When Gordon Hinkley was on national television, he totally blew the chance to be a true prophet and preach the gospel of the "true church."
In stead of promoting the plan of salvation, he said "I don't know that we teach that." WHAT?? I spent my and my folks' hard earned money & two years preaching that, representing the prophet. And here he was, not even close to "boldly proclaiming" his message.
If I hadn't left tscc already, I'd have left that day!
And if Tom Monson were to be on TV today, I wouldn't even watch.
Well, maybe out of curiosity I would. But I can't honestly say I'd expect him to act his part as prophet.
Steve Benson, Simon from Oz, anointed one. Would pay to see that but, will sadly never happen, the Q15 know it could only be a lose-lose situation for them. TBM's may be impressed with the spin and testimonies but they know they got nothing that would sway neutral critical thinkers and they know it.
Mormons don't know the meaning of the word "interview." All they have are one-way monologues, in which the Mormon does the telling and asking, and the other person(s) do the listening, and the bowing of the head to say "yes."
This would never happen. Mormons don't do interviews (or even conversations). Hinckley was an arrogant fool to put himself and his cult in such a precarious position. I think a lot of members felt betrayed.
Joy, you're right about Hinckley. The only reason he wasn't torn to shreds on the spot was that Wallace didn't know enough about Mormonism to call him out on his lies.
It wouldn't take 90 minutes. It would probably take only a couple questions before whatever mormon spokesman would start obvious spinning, evading, and lying. Then they'd claim it unfair somehow. And then later they'd chastise the members for paying attention to it.
I guess I missed that discussion that Holland promised during the BBC interview.
There are a lot of people here who could do the interview. I'd like to see Anagrammy take them on...
I'm sure Monson would love doing something other than spinning bullshit. Unfortunately, he can turn down the job like the last pope did. Say fuck it, and let a younger apostle take the mantle and see where the church leads.
In order to have a debate, you must begin with a topic that is debatable. Mormonism doesn't fall into that category. We all saw Jeff Holland's attempt -- lie, stammer, lie, deny, stammer, deflect etc... There's nothing to debate.
My money is on Monson. He'd smother the opponents with stories about widows. The stories would wear his opponents down, and the audience--apparently--would love it.
Other than that, I'd gladly have at him. Little ol' me. I would wager that I could ask the hard questions and that my knowledge about church history would be superior.
This brings up a good point. The LDS church is real big on published statements. And not real big on any church history other than the hand cart folks. Look. If any theologian and I mean any theologian were to challange the church publicly it would fold under the pressure.
Example. A group of religious leaders simply needs to present the Momormon church with a set of questions concerning their (LDS) doctrine. Then invite them to a public debate.
No need to hammer polygamy, or the outright fraudulent behavior of the Mormon people. Just stick to the claims the LDS church makes. The claims that are supposed to make the Mormon church the only true church. The actual science the church claims to have.
The church will back down and run away. Not because it has no spine. But because it has no answers. (Yes I just pointed out the obvious.) Look. You want to shut these people up. Great. Challange them publicaly and they'll run away so fast it'll make your head spin.
"Challange them publicaly and they'll run away so fast it'll make your head spin."
Let's do it. Maybe we narrow it down to two topics: Racism and Revelation. The recent essay on the priesthood ban and the counter-evidence that it was taught as doctrine seem to be a good starting point for a lively discussion.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/19/2013 08:44AM by thingsithink.
IDK who is the best speaker? I know that I am better typing than speaking-- it would have to be someone who looked good on TV, quick wit, and good memory for Mormon and anti-Mormon literature.
I vote for Steve Benson, John Larsen and Tom Phillips for the win. Grant Palmer and Richard Packam and Tal Bachman for the backup team though they'd all make first string. Some one should do an online mock debate with these folks. Get someone to play the Prophets part. Maybe get someone to play Holland and Packer too. We know what their answers are. I've always wished someone would put on a mock trial and really present both sides of the real issues. It wouldn't take long to show how weak the defenders positions are.
First,they'd have to figure out a way to make him look like he was alive. I seriously question his ability to function as a real live person. I'm pretty sure that on the spot thinking isn't something God's profit can do.