Electronic device etiquette at church?

Is there an official statement about proper etiquette for using electronic devices at church? We're a tech-friendly Ward for sure, so I know there's a place for it, but I'd like to know what the proper etiquette is.
Thanks in advance!

scrapmom3 wrote:Is there an official statement about proper etiquette for using electronic devices at church? We're a tech-friendly Ward for sure, so I know there's a place for it, but I'd like to know what the proper etiquette is.

Official? None of which I know. Proper etiquette? Sure. I have some personal thoughts.

If it does not detract from the Spirit, I am fine with it. Noise is not the only distraction, just the primary one. It is easy for an electronic device to be distracting in other ways, and if it is, I do not believe it should be used.

For example, sacrament meeting should be a reverent and spiritual occasion for the members. Handbook 2:20.4.1 reminds those who bless and pass the sacrament that they should not wear or do anything that would call attention to itself or distract members during the sacrament. I believe electronic devices (and other members) can also be distracting and should not be.

I have no problem if a member uses an iPad or similar device to give a talk or lesson. If they place it on the pulpit and speak as they would from paper or other notes, I am fine with it. If there is lots of pausing, searching, waiting, oopsing, or other ings, it becomes a distraction.

I use my smart phone in almost every meeting I attend. I set it for stun before the meeting begins and make sure it emits no noises. I would never take a call (one exception, another thread) during a sacrament or other such meeting. I would never take a call during any other meeting unless the presiding officer had asked me to contact someone and hoped to have the answer during that meeting.

We have a large family. Early in our married life, we established a rule that solved almost every reverence problem we faced, especially in the chapel. Our children were allowed to do almost anything they wanted during meetings, as long as it met two requirements.

One, it had to be quiet. No noise. No exception. Two, it had to take place below the level of the top of the pews. That way no one would see it except for a person or two sitting to the immediate right or left, which was usually another family member. If it met these two requirements, they usually never heard from Mom or Dad.

So those are my initial thoughts. Reverence and the Spirit. Consideration for others. Not a distraction. A little bit of planning ahead. I'll save the war stories for later in the topic after it really gets rolling. [grin]

Electronic device etiquette is a local decision. I've heard of stake presidents and bishops who have made specific policies in this realm, and I know of others who choose not to make any specific policy and rely on members to exercise good judgment.

I know that pictures and video recordings are not allowed in the chapel, but audio recordings are.

Last month, I had a funeral where the family wanted to "skype" the funeral to someone in another country who couldn't be there.

I had no idea what to do. So, I am waiting to repent if I need to.

TinMan wrote:Last month, I had a funeral where the family wanted to "skype" the funeral to someone in another country who couldn't be there.

I had no idea what to do. So, I am waiting to repent if I need to.

I'll definitely leave any decisions on repentance up to you.

But I would note that Handbook 2, Section 21.2.10, says: "Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means." So it seems pretty clear to me that using Skype or any other similar tool to broadcast a funeral taking place in the chapel is contrary to policy.

You are probably right. I should remember to bring my handbook to funerals.

So that means when stake conferences are broadcast to other chapels, it is against policy?

What if they would have just left their cell phone on for the entire funeral? Do you see that as broadcasting by any other means?

Bishop you can have the handbooks on your electronic device.

TinMan wrote:So that means when stake conferences are broadcast to other chapels, it is against policy?

Well, I didn't quote the entire section, since it didn't seem relevant for funerals. But Section 21.2.10 goes on to say, "see 18.3.1 for an exception." That section just happens to deal with stake conference, and it says: "If necessary, conference sessions may be broadcast to other locations in the stake."

TinMan wrote:What if they would have just left their cell phone on for the entire funeral? Do you see that as broadcasting by any other means?

Yes.

Gary. Not every bishop is comfortable using an electronic device... It is why I have counselors.

And the handbooks... don't get me started. Until they either improve the "search" option or the index, I will stick with the printed ones.

aebrown wrote: Yes.

Thanks.

Perhaps they will release me.

TinMan wrote:Perhaps they will release me.

I'm sure they will. But not before your time!

TinMan wrote:So that means when stake conferences are broadcast to other chapels, it is against policy?

No, to continue the quote, it says "(see 18.3.1 for an exception)". Section 18.3.1 is "Stake Conference", which contains "If necessary, conference sessions may be broadcast to other locations in the stake."

TinMan wrote:What if they would have just left their cell phone on for the entire funeral? Do you see that as broadcasting by any other means?

I guess it falls to your interpretation of "broadcasting". Some might say that sending it to a single person fails the definition of "broad". So is "narrowcasting" allowed or is it against the spirit of the Handbook?

Personally, I'd be concerned about the Pandora's box effect. If you allow one person to listen, why can't the next person send it to 10 or 50 friends and relatives? I think it's easier to say no up front and be consistent then to try and find the point where "narrow" becomes "broad".

russellhltn wrote:
Personally, I'd be concerned about the Pandora's box effect. If you allow one person to listen, why can't the next person send it to 10 or 50 friends and relatives?

For me, I was more concerned about the grandmother confined to a rest home in another country that was unable to attend the funeral of the grandson she helped raise.

But that was just me.

I will take my lumps. But thanks.

This topic was discussed in this thread which started about a year and a half ago. Given the momentum and usefulness of apps like Gospel Library and LDS Tools, it's sad and a little disturbing to read that certain local leaders had attempted to ban electronic devices in their wards and stakes as recently as January 2012. Indeed, the newest version of the LDS Standard Works is currently only available in an electronic form!

I was a bit of a pioneer in my ward 9 years ago when I ditched my paper scriptures and started bringing a Pocket PC to Sunday meetings. I'm not sure what others thought I was doing at first but they quickly learned that as I was looking at my handheld device I was fully following the discussion and, in many cases, was doing more with footnotes and cross-references than anyone else was. Today, I'm always carrying an iPad to church and at least half our quorum uses smart phones to follow along. There really is no need to make rules about device etiquette in our ward. People use them. They work. If anything, it enhances the lessons rather than creating a distraction.

As far as the other topic of this thread... it's common practice around here for funeral directors to set up their own recorders to make audio recordings of funerals in chapels. They usually attach their own microphone to the one on the podium rather than use the jack that was hard-wired into the sound system for the express purpose of recording what goes through the PA system. While these things aren't supposed to be live-streamed, it seems that you could easily record the audio (which is not strictly prohibited) and send that audio file to someone via the Internet within moments after the funeral takes place (which, again, is not strictly prohibited... but it certainly approaches the same result as a "broadcast" without actually being "live"). And, of course, to the listener in a far-off place and another time zone, the experience of listening to the "podcast" or the "broadcast" may seem identical.

Broadcasting over the internet is not really the same as just transmitting to one person or maybe several people who are connected by Skype. It seems to me that at a funeral it would be completely appropriate to have family members who live in other parts of the World be able to particate.

PeterWoodman wrote:Broadcasting over the internet is not really the same as just transmitting to one person or maybe several people who are connected by Skype. It seems to me that at a funeral it would be completely appropriate to have family members who live in other parts of the World be able to particate.

Please refer to post #5 of this thread. It's pretty clear.