Text designation

I find that it would be helpful to have an indicator either on the public directory or on the list of members in LCR, or both, of which phone numbers are capable of receiving text messages.

I also wonder about the message (blast) feature. I wonder if it would be useful to have it blast text messages from the ward.

Perhaps with a calculated reminder for leaders of what percentage of the ward can be reached by email and/or text.

wrigjef wrote:I wonder if it would be useful to have it blast text messages from the ward.

Unless it's an emergency situation, I'd detest getting a text message from the ward. To me, text messages are for things I need to deal with *right now*. Email is for things that can wait. Outside of an emergency, a message from the ward doesn't rise to the "right now" level.

As Executive Secretary, I find that text is the best way to communicate with members of the ward regarding appointments with the Bishop. Sometimes these communications need to happen quickly. And our ward happens to be evaluating communication methods in preparation for what might become an emergency.

wrigjef wrote:I find that it would be helpful to have an indicator either on the public directory or on the list of members in LCR, or both, of which phone numbers are capable of receiving text messages.

While the indicator might be nice, I'm not sure as there's a practical way of finding out that information short of asking the member. Especially with number portability. What started as a landline number might now be VOIP or even a cell phone.

Perhaps a better plan is to show which method of contact the member prefers.

Finding out a preferred method is always good. Members designate and update their own email addresses (either themselves or through a clerk), I'm not sure why with a simple radio button next to the individual and household phone number would be any different. As Executive Secretary (and membership assistant Ward clerk) I will text a number before I try to call and about 80% of the time it works. I've found that typically if I'm trying to contact a family to set up an appointment if I text the individual number for the wife I make contact.

You can email me for free. If you text me, I usually do not read it, because it costs me money to receive texts. I sometimes (but not very often) make exceptions based on the sender.

I know what you mean because I know send to have to pay to receive text. I told my family and woul opt out of everything I could but when I got a calling I got so many texts from members that I changed my plan.

I sent out an email to the ward last night that in part asked about preferred communications. If they email back and give me a text number, I'll just start building a spreadsheet.

The closest experience I had with this is when I was subbing in Gospel Doctrine for about four months, and I decided that I would send out two emails per week reminding class members about what the reading assignment was for that week, and a short thought or scripture about the lesson topic. I passed a list around in class for any members who would like either an email or a text with the above information. I got about 90% of the class who responded, and about 65% wanted emails rather than texts. As I don't text at all, I had a member of the class (the Ward Executive Secretary) who volunteered to do the texting (after I emailed him the info). Like was mentioned above, there are some who don't, won't or can't text, but would really appreciate an email.

As a follow-up to my original post. I still request a place to designate if a phone number in the directory can receive text messages. I also request a feature to blast a text in case of emergency.

When I'm asked to set up an appointment for the Bishop, my first attempt is to text the number in the directory. I find that a growing number of people don't check their email very frequently. I also find that a number of people don't answer their phone if it's an unfamiliar number (I'm constantly trying to reach people I've never talked to before). However I find that about 80% of the time I'll get a text response within a few minutes, if the number is capable.

In the event of an emergency, it would be nice to blast a text.

I support wrigjef in his quest to have a radio button designating an acceptance of the use of texting as a preference for a method of contact by members of the Church. Having served as a stake clerk and a ward clerk for a number of years, I can testify that fewer and fewer people answer phone calls and emails in a timely manner. President Monson's remarks are related to wrigjef's point: "We, as spirit children of our Heavenly Father, were sent to earth at this time that we might participate in hastening this great work." (Ensign, June 2014). There are times when the work is hastened by the use of a text. The radio button would be there as an option, not a requirement. Members may choose to engage in texting or not. Let's at least give them that choice. Please join the effort in ask that the Tech Leaders in the Church investigate the possibility of using this "hastening" tool.

wrigjef and jbuhl68,

Your requests and this discussion are nice but will not drive action in this forum. The best way to get your request in front of those who make decisions on these kinds of things is to leave feedback on lds.org or LCR. The decision makers rarely, if ever, visit these forums. You might encourage others who share your desire for a radio button to leave feedback as well. Feedback from LDS.org and LCR is read and communicated to the various committees in the church who are responsible for future features and development.