Do Not Contact list

Hello, I'm new to this forum and am a fairly new ward clerk. In my ward we frequently get requests to take someone's name off the records or to add them to a do-not-contact list. Since we don't want to encourage lots of inactive members to cancel their membership, but we do want to (at least temporarily) honor their request to not be contacted by home teachers, missionaries, etc., a "do-not-contact" list is desired. Since I couldn't find such a functionality in MLS, I added a special geocode flag (for example, we use "999"). Since home teaching, visiting teaching, and mission area lists are all organized by geocode, we just make sure this geocode is not included. Anyway, I think this works pretty well, but I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else has any other ideas.

rdp32 wrote:Hello, I'm new to this forum and am a fairly new ward clerk. In my ward we frequently get requests to take someone's name off the records or to add them to a do-not-contact list. Since we don't want to encourage lots of inactive members to cancel their membership, but we do want to (at least temporarily) honor their request to not be contacted by home teachers, missionaries, etc., a "do-not-contact" list is desired. Since I couldn't find such a functionality in MLS, I added a special geocode flag (for example, we use "999"). Since home teaching, visiting teaching, and mission area lists are all organized by geocode, we just make sure this geocode is not included. Anyway, I think this works pretty well, but I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else has any other ideas.

One potential problem (admittedly rare) is that geocodes are used in boundary realignment, and of course even DNC families have to be considered as various boundary scenarios are analyzed. It's primarily the stake geocode that is used, but the stake will often depend on the ward geocode (in many cases simply copying the ward geocode) to create the stake gecode.

Some wards use a custom field to store DNC information. Custom fields are not quite as visible as geocodes, which can be both a benefit and a problem.

But if it's working well for you, I see no particular problem, except for the boundary realignment issue. Perhaps it would be nice to mention to the stake clerk what you are doing, just so he is aware in case the boundary realighment process needed to rely on your ward's geocodes.

This has been mentioned in another thread - not everyone is happy about it, but some units just put the DNC in either the phone number and/or address fields. If they are not to be contacted, then the ward as a whole doesn't need to know the contact info. It also means you don't have to come up with a customized report for every standard report, or hand edit every print-out

However, you may need to hold that information somewhere else. I'd think even if they say "do not contact" you'd want to somehow know that they still reside in the ward. Perhaps sending a Christmas or Easter card to see if it gets returned.

I have a real philosophical problem with do not contact lists. When I moved into my current unit I was informed 3 or 4 months later that some of the families were on the "do not contact" list. I had already made contact with all of the families on my list at that point. One of those families has since started attending church again. Another family was upset that their request to remove their names from the records of the Church had still not been processed.

Since then I have advised all persons that have requested no contact with the Church, that every now and then someone from the Church will attempt to make contact with them, either by telephone, letter, or in person, and that if that is not tolerable to them then their best option is talk to the bishop about having their names removed from the records of the Church.

The Church, after all, is an at-will organization, and if individuals choose to be belligerent to those that attempt contact I don't understand what the point is of continuing one's membership in an organization one despises. (And yes, I have seen Secondhand Lions.)

To the point of the original post, I prefer leaving these individuals/households as "unassigned," and then making sure the rest of the households ARE assigned at least somewhere, even if it is to a "dummy" district that the RS, EQ, or HP leaders know means "yet to be contacted." I have usually assigned the RS president as the sole visiting teacher and the EQ president or HPGL as the sole home teacher to these "dummy districts" separate from their "regular" teaching routes. That method has the added bonus of showing which quorum has responsibility over a given household. It also means that "unassigned" means "they are unassigned for a reason; find out why."

rdp32 wrote:Since home teaching, visiting teaching, and mission area lists are all organized by geocode ....

Would it not make more sense just to have an exception to this local practice, and assign the DNCs to specially designated home-teaching companionships?

In the wards where I have been involved with such matters, the bishop still had some particular requirements for the quorum leaders to make some contact with these families periodically. Or is it your bishop's policy that all the DNC families be delegated to rank-and-file home teachers along with everyone else?

And your home-teaching companionships are assigned by rigorous application of a geographic rule? That's a new one on me. I thought most quorums just made geography one factor among several to consider in making assignments.

jbh001 wrote:Since then I have advised all persons that have requested no contact with the Church, that every now and then someone from the Church will attempt to make contact with them, either by telephone, letter, or in person, and that if that is not tolerable to them then their best option is talk to the bishop about having their names removed from the records of the Church.

That's about the way I see it.

jbh001 wrote:To the point of the original post, I prefer leaving these individuals/households as "unassigned,"

That assumes that the only people trying to contact them would be HT/VT, and that others such as the singles reps or whatever would never do that.

RussellHltn wrote:some units just put the DNC in either the phone number and/or address fields.

We've been adding people to lists like others have described here but this is the best solution I've seen; it conveys to everyone using the abbreviated address list whether or not they should call or write to a particular person.

Matt_Rasmussen wrote:

Originally Posted by RussellHltn
some units just put the DNC in either the phone number and/or address fields.

We've been adding people to lists like others have described here but this is the best solution I've seen; it conveys to everyone using the abbreviated address list whether or not they should call or write to a particular person.

I believe that is the least acceptable choice. That conveys status as a second-class member, and IMHO it should not be published in general directories.

(RusselHltn and I agree to disagree on this general issue. He also favors writing in free-form notes such as "Unlisted;" I don't. I think "DNC" is an even more serious abuse of the fields designed into MLS. We both seem to agree that MLS should build flag fields explicitly into MLS where recording the information is appropriate so that free-form notes are not necessary.)

But I don't expect that ever to happen for a "DNC" designation. To my knowledge there is no such status in the Church. Various units do create private methods of classifying certain members, to assist local leaders to minister to these members as best they can. But the Church has left that functionality out of MLS (and its predecessor, MIS) quite deliberately, I believe.

I recall hearing explicit instructions from my stake president in another stake 10 years ago, "There is no such thing as a 'Do Not Contact' member in this stake." Your own priesthood leader may have other views.

Alan_Brown: Good point about boundary realignment; I'll have to keep that in mind.

jbh001: I see where you're coming from. I home taught a sister who was inactive but became active after very little visiting. Her husband got baptized and they were just sealed in the temple last month. Anyway, I found out after she started coming to church again that she was on the DNC list. That's why I don't like to encourage people to have their names removed completely, and I am even hesitant to apply any kind of "do not contact" designation at all. On the other hand, we have tons of inactives in our ward and I once had over twenty families on my home teaching list (with no companion). There is no way we can visit everyone, and if someone says, "don't visit me," we'll give them lower priority than those who are receptive to visits. As far as the specifics of how they get assigned, I leave that to the EQ and RS to do as they please. They used to assign all the DNC's to the bishop and the RS president; I'm not sure if that's their current system. I just make sure they know about my geocode designation.

boomerbubba: no, I don't think my ward uses strict geographic rules to assign HT/VT, but they do factor it in heavily.

Again, I understand that the church likely deliberately left a DNC field out of MLS as you stated, and I am against an absolute "DNC" list in general, but for practical reasons (which of my 22 families should I focus on), it can be useful. In any case, I feel that as ward clerk I am not responsible for organizing HT/VT, but am just here to organize information that is conveyed to me and let the appropriate people (EQ pres, bishop, RS pres., etc.) use it as they feel is right. But that's just my initial thoughts.

Thanks for all the input!

rdp32 wrote: As far as the specifics of how they get assigned, I leave that to the EQ and RS to do as they please. They used to assign all the DNC's to the bishop and the RS president; I'm not sure if that's their current system. I just make sure they know about my geocode designation. !

That's why it seems that purely as a matter of information management your use of the geocode field is redundant.

If the quorums and RS do follow the convention of assignment to special companionships, that assignment is sufficient to flag such members for leaders. And while "DNC" really has nothing to do with geography, it is a relevant reason to make teaching assignments. The only real reason not to follow that convention is if the leadership deliberately wants to distribute such assignments among the conventional teaching companionships. (Actually, you do not have to depend on the RS, because that is also redundant. You need only coordinate with the quorums, because all families are accounted for in the HT roster.)

You just love them back to activity. If they feel love, needed and that someone actually cared about them, amazing things happen through the Spirit. They are never inactive, they are just missing our on blessing
and opportunities to be loved.

Pray over your families, with a sincere heart and with real intent. Have a Ward Fast for members.
And most off all, catch the ones that are right on the edge, and give them the touch of the Masters hand.

Eric

I too have had this request and have tried to accomodate the asking parties however, my understanding of the position of the church is once you are a member you signed up for visits. Really the only way that someone will not be contacted is to have their name removed from the records of the church which is not easy. It is easier to be baptized and admitted into the church than removed. I believe that if a DNC list was needed in MLS the brethren would ask that a provision be put in MLS.

Twice a year we send out letters to members to gather any change of addresses that fall through the cracks. We do have people that call the Bishop and complain that they are not to be contacted. The Bishop usually tells them to write a letter to him requesting that their names be removed. I have been a clerk for 5 years and we haven't received a letter yet.

My thoughts on DNC are as follows. Each organization can keep their own list going. They can arrange HT lists to accomodate this. When there is a change in leadership the lists generally go away or don't get passed on which means that DNC people get visited by new presidencies. Some times miricles happen as the other brother indicated about a family that was activated. Maybe the DNC people are waiting for the right person to reach out and pull them back to church.

Those are my thoughts.

Thanks
Jeff

Church systems -- and, I believe, policy -- provide for no such designation as DNC, and I am quite sure its omission from MLS is deliberate.

That said, local priesthood leaders follow their own inspired judgment in how best to minister to these members. Many wards evolve some internal convention, such as assigning these households to special HT companionships or creating custom lists in MLS.

Our ward follow both those conventions. But I still recall the explicit directive from a former stake president elsewhere: "In this stake there is no such thing as a "Do Not Contact' member!"

This is one for your priesthood leaders to settle.

jeffclark1070 wrote:Really the only way that someone will not be contacted is to have their name removed from the records of the church which is not easy.

Actually it is as easy as writing a note to the bishop/branch president with something to the effect of "please remove my name from the records of the church," and then signing it and dating it. The date might even be optional.

It might not be encouraged, but it definitely is easy.

The really hard part is trying to rejoin the Church after having your name removed from the records via this process. That may be one of the many reasons it is discouraged.

Actually it starts with the simple letter but I believe the Bishop needs to fill out some paperwork and review with the Stake president who then approves these changes. I believe the stake president needs to approve any removal of names from the records, even the children of record that have not been baptized.

Perhaps a review of the relevant portions of the handbook is in order (pp. 148-150). Your response still makes it sound like the process is more cumbersome than it really is. The role of the stake president in name removal requests is make sure the bishop followed policy and procedure in processing the request. There is no approval process outlined in the handbook.

Pages 145-146 of the handbook deal with canceling records for children of record that are 18 or older, but have not actually requested their names be removed from church records. That is a different scenario altogether and requires permission of the stake president prior to proactively canceling those records.

jbh001 wrote:Actually it is as easy as writing a note to the bishop/branch president ...

As a procedure, this is correct, along with the bishop's recommendation to the stake president, his permission to write the letter, then sending everything to CHQ.

I think where it becomes difficult is that, at least in my experience, most folks who wish to have their names removed from Church records still have a testimony. To actually sign the letter requires denying that testimony.

Most folks find that hard to do, even when they are really mad at the Church or the members.

lajackson wrote:As a procedure, this is correct, along with the bishop's recommendation to the stake president, his permission to write the letter, then sending everything to CHQ.

There's actually another step, but without going into the specifics here, I'll just mention that when the bishop receives a letter from a member requesting that his/her name be removed from Church records, the bishop (probably a clerk, actually) uses MLS to prepare the Report of Administrative Action (in the Confidential Forms area). That form explains the procedure precisely.

Alan_Brown wrote:There's actually another step, ...

Well, yes. The bishop's recommendation is more than just a comment on the form. He has to do a little work before he does the actual writing, if he is going to write what he is asked to write.

Or, at least, he should. [grin]

Alan_Brown wrote:There's actually another step,

Which is why I made the referral to the handbook. That step is in there. Procedurally, this is all a simple process. Emotionally, well... that's a different matter altogether. But the process itself should not be made to appear more cumbersome or daunting than it really is.

jbh001 wrote:Perhaps a review of the relevant portions of the handbook is in order (pp. 148-150). Your response still makes it sound like the process is more cumbersome than it really is. The role of the stake president in name removal requests is make sure the bishop followed policy and procedure in processing the request. There is no approval process outlined in the handbook.

While this is true, I've had Stake Presidents send back requests to the bishop for follow-up before he would agree to the request.

boomerbubba wrote:Church systems -- and, I believe, policy -- provide for no such designation as DNC, and I am quite sure its omission from MLS is deliberate.

That said, local priesthood leaders follow their own inspired judgment in how best to minister to these members. Many wards evolve some internal convention, such as assigning these households to special HT companionships or creating custom lists in MLS.

Our ward follow both those conventions. But I still recall the explicit directive from a former stake president elsewhere: "In this stake there is no such thing as a "Do Not Contact' member!"

This is one for your priesthood leaders to settle.

Why don't they include options for DNC status in MLS that set local only data. When babies are blessed, a record is created, but the certificate can only be printed until the record is transferred.

Why not do the same with DNC information - allow local usage, don't persist in the member's record, only in local MLS database.

tw.lbean wrote:Why don't they include options for DNC status in MLS that set local only data.

You may want to go back and re-read the thread. Some valid points have been brought up. I don't knows as you'll find DNC as a valid status in any church manual.

RussellHltn wrote:You may want to go back and re-read the thread. Some valid points have been brought up. I don't knows as you'll find DNC as a valid status in any church manual.

I read this thread in its entirety Sunday night. I've slept since then, so who knows what happened to my brain since then...

My opinions generally come from the position that making tools available and "teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves" is the way to go. I think making a "DNC" flag that is kept locally (e.g. not communicated to SLC or made part of their membership record) compromises in a very workable way.

I also think not providing built in support for something like this is the "balloon" problem - squeeze it here, it pops out there. In this case, the squeeze is no built-in support for DNC members and it pops out in the hijacking of other database fields that *are* part of a member's permanent record (e.g. first/last name, phone, etc...) for temporary/local only information.

I see both sides of this issue, but the pragmatist in me says both sides have valid points and we should put the decision in the hands of local priesthood leaders who own the responsibility of ministering to the members in their stewardship. Lets not tie their hands and create undesirable problems (hijacking other database fields).

If I totally missed a point(s) you referred to, please point me in a better direction.

Personally, I think giving MLS privacy options like LUWS has would solve the problem. You could just flag the DNC as "private" and leave it at that.

Beyond that, it's up to the leaders to keep track of the needs of their sheep. MLS doesn't do that.

tw.lbean wrote:... making tools available and "teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves" is the way to go. I think making a "DNC" flag that is kept locally (e.g. not communicated to SLC or made part of their membership record) compromises in a very workable way.

You would not provide a tool whose purpose, when used, directly opposes the principles you are trying to teach.

I think the discussion in this thread regarding 'do not contact' points out the opportunities to reach out to these less active members are not lost when ignorance of a previous request to not be contacted causes someone to reach out. We never know when someones heart, mind, or situation may change or has changed.

IMHO a do not contact request is only temporary. If it was not, the individual would ask to have their name removed from the records.

And now the soapbox...
Providing a tool such as any method of tracking in MLS essentially permits us to have a false peace of mind that we are doing the right thing by not proclaiming the Gospel and preaching repentance. Each person is unique and needs attention in a way unique to their situation. I see MLS as an automated tool for administrative purposes. The special needs of less active members who request to not be contacted should not be automated. They must be continually in our thoughts and our prayers. Making it difficult to 'track' a do not contact request forces us to take an approach that forces these people to the front of our minds and efforts. I am grateful for those members who will be contacted by a newly assigned home teacher because their name was not on an easily propogated list. I am grateful that when my High Priest group leader hands me a new home teaching list that he forgets to tell me that a member has requested not to be contacted because MLS makes it difficult to have this type of annotation.

jdlessley wrote:You would not provide a tool whose purpose, when used, directly opposes the principles you are trying to teach.

I think the discussion in this thread regarding 'do not contact' points out the opportunities to reach out to these less active members are not lost when ignorance of a previous request to not be contacted causes someone to reach out. We never know when someones heart, mind, or situation may change or has changed.

...

I love Proverbs 11:14. I respect that point of view. I take a different view..

Allowing a clerk / Bishop to specifically identify those individuals in such a manner allows more focus on those individuals needing special attention (i.e. DNC). A report that lists those individuals requesting no contact could be given to appropriate priesthood leaders and under the direction of their priesthood leaders, they could prayerfully consider those persons/families whose hearts might be receptive at that point in time.

The additional benefit is that those individuals requesting no contact from ward members might also avoid causing more problems. I think making it a local only thing (local to the unit where the records reside currently) combined with a regular review of those members gives the best of both worlds. When the individual moves, the receiving entity (HQ or another ward) would not have the DNC status info from previous unit.

tw.lbean wrote:Allowing a clerk / Bishop to specifically identify those individuals in such a manner allows more focus on those individuals needing special attention (i.e. DNC). A report that lists those individuals requesting no contact could be given to appropriate priesthood leaders and under the direction of their priesthood leaders, they could prayerfully consider those persons/families whose hearts might be receptive at that point in time.

The additional benefit is that those individuals requesting no contact from ward members might also avoid causing more problems. I think making it a local only thing (local to the unit where the records reside currently) combined with a regular review of those members gives the best of both worlds. When the individual moves, the receiving entity (HQ or another ward) would not have the DNC status info from previous unit.

What you describe is ideal. However for some units once a person is placed on a do not contact list they are lost to any type of contact as long as the presiding leadership is in place or until that same leadership is counselled otherwise.

Case in point: I had a bishop who related in a ward council how he had his eyes opened by a general authority regarding do not contact lists. He had taken the position that once a person requested to not be contacted and was placed on a do not contact list that no effort would be taken to contact that member. He had inherited a do not contact list when he was called as bishop. Many members on that list had not been contacted for years. In a discussion with a general authority about less active members in the ward the situation regarding the do not contact list was brought up. The bishop was told there is no such thing as a do not contact list. He was given counsel about how to handle such requests. The end result was that some of those members on the list were contacted and we had some return to activity.

I can see similar scenarios arrising from apparently innocent attempts to track these do not contact requests in MLS. It also tacitly implies that the Church condones do not contact lists when many general authorities have specifically counselled against such lists.

jdlessley wrote:What you describe is ideal. However for some units once a person is placed on a do not contact list they are lost to any type of contact as long as the presiding leadership is in place or until that same leadership is counselled otherwise.

Case in point: I had a bishop who related in a ward council how he had his eyes opened by a general authority regarding do not contact lists. He had taken the position that once a person requested to not be contacted and was placed on a do not contact list that no effort would be taken to contact that member. He had inherited a do not contact list when he was called as bishop. Many members on that list had not been contacted for years. In a discussion with a general authority about less active members in the ward the situation regarding the do not contact list was brought up. The bishop was told there is no such thing as a do not contact list. He was given counsel about how to handle such requests. The end result was that some of those members on the list were contacted and we had some return to activity.

I can see similar scenarios arrising from apparently innocent attempts to track these do not contact requests in MLS. It also tacitly implies that the Church condones do not contact lists when many general authorities have specifically counselled against such lists.

I totally understand the pitfalls that you describe.

From my perspective, this falls under "teach them correct principles" to me. The specific example you mention was corrected when taught correct principles. The ideal solution and reality clearly diverge frequently.

I think having support for this in MLS is far better than the current practice where clerks / bishoprics come up with their own systems of accomplishing the same thing without any kind of structure around it - frequently polluting a member's record(s) (e.g. their name, nick name, or phone number) in a persistent way that all current and future wards/stakes will have until someone changes.

I see that this discussion is going out of topic.
I think that DNC list is a tools. like a knife, then it can be good or bad according with its use.
So I look with interest to this feature in MLS.

marianomarini_vi wrote:I see that this discussion is going out of topic.
I think that DNC list is a tools. like a knife, then it can be good or bad according with its use.
So I look with interest to this feature in MLS.

Well, more than anything we just need to be careful to keep it on the technical side of things. I think this has been an interesting discussion with both sides of the argument making very valid points. But at this point, I don't know how much more can be said. It is now up to the Employees at Church Headquarters to decide what's right and what's not.

An "Active", "Less active" flag can be interesting too, and could help us on reactivation activities.

MorettiDP wrote:An "Active", "Less active" flag can be interesting too, and could help us on reactivation activities.

I wonder about applying that label expressly, although I recognize the usefulness to leaders.

Lacking that, here is what we have done in our ward as a close approximation. Using the four core export files (Membership.csv, HomeTeaching.csv, VisitingTeaching.csv and Organization.csv) we run a SQL query that flags "active" members by the following algorithm: If a family has any member serving as a home or visiting teacher, or in any calling, we treat that family as "active." Not perfect, but close enough to be useful.

There is no inherent reason such logic could not be programmed into MLS. Unfortunately, the logic is too complex to implement within MLS as a custom report with existing functionality.

The policy from our stake president is to assign DNCs to a home teacher that is a neighbor and ask them to contact them regularly as such.

On a personal opinion note, when I was EQP (Elders Quorum Pres) I did not ask members if they wanted HT/VT or if the wanted to be contacted by the church. If asked, many will say no but if never asked, most will not make such a request.

For those who do, the first sentence applies.

When I have been asked to HT a DNC, I have attempted to send them a note, thought, message, or church mag article in the mail on a monthly basis if a visit was not an option that month. With some I have paid for a subscription to selected church mags. Church mags can be an excellent tool to warm those who have "cooled" to the gospel message and thus improving the future likelyhood that they will open their door to HT/VT later.

We found a simple solution to this issue that still allowed us clerks the ability to see the address and phone #... There is an address 2 and a phone 2 section of the membership record. We moved the address and phone # from the first to the second of each. Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories.

In this way the DNC no longer have a phone # or address in any printed directrory but anyone with access to view memberships (EQ Pres, HP Group Leader, Bishopric, and clerks) could see the address for periodic (at least annual visits).

tlrogers wrote:We found a simple solution to this issue that still allowed us clerks the ability to see the address and phone #... There is an address 2 and a phone 2 section of the membership record. We moved the address and phone # from the first to the second of each. Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories.

In this way the DNC no longer have a phone # or address in any printed directrory but anyone with access to view memberships (EQ Pres, HP Group Leader, Bishopric, and clerks) could see the address for periodic (at least annual visits).

I'll have to give that one a try. Outside of actually fixing the bug in MLS, this is the most useable solution I've seen.

tw.lbean wrote:I'll have to give that one a try. Outside of actually fixing the bug in MLS, this is the most useable solution I've seen.

There is no "bug" in MLS, as far as I know. Church policy does not recognize any such status as "Do Not Contact," and MLS by design includes no such flag. There are some local clerks and leaders who think this policy should be changed and MLS should be changed accordingly, because local units adopt ad hoc processes to handle such situations, but that is not at all the same thing as a bug.

I still don't quite understand tlrogers' workaround. When he says, "Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories," what defaults are those, and what reports are affected?

This may be confusing two very different situations: members who request no contact, and members who request that their contact information be suppressed from published directories.

boomerbubba wrote:There is no "bug" in MLS, as far as I know. Church policy does not recognize any such status as "Do Not Contact," and MLS by design includes no such flag. There are some local clerks and leaders who think this policy should be changed and MLS should be changed accordingly, because local units adopt ad hoc processes to handle such situations, but that is not at all the same thing as a bug.

Well said -- I was going to make the same comment myself, but you said it better than I would have.

boomerbubba wrote: I still don't quite understand tlrogers' workaround. When he says, "Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories," what defaults are those, and what reports are affected?.

In the Abbreviated Directory, there is a Customize link in the upper right hand corner. It presents a dialog with several options, among which is "Show second street address."

Also, in the Directory of Members, there is also a Customize link. One of the options there is "Show secondary telephone number and e-mail address (if available)."

I imagine these are what is referred to.

boomerbubba wrote:There is no "bug" in MLS, as far as I know. Church policy does not recognize any such status as "Do Not Contact," and MLS by design includes no such flag. There are some local clerks and leaders who think this policy should be changed and MLS should be changed accordingly, because local units adopt ad hoc processes to handle such situations, but that is not at all the same thing as a bug.

I still don't quite understand tlrogers' workaround. When he says, "Then we set the defaults to not print the second address and phone on directories," what defaults are those, and what reports are affected?

This may be confusing two very different situations: members who request no contact, and members who request that their contact information be suppressed from published directories.

I should have paid more attention to which of the 2 threads this is. Sorry. I made a mistake by not giving context to my comment.

There is a bug in MLS where it fails to handle negative logic correctly for custom member fields when creating custom reports. Short of fixing that bug, this is the best solution I've seen. It doesn't hijack database fields that are part of a member's record.

I could go on about the debate of "official" policy regarding DNCs, but the reality is that DNC lists exist at the local level in many (not all, but many) units. A sufficient number of people have weighed in with opinions that I'm convinced many clerks deal with it - despite DNC not being an officially recognized state or status.

I believe it is a good thing in many ways that church policy does not officially recognize DNC status. However, having members requesting no contact from the church is a reality. Many (most?) clerks do have, and actively maintain, DNC lists.

Ugly things are being done to support DNC lists such as:
[INDENT]

• Hijacking the preferred name field
• Hijacking the first name or last name fields
• Putting all 0's in the phone number
• ....

[/INDENT]

I've expressed my personal opinions about how to deal with this already and it touched off a significant response about equally divided on what the "best" solution is.

I'll simply recap my opinion by saying that I feel the objective is to save souls. The more tools available, the greater the chance the "right" tool will be available.

EDIT: If this solution is only effective for LUWS then it really doesn't help. I won't have access to look at MLS / LUWS until this evening, so I assumed it was MLS. Sounds like (if I understand correctly) that this is something viable in LUWS only.

tw.lbean wrote:I should have paid more attention to which of the 2 threads this is. Sorry. I made a mistake by not giving context to my comment.

There is a bug in MLS where it fails to handle negative logic correctly for custom member fields when creating custom reports.

Ah, now I understand what you were talking about. For those who are interested in more information regarding the bug in MLS custom reports that use custom member fields, the relevant thread is Custom member fields.

Alan_Brown wrote: In the Abbreviated Directory, there is a Customize link in the upper right hand corner. It presents a dialog with several options, among which is "Show second street address."

Also, in the Directory of Members, there is also a Customize link. One of the options there is "Show secondary telephone number and e-mail address (if available)."

I imagine these are what is referred to.

Correct. That was what we did. Using this method we guaranteed that the address and phone #s were not lost by setting to all 0s or blaking them out. Just helped to ensure that no one within the ward "accidently" contacted someone with a church request for service. Helped keep the information to those in leadership who should continue to know of this identifying information.

Years ago I went on a visit to a sister. She told me that she belonged to another church and that she no longer wanted to be a member of our church. I was thoroughly convinced that this is what she wanted and I had her write a letter to the fact that she did not want to be a member. That Sunday when I informed the bishop and gave this letter he became upset with me. Basically he was angry because I had accepted a letter from this sister. This lady did not tell me this in anger. She was very friendly but very emphatic about not wanting to be a member. I felt I was respecting her wishes. Under the same circumstances I would have did the same thing. When someone tells you that they do not want to be a member of the church and you pursue it that could result in legal ramifications.