DiscussMormonism.com

Heh.

I was doing some googling at a church building on a church computer and when I clicked on one of the links it told me the site was forbidden or filtered because it contained the word "homosexual." I was trying to access a news article on a television show.

I just thought that was interesting. I am glad no alarms sounded or anything.

Someone probably dusted the keyboard for fingerprints after you left. Expect a call from the Bishop.

That'd be hilarious!

Isn't an email sent to the administrator every time someone hits a blocker? I worked for a company that did that.

This would be a great way for the bishop to be inspired about who was trying to look at porn... And read about homosexuals.

Makes sure no one looks up Prop 8 & Mormon involvement in the shameful political debacle for l-dsinc.

just me wrote:...I just thought that was interesting...

Nothing to wonder.
As a pensioned soldier, I worked five year for a multi. Not a secret (now), it was the Siemens.
As it is about communication, we had "unlimited" phone and internet access. Free of charge - and total recorded.
I could reach with the help of (c)Helpdesk (the censors,,,)
- ETB's "Fourteen Fundamentals" because of the word fourteen
and
- virginia.edu, to download one truetype character set, because of virgin

You know, filtering pedophile things.

by the way
I was a teacher in the army 39 years.
Do You know the differerence of pedagogue and pedophile?
The pedophile love the children...

just me wrote:Heh.

I was doing some googling at a church building on a church computer and when I clicked on one of the links it told me the site was forbidden or filtered because it contained the word "homosexual." I was trying to access a news article on a television show.

I just thought that was interesting. I am glad no alarms sounded or anything.

I would be surprised about this since many sites contain the word homosexual such as the New York Times. And why were you clicking on websites that had to do with sex or sexuality on a church website? Seems you were looking for trouble.

Joseph wrote:Makes sure no one looks up Prop 8 & Mormon involvement in the shameful political debacle for l-dsinc.

Not quite. I thought that it was great that finally the LDS church was involving itself in causes that it believed in. It showed that members got back their fighting spirit. Just because you do not agree with the LDS church's stance does not give you the right to call their belief system shameful.

why me wrote:

Joseph wrote:Makes sure no one looks up Prop 8 & Mormon involvement in the shameful political debacle for l-dsinc.

Not quite. I thought that it was great that finally the LDS church was involving itself in causes that it believed in. It showed that members got back their fighting spirit. Just because you do not agree with the LDS church's stance does not give you the right to call their belief system shameful.

Everybody has the right to call the Church's homophobic stance shameful.
It's called freedom of speech.

The Church's homophobic stance is shameful.
The Church's racist stance, traces of which still remain institutionally, is shameful.
The Church's sexist stance is shameful.
The Church's use of member donations is shameful.
The Church's avoidance of truth concerning its history is shameful.

why me wrote: Just because you do not agree with the LDS church's stance does not give you the right to call their belief system shameful.

Just because you do not agree with the KKK's stance does not give you the right to call their belief system shameful.

Just because you do not agree with the Nazi's stance does not give you the right to call their belief system shameful.

Just because you do not agree with Charles Manson's stance does not give you the right to call his family's belief system shameful.

How could anyone possibly argue this point? It's rock solid, isn't it?