Best practices for Facebook

[russellhltn]

As an update on this topic, for anyone reading, the church's policies about members' internet use in callings in Handbook 2 has been updated!
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... ng#21.1.22

Wow! Even better is the link to internet.lds.org which spells it out with examples. Nice! Be sure to read "Examples of Inappropriate Uses" as it contains additional guidance. ("The name of the online resource should not be that of any Church unit")

[sbradshaw]

Yes; we updated our stake page name from "Provo Utah YSA 9th Stake" to "Provo Utah YSA 9th Stake: News and Events".

[aebrown]

As an update on this topic, for anyone reading, the church's policies about members' internet use in callings in Handbook 2 has been updated!
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... ng#21.1.22

Thanks for noticing that and posting the link. The page linked to from that section (internet.lds.org) is particularly instructive in the additional details and examples it gives. To my thinking, this is indeed a loosening of the restrictions previously given.

[atticusewig]

Not to fork the discussion, but was a letter sent telling us about this change to Handbook 2 ?

If Handbook 2 will be revised in place on the website, perhaps a convention should
be adopted.

Even something as simple as putting a revision number at the end of the number
could be helpful - for example if 2.20.12 is revised it becomes 2.20.12r1, if it is
further ammended, then it becomes 2.20.12r2.

Doing so not only would help people determine a revision took place,
but also would allow quick searching and scanning from the table of
contents to find any updated policies.

[russellhltn]

Not to fork the discussion, but was a letter sent telling us about this change to Handbook 2 ?

I don't see anything in OCL.

It's possible that "they" do not view this as a change in policy as much as a clarification. It all depends on what was really allowed prior to the change. (Although, in my mind, it is a change.)

[lajackson]

Not to fork the discussion, but was a letter sent telling us about this change to Handbook 2 ?

If Handbook 2 will be revised in place on the website, perhaps a convention should
be adopted.

I have not (yet) seen a letter. We may just have to read the Handbook once again, I suppose. [grin]

[gregwanderson]

Thanks for noticing that and posting the link. The page linked to from that section (internet.lds.org) is particularly instructive in the additional details and examples it gives. To my thinking, this is indeed a loosening of the restrictions previously given.

But... I already see a contradiction in their examples. One example of an appropriate practice is this...

After receiving permission from the bishop, the ward Relief Society presidency creates a blog that will include news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules, and photos from recent activities.

...but then an example of an inappropriate thing is this...

A stake creates a website with a calendar of all upcoming meetings, activities, and events.
Reason: Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools that are already available on LDS.org.

To me, the Relief Society blog with news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules and photos is absolutely duplicating tools that are already available on LDS.org. Specifically, the newsletter and lesson schedule tools.

[aebrown]

But... I already see a contradiction in their examples. One example of an appropriate practice is this...

After receiving permission from the bishop, the ward Relief Society presidency creates a blog that will include news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules, and photos from recent activities.

...but then an example of an inappropriate thing is this...

A stake creates a website with a calendar of all upcoming meetings, activities, and events.
Reason: Websites, blogs, and social media profiles should not duplicate tools that are already available on LDS.org.

To me, the Relief Society blog with news, uplifting messages, lesson schedules and photos is absolutely duplicating tools that are already available on LDS.org. Specifically, the newsletter and lesson schedule tools.

It's not necessarily a contradiction. The stake website created "a calendar of ALL upcoming meetings..." (emphasis added). That sound like an attempt to replace the existing Calendar tool, and so it's understandable that this example is inappropriate.

But in the RS example, the reference to lesson schedules doesn't necessarily duplicate the Lesson Schedules tool; the blog might only mention the next few upcoming lessons, and it might supply details (such as multiple instructors, or specific ways to prepare for the lesson) that are not supported in the current Lesson Schedules tool. And just because some information that is posted on the blog could also be posted on the Newsletter doesn't necessarily duplicate the tool.

Nonetheless, these examples do show that there is not always a clear line between inappropriate and appropriate usage. Local leaders will need to be aware of the policies and follow them according to their inspired interpretation.

[atticusewig]

Slippery Slope, allowing the Relief Society blog example.
It is replacing the Lesson Schedule tool, because no one
will maintain both. Same with the blog replacing the
Newsletter tool (which few units use anyway).

It would be better for the church to have a "bright line" rule that
we can have public-facing websites but they cannot include
the following: Member birthdates, Addresses, record numbers,etc.
I'm sure the Priesthood Department can put together a list of
details of what not to include. Not only would this free up some
developer resources, but it would also line up with church's
social media outreach. Local interpretation does not a policy make.

[1968leocomeeatabite]

In preface: Using Facebook for stake/ward communication is a grey area of interpretation that's often debated here on the forums – relevant church policies can be found here, here, and here.

My stake president has considered these policies and approved the use of Facebook in our Young Single Adult stake. That said, I'd like to gather your thoughts on best practices. How would you use Facebook, if you were to use Facebook in your ward or stake?

Here is a summary of what we've discussed so far as an extended stake presidency (that is, stake presidency, clerks, and executive secretaries).

We should have a stake Facebook page.

• Currently set up at https://www.facebook.com/ProvoUtahYSA9thStake
• All posts by others require approval before they are made visible on the timeline.
• Potential uses:
  – Let people know which ward they're in.
  – Alert people when boundaries or meeting times change.
  – Let people know how they can contact a ward leader or set up a stake interview.
  – Create Facebook events for stake meetings and activities.
  – Publicize stake goals.
  – Share messages from stake presidency members.
  – Let members know about stake resources.
  – Let members know about official church resources.
  – Sharing the gospel with people in our area.

We should encourage each ward to have a Facebook group.

• Most of our wards already have Facebook groups, so we need to define some policies.
• Ward groups should be "closed", meaning only group members can see the posts, and an administrator has to approve new members who join or are added.
• Administrators should be careful to only allow ward members to join and should remove members after they move.
• Administrators should monitor the group for inappropriate use.
• The group should be one of multiple means of communication.
• Potential uses:
  – Alert people when meeting times change.
  – Create Facebook events and remind members about ward meetings and activities.
  – Share stake Facebook events and remind members about stake meetings and activities.
  – Share messages from bishopric members and auxiliaries.
  – Let members know about ward resources.
  – Remind members what the lesson topic for the week is.
  – Request/provide opportunities for service.
  – Fellowshipping members and nonmembers in the ward.

The above quote is the 1st post of this thread. It has now been just over a year when this post/thread was active. I was wondering if any of you, but particularly sbradshaw could now give us feedback as to how the purposes of his or any other social media's purpose has functioned and fared?

Specific question if you care to respond:

• Pro and con of having the ward a group closed to the members of the ward verses public? I suspect that this would have a lot to do with the purpose or reason for the site?

• How many moderators would be convenient to have? Having the entire ward council to much?

• Considering 2 social media for the ward, probably FB & google+. what would be the pro & con's of this?

Reviewing this thread has been extremely helpful in preparing to use social media, and creating a FB presence for our ward. I have not been a user of face book, but have done a little with goolge+. I have just been called as an Assistant Ward Clerk: Technolgy & media (oh boy) Thank you for your thoughts!