[Syncro]

It's a hypothetical question that is argumentative.

Now they might post a thread titled “The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.” Much more likely than what your postulated.

I give a lot more leeway to Catholicism than Mormonism, as Catholicism is based on the Historical Biblical Jesus while the Mormon belief system has a Jesus that does not fit Biblical criteria.

[MHGinTN]

Clique is playing at agitprop. Reading the article which started this thread reveals that the Mormons believe Joey Smith was an actual Apostle of Jesus Christ in the same way the real Apostles were proven, because they had been with Him from the beginning and had seen the risen Lord. Yes, ol' Joe didn't say that Jesus and God appeared to him in the supposed 'first vision' but Mormon mythology has transmogrified the first vision (depending upon which of the versions one reads) into God and Jesus appeared to Joey at his tender age.

In actuality, if Joe had this forest vision, the two or one inthe vision did not confirm whom they/it were/was by confessing that Jesus had come int he flesh.

[Clique]

>It’s a hypothetical question that is argumentative.
>Now they might post a thread titled “The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.” Much more likely than what your postulated.

The title doesn’t matter. It is not titles that I’ve been talking about.

O.K., I’ll give it one more try.

The point is simply this: Someone in a caucus that is supposed to be only for members of a certain faith, posted an article by a member of that faith. The poster did not title the article; the title was written by the original author of the article.

The owner of the website, who is not a member of that faith or that caucus, became offended by the title. He was not offended because the title had vulgar words or meaning; he was offended because he disagrees with the doctrines of that faith.

He therefore used his power to pull the article out of the caucus and place it into “Breaking News.” By so doing, the owner, whether intentionally or unthinkingly, opened the thread up to a barrage of ridicule and vituperative attacks from avowed enemies of that faith.

If people of faith have to worry that their beliefs can be ridiculed by non-believers at any time, it destroys the purpose and value of having caucus groups for members of religions. I have already suggested to Mr. Robinson that religious caucus groups have no place on Free Republic.

I’m sorry, Syncro, that I failed to get my point across to you. However, please remember that I was writing to Mr. Robinson, not you... and I’m sure he understands my position.

Now... I have explained to you as well as I can. I think there is no reason for you to reply or for us to continue this discussion.

Good night.
P.S. FYI, I don’t think I have ever gone to the Religion section of Free Republic. I would never have seen this thread if it had not been moved to “Breaking News.” As I followed the posts in the thread, it was clear that some unfair and bullying behavior going on, which I feel is totally inappropriate between sincere conservatives.