Tech Forum

Hmmmm. Interesting. I'm not up on "fan pages". But if all it did was point to the page and did not carry information, then in my personal opinion (which carries absolutely no weight), that would be OK.

My concern is that others would then start adding information and the focus of activity and information would shift from the official page to the FB page. Worse, it would allow information that should be password protected and tied to the membership record to escape into the public area.

So while setting it up might not be a violation, I'd be concerned the outcome would be exactly the problems that the policy was trying to prevent.

I agree with Russell as far as opinions are concerned. Your best course of action is to take the issue to your local leadership along with the current policies linked to in this thread for their decision.

will.i.am wrote: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:)

I would recommend that you also contact your local leadership. However, I would have to believe that if getting the word out is your primary goal, then simply making a flier that can be posted on a ward bulletin board and/or putting an insert into the weekly Sunday program would go a long ways in notifying everyone of the appropriate link to use to get to your ward web site.

Great advice. Thanks! Fortunately you can lock down fan pages so no one can comment or add content except for the admins. I will take this information and ask the appropriate parties. I'll let you guys know what we come up with.

i'm seeing more and more pages going up - varying from full blown ward pages - to pages inviting attendance at specific events etc. Some carrying details like places and times of gatherings etc - even involving primary!!

Not sure how we're really ever going to police this unless CHQ find a way to embrace and then standardise the practices.

dannykos wrote:i'm seeing more and more pages going up - varying from full blown ward pages - to pages inviting attendance at specific events etc. Some carrying details like places and times of gatherings etc - even involving primary!!

Not sure how we're really ever going to police this unless CHQ find a way to embrace and then standardise the practices.

As was once said,

I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.

The policy is in place and it's up to each of us to support the brethren and follow it.

techgy wrote:The policy is in place and it's up to each of us to support the brethren and follow it.

The policy is in place, but I suspect far too few know about it. Since the policy was written we've moved into social media. The original policy letter wasn't circulated at a level that EQ, RS or Primary presidencies would have known about it.

RussellHltn wrote:The policy is in place, but I suspect far too few know about it. Since the policy was written we've moved into social media. The original policy letter wasn't circulated at a level that EQ, RS or Primary presidencies would have known about it.

The policy is in the Handbook of Instructions, and thus every bishop and stake president has access to the information and is responsible for implementing the policy in their wards and stakes. There are all sorts of policies in the Handbook that are not directly given to all auxiliaries, but which impact them nonetheless.

However, the bottom line is that each ward and stake has leaders with access to the appropriate policies and the priesthood keys to administer those policies in their area of stewardship. We don't really need to be concerned about how other wards and stakes interpret those policies -- that is a matter for them to handle. We just need to be concerned about our own areas of stewardship.

Alan_Brown wrote:We don't really need to be concerned about how other wards and stakes interpret those policies -- that is a matter for them to handle. We just need to be concerned about our own areas of stewardship.

While I agree with that statement in principle - in practice is is a bit galling to see people 'getting away' with practices that we'd all like to be doing too. It's not easy to say no to somebody, who then turns around and presents multiple examples of policy breach as justification for their own actions.

I personally think that the policy is is urgent need of review, to specifically address facebook, and it's official use in wards and stakes.

Alan_Brown wrote:We don't really need to be concerned about how other wards and stakes interpret those policies -- that is a matter for them to handle. We just need to be concerned about our own areas of stewardship.

True, but ... the report of placing Primary activities on Facebook is concerning. If something were to happen, I think we'd see this issue being taken up.