New Directory and Youth

In the old directory the list of youth at each age level is available to everyone. In the new LDSTools and the new Directory when you browse to the groups you only see the presidency. As a youth adviser I'm unable to see a list of the deacons in LDSTools and this new Directory, but I could in the old one.

Is this functionality that was decided on and if so, why is it ok to see the members of the presidency and NOT the entire list of youth? I'm not sure whether I care or not, but without access to LCR I can't even see a list of deacons, I don't know when a new one moves in and I'm relying on others to faithfully update a shared list that is online that I'm already uncomfortable with because it has detail from the directory in the cloud which is against the rules.... but what's the option... Here John is a print out of the deacons, keep it in your notebook you carry around? Good grief, just to see a list of deacons that I'm called help serve and lead anyway?

I'm all for least access, I'm all for minimal data based on calling, but I don't even have a list and I can't see one in LDSTools or online and the only way to have the detail is for a secretary to duplicate what used to exist anyway for everyone to see with the old directory. I'm really not following the logic on this one.

-John

I'd send feedback. Be sure to outline the use case that you have responsibilities for them, but not enough to have LCR access.

I just went to the new directory today and this popup appeared at the upper-right:


E-mailing and Viewing Lists of Members
E-mailing and viewing lists of members within organizations is now only available to leaders in Leader and Clerk Resources, please contact your organization's leader for assistance.

So I guess we got our answer.

I'd still recommend providing Feedback on the issue about not being able to do your calling.

Ahh... and the Link takes you to this..... https://directory-beta.lds.org/organiza ... /undefined which just launches the directory again.

Well, I guess it's back to paper. I never thought that I'd feel less included in leadership than as an ExecSec or Clerk continually being reminded that I'm not part of the Bishopric or the Stake Presidency, now that I'm an adviser in the Young Men, working directly with the young men every week and sometimes twice on Sunday I get the privilege of keeping a folded up piece of paper in my back pocket with a list of the deacons in the quorum - I also have to wait for someone to get me a list to know if there have been changes in the Quorum (that someone is often in a 'growth' calling. Regardless of what people at the church feel, regardless of how conscientiously we're looking at personal information, privacy and security, we really do a disservice because many people will take a que for their involvement and the importance of their role - based on the access they have.

I did submit the feedback, I did that before I posted this, and it seems this message might be a result.

I would not be surprised that the access privileges to LCR are being worked on to grant more callings access to provide those callings with the tools necessary to do their callings. But having said that, I also would not be surprised that it may take a lot longer for those access privileges to come through than we would hope in fulfilling those callings. The review process could take a while.

FWIW, when the beta directory came out, I also provided feedback that this information was missing, so you're not the only one.

I really do get reducing access to data, for instance the Stake High Council and the Stake Auxiliaries are not granted access to direct member data it helps to reinforce that their role is really in leading leaders, that they train, lead, support leaders in wards who then work directly within their stewardship with families and youth, etc... So what does it tell an advisor in the YW or YM organization? What does it reinforce in their role expectations? It sends a message that the youth aren't your role, really, your role is to just be there on Sunday or Weekday activities as a second warm body for 2-deep leadership. Which, I agree is an EXTREMELY important thing. Should the 'access' I have communicate this to me in this way? Maybe not, but the Church made a huge deal, including putting into the FAQ why the stake and high council doesn't have this kind of access... so I have to believe that other decisions are done in the same way.

I'm just trying to follow along, but LCR access is only available to the YW/YM Presidency and LDSTools has eliminated the data as well as the new directory. There was a deliberate decision here and usually deliberate decisions are for a reason. For the life of me I can't see anything other than to communicate that Presidency=important(to the youth) advisor=warm body(not important to the youth).

These are minors, the access to their data should be kept tight and lines drawn, this is completely reasonable, but where the line is right now doesn't make much sense to me - particularly if I'm going to carry paper around that can be left, unsecured, anywhere, anytime. The only other alternative that people will choose is to reshare the data online in something like google docs which is against policy.

As an "adviser," are you a member of the young men presidency, or an assistant adviser? From my reading of the handbook, the advisers are the members of the young men presidency. Handbook 2, 8.3.4 is titled "Ward Young Men Presidency (Aaronic Priesthood Quorum Advisers)." The young men presidency members themselves are the advisers to the Aaronic Priesthood quorums. The handbook chapter mentions that assistant advisers can be called. If you're an assistant adviser, you might have less access to the online tools, like an assistant clerk doesn't have access to all of the tools the ward clerk has, for example.

In the directory the sub-heading shows this:

Young Men

The Young Men Presidency is listed this way:
Young Men Presidency
Young Men President
Young Men First Counselor
Young Men Second Counselor
Young Men Secretary

Aaronic Priesthood Quorum Advisers
Priest Quorum Adviser
Teacher's Quorum Adviser
Teacher's Quorum Assistant Adviser ( interestingly enough for this conversation we have a larger set of Teachers and have an Assistant Adviser called here)
Deacons Quorum Adviser

NOTE: These are not 'custom' positions in LCR, these are 'Standard Callings'

I'm aware that the YM Presidency members are ALSO known as advisers and that technically I'm an Assistant adviser, but they are not listed in the directory that way, nor are their roles listed as advisers. So when I'm referring to these things I refer to the directory, lcr, roles, and the Calling I was sustained as, etc.... as defined here. https://www.lds.org/help/support/clerk- ... e?lang=eng which uses the title/role Presidency and not adviser for the YM Presidency.

So the handbook language is really pointing out that in this capacity, the Young Men Presidency are 'advisers' because the keyholders in the AP are really the Bishop (Priests Quorum), the Teachers and Deacon's Quorum presidents. And that someone called to be the Deacon's Quorum adviser is really the Assistant Adviser, where the 2nd counselor in the YM Presidency is the adviser.

I'm OK with having different access to information, but seriously, it's access to the list of boys, a list of them, it might be nice to have a birthday, but hey, let's not go overboard, at this point I'm just looking for a list that was there before and now isn't.

Since you frequent these forums, you've probably given this advice to others in the past, but here goes....if you can convince your stake president of the need for this information for people to do their callings, his voice might get heard a little more.

Agreed, and this is new, the old directory still has the information, so I'm confident there isn't an outcry yet, and only when the beta goes live will people start to feel it.

My worry is that since this is kinda a no-brainer for folks that the information will just be exported and shared, either with printing it or saving it online both have problems that are meant to be fixed by online tools. And these are minors that will start having their phone number, birthdays, addresses etc.. shared on a google drive because there isn't an alternative.

In my company we have behavior shaping policy as well, but we also get training, have explanations as to why, and take tests/quizes that record our responses and acceptance of the policies as binding on us. One thing about a Corporate/Volunteer system like we have is that Policy and tech can only reach out to employees for behavior modification, volunteers will find ways to share the data with each other.

So here's my return and report, I've now approached both YM Leaders, Bishopric and Stake Presidency.... everyone's initial response is to pull up their tools and show me how it works for them.

Here's the thing. I don't think leaders get it enough to represent it to their leaders. I'm in IT, I understand why we have A/A/A - I understand completely role-based access, but they don't. in fact, it was assumed that I was the one that was wrong in each and every case and that I needed to fix my LDS tools - And I'm the freakin Stake Technology specialist.

As I have considered it, This just means that I'm like a Primary Teacher. Primary Teachers don't have access to their class lists and have the information printed/distributed to them. So I'll just take that as it is and look at it being consistency rather than a weird exception and carry around my paper print-out from the YM Secretary who is still baffled that I asked him for it.

There is a saying, if you need something (a tool for work, for example) and don't buy it. You will pay for it anyway (lost productivity, defects, etc) without ever having it.

The corollary in this case (at least in my simple mind) is: If the church doesn't want certain behavior but doesn't support the behavior they want, you will drive the behavior they never wanted to begin with...

I have always believed that if you make it easier for people to do it right than it is to do it wrong, most people will do it right. But if you make it harder to do it right than it is to circumvent the system, many people will just circumvent the system. To me, it's so, so simple. Why do so many not understand?

davesudweeks wrote:Why do so many not understand?

While I don't know, I strongly suspect that the access is driven by legal issues and what people's roles are as defined in the Handbook (not by local leaders). If one's role doesn't include responsibility for individual youths, then they don't have access to the list of youths.

Which begs the question - who's job is it to notice when a student stops showing up for class? Or a new face shows up that's not on the list? I would expect that person to have access. It may or may not be the teacher. If local leaders are going to task teachers with something more than is in the Handbook, then perhaps they should consider adding a calling that reflects the additional responsibility.