SUGGESTION: Equal rights for Equal price

MJ. Smith

I agree that there is a division in Christianity that makes 2 (or more) versions of FL software desirable. This is reflected currently by:

• Logos with an evangelical bent
• Verbum with a Catholic bent

Some division is desirable because there are issues such as default canon, default priorities, worship structure, terminology ... that differ.. However, from the forums it is clear that users have a three-fold division - Logos only users, Verbum only users, and a group that own both Logos-Verbum packages & features and prefer to float between the two applications. All three groups pay the same amount for their features set. They should get the same functionality and they should not have their user-created items change as they are used in either application.

Faithlife should provide the best service to all groups by allowing the application to be set to run as:

• Standard Logos only features i.e. oriented towards non-liturgical churches w/o Tradition
• Standard Verbum only features i.e. oriented towards liturgical churches and Tradition
• Blended all Logos/Verbum features i.e. oriented towards those who find themselves are neither node but somewhere in the middle.

If Faithlife continues to treat the groups as if they were distinct in a way that they don't appear to be, then every feature that is left out of Verbum or Logos should have a clear statement as to why it is omitted.

In the current instance, the omission of the Faithlife group link for tools, my reaction was "Tools, in general, should be theology neutral. Are they trying to keep us (Verbum user) from keeping them academically  honest?" or are they so ignorant of the ACELO churches that prejudice makes an unwarranted division?" Sorry, FL but that really was my first reaction even though I know intellectually that your motives are probably far simpler.

DMB

MJ. Smith said:

If Faithlife continues to treat the groups as if they were distinct in a way that they don't appear to be ...,

I'm sort of guessing where you're at ... ie it ended up 'here', so equalize it.

I still believe a Catholic (or Liturgical, but not sure) religious software would necessarily be different from an evangelical one. Pasting on a different logo and adding some books doesn't count.

Now, I'll admit, maybe FL's deals for support of Catholic groups only demands minimal this and that ... maybe that's all they want. In which case, I guess I can see your point.

But the evangel-world is a rack and stack world quintessentially ecastatic to have one more database, primarily due to its roots among 1800s pastors who learned greek.

But Catholicism (whichever flavor) seems to demand much, much more (in a religious software way). Your suggestion seems a throw-up-your-hands solution.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1151410#Comment_1151410

I don't disagree with you although I would express it quite differently.

DMB said:

I still believe a Catholic (or Liturgical, but not sure) religious software would necessarily be different from an evangelical one. Pasting on a different logo and adding some books doesn't count.

To overstate the positions, evangelicals primarily use a historical-critical methodology (think 8 or so subdivisions) while Catholics still use early church practices through historical-critical to nearly a dozen modern criticisms several of which are mistrusted by the evangelicals. So, no, Verbum supports only a slice of Catholic interpretation - that slice being heavily skewed toward that shared with evangelicals. But on the datasets and tools that implement the shared methodology, I see no reason to make a distinction between Catholics and Evangelicals ... the only distinction that is applicable is one of canon. I mean a theophany is a theophany ... a disputed theophany is a disputed theophany ...

DMB said:

But Catholicism (whichever flavor) seems to demand much, much more (in a religious software way). Your suggestion seems a throw-up-your-hands solution.

This is slowly becoming less true as evangelicals discover church history in the form of the Church Fathers. But my suggestion tries to address to concerns: (high) Anglicans and (high) Lutherans needs are somewhere between the evangelical needs and the Catholic needs. The current approach ignores these "middle way" groups. Second, the features that are being added to Logos and not Verbum are unrelated to any doctrinal differences - no help cards, no links to Faithlife dataset/tool groups. These sort of features seem to me to be best left to the user to decide to see or not see rather than defining it along sectarian lines.

In addition, despite it being described as a bug, certain sections get dropped from Guides when I open a Guide in Logos and then Verbum. It has no priority because few people need to do this but it makes it a real pain to answer some forum questions or actually test some features.

Mike Binks

MJ. Smith said:

Sorry, FL but that really was my first reaction even though I know intellectually that your motives are probably far simpler.

My reaction to the news of Verbum's development is somewhat similar.

I think that going that way was a mistake. Being able to set our preferred cannon, by shorthand or by selecting each individual 'book', or even part thereof, would not have been technically hard.

Having specific Lectionary tools would have been a great selling point into a relatively new market area.

Having tools to deal with Saints, Seasons, etc could all have been constructed to be used or not as required.

I am mighty upset that some for some features I would have to change programs and that I might never discover some insights that would help my journey.