Send message function to a 'weekly news mail' calling

Hi

Not sure where to turn, so I hope that you can help. I have searched in this forum but not found this discussed, so I will create an entry.

The brethren at last conference suggested to keep the announcements at a minimum at sacrament meetings, and instead have a weekly email sent out.

We have a new member, and have called this person for this weekly email (with lessons, news, …).

But instead of this member maintaining a list of emails (and this might not be legal in these GDPR times), it would be nice it he could use the ‘Send a message’ function in the LCR system.

And as I can see, the members can opt in or out of receiving emails then self.
Almost a perfect setup !!!

But now to the question.

How do we give the member access to this ‘Send message function’ ?
Missing the ‘information’ calling that has this access.
If part of the bishopric (secretary function), then the person will also get members or finansial access.

Is the solution, to make this person a “Elders Quorum Assistant Secretary” (even though not part of the elders kvorum, and tell the person to stay away from the ministrering part…), and will the person then have access to the send function ?

Do we have other solutions ?

Regards Joern.

joernborup wrote:Hi

Not sure where to turn, so I hope that you can help. I have searched in this forum but not found this discussed, so I will create an entry.

The brethren at last conference suggested to keep the announcements at a minimum at sacrament meetings, and instead have a weekly email sent out.

We have a new member, and have called this person for this weekly email (with lessons, news, …).

But instead of this member maintaining a list of emails (and this might not be legal in these GDPR times), it would be nice it he could use the ‘Send a message’ function in the LCR system.

And as I can see, the members can opt in or out of receiving emails then self.
Almost a perfect setup !!!

But now to the question.

How do we give the member access to this ‘Send message function’ ?
Missing the ‘information’ calling that has this access.
If part of the bishopric (secretary function), then the person will also get members or finansial access.

Is the solution, to make this person a “Elders Quorum Assistant Secretary” (even though not part of the elders kvorum, and tell the person to stay away from the ministrering part…), and will the person then have access to the send function ?

Do we have other solutions ?

Regards Joern.

Some points to consider:
1. Custom callings will not grant access to the Send a Message tool.
2. Members cannot opt-out of receiving messages sent via the Send a Message tool - the only way to stop them would be for the member's personal email address to be deleted from their membership record.
3. Some standard callings grant access to other sensitive information and should not be used as a way to [edited to clarify my intent] go around the restrictions.
4. If I recall correctly, sending a weekly email was only 1 way that it could be done - it was not mentioned as the only thing we can do. In our ward, we miss a significant portion of the membership by using email (both with the elderly and the youth) so we use several different communication methods.
5. The best way to get suggestions to the decision makers who direct the programmer's priorities is to use feedback from within LDS.org. You might suggest a standard calling to be the ward communication specialist and that calling be granted access to the Send a Message tool. You will likely not get a personalized response and we don't know how such a request would be considered, but that is the only official way to request improved functionality as this fourm is user-to-user tech assistance.

One way some wards are doing it is the communication specialist composes the message and then forwards it to the clerk or a member of the ward council to put out through the Send a Message function in their behalf.

davesudweeks wrote:Members cannot opt-out of receiving messages sent via the Send a Message tool - the only way to stop them would be for the member's personal email address to be deleted from their membership record.

I thought there was a way of manually removing addresses just prior to the message being sent. A hassle, but it is an option.

One way to keep announcements at a minimum is to make sure they're all in the sacrament meeting program. It also reaches those who do not have email or do not check it regularly. I know it's old-school, but it's effective.

russellhltn wrote:

davesudweeks wrote:Members cannot opt-out of receiving messages sent via the Send a Message tool - the only way to stop them would be for the member's personal email address to be deleted from their membership record.

I thought there was a way of manually removing addresses just prior to the message being sent. A hassle, but it is an option.

One way to keep announcements at a minimum is to make sure they're all in the sacrament meeting program. It also reaches those who do not have email or do not check it regularly. I know it's old-school, but it's effective.

I believe that is true, but the concept of "opt-out" (at least to me) is the individual should never receive another email from that organization, even through a personnel change. Relying on the sender to remember to manually removing specific email address and relying on the "remove" list being passed to another person when the calling changes is not reliable in my book. Without an opt-out function, the only reliable way is to remove/modify the contact information to prevent it from being part of the email and I hate to see us remove member contact information that can be hard to recover later.

We do email blasts in our ward, as well as have a ward facebook page and a printed program.

davesudweeks wrote:I believe that is true, but the concept of "opt-out" (at least to me) is the individual should never receive another email from that organization, even through a personnel change. Relying on the sender to remember to manually removing specific email address and relying on the "remove" list being passed to another person when the calling changes is not reliable in my book. Without an opt-out function, the only reliable way is to remove/modify the contact information to prevent it from being part of the email and I hate to see us remove member contact information that can be hard to recover later.

I don't disagree, but it IS an option, however ugly it is.

Perhaps someone will come up with a utility that can do that task. I suppose one could always stick with a static list, but then it's likely to miss new members and changes to email addresses.

A better fix will happen when and if the powers that be decide on one.