3. “Closed” threads on the Religion Forum include devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses. The header of the thread should make it obvious that the thread is closed, i.e. like a church meeting behind closed doors. Such assemblies will not be disturbed. Any challenges or ridicule will be removed. Any thread can be designated a caucus - e.g. labeled as a “[Catholic Caucus]” or “[LDS Caucus]” - provided that neither the article nor any of the posts challenge [*see footnote] or ridicule any other confession. These are “safe harbors” for those who are easily offended or are ill equipped to defend their own confession.
It is disingenuous to complain that your confession is being maligned when you are NOT using the caucus designation to protect the thread from challenges!
Religion Moderator web page
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
I have ridiculed no one.
What I have done is asked for more background on the archaeological and philological claims made in the article.
I think the problem is, in part, this new FR format that throws both headline and text of comments up on the screen, regardless of any caucus designations.
To see something like this article scroll by and expect people to ignore the challenge of it is not realistic, or even fair, despite any protective notion of a caucus designation. I mean, honestly, if somebody posted an article titled “Conclusive Proof That Joseph Smith Was Full of Crap,” I wouldn’t expect LDS members to see that and not come in and challenge it, even if it was tagged “Christian Caucus” or even something like “Anti-Mormon Caucus” that supposedly shields the piece from debate.
Listen, you've picked an article that (a) talks about pre-Mormonism (pre-1830 history); and (b) pretends to speak for Christianity about where the "fountainhead" of our knowledge is (claiming Egypt).
Do you mean to seriously tell us that if I posted an article saying the true source of Mormonism wasn't Joseph Smith--that its "fountainhead" were other sources--that Mormons wouldn't be able to comment as long as I attached "caucus" status to it?
The following statements certainly sound like "challenges" to Christianity:
The traditional concept that the Bible is complete came about 400 A.D., he said. Before then Christians knew that many other writings existed.
Most of the writings which have now been found were secret anciently and held back from the people until they proved their worthiness.
Some speak of the potential of their divinity, also a common theme Smith taught, which the first LDS prophet said was given to him by revelation.
Yet centuries later, revelation and temples were denounced by religious leaders, including Augustine, as unnecessary.
What if the title to a thread was:
Ancient writings support atheist doctrine and teachings (Atheist Caucus)
Would it be disingenuous for Christians to ask that the caucus designation be removed and for proof of these writings?
Uh.... it didn't.