Young men Organization on facebook

Organization of the young men of my Ward. As a leader, Can I use this Facebook page to share information on activities, photos and comments?

The policy regarding that can be found in Handbook 2: #21.1.22

While Handbook it doesn't say you can't share the schedule of upcoming activities, the training for the old classic LUWS contained a caution not to publish youth activities to the front page where it could be seen by anyone without having to log in. The current calendar is completely behind a LDS Account login.

You may want to consider setting up an appropriate calendar in the ward and helping the youth to sync it to their own personal calendar as a way to stay current on activities.

One of my Laurels has recently setup a closed, invite only facebook group for East Grinstead YW. I'm not sure how I feel about this really - as it feels like it's not in accordance with current guidelines, and yet I don't feel like I want to insist on it's removal?

There must be thousands of LDS facebook groups for everything from Youth, YSA, Missions etc. I wonder if it will eventually just be okay, with certain safeguards?

My wife's presidency uses a facebook group to post reminders about dances and activities. They've had much better participation since having done so. I believe it's a private group to which they invite all the girls and any parents who have facebook accounts.

When they post reminders, however, they do not post locations or times. It only ever gets as specific as "Tuesday night." The girls call someone in the presidency if they need more detail than that.

While I think I understand the reason for the need to continually sign in to lds.org, I suspect the inconvenience is a huge factor for many members, especially the youth. Facebook is much easier for them. Sure, you can sync the calendar to an app on your iPhone but, again, that's just another layer of hassle to the youth.

Plus, do all youth of a phone they can pull the calendar into. I suspect the Church is working on some kind of social networking solution, it's just a hunch... I find it interesting that through observation, policies often change because of the success of disobeying that policy. The more members of the church use facebook (or another tool) to communicate, be successful, increase the influence of the gospel in the lives of our youth or members, the quicker the policy will be adjusted. I don't think it is in any defiance to an authority, just a desire to adjust to the local circumstances and meet the needs of actual members. One area where facebook would work for a ward, might not work well in another ward.

I think we could solve a bunch of this by giving a blogish type thing to the online tools (like the old news and information site revamped)... If the Church IT doesn't provide someplace within the policy/rules for the RS to post recipes for food storage, they'll create a blog or facebook site to post them. For every RS that asks permission and is denied, there are 10 who learn through Mailing lists or forums not to ask, and just go forward with it, by then it's too late...

again, just an observation, I have no intention of saying the policy shouldn't be obeyed, and as a Stake Technology Specialist, and Stake Clerk, I support the handbook and always point either to the online tools, or the news and information area to share information online.

JohnShaw wrote:I find it interesting that through observation, policies often change because of the success of disobeying that policy.

I really doubt that is the reason the policies change - that is, disobedience to the policy. Rather it is the use of certain technology that the policies did not consider or could not consider at the time the policy was written that more than likely drove the change. Policies are put into place to adhere to the laws of the land, to protect members, member privacy, protect the youth, and other issues the Church becomes responsible for by virtue of the data collected and maintained concerning members. At the time the policy was written the authors could only consider the conditions that existed or that were foreseeable. A lot has transpired in just the last decade, more so in the last three years, in the use of technology to maintain and distribute Church data. It takes time to evaluate a policy against the technology used to maintain and distribute data. As Church membership use technology not previously used to maintain and distribute data, that technology is evaluated against the obligation to protect data and members. I see only the correlation between changes in technology along with use of that technology by members to the change in policies rather than a correlation to disobedience.

JohnShaw wrote:The more members of the church use facebook (or another tool) to communicate, be successful, increase the influence of the gospel in the lives of our youth or members, the quicker the policy will be adjusted.

I agree only in that as members use the technology and the protection of the data and members can be assured will the policy adapt. The overriding reason for the policy is still there - protection of data and members. The policies may change along with changes in technology as long as protection of data and protection of members is maintained.

JohnShaw wrote:I don't think it is in any defiance to an authority, just a desire to adjust to the local circumstances and meet the needs of actual members.

Every member has the responsibility to follow Church policies and the counsel given by leaders. I am sure if members not only consider what they want to do with why Church policies exist they would be less inclined to view policies as a restriction but rather a protection. It follows the same truths as found in Gospel principles.

JohnShaw wrote:If the Church IT doesn't provide someplace within the policy/rules for the RS to post recipes for food storage, they'll create a blog or facebook site to post them.

There is no reason why they cannot. This is permitted in Church policy (See Handbook 2, 21.1.22) Just follow the guidance in the Handbook and there is no problem. By example my wife has a blog she started to help fulfill her calling as a family history consultant. Her blog is in compliance with the policies of the Handbook.

You are very specifically referencing a policy related to privacy laws, etc... As I read the policies when they came out and the handbook information, most of them read that the Church wants to maintain ownership and Branding of the 'official stuff' I don't remember anywhere reading that the church was concerned over the privacy of it's members, at that time, nothing was online, it wasn't a motive of the original document (as it was implemented originally) that due to the safety of ... or personal privacy issues... I know those are considerations, I understand that from a professional level as well as a church one, but Many years ago when the policy was implemented, my own personal interpretation was that branding was the most important motive for the policy. That' is also completely acceptable... BUT there are many policies that exist because of bureaucracy, which is also completely acceptable, but the placement of a XLR input in RS or Primary rooms, cultural halls, etc... the decision to stock a materials center with xxx items, or that buildings have rock rather than grass, many of these type of standards and policies are not due to issues of privacy, etc...

If the RS wants to post a recipe blog that is fine.. you are absolutely right, but the minute they post that there is a super-saturday activity in March, they've moved into the realm of non-supported websites. It's easy to answer the question about an RS recipe blog, but about the actual issues we're dealing with it is not so easy. There is frankly NO WAY to communicate sometimes to some groups of young men or young women without doing facebook... that's where they are IS putting up a private facebook group against the policy or not? Most would say no and side with being cautious, some would say yes, as long as we're using it for fellowship, etc... but how can you keep from announcing an activity, etc...

Again, I reiterate, it would be a fairly benign change to implement a fix, that would take all this away... People want to follow the policy, but they also want to meet the needs of those they serve... it is too bad that we don't seem to have the ability to do both (in some circumstances)

JohnShaw wrote:I don't remember anywhere reading that the church was concerned over the privacy of its members...

In Handbook 2, Section 21.1.22, the discussion of official Church websites notes that "They also comply with legal requirements and the Church’s intellectual property and privacy policies." That discussion covers the stake and ward websites. So it seems clear that privacy policies were considered in regard to ward and stake websites.

In Europe, the Church cares so much about the legal issues surrounding privacy laws and policies that no one can even be seen on the Directory until they opt in, even though that visibility is restricted to signed-in members of the stake. The Church makes all these efforts to be careful, and then some members post all sorts of information on public blogs that reveals information about other ward and stake members. That's a concern. There's always a balance between privacy/security and convenience. In my experience, the Church will tend to lean towards the privacy/security side in such decisions.

I know i'm being a bit particular here, but this is clearly referencing my sentence out of context, I was referring to the policy as it came out, when it came out originally - when wards and stakes were told to pull down their websites. Prior to there ever being a Ward and Stake website. When the Ward and Stakes websites came out, in addition to owning the branding and marketing of Church official information, member data was made available online, but considered privacy laws as well, policy changed over time, or more accurately was refined over time. We also know that the websites were modified over time to included greater consideration of individual privacy.

I have to think the handbook was anticipating a quicker roll out or migration from the older websites to the new one. Again, that's just my take as I observe what's going on but what we have now for our use as wards and stakes is not sufficient to meet the needs we have as members. It is unfortunate that we must tell them no at each request, or each time we discover something new we have to make them take it down.

JohnShaw wrote:I know i'm being a bit particular here, but this is clearly referencing my sentence out of context, I was referring to the policy as it came out, when it came out originally - when wards and stakes were told to pull down their websites.

Not long after the wards and stakes were told to pull down their websites, this letter was published in December 2004, which contains wording about privacy that is not all that different from what we have now. So concern for privacy is hardly anything new.

JohnShaw wrote:I was referring to the policy as it came out, when it came out originally - when wards and stakes were told to pull down their websites. Prior to there ever being a Ward and Stake website.

I remember privacy being mentioned. But it wasn't the bulk of the message. I should be able to find an older copy tonight.

RussellHltn wrote:I remember privacy being mentioned. But it wasn't the bulk of the message. I should be able to find an older copy tonight.

The relevant letters are:

• 13 Dec 2004
• 22 Jan 2003 (this link is to an announcement -- I couldn't find a public record of actual letter, but I have a copy)
• 15 Mar 2001

Ah, thanks. That saves me from looking.

The sentence "it is imperative that the rights of third parties be protected and respected though strict compliance with applicable laws" could apply to both copyrights and privacy.

Two things.

First. In many countries around the world, the Church has sent out a Church Data Privacy Statement specific to the country that must be posted in every meetinghouse. Most often, this is because countries have adopted privacy laws that require it.

Second. In considering the use of social networking and other public web sites, it is always wise to follow Church guidelines, of course. And it is particularly wise to remember that there is a big difference between a group of Relief Society sisters or Young Single Adults who are, in fact, legal adults, and a group of Young Men or Young Women who are not of legal age and are entitled to greater protection in the cyberspace world.

Often times, this additional protection is required by law. Many times, there are safety issues involved.

So - tying these last threads together with the original poster: This is where, I think, the other service providers and tools come in. A member can opt in to their service and accept the privacy policy of the provider of behalf of themselves without the church being on the hook at all. This is the benefit of using a 3rd party service (whether it be email, or facebook, or whatever).

The church doesn't need to (and shouldn't in my opinion) wade into the social networking scene with its own tool as was suggested previously.
a) the other providers can do it so much better because of the time, talent, and money it takes to develop a great social network.
b) the church would struggle to create a compelling platform that would ever reach critical mass of usage to be relevant
c) the church protects the church from data privacy issues (as already stated)
d) the church wouldn't have to worry about filtering/editorializing members or looking like a 'sponsor' of something someone says or does on its social network.

Members are far better of coalescing around whatever communication platform is right for their time and location. In our country, we've been through an exciting evolution of snail mail, telephone, email, mobile/txt, and social networking in the last 100 years, but that is only the evolution we went through in the US. Remember that in many countries they are skipping right to mobile without ever experiencing a landline. Different people in different places use technology differently, and we have to be open to that possibility and not pigeon-hole them into a least common denominator, US-based approach.

The guidance in the new handbook feels more timeless than the other various letters/instructions to go/no-go on a certain technology. The new handbook essentially says what not to do with church data, and then leaves it up to the members to figure out what other tools are useful in their callings and responsibilities (with some general guidance of what not to do).

I took note that, in yesterday's training, Elder Uchtdorf mentioned that we should use technology to do organizational stuff so we can then maximize our council time in real council. He said "There are many ways to enhance our precious council time, like always coming well prepared. We could handle scheduling or other organizational matters by memo, phone, e-mail, or text. When we allow organizational matters to dominate our efforts and time in our councils, we run the risk of missing the mark of why the Lord has called us to minister in His Church." (emphasis added)

I believe that the Church is still trying to balance the good and bad of social media. But it is getting closer. These two links provide more guidance: (Sorry, I don't know how to use the cool linky things you all do.)

http://www.lds.org/pages/internet-usage-helps?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/pages/social-media-helps?lang=eng