Ecumenic threads are closed to antagonism.
To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenic” thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenic” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenic” tag.
Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
“Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.”
It seems your posted article tears down Christianity Restornu. As such, I don’t think it qualifies under the rules for ecumenic discussion, but that is up to the moderator...
So in the meantime,
Having examined the article, I find if historically flawed in order to present the beliefs of mormons to be somehow historically a part of Christian belief. The author does not deal with the fact that each heretical group that challenged the church was condemned as heresy. Had the author not started with his conclusion, he would never align the facts in this way.
Best,
ampu
It is interesting to see these quotes used this way. Mormonism may reflect, in some ways, teachings that were popular at the time, but I do not see how these quotes directly connect the two.
The source is an LDS apologetic group so one must ask the question of how biased the author may be. Bias is one of the main concerns in scholarship.