ward websites

[kinggrunt-p40]

Lets clear things up, about this 2004 letter, as the more people talk about it the more confusing and unfocused it gets. Im not posting this to cause problems, but just to be sure im not doing anything wrong.

The LUWS and the building schedule tools created by the church are not available to the UK yet, and probally will not for some time. Therefore the letter talks about no websites, which i agree with, and i would think they mean published websites available to the world.

We have a ward calendar, we call it the "Intranet" because its only available to the wards and those with USERNAME and PASSWORD it does not even have a domain name, it availble through a mac me account. There is published nothing about the church on it. And the second one we have again is password'd so only the members of our buidling can access it, and its a simple form to fill out, to request the building. No talk of the church, you would not even know its to request a mormon church.

Am i safe to say this is OK? Theres the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I have read that letter and the way i see it, is all websites published on the internet should be removed. But i dont see password and username intranets as a public website, and because we have no other option available to us. Am i breaking any church policy?

[techgy]

Lets clear things up, about this 2004 letter, as the more people talk about it the more confusing and unfocused it gets. Im not posting this to cause problems, but just to be sure im not doing anything wrong.

The LUWS and the building schedule tools created by the church are not available to the UK yet, and probally will not for some time. Therefore the letter talks about no websites, which i agree with, and i would think they mean published websites available to the world.

We have a ward calendar, we call it the "Intranet" because its only available to the wards and those with USERNAME and PASSWORD it does not even have a domain name, it availble through a mac me account. There is published nothing about the church on it. And the second one we have again is password'd so only the members of our buidling can access it, and its a simple form to fill out, to request the building. No talk of the church, you would not even know its to request a mormon church.

Am i safe to say this is OK? Theres the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. I have read that letter and the way i see it, is all websites published on the internet should be removed. But i dont see password and username intranets as a public website, and because we have no other option available to us. Am i breaking any church policy?

I understand where you're coming from, but we cannot decide church policy here in this forum. I would recommend that you have a discussion with your local leaders; Stake President, etc and get their input.

[eblood66]

The LUWS and the building schedule tools created by the church are not available to the UK yet, and probally will not for some time.

You may want to see if the Beta LUWS is available to you. If it is you may soon have a working, sanctioned site. The stated intent is that the new website will be released by the end of the year but it's already getting very close to being solid enough for actual use.

[mkmurray]

You may want to see if the Beta LUWS is available to you. If it is you may soon have a working, sanctioned site. The stated intent is that the new website will be released by the end of the year but it's already getting very close to being solid enough for actual use.

And I believe the intent is to go international with the release.

[kennethjorgensen]

And I believe the intent is to go international with the release.

I believe so too as

1) I already have access to the stuff I need and I am also in the UK.

2) I reported an issue with international characters in my surname and received a reply to say they are "internationalising it". Part of the website is displaying them ok and part of it is not.

kinggrunt, I have replied to you privately to give you some ideas (as I know a bit more about your particular situation) but as Techgy correctly says we cannot intrepret what the letter says. We might have our own ideas but thats all they are.

For anyone else I basically encouraged kinggrunt to embrance the church's own Beta LUWS as the foundation and then have workarounds for additional requirements.