Why advise me to avoid religious posts because I disagreed with posters who want to show how awful Mormonism is?
The poster stated his purpose of educating Christian Freepers who feel “impelled” to defend Mormonism so they will know what they are defending.
Is not my religious viewpoint valid? My viewpoint, as one of those to be educated, is that the exercise is flawed.
The poster specifically stated they wish to educate Roman Catholics. I am one. I am not anti Mormon. Further, I have been debating with others who though not Catholic, seek to further educate me that Mormonism is a threat to Catholic Orthodoxy.
The suggestion that I not engage in the discussion puzzles me.
Because you stated earlier...
IOW I don’t give a rat’s rear about Mormonism.
...and now here you are evidently caring SOMETHING about MORMONism.
The 'threat' is to human souls; that they'll be led astray and lost.
Catholic Orthodoxy does NOT want that to happen - can we agree on that?
Also, some posters - even oldtimers - were not aware of the software change that causes RF posts to appear by default ("everything" browse) and ultimately wanted some way to make them disappear again. So I make it a point to provide that information to posters who evidently disapprove of contentious religious debate.
But apparently you are here on purpose and have a theological, ideological, philosophical etc. issue to discuss - and that is fine of course. The main guideline on the RF is to encourage just that, i.e. to "discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal." The second part of that guideline exists because flame wars ignite quickly when posters deplore each other's deeply held religious beliefs. Some "take it personally." By disallowing ad hominems we nip many flame wars in the bud.
Be advised - the members of the RF clique are able to denegrate at will, as long as they pose their ad hominum attacks as questions (I was so informed by the moderator). You and I, however, not being members in good standing of the club, will be closely monitored.
The term “bigoted” can fairly be applied to certain statements - BUT honestly recognizing and naming such statements is VERBOTEN! The statement being less offensive than the label, of course!
You have doubtlessly recognized the agenda here. It seems that any reluctance to attack the ISM will be met by a mob-attack denouncing you as a mormon defender or mormon lover, or a “Mittbot” (alhough, remember, they are only attacking the IISM). Take a look at posts #213 and #205 - they express, with clarity, the lay of this particular land.
I don’t know if you noticed another earlier post where one poster called out to the apparent leader of the pack that so-and-so was saying such-and-such and, it was clearly implied, needed a proper, verbal beat-ddown.
While professing a form of open debate, the practice here is far from it.