I was doing some housecleaning today and fished out my old VHS copy of "Death and the Journey Into Hell", narrated by none other than the well-known Brother Michael Dimond.  Let me be abundantly clear that I do not support the Dimond brothers or MHFM, but I do have to concede that some of their materials are very good (before they veer into error, that is), and the "Creation and Miracles" video is the best I've seen on the subject.

I popped DATJIH into my VCR and am watching it right now.  "Gothic" doesn't even begin to describe it --- Michael is wearing a dark habit with hood over his head, and is reading a series of trenchant meditations upon death, judgment, and hell.  A large crucifix, votive candles, and what looks like a tabernacle is behind him and the altar is lit up in a red glow by overhead track lighting or a similar light source, while he in in shadows.  (Would MHFM have a chapel with a tabernacle on the premises?)  In fact, it is so gothic and, frankly, kind of bizarre, that I can't help but think that it would have a certain appeal to the young people who need so desperately to hear what is being said!  There is hardly a young person alive who isn't in grave spiritual danger due to promptings of the world and the flesh.   Youth is a spiritual minefield in and of itself --- the flesh alone makes demands that it takes supernatural grace to resist.

Aside from its being produced by MHFM, can anyone here think of any reason this is a video to be avoided?  I can't, just running it by others to see if my instincts are correct.

Comments?

ETA --- I've had the VHS tape for probably 20 years now, and both video and audio quality are quite degraded.  I am hoping there is a free digital copy online somewhere that has been remastered or something.  I can foresee that today's youth would have a problem with grainy VCR tapes.

I don't usually acknowledge downvotes, but I have to wonder if I received that one because I had the temerity to give the Dimond brothers credit for getting some things right, or to acknowledge that there might be some merit to various video presentations of theirs.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Beyond that, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm not a supporter or follower of the Dimonds and MHFM.  Case closed.

It’s a great video and I highly recommend it to all Catholics.

I didn't thumb anyone up or down.  But I do find it interesting that the OP felt it obligatory to condemn MHFM specifically for their position against BOD and then one of the prominent anti-BOD people on the forum gives that a thumbs up.  Strange bedfellows.

I can say that I find all of the MHFM material compelling.  Even those few things which I don't fully agree with them on, I would not mock them for their positions.  I take them seriously.  And I certainly don't consider them heretics on anything.  If they are mistaken in anything, it is an honest error.  No one (except Our Lord and Our Lady) is perfect, not even St Thomas Aquinas.

I didn't thumb anyone up or down.  But I do find it interesting that the OP felt it obligatory to condemn MHFM specifically for their position against BOD and then one of the prominent anti-BOD people on the forum gives that a thumbs up.  Strange bedfellows.

I can say that I find all of the MHFM material compelling.  Even those few things which I don't fully agree with them on, I would not mock them for their positions.  I take them seriously.  And I certainly don't consider them heretics on anything.  If they are mistaken in anything, it is an honest error.  No one (except Our Lord and Our Lady) is perfect, not even St Thomas Aquinas.

I didn't condemn them for their position on BOD.  I didn't say anything at all about BOD.  I will say that BOD is a sticky wicket, yet I confess what the Church confesses, even if I don't understand how it can be so.

The Dimond brothers and MHFM are problematical on many levels, not just BOD, but I agree, some of their materials are very compelling, and very well-done.  I suspect they may have some media skills training, such as layout, design, and video production, possibly learned in journalism or media school.  And Michael is quite articulate in his presentations as well.  They have some not-negligible gifts for that sort of thing, but then again, so does Michael Voris.

I didn't thumb anyone up or down.  But I do find it interesting that the OP felt it obligatory to condemn MHFM specifically for their position against BOD and then one of the prominent anti-BOD people on the forum gives that a thumbs up.  Strange bedfellows.

I can say that I find all of the MHFM material compelling.  Even those few things which I don't fully agree with them on, I would not mock them for their positions.  I take them seriously.  And I certainly don't consider them heretics on anything.  If they are mistaken in anything, it is an honest error.  No one (except Our Lord and Our Lady) is perfect, not even St Thomas Aquinas.

They're obviously schismatic IMO (objectively, I'm not judging their subjective state), but I sometimes find them helpful as well.  Their stuff on Mary is some of the best systematized stuff I've seen on youtube anyway, maybe there are other places to get the same content well presented but I haven't seen it.

I'm definitely the type of person who will take the good from anyone rather than feeling the need to dismiss people entirely because of some errors.

That is a very intelligent way to approach life, and the life of the mind and soul in particular.  There is a certain school of thought that is either black or white --- the psychologist's term is "splitting" --- you are either for me or you are against me, you are either good or you are bad, and if you're bad, nothing you say or do can be good, everything about you is wrong, in other words, "you shouldn't exist".  Some people think that way.  It's horribly toxic.

Yeah I don't know, its not my jam.  There's a really good article by an Eastern Orthodox theologian completely refuting the notion that Augustine believed in protestant soteriology.  I think the article is very good and helpful.  I'm still not Eastern Orthodox and I know they're schismatics.

Some more liberal minded people wouldn't apply that same principle to dogmatic Sedes and I don't really know why.  I disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they can't say anything useful.

TO be clear, I didn't accuse them of schism *because* of their sedevacantism (I still think that one's a gray area and I tend to give the benefit of the doubt) but rather because of their obstinate refusal of communion with other Catholics, even Traditional ones, over disagreements on issues that they don't have authority to definitively rule on, whether Sedevacnatism or their interpretation of the EENS dogma, or whatever else.

I'm definitely the type of person who will take the good from anyone rather than feeling the need to dismiss people entirely because of some errors.

I think we all are this way to some degree, yet there is a danger there one must beware of, a danger which calls for extra diligence, extra caution so as not to swallow the poison whilst sifting the good. It was for this reason that the Church even established the Index of Forbidden Books at all, which books most often only had very few errors or only a single error among the many pages of truths. She did so because She deems that reading such books is a danger to the faith and whatever good comes from reading them is too often over shadowed by the bad.

It is good to remember that no matter who we are or what we know, we are all vulnerable to heresy, some more vulnerable than others - which is why Catholics are taught to avoid whenever possible, people, places and situations of danger, as always being the safest course to take. Sometimes it is not possible, but when it comes to the DBs, it is possible.