Hiding a member?

I'm going to be intentionally vague and hypothetical here. But assume that I have a real-life situation here. Feel free to use your imagination.

This is an active, church-attending, tithing-paying, temple-recommend-holding member, who for some extremely valid personal reasons, does not want (or cannot) have his information on a printed ward directory.

(This might seem similar to the never-ending DoNotContact question. It isn't.)

Are there are any options? Obviously, we could create a custom field in MLS and write custom reports, but besides that ... is there any way to have a member appear in the system but not print out?

(We can do this in LUWS easily. But LUWS is inadequate when it comes to HT/VT reports or ward lists printed from MLS.)

Any other ways to deal with this situation?

The way I did that back in the MIS days was to create the reports and then redact or adjust them before distribution.

I suppose one method would be to remove his address and phone number from MLS and keep that outside. Even then, his name will appear. Not really a good situation, but there isn't much in the way of options here.

Long term all I can suggest is that you pass this issue up through channels so some kind of enhancement to MLS can be scheduled for implementation. I'm sure the urgency of that task is directly proportional to the urgency of the problem. So the more problems CHQ is aware of, the sooner it gets done.

Some automated way to flag such cases is a longstanding wishlist item for MLS. Unlike the issue of "Do Not Contact" members, which have no such status officially, I think that Church policy would favor honoring members' requests to be omitted from published directories. Many wards invent some ad hoc way to accomplish this.

Today, there is support for such suppression in LUWS, but not MLS. One workaround for printed ward directories might be to download the scrubbed directories from LUWS, which presumably reflect such exceptions, and print the directories from that source instead of MLS.

It would still be preferable to have a flag within MLS that denotes such status, I think. That flag should also be included in custom report criteria, and in the standard MLS export files.

Note, however, that suppressing publication in general ward directories is not the same thing as suppressing a name or address from all MLS reports. Such reports are used by church leaders in performing their callings (including home and visiting teaching), and they have a legitimate need to know such basic information to enable ministering to all the members. It would be a much more radical thing to suppress someone's name from MLS entirely, and I think such functionality would be more difficult to justify.

boomerbubba wrote:...I think that Church policy would favor honoring members' requests to be omitted from published directories.

More than that, it happens to be the law in most states.

EDIT: Since I'm not a lawyer I will retract the above statement.

Mikerowaved wrote:More than that, it happens to be the law in most states.

IANAL, and I don't know about legal specifics. But even more on-point for us, I recall that you once referred to some Church policy (the CHI, or a policy letter?) instructing bishops somehow to honor members' requests to be excluded from published directories. If you could ever dig out the specific reference for that, it would help the technical discussion here. Assuming your recollection is correct, this seems to be a case where MLS fails to provide the tools to implement policy.

boomerbubba wrote:I recall that you once referred to some Church policy (the CHI, or a policy letter?) instructing bishops somehow to honor members' requests to be excluded from published directories.

I know that's a question posed during the test for new LUWS admins.

Actually, I think it would be helpful if someone could reference the applicable state laws. It would quickly escalate the need for the feature or a work-around. It would also help as a guide to know what rolls it should be omitted from and which ones it would still appear.

A lot of this depends on why the member needs to be "hidden."

It might be enough to just delete the phone numbers from MLS.

Moving the physical address into the mailing address slots might accomplish enough anonymity, or deleting the addresses from MLS altogether might be required.

If even having the name showing up is unaccectable, I would consider whether changing the "Preferred Name" field in MLS to some psuedonym would provide the requested anonymity.

But most importantly, since this is such an unusual request, I would ask the bishop to ask the stake president to ask the area authority seventy (or whomever the stake president reports to) for guidance (assumming having the bishop call Clerk Support for guidance yeilds no viable options).

jbh001 wrote:A lot of this depends on why the member needs to be "hidden."

It might be enough to just delete the phone numbers from MLS.

Moving the physical address into the mailing address slots might accomplish enough anonymity, or deleting the addresses from MLS altogether might be required.

If even having the name showing up is unaccectable, I would consider whether changing the "Preferred Name" field in MLS to some psuedonym would provide the requested anonymity.

These are all work arounds using what limited resources MLS provides.

IMHO, since the policy is to not include names in public directories of those who do not give their approval, there should be capability in MLS to "flag" those who have given approval (or not given approval) so that the generally distributed ward list adheres to the policy.

OK, since IANAL either, nor have the time to do the research, I will retract my previous statement regarding state laws.

However, I'll stand by the part about contacting the bishop to opt out of being included in a ward list. I will double my efforts to find the document (or PDF file) I used to have, but it was general guidelines about using membership data, including creating ward directories. Among other things, I clearly remember it stated that any such list must have, "This information is for Church use only and is not to be used for any commercial, business, or political purpose." (or something close to that) typed on it.

In it's absence, here are some bits and pieces you can use to connect the dots. I will focus mainly on the LUWS documents and hopefully explain why in the end.

This is one of the items a person agrees to when they register on their LUWS:
[INDENT]

• I understand that participation in the membership directory at this Web site is purely voluntary. If I do not want personal directory information about my family or me to appear on the site, I will contact my bishop or branch president or ward or branch clerk.

[/INDENT]And in the user's LUWS HELP section, under Membership, it states:[INDENT]Q. How do I remove my personal information from the membership directory on the Web site?
A. Contact your Web site administrator, or contact your clerk if you are unsure who the administrator is. You can also contact the site administrator by e-mail by clicking Feedback on the title bar of the local unit Web site.
[/INDENT]Now, in the administrator's help section under System Maintenance we find the following:[INDENT] System maintenance includes

• Removing member information when requested (ward Web sites only).

[/INDENT]Further down the same page is a section titled Removing Member Information (Ward Web Sites Only) that lists step by step how this is done.

Still further down the page under Frequently Asked Questions we find:[INDENT]Q. What should I tell a member who requests that his or her name be removed from the ward membership directory?
A. You may prevent the member’s personal information from appearing on the Web site. To make the change, go to Administrator Options and click on Membership Directory. Find the appropriate member. Click Change. Select which information should be hidden from view (home address, telephone number, spouse’s name, children’s names), or you may select the option, Do not show anything about this Family on the Web site. Please note that if a member does not want to have his or her e-mail address on the Web site, the member needs to remove it in the Update Profile screen.
[/INDENT]And:[INDENT]Q. Can I remove only part of a family's information in the directory?
A. Yes. All or any combination of address, phone number, e-mail address, spouse name, or children's names may be removed.
[/INDENT]Near the bottom of the page, under Administrator Quiz (which all admins took when they first logged in) we find:[INDENT]Question 1:
How soon should the administrator respond when a member requests that all or part of their personal information be removed from the Web site?

a. Within 24 hours Correct Answer
[/INDENT]And finally, the last sentence of the Administrator's Help document says:

[INDENT]

• Always be sensitive to the requests of members who are not comfortable about their names being listed in the Membership Directory. If they request that their personal information be removed, you should promptly respond to their request.

[/INDENT]
I submit to you the Church's stand on this policy has not changed over the years, it's just been converted to electronic form by the LUWS system. A person can now make the request through the bishop, clerk, or website administrator. For individuals who's units are not part of the LUWS system, or who do not wish to participate in it by creating an account, have only one place to go to request their personal information not be published and that's the bishopric. Whether lists are published by the LUWS, or some other means (including ward lists taken from MLS data, RS directories, etc) it's the bishop's responsibility to see that the member's request is honored in each case.

May I also be so bold as to point out that since MLS has no provision to single out and exclude personal information from a general ward list, yet LUWS is abundantly full of these capabilities, that it's possible it wasn't an oversight on the part of the authors of MLS to exclude these features, but rather a part of an overall plan for ward lists to be created by the LUWS and not from MLS.

It is unfortunate that the Help FAQ section is out of date. The following is no longer true.

Mikerowaved wrote:Please note that if a member does not want to have his or her e-mail address on the Web site, the member needs to remove it in the Update Profile screen.

It used to be that you could register without an e-mail address and you could remove the e-mail address from your profile. However, updates to the LUWS have changed that so that an e-mail address is now required to register and you can no longer remove the e-mail address from the profile. If you try to remove the e-mail address you will get a message that says "Please enter your e-mail" when you click the "Submit" button.

The correct way to not have the e-mail address displayed on directories and lists is to select "No" for the option "Show your e-mail address in directories and lists?". To ensure complete unanimity then they should also ensure that none of the "Receive e-mail notifications for ..." are selected. Otherwise once a broadcast message is sent to a group they have selected to receive notifications their e-mail address can be stripped from message headers.

Mikerowaved wrote:May I also be so bold as to point out that since MLS has no provision to single out and exclude personal information from a general ward list, yet LUWS is abundantly full of these capabilities, that it's possible it wasn't an oversight on the part of the authors of MLS to exclude these features, but rather a part of an overall plan for ward lists to be created by the LUWS and not from MLS.

That just doesn't make sense to me, because 1) MLS still includes two forms of ward directory in its standard report outputs; 2) Some units use MLS but don't have LUWS.

So if this is part of "an overall plan," it is far from fully implemented. Assuming that you are right about the policy, then MLS still needs work.

boomerbubba wrote:That just doesn't make sense to me, because 1) MLS still includes two forms of ward directory in its standard report outputs; 2) Some units use MLS but don't have LUWS.

So if this is part of "an overall plan," it is far from fully implemented. Assuming that you are right about the policy, then MLS still needs work.

My assumption (and I concede this is only my opinion) is that the lists created by MLS are for the benefit of ward leaders and the ones created by LUWS are intended for the general membership. Yes, I agree this has not been fully implemented, but that wouldn't involve changing MLS as much as it would involve getting LUWS going worldwide (which I believe is in the works).

Mikerowaved wrote:My assumption (and concede this is only my opinion) is that the lists created by MLS are for the benefit of ward leaders and the ones created by LUWS are intended for the general membership.

Perhaps, then, they should just call it LS instead of MLS.

If that were the case, all CHQ has to do is say so in any of several authoritative places : the CHI, a policy letter, MLS help, clerk training, etc. But your opinion on that is the first time I have ever seen this speculation. I'm sure it would come as a surprise to our bishopric, as it does to me.

We hand out "ward directory" reports for the asking, although we generally try to steer folks to the web site for practical reasons. Even our "Abbreviated Ward Directory" report prints 14 pages.

I think a more reasonable assumption is that, like some other things, this functionality just never got built into MLS.

Greggo wrote:These are all work arounds using what limited resources MLS provides.

IMHO, since the policy is to not include names in public directories of those who do not give their approval, there should be capability in MLS to "flag" those who have given approval (or not given approval) so that the generally distributed ward list adheres to the policy.

True. But since that functionality does not presently exist, and I am not part of the MLS programming or design team, I gave my recommendations about what can be done NOW, including bumping the request up an appropriate chain of command in hopes of getting a more official answer or faster action on the issue.

Mikerowaved wrote:My assumption (and concede this is only my opinion) is that the lists created by MLS are for the benefit of ward leaders and the ones created by LUWS are intended for the general membership.

This has bugged me enough that I found some relevant portions from the handbook.

2006 Handbook 1, pp. 150: "Leaders should provide information from Church records and reports only to those who are authorized to use it. ..."

2006 Handbook 1, pp.151: "Membership directories that are distributed to members should include only names, addresses, and telephone numbers, and, if members give permission, e-mail addresses. Membership lists that have more information, such as age and membership status, may be given only to authorized stake and ward leaders."

2006 Handbook 1, pp.177: "Stake and ward directories may be published according to the following instructions: Names, addresses, and phone numbers may be included in a directory only if they are listed in a commercial telephone directory or, if they are unlisted, if the member gives permission. E-mail addresses may be included only with the member's permission. ..."

Directing members to get their directories from LUWS instead of MLS seems to simplify the process while complying with the above instructions.

Thus, back to the original point, "hiding" a member from LUWS is easy. If the member needs to be "hidden" from MLS printouts, work-arounds are currently required until that functionality is added to MLS.

(Mikerowaved, I quoted you because in my opinion, the handbook supports your assumption.)

Mikerowaved wrote:May I also be so bold as to point out that since MLS has no provision to single out and exclude personal information from a general ward list, yet LUWS is abundantly full of these capabilities, that it's possible it wasn't an oversight on the part of the authors of MLS to exclude these features, but rather a part of an overall plan for ward lists to be created by the LUWS and not from MLS.

... except that LUWS is lacking in the ability to show multiple phone numbers, non-member spouses, preferred names from MLS, birthdates, etc. (yes, we've beaten this horse to death). It's amazing to me how many cases we've come up in the last month where people have found LUWS to be simply inadequate.

[I'm not "bashing" about LUWS. I realize the limitations. I realize that the Church has other priorities. My testimony is unshaken. We'll work around it, which basically means our ward "power users" won't use it.]

I do like the idea of not printing any contact information and changing the preferred name for the maybe-hypothetical member I may or may not be making up.

I think we may be forced in our ward to print a custom report into a .csv, redact it, and distribute that.


[By the way - I had a past case now of members who are otherwise active but were very reluctant about having 2 of their children on MLS-generated reports, due to pending litigation. We ended up hiding the entire family in LUWS. At that time, our directories were custom-generated, not generated through MLS.]

I think in some cases, it may be necessary to prevent hypothetical individuals from showing up on a HT/VT list. And in that case, MLS vs. LUWS isn't even an option.

I worked for a company that could allow us to read email, but the email reader would prevent printing, screenshots, etc. So certain records were "for eyes only". That would probably be the solution here...

jbh001 wrote:2006 Handbook 1, pp.177: "Stake and ward directories may be published according to the following instructions: Names, addresses, and phone numbers may be included in a directory only if they are listed in a commercial telephone directory or, if they are unlisted, if the member gives permission. E-mail addresses may be included only with the member's permission. ..."

MLS certainly lacks the functionality to accomplish publicaton of such directories.

In order to comply with that policy in MLS, some flag needs to be created to distinguish those names, addresses and phone numbers that are publishable in directories from those that are not. Right now, any data in MLS prints out in the directory reports.

Further, bishoprics and clerks need to establish procedures to ascertain the status of each member according to that criteria and enter the flag value accordingly. And, I suggest, those procedures would need to be drilled in the training materials.

However, the policy does seem to contemplate that the MLS abbreviated directory is intended to be published generally:

jbh001 wrote:2006 Handbook 1, pp.151: "Membership directories that are distributed to members should include only names, addresses, and telephone numbers, and, if members give permission, e-mail addresses. Membership lists that have more information, such as age and membership status, may be given only to authorized stake and ward leaders."

except that there is no way in MLS to produce an abbreviated directory that suppresses unlisted name-address-phone data to comply with the other provision.

I note that even the published directory in LUWS does not comply with the letter of the policy, because all data from MLS is included by default, and excluded only if a member affirmatively opts out. I doubt that many clerks or LUWS administrators manually try looking up each name in the local phone book to confirm that it is listed,

Altogether, the functionality of computer systems created by CHQ does not seem to support the stated policy.

geek wrote:I think in some cases, it may be necessary to prevent hypothetical individuals from showing up on a HT/VT list. And in that case, MLS vs. LUWS isn't even an option.

That is another kettle of fish entirely. I suggest that if this is more than hypothetical, you follow jbh001's advice and take this situation to appropriate priesthood leaders as high up the chain as necessary. But it would have to be an extraordinary case.

I have a hard time conceiving of such a situation. Home and visiting teachers, supervisors and quorum/auxiliary leaders have callings to minister to those on their lists, just as other leaders do.

"Bro. Jones, here are your new home teaching assignments. Notice that the name and address of one family has been redacted because it is a secret. But please report monthly on your visits."

it is always the preferred name that shows on the directory change there perfered name to some thing like spanky or spud problem solve

gardnerward wrote:it is always the preferred name that shows on the directory change there perfered name to some thing like spanky or spud problem solve

Problem solved...except for when people start calling me Spanky or Spud!

lol
You could call him or her Slim or Tiny

boomerbubba wrote:That is another kettle of fish entirely. I suggest that if this is more than hypothetical, you follow jbh001's advice and take this situation to appropriate priesthood leaders as high up the chain as necessary. But it would have to be an extraordinary case.

I have a hard time conceiving of such a situation. Home and visiting teachers, supervisors and quorum/auxiliary leaders have callings to minister to those on their lists, just as other leaders do.

"Bro. Jones, here are your new home teaching assignments. Notice that the name and address of one family has been redacted because it is a secret. But please report monthly on your visits."

Send me a private message and I'll give you two examples. Both real-world. And neither are what I would consider to be particularly unique.

Follow-up question:

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

Anyone hear of this before? Is there a special ward created, like the UNKNOWN ward, to hold certain membership records of otherwise active members. If so, how do things like tithing settlement and temple recommends get updated. (So I have my doubts.)

geek wrote:Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

I can think of a hypothetical situation where the member would not want to have any record of his or her existence in the ward. If I were the bishop, a member made such a request, and I felt it was valid, I would call CHQ and ask if this were possible. It might be.

Otherwise, I would bite the bullet and instruct my clerks to made certain that the name never showed up on any printed paper that came out of the clerk's office.

This would be a pain for all of us because, as has been noted previously, MLS does not support this option.

And yes, there is an Address Unknown stake with lots of records in it, and with lots of Church service missionaries working each day to move as many records as possible out of it. So, that would not be the place to put our hypothetical membership record. [grin]

geek wrote:Follow-up question:

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

Anyone hear of this before?

No. And if that's "how it has been done in other wards," having the bishop call Clerk Support should provide quick instruction. Failing that, having the bishop ask the stake president to ask his presiding leader for the proper process in this situation is plan B.

Additionally, even if that is "how it has been done in other wards," a significant thing has changed within the last 2 years: barcoded temple recommends. If this record was retained at CHQ, and the member needs to get a temple recommend, how does the stake scan the temple recommend to activate it if the record is not in the ward? This is a legitimate question for Clerk Support, or the stake president's presiding leader. Because the scenario would affect so few I can't think of anywhere instructions would be stated that anyone at the ward or stake level would have access to.

I just thought of another possible work-around (yet I doubt it would work), and that includes sending the record out of the ward (to where I don't know) and then using the Out-Of-Unit Member feature within MLS to add them back in without actually having the record "in the ward". But because that feature was not designed for that purpose, it probably will not accomplish the kind of "hiding" you are aiming for, because it was designed for the opposite reason: getting a record to show up on printouts that is not actually in the ward, as in the case of bishops of student wards.

geek wrote:Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

The record could not have been sent to the ward in the first place except via CHQ

If there is such a practice as described, it is so extraordinary that I don't think your question is going to be resolved by a membership clerk. Your bishop would need either to contact CHQ himself to ask about this, or ask the stake president for guidance.

As far as this forum -- which is concerned primarily with technical issues -- is concerned, I think the factual consensus here is that there is no such suppression functionality in the MLS software. It sounds like the member is actually asking not to be on any ward roll at all, which is probably technically possible if priesthood authorities allow it. But that hypothetical is a different status than you originally asked about. The record would not be "hidden" in your MLS system, but would simply not be there at all.

geek wrote:Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

I'd call CHQ. Maybe they're right, but I'm starting to think that one should check out their story carefully. It could be all fabricated. I've seen that before.

geek wrote:Anyone hear of this before? Is there a special ward created, like the UNKNOWN ward, to hold certain membership records of otherwise active members. If so, how do things like tithing settlement and temple recommends get updated. (So I have my doubts.)

Nope. That said, I'm sure the church would be supportive of witness relocation and other stuff where the need is legitimate. But in that case I'd except the members to have a new identity and the ward would be none the wiser.

lajackson wrote:This would be a pain for all of us because, as has been noted previously, MLS does not support this option.

It could be accomodated, though, by simply adding a check box labeled "Confidential" or "Suppress on Printouts" or (something else equally descriptive) next to the appropriate fields (full name, maiden name, preferred name, primary phone number, secondary phone number, e-mail address, physical address, mailing address.) I'm sure the are other user-friendly ways this could be implemented too.

jbh001 wrote:It could be accomodated, though, by simply adding a check box labeled "Confidential" or "Suppress on Printouts" or (something else equally descriptive) next to the appropriate fields (full name, maiden name, preferred name, primary phone number, secondary phone number, e-mail address, physical address, mailing address.) I'm sure the are other user-friendly ways this could be implemented too.

As far as MLS goes, I think the need to accommodate this extreme hypothetical situation is less compelling than the more common desire to suppress these items only in the abbreviated directory that is generally published.

Actually, to conform to the letter of policy you quote above, MLS would need to have a form of the abbrieviated directory that suppresses all names and contact fields by default, and only includes those that clerks have affirmatively investigated and checked off as okay to publish. If this policy is ever to be taken seriously in practice, the church software -- both MLS and LUWS -- should support it.

boomerbubba wrote:Actually, to conform to the letter of policy you quote above, MLS would need to have a form of the abbrieviated directory that suppresses all names and contact fields by default, and only includes those that clerks have affirmatively investigated and checked off as okay to publish. If this policy is ever to be taken seriously in practice, the church software -- both MLS and LUWS -- should support it.

Actually, you would only need to suppress those not found in a public phone book. However, when I inquired about this to CHQ, I was told that giving a member the opportunity to opt out of being on a published ward list will fulfill this requirement.

Mikerowaved wrote:Actually, you would only need to suppress those not found in a public phone book. However, when I inquired about this to CHQ, I was told that giving a member the opportunity to opt out of being on a published ward list will fulfill this requirement.

I believe your recollection, and that interpretation certainly seems easier to implement. (It is also consistent with my own ward's practice of disseminating MLS abbrieviated directories to members who ask for them, since to my knowledge we have no members who have contacted leaders to opt out. A more prudent approach might be to print the directory from LUWS, since that would at least capture any online suppression originated by members.)

But that advice still contradicts, or materially amends, the express language of the CHI quoted by jbh001 above. "Only" means "only" to me, and the language clearly seems to imply that clerks and/or LUWS administrators should research whether each member is listed publicly or otherwise "gives permission" to opt in. On its face, depending on members to "opt out" does not seem to satisfy the written policy.

It's too bad the official language does not say what you were told. Perhaps the CHI will be updated someday to say that. Also, I note that on some other issues, commenters here collectively report being given different advice at different times when making policy inquiries, and no such conversation by any of us makes policy binding on us all. It may depend on whom one asks at CHQ. Perhaps the best way to ask is to do so in writing via the MLS messaging system.

This is an interesting situation. I'm thinking that using the custom report feature to created a ward roster would work the best. You could use the persons address as a filter to omit him from the printout. Setting it up is a one time thing so it would not be that difficult to go there for a Ward Directory. It could be named "Special Ward Directory". The report would be re-freshed with the move-in's and move-outs's of course.
This Icon is for a Cool Spy

A possibility to hide a member's record is to change his preferred name to a totally false name and associate a false address also. This action will hide the member's name and address on printouts but still be available within the computer. Suggestion may be to make the false name in the Z alphabet to make it obvious to other church members.

LTORDUSA1 wrote:A possibility to hide a member's record is to change his preferred name to a totally false name and associate a false address also. This action will hide the member's name and address on printouts but still be available within the computer. Suggestion may be to make the false name in the Z alphabet to make it obvious to other church members.

I assume you are referring to MLS, since LUWS has an easy way of suppressing personal information. Something similar to this was suggested by gardnerward earlier in the thread. Unfortunately, this creates a problem for those who have stewardship over the member. They need an accurate preferred name in MLS to fulfill their callings.

My 2 cents worth... I know it's a Technical forum we are engaged in, but from the Bishop's chair, shouldn't he be counseling and making them members aware of the importance of having their names known in our systems for various reasons? Eg; HT, VT, Resource, Talents, Recording of Ordinations, etc.

I don't think everyone should carry a Ward List, other than those who need it for their callings. With the way Technology is moving, shouldn't we now refer members to our Ward Websites? Everything should be there for the members, from the Ward/Stake Calendars to Member Directory. Shouldn't we also be mindful of the environment these days (I know it's not the place to promote 'Green'), less things we need to print out the less trees we need to chop down.

Anyways... Something to add the MLS wish list to help with the original Post;
1) A tick box to be included on the Members records to either be included on the Directory or not.
2) When this tick box is ticked, the word 'Hidden' is shown on the Directory. Eg; Phone - Hidden, Children - Hidden

kolisikepu wrote: . . . I don't think everyone should carry a Ward List, other than those who need it for their callings. . . .

Really? I keep a copy of the stake directory in my car at all times. That way, when I get a call asking me to pick up another youth/YSA, drop off folks, take dinner somewhere, get a scout or two to a service project, etc. I'm ready! I also have a stake directory in my purse always. (Although I'd rather have it on my Palm, but I can't get my Palm to do adobe even though it says it does . . . another issue.) In a busy stake with a large family I cannot imagine not carrying that info with me all the time. Every time I print a map to someone's home or to a church building or other place that we'll return to (i.e.: school sports events or band performances), that goes into the same binder as the stake directory. We're on the move. The first calling that requires contact info is parent.

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread here (pun intended), but we just came across this situation. What if someone is in a witness protection program? (I can't confirm or deny this, but let's just say the situation is similar).

How do we remove this person's name from attendance rolls and directory printouts from MLS? The Bishop has already marked their online info as "Private - Leadership Only"... but what about the reports printed from MLS?

(Essentially, this person's name needs to completely disappear from ANY and ALL printouts).

nathangg wrote:(Essentially, this person's name needs to completely disappear from ANY and ALL printouts).

I'd call local unit support. I don't think there's a way you can do it from your end except by moving them out of the ward.