Name of the Church

[Guest Mores]

If I may interject, I tend to believe that the "gradual" changes are being done on purpose. (I'll emphasize "I believe").  There is a sociological reality that is associated with getting people to change their labels and vocabulary.  It really could have been done within the six month period as far as the programming and re-routing of traffic and so many more things -- if it were just about computers.  But it isn't.

It is about getting PEOPLE to change their labels.  To change all the computer items that quickly would have some unintended consequences.  Doing it slowly like they are is actually quite a wise way of going about it.

[MarginOfError]

If you want to see what whining looks like, just wait until they turn off the redirect from lcr.lds.org. That is such an immensely convenient url, and I will weep when I am no longer able to use it.

And then sue the church when I develop carpal tunnel from trying to type out the new url. (seriously, could they have picked anything any less ergonomic?) 

[Anddenex]

47 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

If you want to see what whining looks like, just wait until they turn off the redirect from lcr.lds.org. That is such an immensely convenient url, and I will weep when I am no longer able to use it.

And then sue the church when I develop carpal tunnel from trying to type out the new url. (seriously, could they have picked anything any less ergonomic?) 

Well MOE, I never thought I would be given the opportunity to teach you something but looks like I finally found it.

There is this thing called intelligent coding that will remember what you previously typed. So, no worries about developing carpal tunnel because you only have to type the full name of the URL in once. After that you can type two or three characters (maybe even one) and the whole URL will show up as a clickable or tabable option.

You can thank me later when you don't have to worry about doctor visits for developing carpal tunnel. You are most welcome my dear friend.

[Vort]

On 3/17/2019 at 8:09 PM, ephedra said:

There was a GA back in the day (poleman?? SP) who had to go back an re-record a conference talk and they pulled the old one so maybe no one looks at this stuff first. You know- correlation.

Why the constant muck-raking? Your attitude is unwelcome here, at least by me. I love our prophet leaders and sustain their actions. I don't grouse about what I perceive to be their missteps.

From what I have heard, Brother Poelman was unhappy that leftist Mormons were taking his words as a division between Church and gospel instead of as an examination of how the two relate to each other. My understanding is that, after consultation with members of the Twelve, he asked to be allowed to rewrite and redeliver the sermon. The fact that his request was granted certainly suggests that he was not alone in his concern for how fringe Mormons and "Dialogue Saints" would receive his words. Your comment certainly shows the wisdom in the course followed.

[Guest Mores]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why the constant muck-raking? Your attitude is unwelcome here, at least by me. I love our prophet leaders and sustain their actions. I don't grouse about what I perceive to be their missteps.

From what I have heard, Brother Poelman was unhappy that leftist Mormons were taking his words as a division between Church and gospel instead of as an examination of how the two relate to each other. My understanding is that, after consultation with members of the Twelve, he asked to be allowed to rewrite and redeliver the sermon. The fact that his request was granted certainly suggests that he was not alone in his concern for how fringe Mormons and "Dialogue Saints" would receive his words. Your comment certainly shows the wisdom in the course followed.

I hadn't heard that background.  Thank you.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

I hadn't heard that background.  Thank you.

Only my own understanding and what I heard whispered around. I don't have any inside knowledge, so don't bet any substantial sum of money on my take.

[Guest Mores]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Only my own understanding and what I heard whispered around. I don't have any inside knowledge, so don't bet any substantial sum of money on my take.

It makes sense anyway.  I have heard similar things said with other statements by general authorities who "were forced to" take back their words.  In each case, it wasn't force.  Someone spoke with them and they reached an understanding through Christ.  Then the words were corrected by the free will of all involved.

[unixknight]

21 hours ago, Maureen said:

Now you can tell your friends that they are not actually removing Christ out of Christmas when using Xmas. 😊

 

I've got a friend who's functionally Atheist who always writes 'XMas" too, and I'm pretty sure it's because of not wanting to write "Christ."  I haven't mentioned the true nature of the 'X' to him.  It's funnier that way.

[unixknight]

A double duplicate of a duplicated post that doubled.

Edited March 19, 2019 by unixknight

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

A double duplicate of a duplicated post that doubled.

Repeat that again for the second twice.

[MarginOfError]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Repeat that again for the second twice.

Also, you're being redundant again.