an important issue on lds.org

Some friends and I recently noticed that there is no link to any information on Jesus Christ from the home page of lds.org. This was quite shocking to us, seeing as this is His church, He is the center of our faith, and we are trying to let the world know that Mormons are in fact Christians. Since these three facts are true, should we not link to information about Him, His life, ministry, miracles, and Atonement?

We were moved to write a letter, and we sent it to the First Presidency, Joel Dehlin, and Ron Schwendiman. We would like to post the contents of that letter here for added discussion among the "techies" of the lds community. Here are the contents of that letter:

Members of the First Presidency, Joel Dehlin, and Ron Schwendiman:

As you are the five people who most directly influence the content of the lds.org website, we are addressing this letter to you and hope that it does not encroach too much on your time. We have noticed a rather fundamentally disastrous issue regarding the home page of the site and feel to at least bring it to your attention.

In our associations with members of other faiths, we have noticed that lds.org is substantially utilized to learn about our doctrine, history, and culture. Unfortunately, aside from the image of the Christus statue and the logo of the Church, there is no link to or information about Jesus Christ Himself.

We were touched by Elder Ballard’s talk last week in conference – especially when he mentioned that many other denominations feel that “Mormons aren’t Christians.” We were pondering how we could change that perception. Our thoughts led us to visit the Church’s website through the eyes of someone not of our faith, to see what impression they would get of the LDS Church.

The first links that any visitor sees when visiting the site are these:
∼ About the church
∼ Gospel Library
∼ Family History and Temples
∼ Home and Family
∼ Serving in the Church
∼ News and Events

Thus, to those visiting the site for the first time, their impression is that the church promotes family history, temples, home, and family. But there is nothing that refers them to learn about Jesus Christ. We contacted the lds.org support staff regarding this issue, and the answer we received was that we should click on the “A-Z Index” and then click on “Jesus Christ” or use the search area. Why is it that visitors should have to dig to find information on Him whose church this is?

We suggest that the first menu item, above “About the Church,” read “Jesus Christ” or “About Jesus Christ.” Its submenus could read “Atonement,” “Life,” “Ministry,” “Miracles,” “Teachings.” These are only suggestions – other submenus may be more appropriate. But the point we’re trying to make is that in order to show the world that this truly is the Savior’s church, and that He truly is the center of our faith, information about Him should take the most prominent position on the website.

Now, we fully support the decisions of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. If it is their decision that this link should not be added to the main page, we will accept that on faith. We simply feel that this may have been overlooked.

Thank you very much for your time.

David Golding, Greg Golding, Benjamin Swanson

Change is on the way.....

check out beta.mormon.org

:p

I hope that your letter is well received Ben. I would agree that Christ should be more prominent. I think a technological challenge and opportunity that could be looked into is finding a way to perhaps have the mormon.org content available from lds.org for those who go there prior to mormon.org. This could probably be done from either one source repository with different style sheets on the front-end to match the site scheme or better integrate the two sites so those seeking "basic belief"-type links on lds.org would be directed to mormon.org sites in an understandable manner with the ability to get back to lds.org if they are truly interested in the more in-depth content available there.

This has been a concern of mine off-and-on for a while. There have been many useful features and content on mormon.org that many technologically-new or challenged individuals of the Church may not be aware of. The features such as greeting cards and Church TV messages would be great things to expose to members to help them become better missionaries. I like the link to the new beta site on the LDS.org homepage - how can we technologically and socially help members utilize this resource to help spread the Gospel? And for those non-members who do visit mormon.org, why is there not a link back to LDS.org for more information beyond the basics? Are we scared that it may overwhelm them - meat before milk? Is it a technical oversight?

bswanson wrote:Some friends and I recently noticed that there is no link to any information on Jesus Christ from the home page of lds.org. This was quite shocking to us, seeing as this is His church, He is the center of our faith, and we are trying to let the world know that Mormons are in fact Christians. Since these three facts are true, should we not link to information about Him, His life, ministry, miracles, and Atonement?

Ben,

Thanks so much for your thoughts on lds.org. The same issue has troubled me for some time--in fact, I'd noticed the same thing on the home page of mormon.org, where "church" and "family" are listed ahead of "nature of God," and there is no direct mention of the Savior except in the Church's name. I've been hesitant to recommend mormon.org to my non-member friends because I was afraid it would reinforce their incorrect suspicions that we're not Christians or don't look to Christ as our Savior. I'm glad you spoke up.

Today I was excited to visit the new beta of mormon.org and see that it is much more Christ-centered.

Also, after attending the Tech Talk in Mountain View this past week, I suspect your idea would be well received. The presenters there made it clear that their primary aim is to serve the Lord and bring souls to Christ.

Kathryn

Your thoughts and concerns are well appreciated and will be listened to. Let's not forget, however, that the charter for these forums is to discuss technology, not content. Since you sent the letter to those who can act upon it, I don't think that there is anything else that can be added. If you would like to comment on some technology behind the web site, that would be wonderful. However if you wish to comment on the content, your best bet would be to continue to work with those you have already contacted.

Tom

Benjamin, et al. Thank you for the feedback. Here is a copy of my email response to Benjamin.

/*
Hello Benjamin. Thanks for the post. It's frankly a great point. LDS.ORG is really not that old. Over time it has grown and now deserves a pretty serious re-thinking of the structure. This last release was mostly a technical one--better content management and search.

I agree with you that we can/should be a lot more focused on the Savior on the web site.

It's great feedback and we'll consider carefully as we start thinking about what's next for the home page.
*/

Tom is right, though. The intent of these forums is to talk about technology, not content.

Thanks for your interest, ya'll!

Joel Dehlin wrote: Tom is right, though. The intent of these forums is to talk about technology, not content.

I respect your charter, but I have to admit the line is somewhat fuzzy for me, as the technology is driven by and delivers the content. I don't mean you've been unclear or that I don't get what you're saying--I just mean they're pretty closely tied together in this context! And for me, what makes the technology especially exciting is the worthy purpose it's being used for.

Since we shouldn't mix content and technology on this forum, is there another place we can?

Kathryn

Kathryn wrote:I respect your charter, but I have to admit the line is somewhat fuzzy for me, as the technology is driven by and delivers the content. I don't mean you've been unclear or that I don't get what you're saying--I just mean they're pretty closely tied together in this context! And for me, what makes the technology especially exciting is the worthy purpose it's being used for.

Since we shouldn't mix content and technology on this forum, is there another place we can?

Kathryn

Content is dealt directly with the church's feedback system or through Priesthood leaders. This is so this forum avoids any docterinal issues that could be later used to support a position in opposition to the church.

Now how technology helps supply content takes a different view. For example:
The web can be used to explain our beliefs through seperated pages that deal with an individual topic.
I can say this but bring context into it:
The church needs to make a web page so that I can tell the members of my ward to read the church's viewpoint on abortion and also it needs to create another page about the reasons why all males couldn't hold the priesthood and other topics.

Notice one talks about how technology in general can be used while the other brings in unnessisary content.

Kathryn wrote:I respect your charter, but I have to admit the line is somewhat fuzzy for me, as the technology is driven by and delivers the content. I don't mean you've been unclear or that I don't get what you're saying--I just mean they're pretty closely tied together in this context! And for me, what makes the technology especially exciting is the worthy purpose it's being used for.

It can be tough at times. The moderators and myself will do our best to help everyone know when a topic gets off track.

Tom

[quote="thedqs"]Content is dealt directly with the church's feedback system or through Priesthood leaders.

-----snip------

Ummmmm . . . my experience with LDS sites has taught me that:
1) I can't tell if the feedback actually went through when I just get a white screen.
2) I have no record of what I sent unless I keep a separate copy (no cc: to self option).
3) A handful of times over the years I have gotten an unclear email about how they read all feedback, but since there is no quote, I have no idea to which feedback it refers.
4) I have never received a follow-up question or comment that related to my feedback, so I wonder if feedback goes somewhere (refer to #1), is it to a black hole?

Secondly, what priesthood leader do I know who would want feedback about the church websites? If the feedback isn't going anywhere and, unlike business websites, the LDS site lacks any contact information for key people, how would I know who these priesthood leaders are, what their titles are, and how to reach them?

Also, I think that some of these posts are not saying that the content is incorrect, just that the organization of that content is either awkward & time consuming to navigate, or that it might not be as useful to members and non-members as was originally intended. For example, the scouting info tells us that the church endorses scouting and that it is a good program. As a divorced mom, it would be helpful to have a chart identifying the differences between what Boy Scout handbooks say & how the church implements the program. I got my son all excited about finishing his Arrow of Light so he could join Boy Scouts only to learn that in the church program, he has to wait until he is 11. Once a boy scout, boys can go to camp; unless they're 11 and it's an LDS unit. Ugh! What is the official word on this stuff, vs. local tradition? The male leaders respond telling me that "everyone knows there are differences". My concern is not changing the rules (whatever they are, they are), but in being informed. I find the church websites to be both increasingly awkward to navigate and lacking in relevant content.


NOTE: After posting, I see that the tone of this message is very negative. Although I use the internet daily for my work, school, and/or genealogy, I find the LDS websites to be increasingly frustrating to use. When a site that I use frequently is totally reorganized to the point that I cannot find what I am seeking, I tend to avoid that site. When I finally get to the desired category and it gives me "feel good" info about the topic, but no practical detail, I am less inclined to go to the effort to use that site in the future. Think in terms of lessons from Pavlov's studies.

scion wrote:Ummmmm . . . my experience with LDS sites has taught me that:
1) I can't tell if the feedback actually went through when I just get a white screen.
2) I have no record of what I sent unless I keep a separate copy (no cc: to self option).
3) A handful of times over the years I have gotten an unclear email about how they read all feedback, but since there is no quote, I have no idea to which feedback it refers.
4) I have never received a follow-up question or comment that related to my feedback, so I wonder if feedback goes somewhere (refer to #1), is it to a black hole?

Yea I know that, and unfortinutly we just have to take their word that they got it, I did suggest previously that they would e-mail you a confirmation email and give you a site that you could see the progress or rejection (and reasons why) of your requests.

I am sure that they get the feedback read it and then put it on the queue, but they just forget or don't want to email the person in return. Of course they could be slowly improving the feedback option too.

scion wrote:Secondly, what priesthood leader do I know who would want feedback about the church websites? If the feedback isn't going anywhere and, unlike business websites, the LDS site lacks any contact information for key people, how would I know who these priesthood leaders are, what their titles are, and how to reach them?

Good point, though it is up to the stake president to chose one for that if it is not himself.

Ummmmm . . . my experience with LDS sites has taught me that:
1) I can't tell if the feedback actually went through when I just get a white screen.
2) I have no record of what I sent unless I keep a separate copy (no cc: to self option).
3) A handful of times over the years I have gotten an unclear email about how they read all feedback, but since there is no quote, I have no idea to which feedback it refers.
4) I have never received a follow-up question or comment that related to my feedback, so I wonder if feedback goes somewhere (refer to #1), is it to a black hole?

Sounds like we have some "bugs" in the usability of the feedback system. We do get literally thousands of feedback items. Many are the same things, some are unique. I can't speak as to the process taken by the group in charge of that area as I'm not aware of how they operate but I have spoken with individuals who say that they do have a team of people that review feedback items.

Secondly, what priesthood leader do I know who would want feedback about the church websites? If the feedback isn't going anywhere and, unlike business websites, the LDS site lacks any contact information for key people, how would I know who these priesthood leaders are, what their titles are, and how to reach them?

Please use the feedback forms. Although the process may be flawed, all items do get reviewed. We will work on the process.

Tom

For those who wish to post feedback for lds.org, you can find the feedback link at the top of every page or you can visit this link.

Tom

I sent feedback about three years ago on several ideas I had for lds.org once I learned they were looking at revamping the site. Actually got responses. One came a week later, the other came back six months later when someone was able to as the suggestion was rather detailed.

So they do get the feedback sent to them.

JamesAnderson wrote:I sent feedback about three years ago on several ideas I had for lds.org once I learned they were looking at revamping the site. Actually got responses. One came a week later, the other came back six months later when someone was able to as the suggestion was rather detailed.

So they do get the feedback sent to them.

Though responding to the feedback might be delayed as your post showed.

I was saddened to read your post that you felt that you needed to write directly to the First Presidency about the issue of the website not having a direct link to Jesus Christ. There are so many layers of personnel that could have addressed your concern without needing to go straight to the top. The contact points within the website are fixable and further fluid in content. The review process is always in motion. Your suggestion though a valid point about the lack of direct connection to our relationship with the Saviour did not need to be in my view resolved at that level......

Alex Morris wrote:There are so many layers of personnel that could have addressed your concern without needing to go straight to the top.

I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand I suspect that simply sending it though feedback is a little too low and may not be elevated to the right level. But most members have no clue who to contact except the very top.

Who is the GA over the web page? What is the line of authority? Does it report to the Presiding Bishopric, or does it go direct to the Quorum of the 12 or First Presidency? Without a knowledge of the power structure, it's hard to know where such a concern should be sent.

On the other hand, I'd expect anything addressed to the First Presidency is screened by assistants so that it was re-directed to the appropriate person for action.

I'm sure Joel Dehlin got it to the right place. Moderators - Pardon if I'm too revelatory here and feel free to edit or delete my post, but it is my understanding that all Internet sites and activity are managed through the Church Internet Development Group (CIDG) which is headed by Larry Richman (see ldswebguy.com) and Ron Schwendiman. They would be good contacts.

kgthunder wrote:I'm sure Joel Dehlin got it to the right place. Moderators - Pardon if I'm too revelatory here and feel free to edit or delete my post, but it is my understanding that all Internet sites and activity are managed through the Church Internet Development Group (CIDG) which is headed by Larry Richman (see ldswebguy.com) and Ron Schwendiman. They would be good contacts.

This is correct.

Tom

RussellHltn wrote:I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand I suspect that simply sending it though feedback is a little too low and may not be elevated to the right level. But most members have no clue who to contact except the very top.

You should contact your Bishop or Stake President because they are only a few people removed from the the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency. Also, let's not forget that Stake Presidents are called by the General Authorities and are trained by them therefore they are more likely to pass it on to the right leaders. The General Authorities have repeatedly stated that you should not write directly to the First Presidency or General Authorities instead we should use the proper priesthood channels. If and when our ideas or feedback warrants the attention of the First Presidency or other General Authorities it will make its way to them. If it does not it is because our idea or suggestion isn't that important and we need to accept that every idea that comes out of our heads isn't always the greatest idea just because we thought of it.

Who is the GA over the web page? What is the line of authority? Does it report to the Presiding Bishopric, or does it go direct to the Quorum of the 12 or First Presidency? Without a knowledge of the power structure, it's hard to know where such a concern should be sent.

It should be sent to your Bishop (or Stake President) who will determine whether it is something he can handle or if the Stake President should handle it. If the Stake President cannot handle it than he will send it to his direct report among the General Authorities who will in turn make sure that it gets to who it needs to get too. The only reason that we need to know who the General Authority responsibility for the webpage is because we think we are VIP's and don't have to go through proper channels. If every member of the Church were to go directly to the General Authority responsible for the website every time they had a comment or idea about it that General Authority or General Officer would not be able to perform any function other than to listen to feedback from members. This also goes for feedback we submitted through the website. If we don't get a response it should not concern us. It has reached someone and just because we don't get a personal response or see the change we want doesn't mean that it hasn't been read by the right people but simply means we aren't enough to receive a personalized responsed as there are 12 million members and these people are going through 1,000's of feedback.

On the other hand, I'd expect anything addressed to the First Presidency is screened by assistants so that it was re-directed to the appropriate person for action.

If you send a letter directly to a General Authority they are going to read it. I doubt very much if the First Presidency would delegate this task to someone other than one of themselves or the Quorum of the Twelve as some people write about very sensitive matters. If a member of the Church wants to make sure that the right people see their suggestions than they should go through the Bishop and Stake President because they have direct contact. If it is some minor technical issue or such than there are forums such as this one where issues and suggestions can be discussed. Also, to send suggestions directly to the First Presidency because we think that an Assistant will screen it is the wrong attitude since the time and talents of these Assistants are being wasted screening suggestions. It is one thing to have a Bishop screen, then the Stake President, then a General Authority screen these but another entirely for a group of people who are assistants to the General Authority screen letters from the entire membership of the Church. We have a priesthood line and we know exactly what that line is and it starts with our Bishop.