headway against the Darwinist juggernaut, we have to be very clear about what it is that we are opposing. Too many Creationists make the mistake of getting all their information from other Creationists, and never bother to go to the source and see what it really says. There are many good points that we can make against the evolutionist error, points that they have so far failed to address. However, when we accuse them of promoting ideas that were never a part of the Theory to begin with, it reflects badly on the Creationist movement.

An example: many Creationists will ask the Darwinist to explain how life began in the first place. Problem: this question is not a part of the theory of evolution - it is actually a separate branch of biology known as abiogenesis. When a Creationist asks a question of an Evolutionist that makes no sense, it reinforces (in their minds) the belief that we are all somehow mentally deficient. All I am saying is that if you intend to debate an Evolutionist, make sure that you know exactly what the Theory claims, and what it does not claim.

This is why I singled out Cameron. I have no doubt that his motives are pure and sincere, but to make an error on the "crocoduck" scale on national TV, when he should have known better, makes us all look like idiots. And that seriously hampers our efforts at Evangelism.

The Enemy is already moving against us with all the weapons at his disposal - he knows his time is short. The last thing we need is a Christian unintentionally helping him along.

[iSong6:3]

JTaylor - Please introduce yourself so we can get to know you a bit better and welcome you, that's how we do it here. hat

[Trance]

While I am glad that Kirk has found God, he just rubs me the wrong way. He (at least to me) appears very smug, smarmy, extremely condescending, and very much 'holier-than-thou'

[OnceWasLost]

The biggest problem with "Monumental" is kind of subtle, as with other works along the same line. The people who love it the most (as a rallying point, not like the people who like the historical content) are the same who love "The Harbinger" and here is why.

Both call America to repentance, which is all well and good, but the issue is this, the dominionists who love these two works are of an eschatological view that America is going to be lead to a revival. IHOP in particular as well as "Charisma" (The ones who published Harbinger) are of the view that dominion will be claimed by the church and thus bring about the Second Coming of Jesus.

Problem is there isn't some great revival that brings Jesus back, Scripture is clear that only a remnant awaits His return and we will be "caught up" not bring heaven down as dominionists teach. The problem with works like this is give people the ability to lump us together with Israel, as though the warnings to Israel are also to us. The Replacement Theology people love these works for the same reason, that being if God is speaking to America, as He did to Israel through the prophets, then the case is made that we have replaced Israel.

We need to keep this in mind, the OT warnings and promises made to Israel (Isaiah 9:10 "Harbinger" or II Chronicles 7:14 i.e. National Repentance) apply only to Israel and to none other.

There has been one nation that has ever heard these words:

Genesis 17:1-8

When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am Almighty God; walk before Me and be blameless. And I will make My covenant between Me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.” Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: “As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you, and you shall be a father of many nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.”

Few Christians can claim they are a child of Abraham, we (And most every American Christian) are Gentile so God's covenant with Abraham remains to Abraham and his descendents.

That said, would God honor a national repentance if America were to do so? Of course, it's in His nature, but does anyone expect that to happen? No matter how many were to view "Monumental" and find out the views that many of the founders held, the fact is they did not give us a theocracy as was give to Israel. Scripture speaks nothing of an End Times nation coming to repentance, no matter how much we would like to see it.

What Kirk has made is a documentary about what has been lost, and if I read Scripture correctly, is not coming back. Some have the hope that it will shame us into national repentance, while others see these kinds of works to rally the "bride" to take back dominion from the enemy.