Policy changed for ward Internet presence?

Many forum threads discuss Church policy related to Facebook and other services. They all point to Handbook 2, Section 21.1.22. My printed copy of the Handbook and quotes on the forum have language that wards may not have a Church-sponsored presence on the Internet other than the ones created using official Church resources.

To my surprise, if you click the link above, the online copy of the Handbook does not have that paragraph. Has there been a change to this policy? I've been unable to find any official communication from Church Headquarters about the matter. Are wards now free to have an Internet presence (Facbook page, etc) under direction of local priesthood leaders?

Yes, it's changed. The on-line Handbook is current.

I don't know about any communication about the changes.

mndrix wrote:To my surprise, if you click the link above, the online copy of the Handbook does not have that paragraph. Has there been a change to this policy? I've been unable to find any official communication from Church Headquarters about the matter. Are wards now free to have an Internet presence (Facbook page, etc) under direction of local priesthood leaders?

It looks like that paragraph has been removed. However, there do still seem to be restrictions. In the Member's Use of Internet in Church Callings section, it says that "Members may not create websites, blogs, or social media profiles on behalf of the Church or to officially represent the Church and its views." Since priesthood leaders are also members this would seem to apply to them as well since there isn't any exception listed for any particular callings. That section also prohibits naming sites using just a unit name. And at internet.lds.org it also prohibits duplicating tools provided on lds.org.

So my guess is that this isn't a real change in policy but more of a clarification. They may have removed that paragraph because certain websites are allowed if they follow the given guidelines and that paragraph may have implied that they were not allowed.

This page is a good starting resource if you are considering having a ward presence online:
https://www.lds.org/pages/online-resour ... b-internet

I'd highlight the following:

8.Members should have a purpose and goal for the resource, such as community outreach, increased friendship between members, and so on, and the resource should be named accordingly. The website, blog, or social media profile should not simply be the name of a Church unit or individual. For example, “First Ward News” and “Friends of the First Ward” are acceptable names, but “First Ward” and “Bishop Davis” are not.

9.Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools and features that are already available on LDS.org.

Between calendar and newsletter on lds.org, I'm wondering what people would be using social media for that doesn't duplicate those tools. All I can think of is outreach to non-members and sharing by individual members.

russellhltn wrote:I'd highlight the following:

9.Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools and features that are already available on LDS.org.

That language is no longer present in the online version of Handbook 2, Section 21.1.22. Did you find it elsewhere?

Thanks.

mndrix wrote:

russellhltn wrote:I'd highlight the following:

9.Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools and features that are already available on LDS.org.

That language is no longer present in the online version of Handbook 2, Section 21.1.22. Did you find it elsewhere?

That language is still in the page on LDS.org titled Use of Online Resources in Church Callings, in the General Guidelines section.

mndrix wrote:That language is no longer present in the online version of Handbook 2, Section 21.1.22. Did you find it elsewhere?

I'm not sure if it was ever a part of Handbook 2, but Handbook 2 does say "Please see internet.lds.org for additional examples and clarification."

Item 9 can be found there. And since Handbook 2 specifically references that, I'm not sure as it is any less authoritative then if it had been included in the Handbook.