YMYW.org and returnandreport.org pushback

This is my first post here. A few weeks ago our Bishopric asked me to get the ward using all the tools we can to do our callings better and called me to lead the charge as "ward information specialists." The direction was to run the ward website and help the other organizations. Our youth were using ymyw.org and our RS has began using returnandreport.

They asked me to give a 5th Sunday presentation training our ward members on how to use the LUWS and the above tools. Excited, I invited the leadership of the stake because it would be good info to know. The Stake YM President (a long time friend) came to learn about ymyw.org. Several HC and a member of the S.P. came also.

The presentation went very well. The S.P. member said while impressed he wanted to clarify usage of non LDS websites, specifically ymyw.org, with our area leadership. I searched this forum and found nothing specific either way, rather it seemed that use of tools-online or not- seemed to be left up to the local leadership.

I had a short series of email interactions and just received this:

Thank you very much for all of the information. We asked Elder (our area authority) about this issue (using returnandreport) and he indicated that the official policy of the church is still as outlined in the handbook. Consequently, until the church has officially entered this arena (having returnandreport functionality be part of MLS) we have been counseled not to adopt or utilize these applications. When the change is implemented we will, of course, move to utilize these more fully.

Now obviously we will do what is asked (I am not asking for comments on obedience, following leadership, etc.).. I told him we will do this regardless but I dont know that this is the policy. The Dec 2004 letter does not say that. My fear is that no one really has looked at the handbook and just remembers vaguely something about "do not use non-lds websites" and has totally remembered the intent wrong. Again, I told him our use is ending if it is just their recommendation.

My question is "has anything recently changed" with the church's stance in using tools-online or not- to help report home teaching and visiting teaching or tracking duty to God. Again, please dont talk about "following the brethern" cause we are. My question deals around the basis of this good leader's email... essentailly saying the church policy is to not use any on line tools... is that really the policy?

You may want to look at this thread. Nothing has changed since that time.

I think the bottom line is if your stake presidency and area presidency are not comfortable with those sites, there's no policy or official writing that would change their position.

Yes I looked at the thread and it is more than a few months old.

My stake presidency said they have no opinion and the area rep said it was church handbook policy not to use anything.

My point is not obedience. I told them we would do what they want if it is only as simply as they dont feel it is right. So lets avoid this getting bogged down with obedience.

The question remains (unanswered)- is the claim that the handbook bans using these 2 websites or those like them- is that claim what the handbook says? Or is the handbook as clear as mud still?

Brianinidaho wrote:Yes I looked at the thread and it is more than a few months old.

My stake presidency said they have no opinion and the area rep said it was church handbook policy not to use anything.

My point is not obedience. I told them we would do what they want if it is only as simply as they dont feel it is right. So lets avoid this getting bogged down with obedience.

The question remains (unanswered)- is the claim that the handbook bans using these 2 websites or those like them- is that claim what the handbook says? Or is the handbook as clear as mud still?

I wouldn't say that the handbook is "as clear as mud", but it is true that people interpret it differently. I can certainly understand how some people read the words in the handbook and conclude that external websites such as those two you mentioned are not permitted, and I can also easily understand how others conclude that they are just fine.

So it really does come down to the specific direction you receive from your local leaders. If a stake president takes no position on the matter, a bishop makes a decision. If the area leadership takes no specific position on the matter, the stake president makes the decision. And so on. If someone in the direct line of authority gives you specific counsel, then in your situation, that clears up any ambiguity in the written policy.

Any idea when the roll out of returnandreport like features with MLS will occur? It looks like that project is underway.. just wondering when it will hit the streets?

Thanks for the viewpoints- to be clear- I told them we would easily do what they want even if they just had a feeling we should. So from what you are saying the handbook is unclear and the only clarity comes from whomever up the chain of comand says "up or down." I can live with that-the problem is that it needs to be described as that... our guy says it is in the handbook- it would be a little better, it seems, if they just said they dont want it. Fine either way in obeying, one seems a little more accurate. Am I right on this?

Brianinidaho wrote:Any idea when the roll out of returnandreport like features with MLS will occur? It looks like that project is underway.. just wondering when it will hit the streets?

AFAIK there is no project to introduce such features in MLS. There is a project to build a web-based HT/VT reporting tool for leaders, which you can read about on the Wiki. Notably, that project by direction does not include online reporting by home and visiting teachers, as Return and Report does. But it would allow quorum and RS leaders and secretaries to work over the web rather than in the clerk's office. Using that tool would actually remove all HT/VT data, including assignments, from MLS.

I would not speculate on the timing or status. It is interesting that some BYU students have been enlisted to help with the development.

If the project is completed and rolled out to units, I believe the plan is still to make its adoption optional stake-by-stake. IMHO there are pros and cons to that decision.

Brianinidaho wrote: So from what you are saying the handbook is unclear and the only clarity comes from whomever up the chain of comand says "up or down." I can live with that-the problem is that it needs to be described as that... our guy says it is in the handbook- it would be a little better, it seems, if they just said they dont want it. Fine either way in obeying, one seems a little more accurate. Am I right on this?

Just to throw in my two cents about the core question... I think it is important to remember that the handbook, by nature and purpose, is pretty high-level. To me, that means something different than "vague." The HB is a policy-level guidebook meant to be interpreted by trained leadership to fit different situations. I think that's one reason why it isn't widely distributed---there isn't anything secret in there, but the content is meant to be interpreted and applied by those who have been trained and are in a position to do so. Determining what is meant by what is written in the handbook is the role of the area authority, stk pres, bishop, or other presiding authority. So if one of them says that is what's in the handbook, then they are correct.

It has been stated here several times that the issue that the handbook is trying to address is uploading data from Church systems to 3rd-party websites. Neither ymyw.org or returnandreport.org encourage or require anyone to do this.

Also, it was recently brought to light that the functionality of returnandreport.org is not important to the Church and is not on the Church's radar. I would be surprised if we saw anything similar to returnandreport in LUWS in 10 years. That is fine if the church doesn't think it is a priority, but I hope that the church would be willing to put forth some effort to work with the webmasters of returnandreport.org and ymyw.org to find a way to clarify that it is legal to use them. Even if they don't think it is a priority right now, I'm sure they can see the enormous benefit that both websites provide to Church groups worldwide.

TB

TechnoBabel wrote:It has been stated here several times that the issue that the handbook is trying to address is uploading data from Church systems to 3rd-party websites. Neither ymyw.org or returnandreport.org encourage or require anyone to do this.

The handbook says what it says, and doesn't mention the motivations. So although there have been plenty of opinions expressed here and other places about what those motivations might have been, in the end such opinions are simply speculation. Priesthood leaders may choose to consider such points in their decisions regarding policy, but ultimately they need to depend on the actual written word and inspiration for those for whom they are responsible.

TechnoBabel wrote:Also, it was recently brought to light that the functionality of returnandreport.org is not important to the Church and is not on the Church's radar. I would be surprised if we saw anything similar to returnandreport in LUWS in 10 years.

Some of the functionality of returnandreport.org is indeed important to the Church; other parts are not. If the Church had precisely the same priorities and requirements as RaR, then there would be no need for a separate project. Clearly the Church has different requirements. None of us knows what will come of the online HT/VT project that is underway; it doesn't appear that integration with LUWS is a high priority.

TechnoBabel wrote:I hope that the church would be willing to put forth some effort to work with the webmasters of returnandreport.org and ymyw.org to find a way to clarify that it is legal to use them. Even if they don't think it is a priority right now, I'm sure they can see the enormous benefit that both websites provide to Church groups worldwide.

It's pretty clear that it is not the position of the Church that "it is legal to use them," so it's not a simple matter of clarification. But at this point it is also not the position of the Church that it is illegal to use them. From the Church level we have not been given specific direction on this matter.

I have no way of knowing precisely what the Church's opinion is, but I imagine that although they can see the benefits, they are also very wary of the risks.

TechnoBabel wrote:It has been stated here several times that the issue that the handbook is trying to address is uploading data from Church systems to 3rd-party websites. Neither ymyw.org or returnandreport.org encourage or require anyone to do this.

I think that conflates two separate issues. The policy clearly prohibits some things that do not involve such uploads. My ward could not sponsor its own public web site or blog, for example, even if the content was not downloaded from Church systems.

The way I and many others interpret the First Presidency policy on web sites is that it essentially addressed a public web presence by units, which the sites in question are not. Also, I doubt that the developer of RaR would have been honored, as he was, by the Church IT department for his site if it violated Church policy. So I think RaR as now configured does comply with policy. (But then, I am not Brianinidaho's stake president, so that is the interpetation that governs in his case.)

Another point to consider is that returnandreport.org only accepts public record information and nothing confidential. I don't know about ymyw.org since I've never used it.

I don't think the Church prohibits a group from using a 3rd-party website, but it does seem clear that groups are not allowed to create their own websites. So using sites that benefit the group, like Google Calendars, ymyw.org, and returnandreport.org should be just fine.

In case you haven't figured it out already, I'm a huge fan of returnandreport.org. I can't even begin to tell you how much is has helped us. If we had to go back to the old way of doing HT reporting, I'd die.

TB

boomerbubba wrote:Also, I doubt that the developer of RaR would have been honored, as he was, by the Church IT department for his site if it violated Church policy.

Yes, Brad was honored. Yet there are parts of RaR that make the church's legal department nervous. That's one of the reasons that the church's version that's under development does not include some of the features found in RaR. But it's not a serious enough problem for the church to come out and make a clear announcement on it.

Bottom line: Mixed messages.

RussellHltn wrote:That's one of the reasons that the church's version that's under development does not include some of the features found in RaR.

What's kind of funny and ironic is that the Church's proposed version doesn't contain a single feature from RaR and RaR contains not a single feature of the Church version. With RaR, HT/VT assignments must be assembled outside of the RaR website. The Church's project has become a completely different project than it started out as.

I think this happened because of a lack of sponsorship, but that is just my opinion.

TB

Ironic -- this exact issue is being raised at work right now. Our company has certain policies / restrictions which are a bit old and were targeted at public-facing "traditional websites" (i.e. not applications). Unfortunately, the wording in the policy simply states "website".

Fast forward to web 2.0 and now we have a mass migration of fat client applications moving to the browser. To the layman, these are just more "websites", so an unfortunate attempt is made to apply the archaic website policies to them.

We've concluded that we need to scrap the old policies and create two new renditions -- one specifically for web-based applications, and another for websites.

I believe the Church is in a similar situation. With the original intent being that they did not want local units creating a public-facing web presence in the form of "brochure" type websites. As more and more applications move to the browser, as "cloud computing" becomes pervasive, the Church (like my company), will need to clarify its policy and recognize the benefits (and difference) of web-based applications such as ymyw.org and returnandreport.org.

As previously mentioned, the sticky parts are the privacy and legal issues associated with the use of personal information in these web applications (sometimes without the full understanding and clear consent of each ward member involved).

mfarley wrote:I believe the Church is in a similar situation. With the original intent being that they did not want local units creating a public-facing web presence in the form of "brochure" type websites.

I think the 2001 and 2004 letters did have that concern. But it wasn't the only concern. "In addition, it is imperative that the rights of third parties be protected and respected though strict compliance with applicable laws." (2001 letter) This was clarified in 2004 as "meet the legal requirements of copyrights and privacy."

When they did go on-line with LUWS, they provided directory and calendering information, but all secured with a method that automatically updates itself as the members move. The privacy concerns still apply to web applications. Unfortunately, we are not provided any guidelines in that area so it's difficult for us to evaluate any of these applications for compliance.

mfarley wrote:As previously mentioned, the sticky parts are the privacy and legal issues associated with the use of personal information in these web applications (sometimes without the full understanding and clear consent of each ward member involved).

These are very sticky issues, and I personally believe they are driving much of the decision making in this process. And, it appears, the decisions are still being made.

It is unfortunate that until the "actual" leadership concerns are communicated and resolved that Home & Visit Teaching efforts will continued to be diminished by the administration work.

daddy-o wrote:It is unfortunate that until the "actual" leadership concerns are communicated and resolved that Home & Visit Teaching efforts will continued to be diminished by the administration work.

I know that it is really nice to have electronic tools to organize and plan. But, I think sometimes they actually get in the way. I believe that the "actual" leadership concern is that every member be visited by a home teacher and every sister be visited by a visiting teacher.

Personally, I find it very easy to get lost in the "administration" work and forget to do the "ministering" work outlined in the scriptures. Nevertheless, over 179-1/2 years, brethren and sisters have managed to get out, visit the members, and change lives.

Occasionally, I, too, wonder how they ever did it without computers. Somehow, they managed.

For the record, I support efforts such as RaR. I think the bugs will be worked out in time. While that is happening, I will go and do something to return and report about. I know I feel better when I visit with my priesthood leaders and have something to report.

They seem to like it, as well. [grin]

lajackson wrote:I know that it is really nice to have electronic tools to organize and plan. But, I think sometimes they actually get in the way. I believe that the "actual" leadership concern is that every member be visited by a home teacher and every sister be visited by a visiting teacher.

Personally, I find it very easy to get lost in the "administration" work and forget to do the "ministering" work outlined in the scriptures. Nevertheless, over 179-1/2 years, brethren and sisters have managed to get out, visit the members, and change lives.

Occasionally, I, too, wonder how they ever did it without computers. Somehow, they managed.

For the record, I support efforts such as RaR. I think the bugs will be worked out in time. While that is happening, I will go and do something to return and report about. I know I feel better when I visit with my priesthood leaders and have something to report.

They seem to like it, as well. [grin]

I cannot think of anyone I know who uses ReturnAndReport.org who thinks the technology gets in the way. Many automatically assume that RAR causes less communication between the Presidency and Teachers when, in fact, it does the opposite.

According to the site operator, one of the main goals of ReturnAndReport is to decrease the amount of administrative work that the Presidency needs to do so that they can focus more on the families and sisters.

TB

I love discussions regarding "the handbook" when the handbook is silent on my question. A few bishoprics ago we use to say "the handbook is not for private interpetation."

Our stake is discussing with our bishops soon about the use of these and other tools. Frankly my life will be easier without being the admins of the various sites... but I think the good here outweighs the risks... if, it is really up to the local units. Thanks for all the discussions here.

Brianinidaho wrote:if, it is really up to the local units.

At one point, our stake president gathered up all of the Handbook quotes and policy letters that have been issued on the subject, studied them, consulted with his presiding authority, got the revelation he needed, and then said, "This is the way we will do it in our stake."

He has the keys to do that.

lajackson wrote:At one point, our stake president gathered up all of the Handbook quotes and policy letters that have been issued on the subject, studied them, consulted with his presiding authority, got the revelation he needed, and then said, "This is the way we will do it in our stake."

He has the keys to do that.

Wow- I hope our leadership does that much due diligence. Even if they don't- and they don't have to- we will do what they want obviously. Its hard to say "the handbook says" and leave it at that when it doesn't seem to say that. It is a ton easier for our leaders who have spent hundreds of hours input data, seeing vt/ht double, and be in the trenches when the above sceniero (sp?) happens and the top leaders study it out and seek revelation. Good move gentleman. The way we would hope it happens.