DiscussMormonism.com

From the article

This week, the church has introduced a "technological barrier to prevent abuse of the New FamilySearch system," according to LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy.

"Anyone trying to access names that have been restricted will have their account suspended and be required to contact FamilySearch to establish their family relationship in order to have their access reinstated," Purdy said. "Abuse of the system will result in the permanent loss of database access."

This is hardly preemptive as it should have been done in 1996 when the problem first occurred.

The Church is 16 years too late, as usual....

I think initially the concern for members was that Romney would bring embarrassment on the Church...oh the irony....

Drifting wrote:From the article

This week, the church has introduced a "technological barrier to prevent abuse of the New FamilySearch system," according to LDS Church spokesman Michael Purdy.

"Anyone trying to access names that have been restricted will have their account suspended and be required to contact FamilySearch to establish their family relationship in order to have their access reinstated," Purdy said. "Abuse of the system will result in the permanent loss of database access."

This is hardly preemptive as it should have been done in 1996 when the problem first occurred.

The Church is 16 years too late, as usual....

Exactly my thought. We have had numerous threads on this board about the church making empty promises with no procedures in place to make good on their promises. Finally, they are actually getting serious.

I remain unconvinced that this new change will make it any more difficult for members to submit unauthorized names for temple ordinances.

It *may* help in the case of Holocaust victims...maybe. But I see no indication that it can help with celebrities or non-related Jewish people.

I think all they have done is try to make it harder for the public to discover the ordinance information.

just me wrote:I remain unconvinced that this new change will make it any more difficult for members to submit unauthorized names for temple ordinances.

It *may* help in the case of Holocaust victims...maybe. But I see no indication that it can help with celebrities or non-related Jewish people.

I think all they have done is try to make it harder for the public to discover the ordinance information.

Exactly! It is LDSCYA!

just me wrote:I remain unconvinced that this new change will make it any more difficult for members to submit unauthorized names for temple ordinances.

It *may* help in the case of Holocaust victims...maybe. But I see no indication that it can help with celebrities or non-related Jewish people.

I think all they have done is try to make it harder for the public to discover the ordinance information.

Of course,because hiding information from people has worked out so well for them in the past. One has to believe this decision came from the geriatric level of decision making within the Church because it is clearly the same sort of incredibly short sighted knee jerk reaction the Church has been using for the last 40-50 years when it encounters issues of accountability. I predict that in the future, when it is known that the BTFD continued unabated, that a newsroom tweet will be issued saying they just don't know how this happened.

I've been somewhat sympathetic to those who are offended by the church's dead-dunking their relatives and ancestors, but there comes a point where if a person has to really put some effort into digging out what the church has done, that sympathy is out the window.

At that point the desire and will to be offended is pretty blatant.

Sethbag wrote:I've been somewhat sympathetic to those who are offended by the church's dead-dunking their relatives and ancestors, but there comes a point where if a person has to really put some effort into digging out what the church has done, that sympathy is out the window.

At that point the desire and will to be offended is pretty blatant.

I think this is besides the point Seth. Whether you and I are offended about it, and I am not, and whether other people are offended by it is not really the issue any more. the Church has agreed to stop BTFD for a specific group(s). Preventing verification of what they agreed to do is disingenuous and makes it look like they are not trying to abide by their agreement. For a church that seems really concerned about PR, this seems like a move that will backfire on them.

The move to help Romney was the message read over the pulpit to go and participate in your local caucus/primary and all Church meetings were canceled on Super Tuesday (probably only in Super Tuesday states).