Using Members Email Addresses

Our Stake Relief Society secretary just sent out invitations via Evite for our upcoming Stake Axillary Leadership meeting. This means she had to upload all of our personal email addresses - obtained from the secured Church website - into a third party, commercial website.

What is the Church policy about a Stake representative (or anyone who has access to LCR data) giving out this private information? I just presumed this was something that should not be done, but is there anything in the Handbooks or on a Church website somewhere prohibiting this type of behavior?

Meetinghouse Technology Policy

4.9 MLS Data and Membership Information

4.9.3 The use of MLS data and membership information in third party software is prohibited, whether obtained from within or outside of a meetinghouse.

4.9.4 The use of cloud-based services for storing and/or backing up MLS or any membership related data is prohibited.

Does that extend to email addresses? That would be a local determination.

It would seem to me that the term 'MLS Data' used in Russells quoted section includes all data stored in MLS, which includes members email addresses. If the email list uploaded to Evite was compiled from MLS data, then that use violated the quoted section. If the email addresses were obtained by some other method, then it didn't violate the policy. Just my opinion.

Dan Vester

dvester wrote:If the email list uploaded to Evite was compiled from MLS data, then that use violated the quoted section. If the email addresses were obtained by some other method, then it didn't violate the policy. Just my opinion.

I share the same opinion. I use different emails for different things, and when someone scrapes my Church email and sends it to a vendor, I am not a happy camper.

And how does she control the totally inappropriate ads that show up? Not only do I not need the alcohol advertisements that appear with the ward social announcement, but those companies then send directly to my email address that they have been given so thoughtfully.

Letter vs Spirit. The term MLS data could be taken as far Asti include name, phone number, birthdays, spouses or children, ect. Yet the LDS App allows you to copy contacts directly to your phone which then stores data to cloud and/or 3rd party vendor.

I would think that the intent of those quote policies is to discourage export MLS membership data and storing that in the cloud. Sensitive membership data would include ordinance dates, recommend status, ect. If members have provided an email address as a part of their record they have intended for that to be a method of contact.

Rather than uploading all the emails into the Evite system, you should always explore the possibility of copying and pasting a group of emails into such systems. Often you can use your contact application to generate a group email and then copy and paste the recipients into the 3rd party vendor to send the evite too.

It is also best to post such emails into third party software in the BCC: box, so that recipients will not see the other addresses you have used.

I have a related problem. I use custom email addresses in MLS for each of my family members. We don't use these addresses for anything other than church communication. Recently each of my family members started receiving unsolicited commercial emailings to our MLS associated email addresses advertising an internet filtering service called cleanrouter.com.

Who ever provided cleanrouter.com our email addresses must have somehow scraped them from MLS.

Has anyone else seen unsolicited commerical emailings for cleanrouter.com to your MLS subscribed address?

-Matt

mjprobst wrote:Has anyone else seen unsolicited commerical emailings for cleanrouter.com to your MLS subscribed address?

No.

What privacy level was set for those addresses? I think the odds are this was done by someone in your stake. The default (in the US) is for information to be available to all members of the stake. Outside of the stake, the number of people with access to those emails gets really small really fast.

Clean Router appears to be based in Arizona. If you live in Arizona, it was likely a Clean Router employee in your stake who got ahold of your email address. Latter-day Saints are a prime market for filtering services, and it's a major temptation to push marketing boundaries a bit too far when someone sees an opportunity.

If you follow any LDS-themed blogs, chances are you were bombarded with VidAngel multiple times a week for the last several months. They advertised heavily to the LDS market, ad-nauseum. The filtering market is ripe among Latter-day Saints.

I'm in Massachusetts, which is even more puzzling as to how they could have obtained my families email addresses.

sbradshaw wrote:Clean Router appears to be based in Arizona. If you live in Arizona, it was likely a Clean Router employee in your stake who got ahold of your email address.

However, that sounds like a business that could have their employees working from anywhere.

I looked at the website. I couldn't find anything about employment. So it's unclear what their hiring is like. No indication that they use multi-level marketing.

I am a member of a Stake Music Committee. We have been tasked by someone at the Area level to assemble a choir and orchestra for a significant event at a local museum. We are drawing from 8 stakes. I communicated with each stake and obtained a list of the music contacts in each ward, usually the Ward Music Chair. I've asked them for a list of all the singers and orchestra members in their wards. When they send the list, including emails, we email each person identified and tell them about the event, the rehearsal schedule and how to obtain copies of the music, We leave it up to them to decide if they want to participate or not.

Does any of this violate church privacy law? I don't see how we are going to fulfill our assignment from the Area leadership if we cannot obtain email addresses and communicate with each person that way.

Are the local Music Chairs personally contacting each ward member, and letting them know that they will be sharing their emails for possible inclusion in an Area choir? If each member gives permission, then that seems sufficient (but I'm no lawyer...)

No, we are just getting a list from the ward music contact then we are emailing each member with the details. It is up to each member to decide if they want to participate. There is no pressure exerted.

To ask each ward music contact to get permission from the member will slow down the process to the point that we won't get half the names that we are experiencing - and that's not currently a majority of the names.

But here is the bigger issue I have. When a member put's their email on the ward/stake roster they are giving tacit permission to use that email address for church communication. Anyone in the ward or the stake can use the address for church-related emails. The ward Exec Sec can send out an email blast to all members for a ward-related announcement. The Stake Exec Sec can do the same for whole stake. Why does this tacit permission end at the stake level? It seems that what we are doing, fulfilling an assignment from our Area leadership, is simply an extension of the approval process. Why do we need special permission from the individual when their ward and stake Exec Secs do not need any special permission for an email blast? We email each individual and do not reveal their email address to others.

Your thoughts???

robertsv1 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:03 am..... But here is the bigger issue I have. When a member put's their email on the ward/stake roster they are giving tacit permission to use that email address for church communication. Anyone in the ward or the stake can use the address for church-related emails. .....

Your thoughts???

This is an old thread, so it's missed a lot of the recent back-and-forth discussion in other threads, about Church changes to how emails are handled. Along with the long-standing privacy settings a member can set (so that only leaders can access certain member info), the Church also recently enabled subscription settings that allow a member to opt out of some or all email contact, including local leader emails. I agree you're acting as an extension of the Area leadership, but it's a bit similar to somebody the Bishopric asks to perform a task, but doesn't have access to all the emails they'd need for outreach.

You originally asked if there was Church privacy concerns with simply gathering email addresses and reaching out directly. It's done all the time for things like what you're doing, but there's also the possibility of a church member getting upset that somebody was sharing their email (that they've set to private in their Church account) without their permission. It's definitely tricky. Perhaps another Forum member with a better understanding of how the Church policy might apply, can chime in.

robertsv1 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:03 am No, we are just getting a list from the ward music contact then we are emailing each member with the details. It is up to each member to decide if they want to participate. There is no pressure exerted.

To ask each ward music contact to get permission from the member will slow down the process to the point that we won't get half the names that we are experiencing - and that's not currently a majority of the names.

General Handbook, 33.8, addresses confidentiality of records and 38.8.13 the policies and guidelines for directories. The limit of the authorization to access member record information is limited to both the callings of the leaders and the permissions granted by the members. The General Handbook governs the availability of member contact information within the units of the Church, more specifically wards and stakes. The distribution of contact information is under the control of the member and parents/guardians of minors. Ward members with music callings do not have authority to release/distribute contact information.

robertsv1 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:03 amBut here is the bigger issue I have. When a member put's their email on the ward/stake roster they are giving tacit permission to use that email address for church communication. Anyone in the ward or the stake can use the address for church-related emails.

This is not in accordance with Church policy a procedure as outlined in General Handbook, 33.8 and 38.8.13. The contact information is strictly protected from any general access. While members provide contact information for their membership records, that information is restricted as to who may have access to it. Members may further restrict the visibility of that contact information by setting visibility limits. "Stake and ward leaders should respect the privacy settings that members select."

robertsv1 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:03 am The ward Exec Sec can send out an email blast to all members for a ward-related announcement. The Stake Exec Sec can do the same for whole stake. Why does this tacit permission end at the stake level?

The ability to communicate as described is a responsibility of those leadership callings. But note that while those leaders can send out a mass communication, that message may not go to all members because not all members have provided an email address in their record or the member may have reduced the visibility limit and "leaders should respect the privacy settings that members select." Member contact information in directories is not provided outside local units, in this case outside the stake.

The bottom line is that while you may have an assignment to fulfill, this does not warrant circumventing the right to member privacy. If the contact information is needed then it can be provided with the approval of the members involved. Once it is provided it can only be used for the purpose of the assignment and then that information must be destroyed and not used for any other purpose.

I'd think a less controversial method would be to send an email to each of the ward contacts (music chairs), and ask them to forward the email to each of their selected members. It's then up to each member to "opt in" by responding back to the regional person.