Really? Just once, just once would it be possible for you to make a comment without resorting to childish ad-hominems?
In regards to Benson and Reagan, does the fact that Benson is a lefty change anything about his witness in regards to mormonism? Is that the basis used to determine credibility? As demonstrated here on FR, yes. Exactly because he's turned his back on mormonism, he's subject to ridicule and scorn.
Let's look at dingy Harry. SLC must be keeping him on retainer because he says he's a good liberal because of his faith, not in spite of it. Yet he's given a captive audience at BYU to espouse his liberal agenda and ideals. Any true conservative mormon "leader" would have told that slug to go pound sand and find another forum.
The absolutely pathetic response from mormon FReepers when this dichotomy was exposed was to rail that he isn't representative of mormons. Well, did you call SLC about that? They're the ones who control BYU, so they must have thought enough of Harry's political persuasions to permit him to speak to the students and faculty there. Why should Benson be treated any differently?
I'll posit this, it's because he's an "anti", that's why. He's not a good lap dog for SLC to hold up as an example of mormons in prominent places/stature. Sweep him into the dustbin of history unless he changes his ways and comes back into the fold. It's like hiding the crazy aunt or uncle from public view.
So, what in the Sam hill does that have to do with the topic of the thread?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing, just strawmen built by the mormon FReeper in an attempt to get the thread off topic. But it's useful in regards to demonstrating the disingenous nature of mormons towards ex-mormons and anti's.
You answered my question very well, thanks.