The article is antagonistic, but more leeway is granted to the article than to the reply posts. For instance, a passage from the Bible which is unkind towards Jewish beliefs may be the basis of an "ecumenical" discussion - but the replies must not be antagonistic.
If you wish to have a "town square" format debate on the issues raised by the article, then find a similar article and post it that way.
If you wish to complain about the RF guidelines, i.e. that an antagonistic article can be posted as "ecumenical" to avoid criticism, then create an "open" RF thread for that purpose.
If you wish to direct those on your side of the debate away from a thread like this, then come up with a non-antagonistic redirect and ping your FRiends, e.g. "I wholly disagree with the article and cannot reply without it being taken as antagonistic, therefore let's reconvene on an open thread and show the other side of the story."
See #73 in reply to your remark on the other thread.
Uhm, okay?
LOL
From the article at LDS Newsroom, this quote: "There is a broad range of approaches within the vast mosaic of biblical interpretation. For example, biblical inerrancy maintains that the Bible is without error and contradiction; biblical infallibility holds that the Bible is free from errors regarding faith and practice but not necessarily science or history; biblical literalism requires a literal interpretation of events and teachings in the Bible and generally discounts allegory and metaphor; and the “Bible as literature” educational approach extols the literary qualities of the Bible but disregards its miraculous elements.
The Church does not strictly subscribe to any of these interpretive approaches. Rather, in the words of Joseph Smith, it regards the Bible to be the word of God, “as far as it is translated correctly”