Using Facebook

I'm trying to help the Stake interprit the handbook. From reading in Book 2 Section 2.1.22 it says...

"Stake and ward Web sites may be created only by using the official Church Internet resources. Stakes and wards are not authorized to create other Web sites or blogs or otherwise have a Church-sponsored presence on the Internet."

To me that clearly says... you can't use a Facebook group or page (i.e. Stake YM/YW) to promote activities and share photos afterward. Seems as if all that would have to be done by someone using an individual account.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Thanks...
JW

That seems to be a reasonable interpretation. But it needs to be read by a leader with keys to interpreting the handbook.

My Stake President allows our ward to use a facebook group. Our group is invite only and the stake Presidency are all admins on the group. I am in a YSA Ward

I have to believe that an organization like the church has plans in the future to provide some kind of internal or Local Unit Social interaction site. I wish we could just peep inside the dev cycle. A place to store photos, a place to gather a ward history with pictures and journal entries, etc...There are so many great uses that we may have... either that or we could specifically clear up the muddy picture were facebook is authorized for some but not for all, etc...

JohnShaw wrote:There are so many great uses that we may have... either that or we could specifically clear up the muddy picture were facebook is authorized for some but not for all, etc...

While lehrschallbrian may not be aware of any approvals sought by his stake president before they began using Facebook it is clear in Hanbook 2, 21.1.22, seventh paragraph under the Official Church Internet Resources section, that young single adult activities and organization may need special consideration.

I gather from the information that the members of the stake presidency are administrators is an indication they are following guidance provided by a member of the Presidency of the Seventy.

jdlessley wrote:While lehrschallbrian may not be aware of any approvals sought by his stake president before they began using Facebook it is clear in Hanbook 2, 21.1.22, seventh paragraph under the Official Church Internet Resources section, that young single adult activities and organization may need special consideration.

I think this refers to a different sitatuation than what's being discussed here, as Facebook is not an "official Church Web site." I'll give you an example of this in our area: occasionally an extension of the official country page is created to advertise a national event, such as a YSA conference, and to collect registrations. This constitutes use of an official Church Web site (lds.org.au) and as the paragraph states, has to be approved by the Area Presidency internationally or the Presidency of the Seventy within the US.

The following section in 21.1.22, "Members’ Use of the Internet in Church Callings", seems to give more relevant direction to the original question, and suggests freedom to use Facebook in the manner suggested, so long as you adhere to the guidelines that are given in that section, including creating the group with a personal account. Of course, a stake presidency or bishopric could suggest further conditions or restrictions within their stake or ward as they feel inspired.

I read "21.1.22: Members’ Use of the Internet in Church Callings" to mean that members in church callings CAN use electronic resources (web sites, blogs, facebook groups, email accounts, newsletters, etc) to share information relevant to the church/their callings with others so long as they don't imply official status/sponsorship. I would think this could even extend as far as a Stake or Ward group on Facebook, so long as it includes all of the disclaimers. To be safe, however, I would not have the Bishop be the "sponsor" or one pushing for people to join it, as that implies an official status. They key to that paragraph, I believe, is "individual members may"... though we're all individual members (even leaders) some members' activities carry more weight/implication.

That being said, I believe a best-practice is for everything like this to be opt-in. It should NOT be the "official"/"authoritative" source of information, and not attempt to duplicate or replace the official tools at LDS.org. (for example, I would NOT announce to the ward that all ward events would be posted as Facebook events rather than using the calendar at LDS.org and that members must join Facebook to get that info)

Just my 2 cents, FWIW.

I guess the key is what is the web presence purporting to do. A handful of people in our ward created a private ward Facebook group (that anyone can be invited to) where folks can post notes to their lessons, ask if Mutual is cancelled, make reminders about the ward activity, solicit for a substitute to teach their classes, or let people know of a family in need.

It doesn't attempt to be official in any way, is not public, but serves as a community-driven conversation board. It's convenient to have a way to access ward members that is along the beaten path each day. The bishop is happy to mention it to new move-ins because the daily exchange with members is immensely helpful. No one is "in charge of it" and it is very organic in nature. So far so good.

Once Newsletter is "ripe", I can foresee a day when links to news items on the official ward pages are hyperlinked on facebook so people know there is an update, because let's face it, we've got a whole lot more people checking facebook each day than logging into lds.org. (many don't even have their lds account active, for shame).

For what it's worth, we do have an opt-in weekly email with the auxiliary events, details, and community announcements that goes through a Ward communications specialist. It is AWESOME and helps keep members informed, aggregating the whole ward's worth of news and information into one email each week. I expect it could be transferred to Newsletter also, once there is capability to have articles emailed to ward members.

RussellHltn wrote:But it needs to be read by a leader with keys to interpreting the handbook.

My Stake Presidency needs to help understanding this better to be able to make a decision. They would appreciate my input (as the STS).

I think I can draw 2 conclusions.
1. The Chruch wants it's people to "share" on the internet.
2. The Church is concerned that some members / wards / stakes / etc. efforts might be percieved as "Official" church content.

In practice it seems that every page / group / etc. needs:
1. The "This is not an official..." disclaimer in it's description.
2. A "name" that describes / represents the group (not an individual).

So what is the happy medium... that describes (and brings people into) the group... but doesn't cross the line of sounding to "official"? For those out there that are doing this... how are you "managing" to stay within guidlines? I suspect it can be done... but am looking for ideas.

Thanks...!

john84601 wrote:The Church is concerned that some members / wards / stakes / etc. efforts might be percieved as "Official" church content.

We're really not sure what the concerns are. Some have been expressed, such as the privacy of members, rights of copyright holders, purity of the gospel etc. Another may be keeping a certain amount of legal distance between the page and the church. (After all, it is World-Wide and so any misstep can carry the potential of some significant legal problems.)

If the stake presidency is making decisions (other then asking for a take-down) on a page or group, then wouldn't it in fact be a "stake page" regardless of what the name of the group was?

If the stake president is looking for directions, I would suggest talking with the Area Authority rather then asking the opinion of the forum.

john84601 wrote:My Stake Presidency needs to help understanding this better to be able to make a decision. They would appreciate my input (as the STS).

I think I would have done this same thing, asking the forum or the community. The community is a place for us to exchange ideas and even use cases of a solution like facebook in our church service. I don't think my answer to the Stake President, (if I was an STS) would be to talk to the Area Authority, as the STS I would give the information that I gathered and assumed I was part of a broader approach. Or I would counsel with my Stake Clerk and make sure that in the presidency meetings where it is likely discussed that if desired the Stake President could consider speaking to the Area Authority.

My own caution in this area is the exclusivity that often accompanies using a technology like Facebook, there are various reasons, economic, temptations, productivity, online safety and security which keep people from using something like Facebook. When members use it to communicate it, it can become THE place, which turns into exclusions from many because items are not announced anywhere else, those using the solution assume everyone does it like them.

Here is what I counseled when giving advice to our Stake President in a similar situation that came up from a Bishop.

Use of a blog or Facebook tends to create a subset of the group you are trying to communicate with. Even maintaining a separate email list from what is officially in MLS can cause issues. As an example, my wife's email which has been listed MLS for as long as it could be, was not in our most recent ward's Relief Society mailing list, because they maintained something else entirely and didn't even use the MLS data she was 'excluded' from many activities, or get-togethers because of these reasons. Did it hurt her feelings? A bit, did it cause here to lose her testimony, NO, but it might contribute to that process in someone else's life. If we want to use a technology for communication, we must make sure that everyone under our stewardship will receive the same information, whether we do that by old-fashioned letter or a phone call, etc...

I would say that at this point, a creative use of the calendar and the beta newsletter would get us nearly everything we need. These items could be improved greatly, but even then, a plan should be in place if it is being used for communication.

I loved previously that someone had a Ward Communications specialist.... how fantastic....

JohnShaw wrote:I think I would have done this same thing, asking the forum or the community. The community is a place for us to exchange ideas and even use cases of a solution like facebook in our church service. I don't think my answer to the Stake President, (if I was an STS) would be to talk to the Area Authority,

I'll amened my answer by saying if he's looking a better understanding of the use of facebook and how it would work, then the community is a good resource. But if it's to understand policy as found in the handbook, then going to the area authority is a good answer.

I would certainly point out that the handbook has some guidance on the issue.

JohnShaw wrote:Use of a blog or Facebook tends to create a subset of the group you are trying to communicate with.

I'd also add that not everyone is on FB, and some have deliberately chosen to stay away from it. While I'm on it, I'm personally leery about the amount of information the website collects on their users.

I'd also add that there are different types of FB groups and how they work. Some would invite commentary, others would be closer to announce only.

Personally, I think the calendar properly used would do much for getting the information out. That sync feature is great. It seems to me that would have the best reach of any computer product.

RussellHltn wrote:I'll amened my answer by saying if he's looking a better understanding of the use of facebook and how it would work, then the community is a good resource. But if it's to understand policy as found in the handbook, then going to the area authority is a good answer.

And with your amendment, you cover my suggestion: do both. Use the resources of this forum for technical and other ideas. Present the benefits and challenges to the stake president. Study the handbook, and then let him counsel with his Area Seventy for further guidance.

Aside from some legal concerns and Church liability, my biggest challenge with sites not controlled by the Church (and not just Facebook) is that there usually is no control over the extra content that appears on the page in the form of advertisements and other links. Some of these items are not at all in keeping with Church standards, and some of them can be very detrimental to both those with budding testimonies and seasoned veterans alike.

As a most simple example, to have a site with the name of a Church organization on it that advertises alcoholic beverages or includes a link to immoral sites is something that would send chills down the back of any bishop or stake president, and rightfully so.

lajackson wrote:advertises alcoholic beverages or includes a link to immoral sites is something that would send chills down the back of any bishop or stake president, and rightfully so.

Good point. You should see some of the ads on the pages of those whose status is "single".

RussellHltn wrote:Good point. You should see some of the ads on the pages of those whose status is "single".

I have seen them. And don't follow any of the links. I rest my case. [grin]

I have recently been called as our ward Stake YW President. Our stake is spread out land wise a bit. We have two high schools in our stake boundary and we are really striving to unite these youth. We will be doing a lot of activities with our neighboring stake as well, and are trying to unite the youth of both these stakes as well. We know how strong the youth especially of our stake use Facebook and had the thought of using Facebook to post our recent activities, promote uplifting spiritual thoughts, allow the youth to have another resource to know what is going on within our stake as far as activities are concerned. BUT after reading the handbook I am having VERY mixed impressions if this is something that is OK to do. I am not sure how is the best way to communicate with the youth of our stake (via the internet) is. I don't want to go against the handbook in any way, but know that the youth are big time internet users... please help to guide me in this matter.

RussellHltn wrote:Personally, I think the calendar properly used would do much for getting the information out. That sync feature is great. It seems to me that would have the best reach of any computer product.

Just curious, can the calendar be synced with a facebook page?

tjensen5 wrote:Just curious, can the calendar be synced with a facebook page?

Maybe. I have no idea about how FB works.

But on the sync page it says "This URL is provided for your own personal use. It should not be shared with anyone else." Personal sync is the only sync provided.

When I was ward clerk in a YSA Ward we had a facebook group that was approved by our Stake Presidency. The Presidency were all members and could see what was being posted. It was strictly monitored and we never had a problem.

lehrschallbrian wrote:When I was ward clerk in a YSA Ward we had a facebook group that was approved by our Stake Presidency.

This is the same information you provided in post #3 of this thread.

Without higher guidance and approval, the actions of your stake president would appear to be contrary to the guidance provided in Handbook 2, 21.1.22. The specific restriction is quoted in the opening post.

However an individual in the performance of their calling and following the guidance provided in the "Members’ Use of the Internet in Church Callings" section of 21.1.22 may use such Internet resources as Facebook.

Without further information about how the Facebook page was set up and whether it followed the guidance if 21.1.22, there is little value in supporting a statement that the use of Facebook in that situation was appropriate or not.

I have had a lot of requests with questions about Facebook come to me asking if it's "approved". Can units (Either stake or Ward Level), use Facebook private groups to communicate with the youth? Young men, young women, or both. I recall a webcast training where this question was brought up and the answer was "we haven't decided", but I can't remember where I heard this.

As long as it's clear that it's a non-official site, and the opinions don't reflect any official position of the church, would something like this be fine, as long as it has the Stake President's approval?

Thanks!

KeithWilson wrote:Can units (Either stake or Ward Level), use Facebook private groups to communicate with the youth?

I moved your post into the topic that has the most responses on this issue. As you read through the posts in this topic, you'll see that there is quite a range of opinion. But there are some good references to the Handbook as well.