NOT marking records "Do Not Contact" or DNC

In previous MIS/MLS instructions, or handbooks (sorry, it's been a while), there was a warning about tagging members with DNC or "Do Not Contact". Can anyone resurrect or find that? I'm a stake clerk, and I've found a member record in one of our wards with that included in the member's name, of all places. I've searched this forum, and at LDS.org and the Handbooks, but haven't found anything (and reading the electronic version isn't as easy as the book version for me, sorry). There used to be special fields for talents, etc., in older versions of MIS/MLS, but not so much anymore.

I would like to poll for suggestions to:

• How to phrase this to clerks and bishoprics not to do this
(chapter and verse of the appropriate instructions would be useful)
• How to record something like this, but by being waaaay less obvious, if at all

As a matter of course, I intend to encourage our clerks (and bishoprics) to understand that there's really no such category as "Do Not Contact". When encountering members who don't want contact, it's useful to let them know that it's up to them. They should contact the bishop and follow his instructions for what to do. (Which would be to write a letter requesting name removal.)

Thanks in advance

Once I submitted this, I searched for DNC instead of "Do Not Contact" and finally saw all the hits.

Well, this raises a question. The original message was in 2009. Since then we've received a new set of Handbooks. I've not had any luck finding anything in the Handbook, Official Communication Library, or RKTS. It seems all we have is this old, unsigned MLS message, a wiki entry (which says at the bottom "Content found in this wiki may not always reflect official Church information") and a bunch of opinions on the forum.

Can anyone find a current directive?

russellhltn wrote:Well, this raises a question. The original message was in 2009. Since then we've received a new set of Handbooks.
...
Can anyone find a current directive?

Yes. The current directive is what has always been the policy of the Church, as expressed in Handbook 2, Section 5.3:

Ward priesthood and auxiliary leaders strive continually to help less-active members return to Church activity. The Savior said, “Unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them” (3 Nephi 18:32).

That particular MLS message was simply a reminder to avoid some specific clerical practices that are contrary to that overarching directive to "strive continually to help" and to "continue to minister."

aebrown wrote: That particular MLS message was simply a reminder to avoid some specific clerical practices that are contrary to that overarching directive to "strive continually to help" and to "continue to minister."

Well, the problem I'm seeing in our stake is where clerks (not sure when or who or how) have actually put in the membership record (apologies to anyone named Doe), the following:

• "Jane (Do Not Contact) Doe"
  or
  "John (Asks no contact) Doe)"

Everybody in the stake can see that.

aebrown, are you saying that the current directive is that section of the Handbook, or the 2009 directive?

cheerioboy wrote:aebrown, are you saying that the current directive is that section of the Handbook, or the 2009 directive?

I'm saying that the current policy is in the Handbook 2 Section 5.3 that I quoted, and that the 2009 directive gives us direction on a specific clerical detail regarding that policy.

I see no reason why the 2009 directive would not still be in force. Some people assume that when a new Handbook comes out that all previous communications are superseded, but I see no justification for that assumption.

cheerioboy wrote:"John (Asks no contact) Doe"
...
Everybody in the stake can see that.

Regardless of your opinion on the current validity of the 2009 directive, it's quite insensitive to label people like that in a rather public way. And my guess is that this practice was going on in your stake during the time that there was no question about the timeliness of the 2009 directive.

aebrown wrote:

cheerioboy wrote:aebrown, are you saying that the current directive is that section of the Handbook, or the 2009 directive?

I'm saying that the current policy is in the Handbook 2 Section 5.3 that I quoted, and that the 2009 directive gives us direction on a specific clerical detail regarding that policy.

I see no reason why the 2009 directive would not still be in force. Some people assume that when a new Handbook comes out that all previous communications are superseded, but I see no justification for that assumption.

I agree with you (about the 2009 directive).

aebrown wrote:

cheerioboy wrote:"John (Asks no contact) Doe"
...
Everybody in the stake can see that.

Regardless of your opinion on the current validity of the 2009 directive, it's quite insensitive to label people like that in a rather public way. And my guess is that this practice was going on in your stake during the time that there was no question about the timeliness of the 2009 directive.

I agree with you about it being insensitive for a ward to have done that. And I completely agree with the 2009 directive, I was just asking for clarification, which you provided (thank you!). I was getting some background (which I now have) to direct the clerks and bishoprics in our stake.