Best practices for Facebook

In preface: Using Facebook for stake/ward communication is a grey area of interpretation that's often debated here on the forums – relevant church policies can be found here, here, and here.

My stake president has considered these policies and approved the use of Facebook in our Young Single Adult stake. That said, I'd like to gather your thoughts on best practices. How would you use Facebook, if you were to use Facebook in your ward or stake?

Here is a summary of what we've discussed so far as an extended stake presidency (that is, stake presidency, clerks, and executive secretaries).

We should have a stake Facebook page.

• Currently set up at https://www.facebook.com/ProvoUtahYSA9thStake
• All posts by others require approval before they are made visible on the timeline.
• Potential uses:
  – Let people know which ward they're in.
  – Alert people when boundaries or meeting times change.
  – Let people know how they can contact a ward leader or set up a stake interview.
  – Create Facebook events for stake meetings and activities.
  – Publicize stake goals.
  – Share messages from stake presidency members.
  – Let members know about stake resources.
  – Let members know about official church resources.
  – Sharing the gospel with people in our area.

We should encourage each ward to have a Facebook group.

• Most of our wards already have Facebook groups, so we need to define some policies.
• Ward groups should be "closed", meaning only group members can see the posts, and an administrator has to approve new members who join or are added.
• Administrators should be careful to only allow ward members to join and should remove members after they move.
• Administrators should monitor the group for inappropriate use.
• The group should be one of multiple means of communication.
• Potential uses:
  – Alert people when meeting times change.
  – Create Facebook events and remind members about ward meetings and activities.
  – Share stake Facebook events and remind members about stake meetings and activities.
  – Share messages from bishopric members and auxiliaries.
  – Let members know about ward resources.
  – Remind members what the lesson topic for the week is.
  – Request/provide opportunities for service.
  – Fellowshipping members and nonmembers in the ward.

sbradshaw wrote:Ward groups should be "closed", meaning only group members can see the posts, and an administrator has to approve new members who join or are added.

That's all well and good, but how will this be accomplished? Who would be monitoring for compliance? In my view, this is where the whole thing could go off track into areas that CHQ is trying to avoid.

russellhltn wrote:

sbradshaw wrote:Ward groups should be "closed", meaning only group members can see the posts, and an administrator has to approve new members who join or are added.

That's all well and good, but how will this be accomplished? Who would be monitoring for compliance? In my view, this is where the whole thing could go off track into areas that CHQ is trying to avoid.

Whoever approves new members will need to first check the LDS.org directory, and if the person's not in the directory, ask a bishopric member or someone else who would know if the person just moved in.

sbradshaw wrote:Whoever approves new members will need to first check the LDS.org directory, and if the person's not in the directory, ask a bishopric member or someone else who would know if the person just moved in.

Good start. But it doesn't address the question of verifying that the person being added in FB really is the person in the directory. Are you getting the user's FB account name from them at church?

And there's still the area of handling move-outs. That's where I expect things to go downhill. There will be complaints if someone isn't added, but I don't see any natural force requiring the processing of move-outs. So I can see that falling behind. Maybe not so bad with a student ward where you could start from scratch each semester/trimester, but not so good with a non-student YSA ward.

Yes, it would fall behind if it wasn't carefully monitored. It wouldn't be a huge problem if it were a month or two behind, I think, but we'd want to follow up and encourage clerks to remove people simultaneously with sending out their membership records. Or, provide a list of move-outs each month to whoever is in charge of moderating the group.

In one of my other groups, someone said "laws without enforcement is just free legal advice". That' why I'm advocating some kind of "enforcement" procedure, perhaps an audit, to insure compliance.

russellhltn wrote:In one of my other groups, someone said "laws without enforcement is just free legal advice". That' why I'm advocating some kind of "enforcement" procedure, perhaps an audit, to insure compliance.

That's a good idea to audit it somehow. I guess we still audit membership and finances, even though most of the year we just trust the ward leaders to do their jobs.

One simple way to audit would be to compare the number of members in the ward with the number of members in the group. If there are ever, say 200 members in a group (when a normal YSA ward here has 100–150 members) we would know that there's a problem

sbradshaw wrote:One simple way to audit would be to compare the number of members in the ward with the number of members in the group. If there are ever, say 200 members in a group (when a normal YSA ward here has 100–150 members) we would know that there's a problem

That's an obvious problem, but I'm not sure as all the members would sign up anyway. So even if the numbers are below the membership count, there still could be a significant problem.

Since FB names don't always match the person's name, any audit would have to rely on a chart created by the ward that shows what FB name belongs to what member. The only way I can think of to verify that is to randomly select 10 non-obvious names and call those members to confirm their FB name.

My ward has only had 2 or 3 people I know of without Facebook, in the past two years, and probably 95% of those with Facebook sign up for the group or are added by others and don't remove themselves.

You bring up an interesting point with not being able to verify if a person could have the same name as someone in the ward. Not sure to what extent we should worry about that possibility (I haven't seen any problems related to it so far). What kind of information could a person share in a ward Facebook group that would be compromising if someone with bad intent snuck in? What if an actual ward member has bad intent? How does that risk compare in severity and probability to other, non-Facebook related membership risks?

sbradshaw wrote:You bring up an interesting point with not being able to verify if a person could have the same name as someone in the ward.

Considering how common some names are, I don't think you'd want to just go down the ward list and invite everyone with the same name. Not only are you going to end up inviting some incorrect people, but you'll miss others. I know of at least two people in my group who go by "less obvious", if not outright fictional names in order to be more private.

So in the name of security and accuracy, I think you'd be best off starting with a verified member and finding out what their FB name is. If there was a way to invite via email and you use the email in the directory, that might work.

sbradshaw wrote:Not sure to what extent we should worry about that possibility (I haven't seen any problems related to it so far). What kind of information could a person share in a ward Facebook group that would be compromising if someone with bad intent snuck in?

All I know is the church had gone to a great deal of effort to insure that only member can see their own ward. Back in the LUWS 1.0 days, there was a admin test question that indicated that Youth activities were not to be posted on the ward's main page which was publically visible. I'm not entirely sure of the reason, but somewhere I picked up the concern about predators. While college students are not youth, I'm not sure as they are that much safer from a predator who can "speak the lingo".

At any rate, the church system sets the standard for security. If your method is laxer, then you are giving someone ammo to shut it down. You can show you are just as secure, and verifiably so, then they may let it go.

How do you control the advertisements?

I refer all of us to Handbook 2, section 21.1.22 which says:

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

and

On occasion, official Church Web sites may be approved for other purposes, such as multistake projects, special events, and young single adult activities and organization. To seek approval for such a site, the organization’s priesthood leader submits a request stating the purpose and need to a member of the Presidency of the Seventy or the Area Presidency.

From where I'm sitting, this Ward or Stake Facebook group idea isn't in such a "gray area" after all. Has the Stake President really obtained authorization from a member of the Presidency of the Seventy or the Area Presidency? If not, shut this down until it happens, period.

I've commented on a "Ward App" idea in another forum discussion and my comments are basically the same here. There's nothing significant about what you'd like to do with a Ward or Stake Facebook group that couldn't be done using the tools at LDS.org (primarily with the Newsletter and Calendar tools) except that signing in at LDS.org is less convenient and excludes those who don't have LDS Accounts. And I think the church would really, really like us to get into the habit of using their official tools. What better time to get members into the habit of using the official tools than when they're college students living "on their own" for the first time?

Others here have pointed out the nightmare (and I'll call it a nightmare) of trying to manage a closed Facebook group based on move-ins and move-outs in a BYU Stake. Why not just use the LDS.org tools where this is all done automatically based on what happens in MLS?

I also wonder about the liability of putting people who don't necessarily want to socialize with each other into a common Facebook group. Will "Jason" now be able to access personal information about "Ann" that she doesn't want him to have? Perhaps "Ann" hasn't verified her Facebook privacy settings to anticipate what someone else in her Stake Facebook Group can see. This is avoided when you use the LDS.org tools instead.

So, rather than create all this extra work and headaches for a "Stake Facebook Group Administrator" just make an announcement every Sunday at Sacrament Meetings that all Stake information is available in the official tools at LDS.org. They'll get the idea.

Also, would the developers of the "LDS Tools" mobile app PLEASE incorporate the Newsletter into that app?

lajackson wrote:How do you control the advertisements?

We don't, any more than we could control advertisements in an email program if we were sending information out via email.

We will still be encouraging people to use all of the LDS.org tools. For example, usually if someone asks for something like a phone number for an interview, we say, "You'll want to contact one of the executive secretaries. Here's the link to the LDS.org Directory." We've also been posting things like home evening group divisions on the LDS.org Newsletter and directing people there as a permanent link. I would say that there certainly are things that can be done on Facebook that can't be done at all on the LDS.org tools: for example, if someone needs to borrow a hammer, they post and within 5 minutes someone responds (this really does happen, all the time, and it's amazing). Or, "I'm watching 17 Miracles in my apartment in an hour – feel free to come!" And, people can have conversations or get feedback when planning activities. We can reach many who don't even attend church.

There is no managing of a stake Facebook group – our stake has a page, not a group. It's the individual wards who have groups, and they are best suited to deal with new move-ins and -outs, just as they deal with moving membership records. And being a member of a group with someone doesn't let you see any more information about them than looking them up outside of the group. No phone numbers, email addresses, etc. are exposed because you're in the same group as someone – it just means you get notified when someone sends a message to the group, and you can have conversations based on those messages.

sbradshaw wrote:And being a member of a group with someone doesn't let you see any more information about them than looking them up outside of the group.

...until Facebook unexpectedly changes the default privacy settings and people don't realize what's being newly disclosed... but that never happens. :rolleyes:

I still don't think these Facebook groups stand up against Handbook 2, 21.1.22.

sbradshaw wrote:We don't, any more than we could control advertisements in an email program if we were sending information out via email.

We use email systems that do not send out advertisements.

Our stake policy does not allow Facebook pages for ward and stake organizations because of the prohibition in the Handbook (cited earlier in this topic), and because we cannot control the ads. Many of the advertisements are so totally inappropriate and contrary to the teachings of the Church that our stake president has deemed it unacceptable. (That said, I also have an assignment to monitor all the ones I can find because members continue to use the names of their ward and stake and the Church in pages they establish, contrary to priesthood leader counsel.)

Here is just one example of how Facebook is used in a way that I personally do not believe is contrary to the Handbook.

All of the Young Women know that the Young Women president has a personal Facebook page, and that they will find information about many of their activities and lessons there in addition to what is on the ward calendar and the very limited ward lesson schedule.

Many of our members use their personal Facebook accounts to further their Church work in similar ways, and much unofficial communication takes place via that and other social media. We do not fault that.

We are also blessed to live in a location where approval has been given to host area YSA and SA web sites (not Facebook pages). And this has been a great blessing to us, because they are priesthood approved and priesthood monitored. The information on them is correct and can be relied upon as the basis for travel plans and informed calendars. When a Facebook announcement goes out, our YSA and SA can check the official site to confirm information or report problems, and any conflicts can be quickly resolved.

Media is wonderful, but it comes with a price. My stake president texted me for months and was puzzled that I seemed to be ignoring all but a very few of his texts. He later learned that I was not receiving any text he sent if he sent it to more than one person, which was usually the case. The only ones I received were the ones he sent to me and no one else.

Such is technology.

mrrad wrote:...until Facebook unexpectedly changes the default privacy settings and people don't realize what's being newly disclosed... but that never happens. :rolleyes:

Which raises another question: I've also noticed that the church is quite careful to never advertise who is and is not a member. It's completely up to the member to make that announcement to their friends and associates. Short of becoming a Bishop, or attending that ward in person, no one would find out that information from the church itself.

How does privacy work in a FB setting? Can the member's friends see that they belong to this group? Could some of these posts in the groups be seen by a friend of a member? This may not seem like a big deal for a typical YSA in a Provo, but what if the member is coming from a country where church membership could have repercussions?

And as mrrad noted, how can we be sure of what is fine today will continue to be OK?

My suggestion: rather then trying to add everyone automatically, it should be done only of the member wants to be added. IOW, there needs to be permission. (It could be at the top of the sign-up sheet, so it doesn't have to be a big deal - just as long as the member is clear about what they are doing.)

I think that idea dovetails nicely with my suggestion of getting FB information from a known member rather then attempting to add them based on the ward directory.

A member's friends can see that they belong to the group. (We often have nonmembers in the group, too, who live within our ward boundaries and participate in ward activities.) A person can add themselves to the group, or they can be added by someone who is already their Facebook friend (usually a roommate), and if they are "added" to a group by their friend they have the opportunity to opt out (when they go to the group page the first time after they're added, there's a little bar at the top that gives them the option to leave). There is no way for a clerk to force-add anyone.

What I mean by "email programs having advertisements" is if I send out an email to a ward member, and they log in to, say, Yahoo or something to check their mail, there are likely to be ads on the side of the Yahoo email web site. They will appear next to any email that is received because they are part of Yahoo. That doesn't mean we don't use email to communicate to our ward members.

sbradshaw wrote:What I mean by "email programs having advertisements" is if I send out an email to a ward member, and they log in to, say, Yahoo or something to check their mail, there are likely to be ads on the side of the Yahoo email web site.

Oh, okay. And that is the member's choice, of course.

I was thinking of a case where if you use Juno, for example, to send an email, Juno attaches an advertisement to the bottom of your email that goes with the message. (I think Yahoo does that, also, and I am sure there are others.) Those are the ones that the sender cannot control. So I use an email service that does not do that.

lajackson wrote:I was thinking of a case where if you use Juno, for example, to send an email, Juno attaches an advertisement to the bottom of your email that goes with the message. (I think Yahoo does that, also, and I am sure there are others.) Those are the ones that the sender cannot control. So I use an email service that does not do that.

Not sure about those, but if you use email lists like Yahoo groups, you'll get an ad inserted by the re-mailer. As far as I know, there's no control over what the ad will be.

But getting back to the subject, yes, FB inserts ads of it's own choosing. Assuming the member already has a FB account, then it's of their own choosing. But the ad situation might be a concern if being in the group causes targeted anti advertising or if it encourages members to sign up for FB.

As an update on this topic, for anyone reading, the church's policies about members' internet use in callings in Handbook 2 has been updated!
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... ng#21.1.22

sbradshaw wrote:As an update on this topic, for anyone reading, the church's policies about members' internet use in callings in Handbook 2 has been updated!
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... ng#21.1.22

Wow! Even better is the link to internet.lds.org which spells it out with examples. Nice! Be sure to read "Examples of Inappropriate Uses" as it contains additional guidance. ("The name of the online resource should not be that of any Church unit")

Yes; we updated our stake page name from "Provo Utah YSA 9th Stake" to "Provo Utah YSA 9th Stake: News and Events".

sbradshaw wrote:As an update on this topic, for anyone reading, the church's policies about members' internet use in callings in Handbook 2 has been updated!
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... ng#21.1.22

Thanks for noticing that and posting the link. The page linked to from that section (internet.lds.org) is particularly instructive in the additional details and examples it gives. To my thinking, this is indeed a loosening of the restrictions previously given.

Not to fork the discussion, but was a letter sent telling us about this change to Handbook 2 ?

If Handbook 2 will be revised in place on the website, perhaps a convention should
be adopted.

Even something as simple as putting a revision number at the end of the number
could be helpful - for example if 2.20.12 is revised it becomes 2.20.12r1, if it is
further ammended, then it becomes 2.20.12r2.

Doing so not only would help people determine a revision took place,
but also would allow quick searching and scanning from the table of
contents to find any updated policies.

atticusewig wrote:Not to fork the discussion, but was a letter sent telling us about this change to Handbook 2 ?

I don't see anything in OCL.

It's possible that "they" do not view this as a change in policy as much as a clarification. It all depends on what was really allowed prior to the change. (Although, in my mind, it is a change.)

atticusewig wrote:Not to fork the discussion, but was a letter sent telling us about this change to Handbook 2 ?

If Handbook 2 will be revised in place on the website, perhaps a convention should
be adopted.

I have not (yet) seen a letter. We may just have to read the Handbook once again, I suppose. [grin]

aebrown wrote:Thanks for noticing that and posting the link. The page linked to from that section (internet.lds.org) is particularly instructive in the additional details and examples it gives. To my thinking, this is indeed a loosening of the restrictions previously given.

But... I already see a contradiction in their examples. One example of an appropriate practice is this...

After receiving permission from the bishop, the ward Relief Society presidency creates a blog that will include news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules, and photos from recent activities.

...but then an example of an inappropriate thing is this...

A stake creates a website with a calendar of all upcoming meetings, activities, and events.
Reason: Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools that are already available on LDS.org.

To me, the Relief Society blog with news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules and photos is absolutely duplicating tools that are already available on LDS.org. Specifically, the newsletter and lesson schedule tools.

mrrad wrote:But... I already see a contradiction in their examples. One example of an appropriate practice is this...

After receiving permission from the bishop, the ward Relief Society presidency creates a blog that will include news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules, and photos from recent activities.

...but then an example of an inappropriate thing is this...

A stake creates a website with a calendar of all upcoming meetings, activities, and events.
Reason: Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools that are already available on LDS.org.

To me, the Relief Society blog with news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules and photos is absolutely duplicating tools that are already available on LDS.org. Specifically, the newsletter and lesson schedule tools.

It's not necessarily a contradiction. The stake website created "a calendar of ALL upcoming meetings..." (emphasis added). That sound like an attempt to replace the existing Calendar tool, and so it's understandable that this example is inappropriate.

But in the RS example, the reference to lesson schedules doesn't necessarily duplicate the Lesson Schedules tool; the blog might only mention the next few upcoming lessons, and it might supply details (such as multiple instructors, or specific ways to prepare for the lesson) that are not supported in the current Lesson Schedules tool. And just because some information that is posted on the blog could also be posted on the Newsletter doesn't necessarily duplicate the tool.

Nonetheless, these examples do show that there is not always a clear line between inappropriate and appropriate usage. Local leaders will need to be aware of the policies and follow them according to their inspired interpretation.

Slippery Slope, allowing the Relief Society blog example.
It is replacing the Lesson Schedule tool, because no one
will maintain both. Same with the blog replacing the
Newsletter tool (which few units use anyway).

It would be better for the church to have a "bright line" rule that
we can have public-facing websites but they cannot include
the following: Member birthdates, Addresses, record numbers,etc.
I'm sure the Priesthood Department can put together a list of
details of what not to include. Not only would this free up some
developer resources, but it would also line up with church's
social media outreach. Local interpretation does not a policy make.

sbradshaw wrote:In preface: Using Facebook for stake/ward communication is a grey area of interpretation that's often debated here on the forums – relevant church policies can be found here, here, and here.

My stake president has considered these policies and approved the use of Facebook in our Young Single Adult stake. That said, I'd like to gather your thoughts on best practices. How would you use Facebook, if you were to use Facebook in your ward or stake?

Here is a summary of what we've discussed so far as an extended stake presidency (that is, stake presidency, clerks, and executive secretaries).

We should have a stake Facebook page.

• Currently set up at https://www.facebook.com/ProvoUtahYSA9thStake
• All posts by others require approval before they are made visible on the timeline.
• Potential uses:
  – Let people know which ward they're in.
  – Alert people when boundaries or meeting times change.
  – Let people know how they can contact a ward leader or set up a stake interview.
  – Create Facebook events for stake meetings and activities.
  – Publicize stake goals.
  – Share messages from stake presidency members.
  – Let members know about stake resources.
  – Let members know about official church resources.
  – Sharing the gospel with people in our area.

We should encourage each ward to have a Facebook group.

• Most of our wards already have Facebook groups, so we need to define some policies.
• Ward groups should be "closed", meaning only group members can see the posts, and an administrator has to approve new members who join or are added.
• Administrators should be careful to only allow ward members to join and should remove members after they move.
• Administrators should monitor the group for inappropriate use.
• The group should be one of multiple means of communication.
• Potential uses:
  – Alert people when meeting times change.
  – Create Facebook events and remind members about ward meetings and activities.
  – Share stake Facebook events and remind members about stake meetings and activities.
  – Share messages from bishopric members and auxiliaries.
  – Let members know about ward resources.
  – Remind members what the lesson topic for the week is.
  – Request/provide opportunities for service.
  – Fellowshipping members and nonmembers in the ward.

The above quote is the 1st post of this thread. It has now been just over a year when this post/thread was active. I was wondering if any of you, but particularly sbradshaw could now give us feedback as to how the purposes of his or any other social media's purpose has functioned and fared?

Specific question if you care to respond:

• Pro and con of having the ward a group closed to the members of the ward verses public? I suspect that this would have a lot to do with the purpose or reason for the site?

• How many moderators would be convenient to have? Having the entire ward council to much?

• Considering 2 social media for the ward, probably FB & google+. what would be the pro & con's of this?

Reviewing this thread has been extremely helpful in preparing to use social media, and creating a FB presence for our ward. I have not been a user of face book, but have done a little with goolge+. I have just been called as an Assistant Ward Clerk: Technolgy & media (oh boy) Thank you for your thoughts!

Don't create a group - Just create a user that everyone can friend... Someone in the stake needs to monitor for the stake site (our ExecSec did that for our previous stake)

So if I do not create a group, would I create multiple accounts, each having its own purpose? In other words, 1 account for me personally, another account for the ward, where only members of the ward and N.M. that are currently being fellow shipped? If I had two callings then maybe one for each calling? I am on the ward level, not the Stake level.

I guess a ward could have multiple social media accounts approved by the priesthood leadership, possibly one for each Organization and a main one for the ward?

johnshaw wrote:Don't create a group - Just create a user that everyone can friend...

Having a Facebook profile (as opposed to a page or a group) that represents a business or organization, rather than a person, is against Facebook policy. Having multiple Facebook accounts is also against Facebook policy. Other social media platforms, like Twitter, for example, don't have the same limitations, but Facebook is probably the main site to focus on because of its large base of active users.

Contrary to johnshaw, I would do a group. If you lose passwords/access to the email used to set the account up, you loose the ability to use the profile effectively. My ward has 2 or 3 RS user profile pages that no one can access due to that problem. We can also show in the info box where we meet, who we approve and who to contact if they are not approved.

Now we only have the main fb page, but then again we are a YSA and it is nice to have everything consolidated. If we need to make an event for only RS or EQ we will hand select members.

I have seen some wards/stakes use pages instead, but privacy of information is a concern there if people post email, addresses, or numbers, anyone can see it.

We use our closed ward group like how sbradshaw described. For our YSA ward, myself (ward website admin), executive secretary, RSP, EQP, and activities are all admins on the group. The activities are there solely to make event invites and since we have over 250 members in the group you must be an admin to invite the whole group.

The rest of us admins check the ward directory for names of members who request to join. Under the direction of our bishop, we do not let people to join unless they live in our ward boundries as personal information is shared in the group. The region has a FB page and we direct members of other YSA wards there. If a YSA attends their family ward that is in one of our feeder stakes, they are welcomed in.

We had issues in our ward prior to the boundary crackdown (to be admitted in the group) of people asking for rides to our activities that lived over an hour away one direction. Since limiting access, we've actually increased the number of people physically joining our ward who live in the boundries. Ward hopping has decreased. People also feel more secure posting information.

sbradshaw wrote:

johnshaw wrote:Don't create a group - Just create a user that everyone can friend...

Having a Facebook profile (as opposed to a page or a group) that represents a business or organization, rather than a person, is against Facebook policy. Having multiple Facebook accounts is also against Facebook policy. Other social media platforms, like Twitter, for example, don't have the same limitations, but Facebook is probably the main site to focus on because of its large base of active users.

So do I understand that I as a person I create a personal profile (In Facebook) and am a admin. for a group (my ward) (my family) (my club)? I set up or invite the people that I want in my group, and if they choose to join this group, then they are in the group? The organization that I set up is my ward and has the proper name and direction from the church guidelines etc. will have proper clearance from my Bishop etc. So according to Facebook policy I have my own account, and if I want to add a group representing an organization (Friends and events of My ward) then make all members of my ward,that has a facebook account, aware of this opportunity and then explain the purpose and give direction of what we hope to accomplish?

Do I also understand that I can post in the organization and also on my whatever? (Is it call page, timeline, or what)?

Or are you saying that I have a choice to make either my one chance to be on face book is me and only me personally? Or me creating this group or Organization?

Sorry this must seem so very basic, you are wondering where has this guy been, you are right. I really have not been on facebook! I do not understand it.

Yes, each individual has their own personal profile that they manage.

You can post general items on both your wall/timeline (the terms are used interchangeably) and in a group. People can see what is on your wall based on privacy settings. Anyone in a group can see what you post there (if closed/private), or everyone can see it (public).

Once you have a personal profile, you can make a page or a group.

A Facebook group is where several people are able to come together and post on a common wall. There are family groups, common interest groups, clubs, wards, etc. Think of the wall as a giant bulletin board. Some groups are public and anyone can post or see what is posted. Others are closed. You know the bulletin board is there, but it is lock and you need a key to open the cover to see it. Some groups are private, the are similar to closed, but in addition to a key, the hidden location must be given to you as well.

A Facebook page is different in that only an administrator can post. Think of it more like a newspaper. People can still comment, but it is more like letters to the editor. (I hope this anaolgy works )

For our ward group, we say in the group intro that the group members can "feel free to share, activities,FHE, Service projects,any any other activities young single adults would love to share in." Most of the younger members have been in a group like this before and can help lead others who are new.

I hope this helps. If you know someone with a profile, ask them to show you around on theirs first. Chances are they in a group and can show your a page.

This post in another topic may be useful to see what kind of things could potentially be posted in a group that benefit the ward:
https://tech.lds.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 17#p140901

Face Book help states the following: The link :https://www.facebook.com/help/155275634539412
How are Pages different from groups? Which one should I create?

Pages allow real organizations, businesses, celebrities and brands to communicate broadly with people who like them. Pages may only be created and managed by official representatives.

Groups provide a space for people to communicate about shared interests. Groups can be created by anyone.

Other differences include:

Pages
Privacy: Page information and posts are public and generally available to everyone on Facebook.
Audience: Anyone can like a Page to connect with it and get News Feed updates. There is no limit to how many people can like a Page.
Communication: People who help manage a Page can publish posts as the Page. Page posts can appear in the News Feeds of people who like the Page. Page owners can also create customized apps for their Page and check Page Insights to track the Page's growth and activity.

Groups
Privacy: In addition to a public setting, more privacy settings are available for groups. In secret and closed groups, posts are only visible to group members.
Audience: You can adjust group privacy to require members to be approved or added by admins. When a group reaches a certain size, some features are limited. The most useful groups tend to be the ones you create with small groups of people you know.
Communication: In groups, members receive notifications by default when any member posts in the group. Group members can participate in chats, upload photos to shared albums, collaborate on group docs and invite members who are friends to group events.
Depending on your needs, you can create a Page or create a group.

Here is an article on Face Book. It is from Face Book Blog. It was helpful to me.
Facebook Tips: What’s the Difference between a Facebook Page and Group?

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook ... 4706977130

sbradshaw wrote:

johnshaw wrote:Don't create a group - Just create a user that everyone can friend...

Having a Facebook profile (as opposed to a page or a group) that represents a business or organization, rather than a person, is against Facebook policy. Having multiple Facebook accounts is also against Facebook policy. Other social media platforms, like Twitter, for example, don't have the same limitations, but Facebook is probably the main site to focus on because of its large base of active users.

My understanding is increasing, or was, until I read this http://www.lamarketing.net/real-differe ... l-profile/ I have made an assumption that a business or an organization is treated the same.
"I will clarify this right now; what you share on your business page will not show on your personal profile and what you share on your personal profile won’t be shown on your business page. They’re managed separately and your default will always be your personal account. If you go to your business profile to then post a status, Facebook will automatically know that you want to post AS your business."

Any Facebook user can create a Facebook page, but only official representatives can create and manage a page for an organisation, business, brand or public figure. Each user is able to manage multiple pages (for example, a freelance social media expert is able to manage multiple business pages for their clients all from one, original personal profile). The user that created the page can give permission for other users to be administrators and help manage the page.

If I understand this correctly and this quote is a good quote, an assigned stake member (clerk) could have his own profile plus create an authorized page for his Stake under the direction of the Stake President. This Stake sight would be public. Also an assigned clerk under the direction of the Bishop could create a group for his ward. this ward group would be private or secret according to what the clerk choose (private or secret). can anyone confirm that this is correct?

You can create pages or groups for both stakes and wards. Due to the sensitive nature of personal contact information often shares in there formats, I would suggest groups for both. This is what my current stake has.

Thank you, when you say "formats" what are you referring to? Does this have to do with a person that makes a post and that persons profile?

Also if you do the Stake as a group, is there a clerk that is monitoring as to weather a particular person is actually a member of that stake? Does it matter?

I agree with kellymab that for a ward you will probably want a group.

For a stake, whether you want a group or a page depends on how much you want people to interact. In our stake, we decided that we wanted interaction and fellowshipping to be strongest on the ward level (i.e. Facebook group) and on the stake level we just want to broadcast information (i.e. Facebook page).

I think that having a Facebook group for a stake would be difficult to manage and would invite a lot of spam posts, however, it may work better for some stakes than others.

Ok, I think I will recommend to the Bishop that we do a group, and add only members of the ward and N.M. that will benefit from it. So just from memory we will want the following:

1. Using an appropriate name. something like friends and events of (our ward).
2. Having the name and phone number posted of who is responsible for the group.
3. Stating that it is not an official site of or represent the LDS church.
4. A short list of guild lines or rules.
5. State the purpose of this group.

QUESTIONS
Have I stated 1-5 correctly?
The part about the rules-is it really necessary---or could it be a sentence of say--- Is it kind, is it true, will it help-- or something to this end?
Please share your thoughts.
Thank you for your input.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:The part about the rules-is it really necessary---or could it be a sentence of say--- Is it kind, is it true, will it help-- or something to this end?

I don't think the rules have to be detailed or long, but I do think it's worth saying that posts that violate certain guidelines will be removed and that people might be removed from the group. Guidelines as far as membership (limited to current stake members? People living in stake boundaries?) would be a good idea as well.

The problem is, if you don't set down some rules upfront, when you act it will seem as capricious. You don't want people to get the idea that "this is the internet, anything goes."

Very good thank you much. I like what you said about having the rules up front short and concise, then maybe a link to the guidelines on lds.org. People need to know what is expected and what the purpose of this is.

I am aware that the handbook states that pictures and personal info should not be published unless given consent. This would be for a group. does it apply to a group?
We are also advised that the personal information in the directory is up to the member and needs their permission to be in the directory.

I am a little bewildered, that tagging (is there a difference between being in a photo but not being tagged/) on face book it self does not seem to need permission, but for a group that does not represent the LDS church such as a ward still needs to have the permission. I really wonder how many of our stakes are really doing this? It seems to be a very intense and involved process to get the permission papers for all the activities that happen in a ward or stake. Is this permission for each photo or could a onetime paper be signed by all members of the group and put on file?

Is the permission the same for a page and a group needed? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Yes you do need consent, but I think verbal is ok for pictures of adults. Children may need written permission. That's what my ward does. If someone wants a picture removed, an admin does it.

Your rules look good. You can add the contacts phone number of you want, but it's not necessary. Just remember anything in the info box is public. It is a good habit for the admins to check their "other" message folder as non friend messages may end up there from people wishing to communicate.

Good question. My personal feeling is that the permissions thing was aimed at those who post in behalf of the church, quorum, auxiliary, or part of their calling. I don't know as it was meant to control what other members who are only participants post. That's certainly not the way Facebook generally works. However, I can see how someone might not be happy about having their picture or information posted - particularly if they've been tagged. If they request that it be removed, it should be honored.

I think that's something that needs to be discussed with the leadership. Maybe allowing members to post photos of the events isn't such a good idea. It might be acceptable in a YSA ward, but not acceptable in a ward with older members who are not comfortable with Facebook.

So I just looked at the "Use of Online Resources in Church Callings" and it says written consent is needed. Honestly, we rarely have pictures posted. If there are pictures, it is usually to a members personal profile page and not in the group.

sbradshaw wrote:I agree with kellymab that for a ward you will probably want a group.

For a stake, whether you want a group or a page depends on how much you want people to interact. In our stake, we decided that we wanted interaction and fellowshipping to be strongest on the ward level (i.e. Facebook group) and on the stake level we just want to broadcast information (i.e. Facebook page).

I think that having a Facebook group for a stake would be difficult to manage and would invite a lot of spam posts, however, it may work better for some stakes than others.

Could you please relate, how you deal with the photos and permissions of specific people (in a picture) on your ward and stake social media sites?

I seems to me that some photos will be desirable and especially for that years Ward History.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I seems to me that some photos will be desirable and especially for that years Ward History.

Photos of members used in the annual history require written permission on a form that must be submitted as a part of the history.

lajackson wrote:

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I seems to me that some photos will be desirable and especially for that years Ward History.

Photos of members used in the annual history require written permission on a form that must be submitted as a part of the history.

There are two forms needed when submitting photos for the annual history. The "Permission to Use Photographs" form is to be submitted and signed by the creator and owner of the photographs and audiovisual productions. It is a certification of ownership. It is not for the permission of the subjects (individuals in the photo) to use their likeness. The second form, the "Annual History Consent Form", is a form to get signed permission from nonmembers to use their personal information and/or photographs used in creating local histories. An additional document, the "Church Data Privacy Statement — Annual History", provides the legal privacy statement for the use of personal information and/or photographs. It is used in conjunction with the Annual History Consent Form.

None of the annual history forms are used to get permission from Church members to use photos of the member or that include the member.

[Moderator note: This question was originally part of this post, which was in a topic for a completely different issue. Please follow the Code of Conduct and "Do not start a new topic in an existing thread; instead start a new thread."]

Another question or feeling of your opinions.
We will be having an approved group by our bishopric shortly. My thought was to do a collage or probable two pictures joined together on the header or home of our ward group with a picture of our bishop and his two counselors and the temple in our district. I felt that this would be a great ICON or way to promote the beginning of our Facebook presence. As long as our Bishopric approves and we have there written permission to post the photos, I could not think of any reason that would prevent us from doing this. the only guidelines or rule that might come close is the following:

Examples of Inappropriate Uses
The following are some examples of inappropriate uses:
• In addition to his personal account, a bishop creates a separate social media profile for “Bishop Young.”
• Reason: A profile should never be named after or promote a specific individual.

By posting the bishopric picture up at the top or header of the group in my mind does not promote an individual. It does promote our Bishopric , but we as a ward look up to them, as we should. there is the fact that they hold a sacred office and it is to be regarded with dignity.

Do you think that by putting this collage of our bishopric and temple at the top of our group presence is a good ideas and does it support all the guidelines and purposes of stated good practices?

kellymab wrote: --- Just remember anything in the info box is public. It is a good habit for the admins to check their "other" message folder as non friend messages may end up there from people wishing to communicate.

I am using and dealing with a closed group.
Where is this info box? are you referring to the description? How have you used the "Files" feature?

Yes, the info box is called "Description". It is on the right hand side under the list of group members. The name has changed several times over the 11years I've been on fb. :-/

For the files feature, we have uploaded activity fliers, YSA conference outlines, an address list of buildings we commonly use. It's not used as often.

kellymab wrote:Yes, the info box is called "Description". It is on the right hand side under the list of group members. The name has changed several times over the 11years I've been on fb. :-/

For the files feature, we have uploaded activity fliers, YSA conference outlines, an address list of buildings we commonly use. It's not used as often.

Thank you for your help. I assume that the files are attached to a specific post then? Just wondering if this might be an alternative to posting rules and guidelines or maybe in both the description and files? Here I am again assuming that files would give a larger space than in the description?

1968leocomeeatabite wrote: I assume that the files are attached to a specific post then? Just wondering if this might be an alternative to posting rules and guidelines or maybe in both the description and files? Here I am again assuming that files would give a larger space than in the description?

We actually have a fairly large description for my ward. You do have to expand it to see the whole thing.

The files when added look like posts that you share a website in. But they also show up in the files tab for quick reference. From my experience, unless you pound it into people's heads that it's there, no one looks at files.

jdlessley wrote:

lajackson wrote:

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I seems to me that some photos will be desirable and especially for that years Ward History.

Photos of members used in the annual history require written permission on a form that must be submitted as a part of the history.

There are two forms needed when submitting photos for the annual history. The "Permission to Use Photographs" form is to be submitted and signed by the creator and owner of the photographs and audiovisual productions. It is a certification of ownership. It is not for the permission of the subjects (individuals in the photo) to use their likeness. The second form, the "Annual History Consent Form", is a form to get signed permission from nonmembers to use their personal information and/or photographs used in creating local histories. An additional document, the "Church Data Privacy Statement — Annual History", provides the legal privacy statement for the use of personal information and/or photographs. It is used in conjunction with the Annual History Consent Form.

None of the annual history forms are used to get permission from Church members to use photos of the member or that include the member.

This Info is important to know! But,

It is not for the permission of the subjects (individuals in the photo) to use their likeness.

Has the church provided a form for the ward to use to get permission to post a photo on an authorized ward presence on social media like facebook? Or has any one created one that we could tweak for our ward? Are we suppose to make our own from this example? https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/c ... elease.pdf

jdlessley wrote:None of the annual history forms are used to get permission from Church members to use photos of the member or that include the member.

That is true, but there is one important note regarding nonmembers: There is a separate Annual History Consent Form specifically for nonmembers which includes this wording: "Although I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”), I authorize the Church and its affiliated entities to collect, process, use, and transfer to other countries and/or legal entities my personal information and/or photograph as used in creating a local history of the Church (“History”)."

So as I see it, there is no requirement for permission to use photographs taken of members in the annual history. This is not a published history, after all. So the questions about posting on social media are certainly good questions, but you are not going to get much help from the annual history forms or documentation.

aebrown wrote:

jdlessley wrote:None of the annual history forms are used to get permission from Church members to use photos of the member or that include the member.

That is true, but there is one important note regarding nonmembers: There is a separate Annual History Consent Form specifically for nonmembers which includes this wording: "Although I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”), I authorize the Church and its affiliated entities to collect, process, use, and transfer to other countries and/or legal entities my personal information and/or photograph as used in creating a local history of the Church (“History”)."

So as I see it, there is no requirement for permission to use photographs taken of members in the annual history. This is not a published history, after all. So the questions about posting on social media are certainly good questions, but you are not going to get much help from the annual history forms or documentation.

OK good to know!
Apparently we can use this form as an example. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/c ... elease.pdf to create our own. I called the churches Intellectual property office and received excellent answers to my questions. We need to create this form to protect our selves. We can file it as we think should be done, but we need to remember that it is for the protection of the individual or individuals that are responsible for the group or site. Some wards use this form to move on to the ward's annual history.

Okay so, once we get this form drafted and we get the permission approved and signed by those in the picture and the one that took the picture, do we file it in the clerks / Bishop's office? Or should the one that has the stewardship over this group put it in his files? Maybe it would be dependent on who are the administrators of the group? If the Admin. were the Bishopric including the clerks & exec. Sec. I suspect that in the bishops office would be the best. Then there is the fact of when the current admin. are released, getting it to the new admin. etc. Come to think of it maybe a policy of a 2 copies of the form one goes in the bishop's office the other goes in the files of the main one responsible for the group.

Well, anybody have comments or experience in this area?

Updating our recently approved (by priesthood leaders) group. The guidelines say to not have the group name the same as a unit name. Therefore it was approved to have the name as "Activities and Friends of---Name of unit", but it seems to be to long. when posted it cuts the last part of the name off. I search Facebook help center but could not come up with a maximum character limit. Any help?

The limit may depend on the screen size. I'd use what you can see with your current name as a clue as to the maximum length. Just note that it may not be a character limit, but a "length" limit in a proportional font.

We have our unit name first, so if the full title gets cut off the group is still findable and recognizable. For example, "Provo Utah YSA 9th Stake News and Events."

Great Thank you, I just barley figured that out.

sbradshaw wrote:We have our unit name first, so if the full title gets cut off the group is still findable and recognizable. For example, "Provo Utah YSA 9th Stake News and Events."

How did you get your Name (of the group) on two lines? Does it have to do with yours being a page not a group?
Does Facebook have text editing capabilities for a post?
How do some get bold and larger texts? Would screen shots work?

Looking at a few other pages and groups, it looks like long page names wrap, while long group names are cut off. Our stake Facebook presence is a page. Facebook doesn't support text formatting – font, size, weight, style – in regular posts.

jdlessley wrote:

lajackson wrote:

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:I seems to me that some photos will be desirable and especially for that years Ward History.

Photos of members used in the annual history require written permission on a form that must be submitted as a part of the history.

There are two forms needed when submitting photos for the annual history. The "Permission to Use Photographs" form is to be submitted and signed by the creator and owner of the photographs and audiovisual productions. It is a certification of ownership. It is not for the permission of the subjects (individuals in the photo) to use their likeness. The second form, the "Annual History Consent Form", is a form to get signed permission from nonmembers to use their personal information and/or photographs used in creating local histories. An additional document, the "Church Data Privacy Statement — Annual History", provides the legal privacy statement for the use of personal information and/or photographs. It is used in conjunction with the Annual History Consent Form.

None of the annual history forms are used to get permission from Church members to use photos of the member or that include the member.

Therefore trying to summarize and getting these forms all straight. On a ward basis:
1. Design your own form to get permission from individuals that are in a photo, (to post on your Facebook group or page) you can use this example to make your own form. https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/c ... elease.pdf
2. If anyone in the photo happens to be a non member and you are going to use the photo in your annual history then you use this forum https://history.lds.org/bc/chweb/conten ... t_form.pdf
3. You need the permission from the creator and owner of the photographs and audiovisual productions. It is a certification of ownership. https://history.lds.org/bc/chweb/conten ... n_form.pdf
4. An additional document, the https://history.lds.org/bc/chweb/conten ... y_form.pdf provides the legal privacy statement for the use of personal information and/or photographs. It is used in conjunction with the Annual History Consent Form.

I hope that I have this all correct! Check me, but I think that this in all in order. It does make a lot of forms to keep your Facebook or any social media presence going and also to use in an annual history.

1968leocomeeatabite wrote:[Moderator note: This question was originally part of this post, which was in a topic for a completely different issue. Please follow the Code of Conduct and "Do not start a new topic in an existing thread; instead start a new thread."]

Another question or feeling of your opinions.
We will be having an approved group by our bishopric shortly. My thought was to do a collage or probable two pictures joined together on the header or home of our ward group with a picture of our bishop and his two counselors and the temple in our district. I felt that this would be a great ICON or way to promote the beginning of our Facebook presence. As long as our Bishopric approves and we have there written permission to post the photos, I could not think of any reason that would prevent us from doing this. the only guidelines or rule that might come close is the following:

Examples of Inappropriate Uses
The following are some examples of inappropriate uses:
• In addition to his personal account, a bishop creates a separate social media profile for “Bishop Young.”
• Reason: A profile should never be named after or promote a specific individual.

By posting the bishopric picture up at the top or header of the group in my mind does not promote an individual. It does promote our Bishopric , but we as a ward look up to them, as we should. there is the fact that they hold a sacred office and it is to be regarded with dignity.

Do you think that by putting this collage of our bishopric and temple at the top of our group presence is a good ideas and does it support all the guidelines and purposes of stated good practices?

Hoping that someone my have an idea or have experienced this?

I think a photo of your bishopric could be appropriate, but it might not feel very inviting – a picture of three men in business suits.
How about a photo of your ward building? Or a collage that features multiple organizations, like class photos of priesthood quorums, primary, youth, and Relief Society?

sbradshaw wrote:I think a photo of your bishopric could be appropriate, but it might not feel very inviting – a picture of three men in business suits.
How about a photo of your ward building? Or a collage that features multiple organizations, like class photos of priesthood quorums, primary, youth, and Relief Society?

Some good thoughts here, thank you?