Page 2 of 5

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:06 am
by lajackson
boomerbubba wrote:"Not an official site . . ."
Unfortunately, while helpful, this does little to solve the legal liabilities involved.

Nevertheless, there is a need to communicate, and I think CHQ realizes that, and is trying to find a workable solution to the problem. Close attention is being paid to the official sites monitored by area authorities and how well they are functioning. Some things are quietly changing, although slowly.

And to the young and inexperienced in a fast-paced digital world, slow is an almost unknown term, and very difficult to wrap around mentally.

But even slow change is better than no change at all, when it is for the good.

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:22 am
by Mikerowaved
scion wrote:SAs & YSAs have used "alternate" communication methods for a long time because the approved official ones don't function. Pretty simple.
While this may be true in some areas, it also doesn't make it right. As was mentioned in other threads, the church is working on ways to safely use these new tools, but it takes time.

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 11:47 am
by scion-p40
Mikerowaved wrote:While this may be true in some areas, it also doesn't make it right. As was mentioned in other threads, the church is working on ways to safely use these new tools, but it takes time.

Alternate methods include talking to each other face-to-face. Information gets stuck at various priesthood levels that would not otherwise be disseminated to the end users. Simple data like dates, times, & places of events on multi-stake levels don't get communicated because people don't attend the meetings & if they do, publicity doesn't happen. This is nothing new. Some of these "new" tools have been around for the entire lifetime of YSAs, yet are not implemented. It is frustrating to both YSAs and SAs. These groups are more impacted by the information deadlock because their events consistently happen across stake boundaries. Nobody wants to pay for snail mail anymore, but electronic information is also forbidden. Doesn't make sense.

Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:37 pm
by jdlessley
scion wrote:Nobody wants to pay for snail mail anymore, but electronic information is also forbidden.
Passing information electronically is not forbidden. It is the existence of e-mail groups that the policy lettersays should be discontinued. This reference to e-mail groups is for such as those found on Yahoo Groupsand similar web sites. You can keekp a personal e-mail list and send messages.

If you would like to discuss this policy further, please start another thread for that purpose.

Names

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:42 am
by borenmt
I guess the name of the group is a tacit endorsement... I would feel more comfortable if instead of "Hayward Stake" it said "Friends of Hayward Stake" or something like that. When you say that the group IS the stake or ward... well, it sounds like it is the stake or ward's group. I also think it would be advisable if the owners made sites like this private if they were going to post photos of youth and any program details.

Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 8:44 am
by borenmt
But a multi-stake YSA facebook site would be a different story... That doesn't line up with an ecclesiastical unit and hence doesn't have the appearance of an ecclesiastical endorsement.

Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:07 pm
by dmaynes
lajackson wrote:The single adults (both young and old) need to communicate. The tools they use to communicate today are not compatible in many respects with current Church policies.
I have wondered the single adult websites are in violation of the policy. There is one in the area where I live.

I carefully reviewed the policy letter and noticed:

1- that some "area websites" are approved
2- the websites contain approved content, and conform to privacy and copyright requirements.

So I looked at the singles website and it is basically a large bulletin board. Without further information, I must presume that the multi-stake single adult websites are approved when they are being directed by priesthood leaders. There isn't a public list of approved websites, but it is very clear that "Area websites" may be authorized for specific purposes. And, we shouldn't presume that these websites are not approved.

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:06 am
by daddy-o-p40
Mikerowaved wrote:While this may be true in some areas, it also doesn't make it right. As was mentioned in other threads, the church is working on ways to safely use these new tools, but it takes time.

Good point. Is there anywhere that we can quickly look up the "current" policies regarding these new tools (facebook, etc.) ?

Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 11:15 am
by russellhltn
While the 2004 letter does not address these new tools specifically, it is still "current".

Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:09 pm
by will.i.am-p40
I have a question about Facebook book fan pages instead of groups. If I need to start another thread for this, I will be happy to. I have just been put in charge of making sure our ward members know how to access the stake/ward websites. The way that I'd like to do that is the create a facebook fan page labeled as our ward name and then putting a link on there to our ward unit website. In your opinions, would this be in violation of policy? I appreciate your replies in advanced!

~Bill:)