Request a clarification on usage of non-church owned websites

[tortdog]

Not to leave this completely in the dark, the advice comes from the General YM Presidency, as opposed to the priesthood authority, i.e., Seventy. Just as the YM is an "auxiliary" of the Church as opposed to a quorum with keys and such, I'm assuming the same for the General YM Presidency.

If this had come from the presiding authority over our area, then I think we could "cement" it down as policy - at least for the geographic area over which that Seventy presides and directs. (Speaking of which, the stake from which we came received direction for LDS Scouting Relations which similarly is not a priesthood authority.)

All in all, I'm assuming these people at the "higher" echelons of the Church are on good speaking terms with the priesthood authorities and that they know of what they speak. I think the statement is clear evidence that the Church is not going to start giving us a checklist of acceptable/non-acceptable web sites and that we should use our own judgment as supplemented/governed by local Church leaders.

Get familiar with returnandreport.org as well.

I had a look there, but it seems to just be a "numbers" tool - and sending out reminders by e-mail. We emphasize reporting on situations - text based. For example, I want a tool that allows me to track HOW a family is doing and the family's specific needs, which can then be reported to the quorum presidencies/leaders.

Am I missing something?

[RossEvans]

I had a look there [at the Return and Report web application], but it seems to just be a "numbers" tool - and sending out reminders by e-mail. We emphasize reporting on situations - text based. For example, I want a tool that allows me to track HOW a family is doing and the family's specific needs, which can then be reported to the quorum presidencies/leaders.

Am I missing something?

I don't use RAR, but I have perused it. IIRC there is a free-form text field on the web form for the home teacher, which as I understand it sends an email to the presidency but does not store this text in a database. The form cautions against including "confidential" information, whatever that is, in the text.

Personally, that's about as far as I would want a reporting application to go. Just as I think the Church left such notetaking functions out of MLS deliberately, I think we also have to be careful about building systems that compile dossiers on members. So I would not want to see that institutionalized in a third-party application like this, either.

[brado426]

I don't use RAR, but I have perused it. IIRC there is a free-form text field on the web form for the home teacher, which as I understand it sends an email to the presidency but does not store this text in a database. The form cautions against including "confidential" information, whatever that is, in the text.

Personally, that's about as far as I would want a reporting application to go. Just as I think the Church left such notetaking functions out of MLS deliberately, I think we also have to be careful about building systems that compile dossiers on members. So I would not want to see that institutionalized in a third-party application like this, either.

How is that any different than what ymyw.org is doing? As I understand it, ymywg.org collections more information about a person than RAR does.

The reason the form cautions against entering confidentail information in the "Comment to Presidency" field is that anything confidential that needs to be communicated to the Presidency should be done so in person. The "Comment to Presidency" field is for things like, "This person has moved to xxx address." or "My phone number or the person who I'm teaching's phone number has been changed." or "We taught this person last week and brought a gift and he/she was very receptive to the message."

Brad O.

[brado426]

Not to leave this completely in the dark, the advice comes from the General YM Presidency, as opposed to the priesthood authority, i.e., Seventy. Just as the YM is an "auxiliary" of the Church as opposed to a quorum with keys and such, I'm assuming the same for the General YM Presidency.

If this had come from the presiding authority over our area, then I think we could "cement" it down as policy - at least for the geographic area over which that Seventy presides and directs. (Speaking of which, the stake from which we came received direction for LDS Scouting Relations which similarly is not a priesthood authority.)

All in all, I'm assuming these people at the "higher" echelons of the Church are on good speaking terms with the priesthood authorities and that they know of what they speak. I think the statement is clear evidence that the Church is not going to start giving us a checklist of acceptable/non-acceptable web sites and that we should use our own judgment as supplemented/governed by local Church leaders.

I had a look there, but it seems to just be a "numbers" tool - and sending out reminders by e-mail. We emphasize reporting on situations - text based. For example, I want a tool that allows me to track HOW a family is doing and the family's specific needs, which can then be reported to the quorum presidencies/leaders.

Am I missing something?

I think you are. This tool does allow you to track how a family is doing. You can either have your teachers use the free-form text field as mentioned previously or you can set up "Custom Contact Types." In addition to Visited and Not Visited, you can create additional Contact Types that "Count As" either Visited or Not Visited. For example, you could create a contact that indicates, "Needs Presidency Visit" if you want your teachers to inform you that a person would like the Presidency to visit them. It is extremely customizable.

Brad O.

[tortdog]

Regarding R&R, the customization features are nice. And it will take some time for me to get familiar with it to see how it works.

Going back to the danger of information, though, the main stuff that I want to transfer (specifics on the family) are likely the most sensitive information out there. That info has to get transferred (and does via e-mail), but I could see a reluctance to have this information stored on a 3d party server (though e-mail does just that).

Even I have some reluctance there. But I want the tool to allow for it.

[brado426]

Regarding R&R, the customization features are nice. And it will take some time for me to get familiar with it to see how it works.

Going back to the danger of information, though, the main stuff that I want to transfer (specifics on the family) are likely the most sensitive information out there. That info has to get transferred (and does via e-mail), but I could see a reluctance to have this information stored on a 3d party server (though e-mail does just that).

Even I have some reluctance there. But I want the tool to allow for it.

I'd prefer it to be stored on Church servers, but that is not possible right now.

[RossEvans]

Going back to the danger of information, though, the main stuff that I want to transfer (specifics on the family) are likely the most sensitive information out there. That info has to get transferred (and does via e-mail), but I could see a reluctance to have this information stored on a 3d party server (though e-mail does just that).

Even I have some reluctance there. But I want the tool to allow for it.

My qualms in this case are not about a third party-server, but about compiling this stuff in a database. As I said, my surmise is that the Church left this functionality out of MLS quite deliberately.

To be clear, my issue is not with Return and Report. If I understand its functionality correctly, then I think this app gets the balance between privacy and need-to-know about right because it does not accumulate confidential notes in a database.

[brado426]

My qualms in this case are not about a third party-server, but about compiling this stuff in a database. As I said, my surmise is that the Church left this functionality out of MLS quite deliberately.

To be clear, my issue is not with Return and Report. If I understand its functionality correctly, then I think this app gets the balance between privacy and need-to-know about right because it does not accumulate confidential notes in a database.

As of this moment, it does store the "comments to the presidency" in the Activity Log in case something goes wrong with the Emails to the Presidency, but those comments are not supposed to be confidential. Adding Email queueing would eliminate the need to store this data in the log, so if doing this would make people feel more comfortable with confidentiality, I'd make that change.

[russellhltn]

I think the statement is clear evidence that the Church is not going to start giving us a checklist of acceptable/non-acceptable web sites and that we should use our own judgment as supplemented/governed by local Church leaders.

Which is fine if we had some guidelines to follow such as what the privacy concerns are.

[tortdog]

My qualms in this case are not about a third party-server, but about compiling this stuff in a database. As I said, my surmise is that the Church left this functionality out of MLS quite deliberately.

Now we're stepping of the "tech" side and getting to the overall policy. When I was EQ Pres, I was frustrated by the lack of background information on families. We send a home teacher into a home without being able to advise of issues that he should be aware of to be of greater service. To prevent that in the mission field, the areas often have "area books" that let the new elders/sisters know what has gone on before. It saves us time and allows us to leverage on a body of knowledge.

So why not something similar with the families in our HT districts? It might make us uncomfortable that somewhere out there is a database (whether on paper or digital) with our information. But in reality, isn't that what we have for all of us in the eternity? 'Course, God is perfect and his recordkeeping is pretty secure. Ours? Not so much.

So the goal of mine has been to leave behind a "legacy" of information to allow the next EQ Pres and HTer know where we've been. But . . .