Webcasting sacrament meeting to shut-ins

I'm wondering if anyone else has tried webcasting a meeting for shut-ins. I was thinking that would be a cool thing to offer (perhaps once a month, maybe fast Sunday?).

By my understanding of Church policy, you would have to block out the actual sacrament ordinance portion. Other than that, you should be able to broadcast the remainder of the meeting.

My understanding is that there is a prohibition against RECORDING meetings, but obviously not against broadcasting them (since the Church offers webcasting software, etc.).

From my understanding you are correct on all counts. Don't transmit an ordinance and don't record the meetings.

I now have a home-bound member in my ward and starting this Sunday 4/11/10, I will be doing the same thing every week. I plan on using my laptop with the Logitech Quick Cam Pro for Laptops and a Clear One Chat 50. After Sacrament meeting I will unplug and set up again in the RS room for both Gospel Doctrine class and RS.
Troy

I think one concern I'd have is controlling who can see the content. How is it being limited to ward members? Is there a real need or just a desire to watch church in their PJs? In short my concern would be limiting it to a real need as determined by the Bishopric and not turning it into broadcasting.

RussellHltn wrote:I think one concern I'd have is controlling who can see the content. How is it being limited to ward members?

Each meeting that is webcast has a unique meeting ID. You have to know the ID to put on the URL to watch the meeting. So as long as you don't broadly publicize the ID, I think those concerns are adequately addressed.

RussellHltn wrote: Is there a real need or just a desire to watch church in their PJs? In short my concern would be limiting it to a real need as determined by the Bishopric and not turning it into broadcasting.

"Shut-ins" and "home-bound member" sound like real needs to me. Of course the bishop would have to approve the webcast, but I think it's a great way to help those who are otherwise unable to participate.

Alan_Brown wrote:Each meeting that is webcast has a unique meeting ID. You have to know the ID to put on the URL to watch the meeting. So as long as you don't broadly publicize the ID, I think those concerns are adequately addressed.

OK, that sounds like a good start. Is there anything that reports how many are watching the stream? Otherwise someone with a legitimate need to know could text the URL to a friend.

Those are all valid questions that should be asked before someone moves forward in webcasting church meetings.

In my case, I am the bishop and so I asked myself if it was ok, and believe it or not, I agreed!
Troy

I realize I'm resurrecting an old thread, but given the church's advancements in webcast support, I wanted to get a feel of what people are doing for the home bound members/shut-ins. Our building does not have the fastest internet, so I think I'm limited to probably only audio.

The idea just came up today in bishopric meeting, so I haven't thought it all through but I'm brainstorming a few ideas:

1. Do a simple freeconferencecall.com conference call with a cell phone sitting on the podium with its volume turned all the way down. This way, if somebody gets dropped they can join again vs a direct point-to-point phone call and it can handle more than one caller. Easy to move the phone to Sunday school and relief society.

2. Use the church's webcast setup. I'm concerned about upload bandwidth for anything video. But, video would be really nice for the members even if it is low resolution. I'm not sure if the webcast is available on-demand for wards to use like this.

3. Create a little Raspberry Pi box that does audio only stream. Move the box for Sunday school and Relief Society. Advantage is being able to configure a low bandwidth codec for audio only. Downside, a bit more investment and a custom solution that may not be easy for non-technical people if there is a problem.

What are others doing that is easy, works, and the home bound are willing to use?

Although we don't Webcast our Sacrament meetings to shut-ins, we turn this into an opportunity of service.

In our ward, we record our Sacrament meeting talks with a laptop using one of the assisted hearing receivers, then burn 4-5 CD's, tape them to the inside of a program and send them out with the Priests after the block. The Priests then visit each of those members, administer the Sacrament to them, visit with them (along with their Quorum Advisor), and leave a program and recording.

I feel the most important thing our shut-in's receive is the Sacrament. Sending our Priests out with a message (CD) and visit with them every week adds a personal touch in our efforts to love them and not forget about them. In addition, when we hear of someone who is recovering or for some other reason cannot attend Sacrament meeting, we simply burn an extra CD and do the same for them. (BTW, mothers of missionaries absolutely love getting a surprise recording of their son/daughter's farewell/homecoming talk).

We've been doing this for several years now and it has been very effective. Although it has been suggested to use a thumb-drive or some other technology, the people receiving this service are not very technically savvy and this has been the most effective way for our ward.

michaelfish wrote:Although we don't Webcast our Sacrament meetings to shut-ins, we turn this into an opportunity of service.

In our ward, we record our Sacrament meeting talks with a laptop using one of the assisted hearing receivers, then burn 4-5 CD's, tape them to the inside of a program and send them out with the Priests after the block. The Priests then visit each of those members, administer the Sacrament to them, visit with them (along with their Quorum Advisor), and leave a program and recording.

Good suggestions. This is a pretty easy approach and cheap.

My Bishop asked me to do this last year after he was called. I had checked the Handbook on this and was not sure that we should. The Bishop went to the Stake President and received approval, and we have been doing this each Sunday for our many shut-ins (many elderly in our ward). We do not openly broadcast the webcast ID, and only provide to those approved by the Bishop, and change the ID each week.

I setup my camera in the back and only begin the camera feed, after the passing of the Sacrament and when the conducting bishopric member excuses the priesthood to be seated with their families.

We have received great feedback from the shut-ins.

We had met in the Stake Center and this workded well. However we were just moved to one of our smaller ward buildings last month and now do not have the capability to do this. Our current issue is getting an internet connection into the back of the Chapel of in the overflow. This would allow me to use one of our backup Webcaster transmitters or use the webcaster software do generate the feed.

I will post again later if we are successful in recommencing our feeds from this smaller ward building.

gekelley, I'd be curious what software and hardware you are using to do this.

I researched using icecast to do an audio stream via a webserver, but we opted for the simple suggestion of using audio CDs because the bandwidth in our building is unpredictable (ok in the morning, dropped packets in the afternoon), we weren't sure of the technical abilities of the shut ins, and because we wanted something that could be transitioned to other members to support if I'm out of town.

What we did:

Based on michaelfish's suggestions, we went the audio cd route. Under the sacrament meeting table in our building are two audio jacks, one is labeled tape recorder. This is a line-out from the audio system. I picked up a cable to lower the line-in so that I could record it on a smart phone without over driving the mic on the smart phone. (Google KM-IPHONE-MIC-A22 to see the cable) This also addresses the TRRS requirement of smart phones/tablets to detect the line-in as a microphone. This, plus an extension cable (3.5mm male to 3.5mm male) let me sit my phone behind the priests so it is out of the way but reachable for me to start the recording. I use the android app Smart Voice Recorder because it shows the audio wave as it is recording so you know it has sound.

We start the recording at the beginning of the meeting. When I burn it to the CDs, if I have time, I will use audacity to chop out the sacrament meeting portion so that the shut ins don't have 10 minutes of silence in the middle of the recording. I'll also make it a stereo recording at that point too (smart phones do mono recordings).

We have also been recording relief society just because it is so little effort to do that as well. For that, we have just been setting a smart phone on the table by the teacher and it seems to pick up the room well enough (not using a sound system or any cables... just the phone itself). My wife just uses her phone when she goes to relief society.

So, we spent $30 on a cd burner, $30 on cables, and then the blank audio CDs. We only have 2 people we provide this to. I can imagine that if we had 5+ people that burning the CDs would be a bit slow.

burning the CDs would be a bit slow.

I set up in the library before Sacrament meeting (but I could do this anywhere):
5 min - Boot laptop, connect Roxio USB, Assisted Hearing receiver,
and direct box (line to mic). Start Roxio EZ Record
(the librarians put 4 copies of the program in the corner for me)

After Sacrament meeting:
5 min - Stop recording, import into Roxio editor, create tracks, delete ordinance/post audio
2-4 min (ea.) - Start Roxio CD Record, burn CD's and tape to the inside of program

chriswoodut, you also could use the assisted hearing receiver and record from anywhere...

michaelfish,

Our assisted hearing receivers are wireless. I haven't looked at them to see if they have a headphone out or something similar on them. I'll have to glance at them the next time I'm in the library. Are yours wireless?

Yes, our assisted hearing devices are also wireless, but the audio signal (3.5 mm mono headphone jack) is too hot to connect directly to a microphone input and the impedance isn't correct for line level. To solve this, I just attenuate the output and convert it to an unbalanced signal.

chriswoodut wrote:Our assisted hearing receivers are wireless. I haven't looked at them to see if they have a headphone out or something similar on them.

Yes, it has a very hot headphone out. I think it also serves as the power switch. I'm not sure how that works. I assume it's a switch in the jack but I wouldn't rule out something else. I believe that the transmitter has a compressor/limiter, so that's one nice thing.

gekelley wrote:I setup my camera in the back and only begin the camera feed, after the passing of the Sacrament and when the conducting bishopric member excuses the priesthood to be seated with their families.

Camera, eh? I thought that, besides using cameras for a Stake Conference feed to other buildings, the use of cameras in the chapel was against church policy. Others in this discussion seem to be doing audio-only recordings or webcasts, which doesn't seem to be prohibited (unless a General Authority is speaking in your ward, I suppose) but I'm not sure cameras are okay.

Anyone wanting to follow gekelley's example needs to confer with thier leaders and review Handbook 2 21.2.10

21.2.10
Photographs, Video Recordings, and Broadcasts in Chapels

Taking photographs or making video recordings in chapels is not permitted. Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means (see 18.3.1 for an exception).

18.3.1 is the section on Stake Conference.

the use of cameras in the chapel was against church policy

Just to be clear, the "use of cameras in the chapel" isn't currently against policy (however, it used to be). A stake I know uses a camera for every sacrament meeting so those who need it can watch an ASL translator on monitors in the building.

The church policy refers to taking photographs, video recordings and broadcasting.

Not allowing a camera feed of the chapel would prohibit video distribution to overflow areas in the building.

michaelfish wrote:Not allowing a camera feed of the chapel would prohibit video distribution to overflow areas in the building.

Interesting you should state this when the handbook is pretty clear. "Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means "
While I can see this as a good service the audio feed from the chapel usually takes care of the overflow areas, video is not necessary. As for the ASL there could be a designated area in the chapel where the translator can translate for those who need it. We do that in one of our ward for all the ward meetings and stake meetings as well. Its usually the area upfront and off to the side of the chapel, works very well.

Gary_Miller wrote:

michaelfish wrote:Not allowing a camera feed of the chapel would prohibit video distribution to overflow areas in the building.

Interesting you should state this when the handbook is pretty clear. "Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means "

The key word in my mind is "broadcast"; our stake has never interpreted "broadcast" to mean sending a feed within the building from a camera to an overflow area. For large gatherings, we may use a camera and project the feed to the extra screen in the cultural hall. Otherwise, for a person sitting in the back of the cultural hall, a speaker who is over 100 feet away is very small. Our stake presidency has felt that it was important to make the experience better for those in the back.

Gary_Miller wrote:While I can see this as a good service the audio feed from the chapel usually takes care of the overflow areas, video is not necessary.

Perhaps that's the decision of your local leaders, but our stake presidency has decided on multiple occasions to send video to overflow areas.

aebrown wrote:The key word in my mind is "broadcast"; our stake has never interpreted "broadcast" to mean sending a feed within the building from a camera to an overflow area.

And the definition of "Internet" is something outside of the building. Within the building, it would be the LAN.

It should also be noted that most if not all chapels are equipped with a radio transmitter to assist the hard of hearing. It's low power, so it's range is quite limited. But it does get a little ways outside of the building. So whatever the concern is, it appears to not be a "broadcast".

I'm afraid the policy from the Handbook is still open to a lot of interpretation. I'll ignore the Stake Conference exception and, in every other case, it appears that...
A) You cannot take still pictures in the Chapel or record video... ever (whether it's during a meeting or not).
B) You cannot broadcast any meeting which takes place in the chapel (which could include both audio and video broadcasts).

So, is a feed from the chapel to an overflow room considered a "broadcast" or some kind of "closed circuit"? If it's only closed circuit (and if that makes it okay), then what about the three shut-in members who could receive a sacrament meeting "closed circuit" feed to their homes (and nobody else would ever receive it... so is it still considered a broadcast)? The policy might indicate that the people who are recording sacrament meeting (audio only) and giving the recording to shut-ins are within policy but those who are doing an audio-only "broadcast" (or webcast) are not.

In another discussion, I think someone once mentioned using Skype so that a loved one in another country could watch a funeral in a chapel. According to the quote from the handbook, that wouldn't be allowed. (Or would it? It might be "closed circuit".) But what if the funeral were held in the cultural hall instead of the chapel? Would that make everything okay? (Or is there a policy elsewhere in a Handbook that says funerals must be held in the chapel?)

Bro Brown would that be during stake conference or for ward sacrament meetings as well.

Gary_Miller wrote:Bro Brown would that be during stake conference or for ward sacrament meetings as well.

Well, we certainly use cameras and send video to overflow rooms for stake conference, but we have done it for other large meetings as well (special firesides, and a funeral for a member of a prominent family, for example). To my knowledge no one has done it for a sacrament meeting yet.

mrrad wrote:So, is a feed from the chapel to an overflow room considered a "broadcast" or some kind of "closed circuit"?

When our stake uses a camera for stake conference and other large meetings to send video to overflow rooms, it is certainly what I would call "closed circuit"; the audio and video are only within the building's audio/video distribution system. It's on wires within the building. There's no wireless signal for anyone to hack. As I said before, I don't think it's a broadcast at all.

mrrad wrote:If it's only closed circuit (and if that makes it okay), then what about the three shut-in members who could receive a sacrament meeting "closed circuit" feed to their homes (and nobody else would ever receive it... so is it still considered a broadcast)?

I can't imagine what you're talking about. Are you saying that there are wires running to the homes of three shut-in members? I really doubt that. So it sounds like you are doing something that is going over the air or over the Internet to those people. That is in no way a closed circuit, and I think I'd have to call that a broadcast. If anyone else discovered the meeting code, they could receive the transmission.

aebrown wrote: I can't imagine what you're talking about.

We're both trying to use terms that aren't addressed in the handbook. You think using hard wires means something in not a broadcast. I use the term "closed circuit" without regard to whether you're using wires or encryption or some other method to keep it "private." But we're each trying to parse words to dodge what the handbook policy seems to imply, which is, no cameras (except for conference) and no transmissions to any other location either (except for conference).

My point is that it's difficult to know who is following the policy if we find a gray area in our definition of "broadcast". I wonder if foreign language translations of the handbook would actually be more precise on this point.

the handbook policy seems to imply, which is, no cameras

When you said "no cameras" I'm sure you meant "no recordings". Or did you actually interpret the handbook to say no cameras?

...personally, if we could not bring cameras into the chapel (smartphones, tablets, iPads, blackberry or anything with a camera built in) the Brethren may wish to add "no video games, no social media, no checking email in the chapel" to the handbook!

mrrad wrote:My point is that it's difficult to know who is following the policy if we find a gray area in our definition of "broadcast".

I'm not overly concerned about how other stakes interpret "broadcasting". I'm more interested that everyone is aware of the policy and have discussed the issue with their priesthood leaders. If the leaders need clarification, they can go up the chain to get an answer.

One thing that I find odd is that there is no apparent restriction on other rooms. On the surface it would seem that any unit could hold a public broadcast of Gospel Essentials or any other Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society meeting. I don't believe that is the intent. I believe that only the Brethren and the heads of the General Auxiliaries are to preach to the public at large.

Assuming that others accept that, then the question is how does that shape the interpretation of
"broadcasting" from the chapel when it is clearly more restrictive than for other meetings?

Also, why would the Handbook spell out an explicit exception for Stake Conference if a simple building-to-building webcast is not considered "broadcasting"?

I too thoroughly read the Handbook instruction on the subject and initally indicated to my Bishop that is would not be inline with the way I understood the instruction. My Bishop went to the Stake Presidency and they discussed and reviewed the Handbook together and he was given permission to proceed, and instructions to make sure that the actual Sacrament ordinance was not shared, and that we start the webcast after the conclusion of the Sacrament ordinance. Below is a simple out line of what I had been doing when our ward met in the Stake Center -

1. Before the meeting began, go to library and use our Webcast Meeting Communicator (wired into our VDA cabinet) to create a unique ID for that Sunday Sacrament (the ID was emailed to the shut-ins the day before through the HP Group Leader or RS President, which was created by me and provided to them).

2. on our Video Selector, I would choose DVD, and have a DVD that I created with Picture only that stated "Broadcast will begin at the conclusion of the Sacrament". On several different times I would create a new DVD that also would inlcude the announcements for that particular Sunday (had to work with the Bulletin Specialist to get this in advance). The Bulletin also lists all the Ward Leaders and their telephone numbers. This was also added to the DVD, so when the shut-ins would go to the web address link provided to them by the HP Group Leader or the RS President, they could see these items as well as they waited for the remainder of the Sacrament meeting.

3. Set up my Video Camera in the back of the overflow (actually opend the rear curtain just inches and had my video camera on a tripod. No videotape in the camera - never recording the meeting. Connected only the video-out, to the video-in located on the side of the Chapel through a long RCA cord. This feeds the video into the house wiring system and back to the library into our VDA box ans video selector.

4. When the Sacrament ordinance was close to completion (AP lining up to return to the Sacrament table) I would walk back to the library where I could listen to the events over the house speakers and wait until I heard the conducting Bishopric member dismiss the AP to seated with their families. At this point I would change the video selector to "Camera" input and the feed from my Video Camera would go into the Webcast Meeting Communicator, and out to the unique meeting ID and into the homes of the shut-ins through the internet.


Our Stake has been doing this for our Stake Conferences for several years now and only having 1 session of conference and broadcasting to 2 additional remote ward buildings. At each Stake Conference, the Bishops in each of the wards are aware of the needs of their members and we provide each Bishop that requests a weblink for their shut-ins to enjoy conference (we have a memeber of the Seventy in our Stake and he has requested the link several times for his wife to be able to watch as she was not able to attend due to health reasons).

I would most certainly check with your Priesthood leaders (Bishops and Stake Presidents) and discuss and review with them and get their approval before proceeding to share the Sacrament meeting.

I hope this helps answers some questions, and if you have questions, just send me a PM and I will try and help.

Thanks

Don't misunderstand. If I were a shut-in member of your ward I would love this service you offer. It would even be fun to be the guy who does it. However, from where I'm sitting and the way I read the handbook, a Sacrament Meeting video webcast is not allowed no matter who likes it (including Seventies, Stake Presidents or anyone else lower on the authority list than those who authorized the handbook).

I suppose it would be easier to interpret the handbook (which should be clear enough as to not need interpretation anyway) if I knew what principle is being reinforced by the policy. What is the policy supposed to be preventing or encouraging? What is so wrong with a video recording that isn't also wrong with an audio-only recording? Is it all about how disruptive it is to see a camera in the room during a meeting? Why is the chapel the only room falling under certain restrictions? If we knew the operative principle(s) then there would be fewer questions about the do-and-don't list. As it stands, we can speculate about the principles and then we think we've discovered gray areas.

The Church used to broadcast (on BYU-TV, I think) a meeting identical to sacrament meeting without the sacrament. Hymns, prayers, speakers. Do they still do that?

We used to refer our homebound members to that broadcast, and then send in the priests from time to time, usually quarterly, to administer the sacrament.

lajackson wrote:The Church used to broadcast (on BYU-TV, I think) a meeting identical to sacrament meeting without the sacrament. Hymns, prayers, speakers. Do they still do that?

Yes. It's called Worship Service, and it airs each Sunday at 9:00am Mountain Time. But although BYUtv continues to air it, I don't think they're creating any new episodes. It looks like it's just the same 28 episodes from 8 or 9 years ago playing over and over again.

You're right. They just show the old episodes (so the rotation restarts about twice a year) but they're actually more like 20 years old. Back then, the church shared a satellite channel with some other churches, as I recall, and this program showed our version of a Sunday meeting. They could really use some fresh material. If any viewer thinks that our women are currently wearing those styles of clothes and hairdos then we truly will be thought of as a peculiar people.

Perhaps I could just watch the 28 episodes and then not need to attend sacrament meeting any longer? [grin] Just kidding.

I do believe personally that the ordinance is the reason for the restriction on broadcasting sacrament meeting. But that is my own personal opinion, and not binding on my whatever the lawyers would say, including other priesthood leaders.

lajackson wrote:I do believe personally that the ordinance is the reason for the restriction on broadcasting sacrament meeting. But that is my own personal opinion, and not binding on my whatever the lawyers would say, including other priesthood leaders.

Interesting you would say this since the Handbook says does not single out Sacrament meetings. The handbook covers all "meetings and other events that are held in the Chapel".

Gary_Miller wrote:the Handbook says does not single out Sacrament meetings. The handbook covers all "meetings and other events that are held in the Chapel".

'Tis a puzzle.

russellhltn wrote:'Tis a puzzle.

I see no Puzzle the wording is quite simple and direct.

Even the term of what would be considered a broadcast becomes clear if you look up the latest definitions in Websters.

broadcast n (1922) 1: the act of transmitting sound of images by radio or television

Of course the handbook clarifies it in more detail "over the Internet or by any other means"

lajackson wrote:Perhaps I could just watch the 28 episodes and then not need to attend sacrament meeting any longer? [grin] Just kidding.

I'll be glad to keep showing up at the building but I'm intrigued by the idea that the meeting could only last 30 minutes (which is about how long my little daughter lasts in a typical meeting these days). We are among the few who have Sacrament Meeting last, by the way.

Gary_Miller wrote:Even the term of what would be considered a broadcast becomes clear if you look up the latest definitions in Websters.

broadcast n (1922) 1: the act of transmitting sound of images by radio or television

Your definition is correct. The word broadcast means to transmit to a broad audience, which IMO, is not a transmission to an overflow room, another building, or a shut-in. Take for example, Part 97 of the FCC rules, where it clearly forbids Amateur Radio operators from broadcasting on the ham bands. We can transmit one-to-one, or even one-to-many, but NEVER one-to-the-listening-public. The former are examples of "radio transmissions", the latter is defined as "radio broadcasting".

I really don't want to split hairs on terminology. My position is that stake presidents are given the keys to such decisions, not me or anyone else under them. As an STS, if I'm asked by my stake president to transmit a sacrament meeting talk to a shut-in, I do it. If I felt inclined, I may ask about the HB, but his decision is final. If a new stake president takes over and asks that we cease the practice, I would cease. I really don't see what the big deal is. I firmly believe this is what is meant by sustaining my leaders.

Gary_Miller wrote:

russellhltn wrote:'Tis a puzzle.

I see no Puzzle the wording is quite simple and direct.

The puzzle is the underlying "why".

Just, for what it's worth, I was talking to a friend who happens to be a professional video editor and he reminded me that the term "narrowcast" is a real, legitimate term in the business.

Mikerowaved wrote:As an STS, if I'm asked by my stake president to transmit a sacrament meeting talk to a shut-in, I do it. If I felt inclined, I may ask about the HB, but his decision is final. If a new stake president takes over and asks that we cease the practice, I would cease. I really don't see what the big deal is. I firmly believe this is what is meant by sustaining my leaders.

I'm with you to a point. And I admit that, to me, this particular topic isn't a big deal (because I don't know the "why" behind the policy, perhaps). On other topics I might cry foul. (I've heard stories from unspecified places... but I'll just leave it at that. I don't mean to throw the topic off.)

russellhltn wrote:The puzzle is the underlying "why".

Why, for no other reason than "The 1st Presidency" and "The Quorum of the Twelve" said not to do it.

Granted... so the question is "Why do the Brethren say so?" I'm sure that if we knew just a little bit more about the "why" then most of us would enthusiastically embrace the policy. As it stands, we're trying to split hairs about it. That's too bad.

Right now it seems that most of us in this discussion are just watching from the sidelines. It's really the Bishops and Stake Presidents who are left to police what's really happening and make the decisions (...and I don't think many of us in this discussion have those callings). None of us would get far with audio recordings or audio/video webcasts if the Bishops or Stake Presidents didn't approve. So why aren't they all enthusiastically embracing the policy as it seems to be written?

Gary_Miller wrote:Why, for no other reason than "The 1st Presidency" and "The Quorum of the Twelve" said not to do it.

That doesn't help us understand what's meant by the word "broadcast". Depending on how you define it, as long as you're not sending it to the local public access channel, you can send any meeting anywhere you want as still be obedient.

Understanding the "why" helps us figure out the gray areas.

russellhltn wrote:Understanding the "why" helps us figure out the gray areas.

Only if one sees there being "grey areas" I don't see any "grey areas". Just black and white. Take it the way it is written and obey. It really quite simple.

Does the lord expect you to understand the why when he gives a commandment? Or does he give a commandment and expects you to obey?

Many times on here we hear the Stake Presidents or Bishops hold the keys for their areas and one should sustain them by doing what they ask of us. Do you have to know the why before you do as your asked? Or do you just do as your asked?

Gary_Miller wrote:I don't see any "grey areas". Just black and white.

Duly noted.

Our leaders hold the keys to interpretation. If anyone has a problem with what their leaders say, they need to take it up with them directly.

For a lot of people, one of the most beautiful concepts at play in our church goes something like "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." When you have a firm understanding of principles, then you don't need to be "commanded in all things" and you can figure out the right thing to do, even if the specifics of the situation are things you've never faced before. So we've come to expect principle-based rules as a helpful way to making obedience that much easier.

I can think of some very good reasons to restrict "broadcasts" and even "narrowcasts" from the Chapel... but it's just my speculation so it doesn't do much good to "broadcast" those reasons here. Meanwhile, some of what's been said here in support of "narrowcasts" seems very reasonable to me and could be interpreted as still being in line with the handbook.

mrrad wrote:For a lot of people, one of the most beautiful concepts at play in our church goes something like "Teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves." When you have a firm understanding of principles, then you don't need to be "commanded in all things" and you can figure out the right thing to do, even if the specifics of the situation are things you've never faced before. So we've come to expect principle-based rules as a helpful way to making obedience that much easier.

Agreed. As for rules-based guidance, we need to have some degree of tolerance if other's interpretation doesn't quite match our own. If the leaders are wrong, then the sin be on their head.

Gary_Miller wrote:

lajackson wrote:I do believe personally that the ordinance is the reason for the restriction on broadcasting sacrament meeting. But that is my own personal opinion, and not binding on my whatever the lawyers would say, including other priesthood leaders.

Interesting you would say this since the Handbook says does not single out Sacrament meetings. The handbook covers all "meetings and other events that are held in the Chapel".

I said it because of the way the earlier Church Handbooks of Instruction were written.

And that was a comment about sacrament meeting.

Then again, funerals should not "be broadcast on the Internet or in any other way." (HB 2, 18.6.4). There is no ordinance in a funeral service. So perhaps it is not the ordinance, but the sacredness of the occasion.

And our most sacred meetings take place in the chapel.

From Clerksupport: Webcast Policies and Guidelines

Usage Guidelines
Handbook 2: Administering the Church, 21.2.10 states that meetings or events held in the chapel are to not be broadcast over the Internet. The exception is stake conference when approved by the stake president (see 18.3.1). Webcasts should not be used to broadcast ordinances such as baptisms or the administration of the sacrament.

Meetinghouse webcasts are intended to be used to broadcast events from one Church building to other Church buildings. Webcasting to locations other than Church buildings should be done only under unusual circumstances and when deemed appropriate by stake and area leaders.

Recording
The policy on photography and video recording in chapels does not apply to streaming events, such as stake conference. It is acceptable to stream events using the Meetinghouse Webcast Communicator or Meetinghouse Webcast software; however, stake technology specialists should ensure that events originating in the chapel are not recorded. An event that includes the participation of a General Authority should also never be recorded. Some cameras have the capability to stream video without recording, while others do not (see requirements for meetinghouse webcast cameras). All meetinghouse webcast cameras must allow for the recording feature to be turned off.

Anyone know how to stream the webcasts to an android devise?

mattolander wrote:Anyone know how to stream the webcasts to an android devise?

Yes. See this forum post.

A very interesting discussion. My two cents:

lajackson wrote:The Church used to broadcast (on BYU-TV, I think) a meeting identical to sacrament meeting without the sacrament. Hymns, prayers, speakers. Do they still do that?

We used to refer our homebound members to that broadcast, and then send in the priests from time to time, usually quarterly, to administer the sacrament.

Many of these "meetings" were filmed in our stake center. Some of us were "invited" to attend in our Sunday best and be the congregation. They would film one, have us all get up and sit in different places and film another one. None of the speakers were from our stake. We were told that if we fell asleep, there would be "audience shots" and we would be seen all around the world. Kept me awake...

As to broadcasting into the shut in's homes: One thing that hasn't been discussed. I have several shut-ins that would benefit from this. I also have several who claim to be shut-ins but aren't really. We struggle all the time on the question "Are we enabling them to be shut-ins by bringing them the sacrament each week?" I can see many more people claiming to be shut-ins if they knew they could sit and watch sacrament meeting in their jammies at home. That may be unique to me, I don't know. But for that reason, I wouldn't 'broadcast" it in my ward.

We have two priests and two laurels visit the homes of the shut ins. The priests perform the sacrament and the Laurels give a 5 minute synopsis of the speakers. Even at that, I have people who request the sacrament because they are unable to attend, but yet i see them out and about all over the place on Saturdays. If you can go to the latest movie on
Saturday, is it asking too much to come to Sacrament meeting on Sunday? It is a quandary.

IMO, the Bishop should decide who receives "shut-in service", whether they go to movies or not. He is the judge of the ward and he would know if someone would benefit from the service, or decide if someone was just making excuses.

I feel broadcasting Sacrament meetings to shut-ins defeats the main purpose of Sacrament meetings - to renew baptismal covenants; the Sacrament is an ordinance and cannot be blessed or administered via the Internet or any other form of A/V transmission.

Sure, transmitting audio or video of the talks would be great but let's not forget what the focus is of our Sacrament meetings.

Under the direction of our Bishop, we send an audio CD (talks only) out along with a copy of the Sunday program with Priests who in turn, visit, administer the Sacrament, and leave the CD and program.

It has been received very well and is what I recommend.

TinMan wrote:We struggle all the time on the question "Are we enabling them to be shut-ins by bringing them the sacrament each week?"

The reverse spin is that you're reaching out and touching the hearts of people who wouldn't otherwise get that. (Even if it's by their own decision.)

I can see both sides, but for me the Handbook settles the matter.

My bishop has asked me to see if we could broadcast the audio only to a few home bound ward members, I was thinking of setting up a skype chat for this purpose but wondered if that is forbidden or not....
(Mike Norris)

Handbook 2: 21.2.10: "Taking photographs or making video recordings in chapels is not permitted. Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means (see 18.3.1 for an exception)." (18.3.1 is Stake Conference)

From Webcast Policies and Guidelines: "Webcasts should not be used to broadcast ordinances such as baptisms or the administration of the sacrament."

It is not the same because you do not know the people, but BYUtv used to broadcast a sacrament meeting type program (without the ordinance) each week. I wonder if that is still available.

Another possibility is to take an audio recording to them from time to time.

lajackson wrote:It is not the same because you do not know the people, but BYUtv used to broadcast a sacrament meeting type program (without the ordinance) each week. I wonder if that is still available.

Yes, it is still available: Worship Service. It's one season of 28 meetings recorded in 2004-2005. No new recordings are being made, but you can watch those 28 meetings as many times as you'd like.