I'd like to add the following comments based on the comments already made and also my interpretation of church statements:
'The real issue is how is a non-technical local leader to make this determination given the lack of current "actionable or intelligible guidelines" from the church?' - the correct answer is revelation - the same thing that I presume prompted the guidelines from the church to begin with. I realize that church leaders are human, and they can make mistakes, but as long as they hold the positions they do in righteousness, it's our job to follow them - even if the techy in all of us is itching for a little freedom. We lack the authority to receive revelation for the organizations they preside over.
I think in large part here we seem to be driving at the technical details of the guidance where maybe we should be stepping back and asking about the intent of the guidance (just my 2 cents, and yes, I might be exercising my right to be wrong here).
All of these letters name websites. At least one of them names e-mail or e-mail groups. Since I feel fairly certain the church has no issues with HTTP/HTTPS/POP3/IMAP/SMTP protocols or HTML/MIME/etc formats I would have to believe what they were driving at is the content distribution since that is essentially what websites and e-mail allow for. When you look at it from content distribution you now spread the influence of the letters across the spectrum of all applications (as I believe it should be).
Now, what content is the issue? The easily identifiable items would be:
1. Anything representing itself as coming from the Church or a Church entity.
2. Anything out of MLS.
What, if anything else, is included?
Lets start pulling out some pieces of the letters.
March 15th, 2001 letter:
"...
local church
units and
organizations should not
create or
sponsor web sites."
I added the underlining for emphasis. I think web sites can safely be replaced with "content". "units" and "organizations" will include pretty much any division within a local ward/branch you can come up with - and the local part makes it pretty clear they do mean down on the ward/branch level. Creating or sponsoring content I would interpret to mean pretty much the use of any non-church-approved application that requires the input (in any form) of some sort of data from our organization.
December 13th, 2004 letter:
"These Web sites contain Church-approved
content, meet the legal requirements of copyrights and
privacy, and can be recognized by the presence of the Church logo.
No other sites are authorized."
I added the underlining to "content" and "privacy". Notice the word of content. I really think what they have to say about websites here they mean about any other application floating around out there too even if it doesn't use the HTTP protocol to communicate.
"privacy" I think this aspect has already been covered in this thread as the use of MLS data has been discussed.
"
No other sites are authorized." - I really think this covers it. Note that the church added the underlining here.
"This restriction includes but is not limited to temples, missions, visitors' centers, auxiliaries,
quorums,
classes,
Scout units, and
committees for special events. Any such Web sites or e-mail
groups should be discontinued immediately."
I added the underlining. Once you've drilled down to "quorums", "classes", "Scout units", and "committees", I think you mean pretty much any division or subdivision of a local ward/branch you can come up with. They say that any such "web sites" or "e-mail groups" should be discontinued immediately. I don't think they're going to name all possible forms, just the more popular ones, and the issue of "content" I've already mentioned so I think "web sites" or "e-mail groups" can be swapped out for "content distribution applications" to cover the range.
So, what's allowed?
Should you be e-mailing things back and forth when acting in a Church capacity and using non-church e-mail systems? Probably not.
Is
http://www.scouting.org in violation of Church policy? Of course not, it represents an organization that is not part of the Church.
Is use of
http://www.scouting.org a violation of Church policy? If you're promoting it's use as a church scouting leader of some sort in a way that involves the submission of church relevant information (your class roster) to the site, then you probably are in violation - if you're not, then no.
Is use of
http://www.ymyw.org a violation of Church policy? Unless the church has made a specific exception for it somewhere, I would think the answer would have to be yes.
Is the use of a SSL secured ward mapping application that requires authentication and only allows the Bishopric in a violation of Church policy? Yes, regardless of how the ward data made it's way in.
Just my thoughts on the topic. Maybe I'm wrong, but perhaps I'm right.