During a debate between Radio Free Mormon (RFM) and Midnight Mormons, hosted by Shawn McCraney, both sides shared valuable insights about Mormonism, with RFM offering articulate, fact-driven critiques of the institution and Midnight Mormons presenting heartfelt, experience-based perspectives. McCraney critiqued straight-up anti-Mormon platforms for a lack of follow-up support to those leaving the church and emphasized the ethical obligation to provide resources and guidance for individuals transitioning out of Mormonism.
Shawn's teaching emphasizes the need for respectful dialogue and understanding among individuals with differing beliefs, particularly regarding the LDS Church, highlighting the potential for building bridges instead of creating conflict. He observes that while the Midnight Mormons, namely Kwaku, Brad, and Carden, demonstrated sincerity in their Mormon convictions, Kwaku's approach seemed more politically oriented, suggesting a shift toward an event and political career could be more suitable, while Brad showed potential for future leadership within modern-day Mormonism.
Heart of the Matter Long Debate Insights
From Salt Lake City, Utah This is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology. Long And I’m your host Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion..
Follow-Up to RFM and Midnight Mormon Debate
I had the honor to host a debate between Radio Free Mormon and Midnight Mormons here on this stage a week or so back. It was an honor because I love the participants from both sides of the argument and respect them for a host of different reasons. I would say that there was some really good insights from both camps, a few low moments and that it was an event that could pave the way for better dialogue in the future. To let you know, the rules of the debate were established beforehand. There was a tennis match over whether the questions should be known beforehand or not and for a time both sides got a bit bogged down in a tug of war. I took the reigns because the sides were at an impasse and borrowing from what was already in place laid out how the questions would be asked and both sides agreed to an 8 minute period to respond, an 8 minute come-back from the opposing side and a three minute summary by the side first asked.
This got messed up by me right out of the gates and I’m really sorry for that. It lent to some understandable confusion which was unfortunate. From the way this all played out, I think the better way to approach a debate is for the moderator to insert her or himself into the Q and A and to hold the respondents feet to the fire to actually answer the questions asked and then to move on to the other side. This would be the format I would follow in the future if I ever moderate again.
Insights from the Debate
To me RFM provided the most intelligent, information-laden responses in the debate. He was certainly sharp, articulate and knows his subject – Mormonism past and present. I think he evidenced some real capacity to hold official Mormonism to the fire and his ability to call the institution out was excellent. Some wondered about my questions to him at the end. How they were a little more slanted against him. In a way they were. But I was trying to be fair having given Midnight Mormons some tough ones out of the gate.
On the question I asked him about responsibility for taking souls out of Mormonism but providing nothing to help them adjust to life beyond. Of all the kickback from the online comments this produced the most ire. See, when I asked it and RFM in a kneejerk response said he had zero interest in follow-up help, the Midnight Mormons smelled blood. I see that most RFM defenders believed his stance appropriate. I do not. One of the attacks on American Military operations in other countries is while we help them get liberated (like Vietnam) we are so good at helping them learn to survive in their new environment. Same criticism with our Vietnam war vets – we might pull them out of the fire but do we care about them once they are out.
I think there is a tacit, ethical obligation a liberator has for those they liberate. Even if it is just supplying those liberated with alternative resources to help aide and sustain them in their lives of freedom. This has long been my criticism again straight-up anti-Mormon platforms. Yes, they will poison the well, but will they also point people to fresh hydration awaiting them. Without such follow-up, I think we drop the ball to a certain extent.
I felt that the Midnight Mormon side produced a more heartfelt, emotional response to the event, and appealed to their own experiences in the LDS Church to offer some alternative views to RFM’s staggering breadth of knowledge and ability to apply it. I felt both empathy and sympathy for the Midnight Mormon panel – and believe that in the case of Brad and Carden the sentiments were true and real. With that being the case I am of the opinion that such views ought to have been received with love and liberty and that as they bore testimony to what they believed was true they ought to have been supported.
Prayer Show 59s. Remember, if you want to be part of our founding members, send us an email with your name and state or country of residence. I think it will be worth it – but we will let you decide.
Reflections on a Public Discussion
Their right to have them. Confronted gently by facts, certainly (for how else do we grow) but not mocked for believing in the LDS church the way they were at times by a few members of the packed house. I really believe that these young men mean well – I could see it in the eyes of Brad and Carden, but something came out from our brother Kwaku that was not up to par with his skill level. Anyone who has ever been in the public eye and is seen as a source of information and opinion knows that there are times when the possibility of reading the wrong cues and taking a lesser than effective approach can happen. I think this was the case for Kwaku that night.
Perhaps they decided together for each of them to take on a different role in the face of the questions. But I don’t think so. What I think actually happened was each of the Midnight Mormon participants honestly revealed what is most important to them relative to a world view and their activity in Mormonism. For Kwaku it seems to be that he is more politically driven than theologically; that he sees Mormonism more as the best response to this fallen world rather than a resource of divine truth. That is my take.
Personal Reflections
I love and care for Kwaku as a brother in the faith, and accept him and his religious affiliations as a personal right all of us have in the pursuit of God and/or happiness. I do believe that he should pursue his event careers and political aspirations however instead of continuing to address Mormonism. Just my opinion. I saw heartfelt conviction to the tenets of Mormonism in the words and eyes of Brad, and certainly receive him as a man dedicated to Christ. I do not care that he has beliefs based on Mormon Doctrine. Again, his choice. But the proof of Brad is in the pudding, and I think he could lead modern day Mormonism in the future if they will allow it.
Building Bridges
I greatly appreciated his honesty and open heart and willingness to express some of the LDS tenets as valid in his mind. Tenants which I personally find much more palatable than say Reformed theology. I also thought Carden was willing to give a little in areas that some LDS apologists will stand their ground. I thought his willingness to agree that some boomers may have had a very different experience than he has had refreshing.
I do wish that there could have been some healing and respect given between the two sides. We do not need any more conflict in this world. And both sides have the heart and capacity to build bridges rather than to put up walls. I think this was a good start toward some progress, and some healing for those who tuned in. I think we can now begin to move ahead.
