Proper Vs. Improper Use of Member Directory and email

Use this forum to discuss issues that are not found in any of the other clerk and stake technology specialist forums.
barryhill
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:08 am
Location: Williamsport, Pennsylvania, USA

Proper Vs. Improper Use of Member Directory and email

Postby barryhill » Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:27 am

We have ward email. I guess it is semi-official in that we send emails to a ward email address (a hotmail account I think) and a member (assigned or called by the bishop) then forwards it to everyone in the ward that has signed up to receive ward email.

I have received 2 emails from a ward member in the past day soliciting my attendance to a political demonstration. The first one she hit "reply all" to a ward email. The second was from the ward email because it was one of the addresses she replied to so they forwarded it.

In a somewhat different incident I have had business solicitations from a ward member that apparently got a list email addresses off of the ward directory or from the group of members addressed in ward emails. Before this gets out of hand, can someone point me to some guidance on this topic. I know the bishop will want it in the very near future.

Thanks
PS: My success at finding info on the wiki is still lacking. Four search phrases and nothing.

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20781
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:31 am

Here's some resources you might want to look at.

Regarding the ward email: December 2004 letter.

Printed directories: Handbook 2, 21.1.15

LUWS: Terms of use.

New directory: Terms of use.
Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

pwilson
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:52 pm

Postby pwilson » Thu Apr 14, 2011 11:33 am

To get prevent the problem you mention, whenever emailing the whole ward we always only use BCC: so no one can reply to all. Seems to have fixed this for us.

barryhill
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 6:08 am
Location: Williamsport, Pennsylvania, USA

BCC

Postby barryhill » Thu Apr 14, 2011 12:33 pm

The BCC is a good idea that would at least take care of that issue.

My concern at this point is the December 2004 letter . Now that I have read it I vaguely remember it but at the time it came out we had no ward email so it did not make much of an impression.

I guess I am trying to understand the intent of the letter, although it seems clear enough. Our ward email is primarily used to communicate youth activities and request parental support for those activities. I am puzzling over the difference between a "ward email account" and a leader simply making an email group and mailing the same info to the same individuals. I guess the issue might be the one I just experienced where it could look like the "ward" approved of a political rally even though it was clear it came from an individual.

Excuse my rambling, I am just thinking out loud (or rather thinking with my fingers) :)

russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 20781
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

Postby russellhltn » Thu Apr 14, 2011 2:21 pm

barryhill wrote:I guess I am trying to understand the intent of the letter, although it seems clear enough. Our ward email is primarily used to communicate youth activities and request parental support for those activities. I am puzzling over the difference between a "ward email account" and a leader simply making an email group and mailing the same info to the same individuals. I guess the issue might be the one I just experienced where it could look like the "ward" approved of a political rally even though it was clear it came from an individual.


There's certainly room for broad interpretation. As best as some of us could interpret, the primary concern seems to be web pages and/or email groups that could be construed as "the voice" of a particular ward/stake. And that seems like what you've got there.

Part of the problem of such a group is how do you make sure it's up to date and it only has current unit members in the list. (And keeping predators out.) The systems provided to us by the church update automatically based on the membership record.
Have you searched the Wiki?

Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

nathangrigg
New Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:14 pm
Location: Redondo Beach, California

Postby nathangrigg » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:55 am

It seems to me that the 2004 letter has been superseded by instructions in Handbook 2, 21.1.22, which says individuals can make web sites to help them with their callings as long as they follow some guidelines.

User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 14693
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Sandy, Utah

Postby aebrown » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:02 pm

nathangrigg wrote:It seems to me that the 2004 letter has been superseded by instructions in Handbook 2, 21.1.22, which says individuals can make web sites to help them with their callings as long as they follow some guidelines.


I would agree that the 2004 letter has been superseded by the new Handbook. However, although the new Handbook says that individuals can make web sites related to their callings (with several restrictions that must be heeded), it still says regarding stakes and wards:
Stake and ward Web sites may be created only by using the official Church Internet resources. Stakes and wards are not authorized to create other Web sites or blogs or otherwise have a Church-sponsored presence on the Internet.
Questions that can benefit the larger community should be asked in a public forum, not a private message.


Return to “General Clerk Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests