website administrator training

[johnshaw]

Formalization allows for a ward to put in a minimal framework, this would clearly be beneficial for those who do not wish to move forward without formally being asked to do it. We've allowed a culture to flourish in our church where people rarely 'get out in front' of their presiding authorities and without that presiding direction, we are left to wonder.

There has been no real direction as to what wards and stakes are supposed to do. Just making an ability to update a directory with pictures doesn't tell a Bishop they SHOULD do it. Just making the maps app able to confirm locations of members doesn't relay to a Bishop that it is an assignment to complete.

There really should be some formalization to this. I believe we've heard some rumors about some official callings coming down the pipe (Area STS, HC over Online tools, Ward STS, etc..) but they've been a long time in being implemented. Maybe this is all being formalized and will roll out soon.

[johnshaw]

The statistics of the websites were shared with the San Jose Local Tech chapter and they were building some training around online tools in their area. Has anyone seen/heard if this effort is being fruitful.

[aebrown]

Formalization allows for a ward to put in a minimal framework, this would clearly be beneficial for those who do not wish to move forward without formally being asked to do it. We've allowed a culture to flourish in our church where people rarely 'get out in front' of their presiding authorities and without that presiding direction, we are left to wonder.

I wonder where that culture is. Wherever that might be, it's sad. But that's certainly not the case in my stake.

W have multiple clerks at both the ward and stake level who magnify their callings, research current church technologies, and present options to their presiding authorities. If they waited for presiding authorities to take the initiative in these areas, not much would happen, not because the leaders don't care, but they have more important ministering priorities.
Each stake should have people who can help in these areas.

More and more I see the Church following a model of pushing responsibility to the stakes. CHQ gives support, but lets the stake train wards and give direction. I see no reason why that model shouldn't work in this area. It certainly is working in my stake.

[Gary_Miller]

I think "Website Administrator" is a bad term as wards and stakes don't really have Websites.

[johnshaw]

I wonder where that culture is. Wherever that might be, it's sad. But that's certainly not the case in my stake.

W have multiple clerks at both the ward and stake level who magnify their callings, research current church technologies, and present options to their presiding authorities. If they waited for presiding authorities to take the initiative in these areas, not much would happen, not because the leaders don't care, but they have more important ministering priorities.
Each stake should have people who can help in these areas.

I think most Stakes have clerks who want to magnify their callings to the best of their capabilities. Many clerks have differing capabilities, and many are doing a minimal job that seems to meet the requirements that their local ecclesiastical leader demands of them. Our stake has many rural areas, places where Bishops, Branch Presidents or clerks may be dealing with members who have no internet connection, and no mobile phones. - This is not uncommon in my stake.

That said, where in any handbook does it include duties of a ward clerk that encompass anything having to do with technology? That, I guess is where I have a difficulty Is it in their realm or not.

More and more I see the Church following a model of pushing responsibility to the stakes. CHQ gives support, but lets the stake train wards and give direction. I see no reason why that model shouldn't work in this area. It certainly is working in my stake.

There is only an assumption at this point that responsibility is granted/given because those are the default permissions that are included in a deployed app.

I can tell you that in my stake, unless a Bishop is behind and making assignments, following through on those assigments, nobody uses the online tools (other than calendar and directory) - It takes the leader to establish the pattern of usage and have it adopted in a ward.

If your SP isn't willing to commit training opportunities in Bishopric Training, PPI's, Priesthood Leadership Training, there is not much 'importance' placed on these items in a stake, and they are on the back burner. -- Regardless of what a Stake Clerk, and an STS are doing to magnify their callings, providing correct feedback and presenting that to the SP or Bishop. The Clerk is just not seen as an authoritative enough figure for an auxiliary leader be that Stake or Ward.

I realize I may not be speaking to everyone, but I'm sure there are more stakes like I describe than we may realize.

It seems simple enough to clearly communicate to Stake, Ward, and Branch Leaders, rather than the assumed responsibilities we rely on in many cases.

[aebrown]

I can tell you that in my stake, unless a Bishop is behind and making assignments, following through on those assigments, nobody uses the online tools (other than calendar and directory) - It takes the leader to establish the pattern of usage and have it adopted in a ward.

If your SP isn't willing to commit training opportunities in Bishopric Training, PPI's, Priesthood Leadership Training, there is not much 'importance' placed on these items in a stake, and they are on the back burner.

I certainly agree with this. We have a stake president who has emphasized the importance of two tools -- Calendar and Directory -- and he has made specific assignments to bishops in regards to those tools. Since he has given that direction, it is happening in the wards. As stake clerk, I help train those people the bishop has designated in his ward (and I work with the bishop and sometimes the stake president to make sure that someone is designated). Some time has been allocated to me in stake bishopric meetings to discuss these issues, and I do additional one-on-one training. That makes it happen in the individual wards.

On the other hand, the stake president has taken the position that Newsletter and Lesson Schedules are optional. A couple of wards are using these, and the rest are not. In my opinion, that's perfectly acceptable. I've made sure that the wards are aware of them, and if they want to use them, I provide training and support -- but it's not a problem if they choose to completely neglect them.