YouTube is not a church approved broadcast service?

[lajackson]

If you've got "shut-ins", that's a valid reason to webcast.

Yes, that is a valid reason to webcast and gives the bishop permission to webcast if he decides to do so.

[BrianEdwards]

Another perspective. If we use Zoom to broadcast an event, we can now expect that we can make it fully conform to everything required by the Handbook. And if our Zoom experience isn't working the way the Church expects, then since the Church has officially approved its use, we can expect the Church to react quickly to resolve any glitches.

If we use another option, it's reasonable to expect that there will be policy in the Handbook that we cannot follow (or perhaps integration with Church functionality that is missing). And that may just be the way it needs to be for now.

Many local leaders will have valid reasons to use something else. I don't think the Church is discouraging YouTube or other services, as they are well aware of the current Zoom limitations. But along with that, local leaders should now have a clear understanding that there will be various aspects of the experience that don't conform to guidance or policy (as Zoom does). Flexibility and adaptability in the Church first require we be aware of the Church policy that applies, so that when we make necessary local adaptations, we're making well-informed decisions.

[nitzer280]

Ever since the Church's webcast service was retired, we've leveraged YouTube for stake conference, and we are still broadcasting sacrament service every Sunday for our wards and branches in the stake. We use unlisted YouTube playlists and they are created new each month, requiring those who are homebound or otherwise unable to attend in person to receive the updated info each month from their bishopric.

We went wih YouTube because of its RTMPS protocol support. With mounted cameras at the stake center - and a Teradek - and portable Mevo cams at our other two buildings, this seemed like the obvious solution. With today's announcement I'm conflicted on the right course of action.

[lajackson]

With today's announcement I'm conflicted on the right course of action.

I do not believe there is any reason to be conflicted with a working solution. I am pretty certain that in a day or two someone here will mention that what you are already doing (a YouTube stream) can be captured and sent out over Zoom without changing anything in your current setup. All you need is a laptop with access to the Internet.

And you will only need to do that if your priesthood leaders determine that the webcast should be scheduled and distributed via Zoom.

[lajackson]

Another reason not to be conflicted.

The Notice says, Please consider using this “Events” section in the Church Meet portal to publish local events on the Broadcast page and inform members they can access their meeting links at broadcasts.ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

And so we are considering it.

When the Church webcasting system went away, part of the hue and cry was that it was a consolidated place for members to see what webcasts were available to them, and it would not longer be available. And so we went out and solved the problem on our own.

Now the Church has given us another solution to the problem which we no longer have. There seem to be many benefits in using the Events page that we will balance with our current setup in our consideration.

[sbradshaw]

"YouTube and other services are currently being reviewed but are not approved as official tools for broadcasting Church events."

This is rather confusing considering it has been offered as an option to be used in previous official notifications, help docs, and how-to guides.

…

Any ideas what's going on and if it truly is, and never had been approved for use, why is there so much documentation mentioning it and detailing it's use?

I'm not an authority on Church webcasting, but "YouTube and other services … are not approved as official tools for broadcasting" isn't the same as "YouTube and other services … are not approved for broadcasting."

Sometimes official tools are the only approved tools, but not always. For example, the store description for the Sacred Music app says that "Sacred Music is the official hymns and music app of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." That doesn't mean that you're breaking policy if you use Gospel Library, a hymnbook from the pew, a personal hymnbook brought from home, or even a third-party app (perish the thought!) to sing along in Church. Even though none of those other options are the official hymns app, none are forbidden as a tool to sing hymns in sacrament meeting. If you have a system that's working well and aren't yet confident that Zoom would be an improvement, it may be wise to wait for further guidance that clarifies the intent of the statement.

[nmecantwin73]

The big issue in my mind is "what about Stake Conference"? Last I knew, Zoom had a limit on the number of connections that was far short of allowing members to see stake conference at home. Not all buildings can accommodate everyone that meets there in a single meeting.

Zoom meetings/webinars can be setup to redirect to a YouTube feed when there are more than 500 participants, as long as you set it up to do so. See https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wi ... Conference

[Jacobdaviddean]

Zoom meetings/webinars can be set up to redirect to a YouTube feed when there are more than 500 participants, as long as you set it up to do so. See https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wi ... Conference

With that scenario, what's the point of using Zoom, then? I'd much rather rely on one, easy-to-use, system for everyone. Plus, this still ignores my original points:

While Zoom is great for specific scenarios and can be used for broadcasts, it is not ideal for areas with poor Internet and can be more difficult to use for the elderly than a basic YouTube stream.

I'll add that it's much easier for people to throw a YouTube stream on their TV than it is to get a Zoom meeting.

[barkeraj]

Zoom meetings/webinars can be setup to redirect to a YouTube feed when there are more than 500 participants, as long as you set it up to do so. See https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wi ... Conference

Our stake uses zoom's translation feature for our Spanish ward. If English users came in and took all the 500 slots and a Spanish user came they would get kicked over to YouTube with no option for Spanish. We have to send English members to YouTube and Spanish members to Zoom to make sure the slots aren't used by those not in need of the feature it provides.

[Jacobdaviddean]

Our stake uses zoom's translation feature for our Spanish ward. If English users came in and took all the 500 slots and a Spanish user came they would get kicked over to YouTube with no option for Spanish. We have to send English members to YouTube and Spanish members to Zoom to make sure the slots aren't used by those not in need of the feature it provides.

We've found that PowerPoint offers very good translated options, so we run two YouTube streams. One with direct program output via OBS, then a second OBS instance with the program video superimposed over the PowerPoint captions.

We've also used PowerPoint to allow our Spanish speakers the option to speak Spanish. In these cases, we have two instances of PowerPoint running, one translating English to Spanish and one translating Spanish to English. We only display the Spanish to English on the English stream during their talk. I imagine PowerPoint cannot accomplish this automatically without every user needing to make changes (if they know how) on the fly.