rcrocket wrote: They distrusted religion. They were usually athiests masquerading as Masons. They usually were athiests masquerading as deists. They were usually humanists. Benson probably fit much of the foregoing description, although I was suspicous that his brand of politics loved calling themselves true liberals.
So... Pres Benson was an atheist, masquerading as a prophet?
Were they 'usually athiests masquerading as Masons', or were they 'usually were athiests masquerading as deists'?
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
My inactive Mother always said that most active Mormons thought general conference weekend was a weekend off from church. Amazingly my parents who never went to Church listened to a good part of conference. My dad would rant about ETB and his wacko politics.
Benson was a Classical Liberal who believed in limited government and individual liberty, quite unlike the uniform field of political hacks, opportunists, posers, and leftist power mongers who crowed the political field today.
I liked Ezra though I think his political were extreme.
You continue to degenerate Jason.
Kiss off Coggins.
Is there know end to your cynicism and negativity regarding the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ?
If you were as bright as you pretend you would realize it was my FATHER who called Benson's politics wacko. And tell me Mr.. Think you are my God an judge, what does ETBs politics have to do with the gospel.
What an ass you are. I merely mentioned and anecdote about my inactive parents watching conference and commenting how many active LDS they knew took that weekend off, and this in response to Liz's remarks that she was heading for the beach, and you take it as an opportunity to pounce.
Why don't you go off in the corner and bear your testimony to yourself and pat yourself on the back on how you know it all in your self congratulatory sanctimonious nauseating pretended piety. If not being like you is degenerating I am well pleased to do so.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
rcrocket wrote: They distrusted religion. They were usually athiests masquerading as Masons. They usually were athiests masquerading as deists. They were usually humanists. Benson probably fit much of the foregoing description, although I was suspicous that his brand of politics loved calling themselves true liberals.
So... Pres Benson was an atheist, masquerading as a prophet?
rcrocket wrote: They distrusted religion. They were usually athiests masquerading as Masons. They usually were athiests masquerading as deists. They were usually humanists. Benson probably fit much of the foregoing description, although I was suspicous that his brand of politics loved calling themselves true liberals.
So... Pres Benson was an atheist, masquerading as a prophet?
Was my post inaccurate in any respect?
I'm just wondering which part applied to Pres Benson.
rcrocket wrote: They distrusted religion. They were usually athiests masquerading as Masons. They usually were athiests masquerading as deists. They were usually humanists. Benson probably fit much of the foregoing description, although I was suspicous that his brand of politics loved calling themselves true liberals.
So... Pres Benson was an atheist, masquerading as a prophet?
Was my post inaccurate in any respect?
I'm just wondering which part applied to Pres Benson.
You've got me. But neither you, nor Scratch, nor Sajer obviously have read much; otherwise you would have seen the point Coggins was raising about classic liberalism. Go back to your Harry Potter books.
rcrocket wrote: They distrusted religion. They were usually athiests masquerading as Masons. They usually were athiests masquerading as deists. They were usually humanists. Benson probably fit much of the foregoing description, although I was suspicous that his brand of politics loved calling themselves true liberals.
So... Pres Benson was an atheist, masquerading as a prophet?
Was my post inaccurate in any respect?
I'm just wondering which part applied to Pres Benson.
You've got me. But neither you, nor Scratch, nor Sajer obviously have read much; otherwise you would have seen the point Coggins was raising about classic liberalism. Go back to your Harry Potter books.
Well, since I am not arguing that I am well-read about classic liberalism, I don't see how you can denigrate me for something I don't claim. And just because a person isn't well-read about classic liberalism doesn't mean they aren't well-read. Being well-read in one subject doesn't mean one is well-read in all subjects.
harmony wrote:Well, since I am not arguing that I am well-read about classic liberalism, I don't see how you can denigrate me for something I don't claim. And just because a person isn't well-read about classic liberalism doesn't mean they aren't well-read. Being well-read in one subject doesn't mean one is well-read in all subjects.
PS. What do you have against Harry Potter?
Fine. Stick to Harry Potter. She's a wonderful writer.
