Do Not Contact List/Visibility

There has been tension for some time between some of the active members of the church and some of those members who no longer wish to receive contact from the church or be "ministered" to. In my mind, people deserve the right to "unsubscribe." I don't wish that people leave the church or cease contact, but I honestly think it does more harm than good to accentuate the rift that can exist between people who don't want to be contacted by the church and those who want them to return.

My recommendation is to allow Individuals and/or households to indicate, either via lds.org or LDS Tools, that they wish to cease contact. Or, at least provide a way for the local leadership to add individuals or households to be added to a "Do Not Contact" list.

Then, individuals or households on a "Do Not Contact" list will NOT be available for callings or ministering assignments (both companionships or assignments). Nor will their personal or contact information be made readily available on LDS Tools.

(I also don't think ANY individuals or households should be fully visible on LDS Tools without the end user's explicit making it so.)

I hope this spurs some conversation about how to respect the personal information of all members, whether active or not.

Members can do this today. They have the ability to set their information "Private - Leadership only." Two active members in our ward have done this.

The clerk can also make these settings for them. I have done so for the handful of members in our ward who have requested no contact but choose to not remove their names from the records of the church. Yes, the Bishopric and Stake Presidency can still see them, but no else can.

As far as requiring members to "opt in" to LDS tools, it functions according to the local laws of the land. Some countries require personal information remain hidden unless members specifically make it visible. That is not a requirement in the US.

The church does have pretty stringent requirements on how personal information is handled and I see the biggest problem being members who ignore it and think nothing of posting personal information on google docs, cloud services, etc. to make it easier for them in their calling.

But bear in mind that this is a user-to-user help forum. No one who makes these decisions will likely see your post. You would be better served to give feedback through the various apps/web sites where you have concerns. You will likely not receive a personalized answer, but I understand all feedback is read and forwarded to the organizations best equipped to review it.

davesudweeks wrote:Yes, the Bishopric and Stake Presidency can still see them, but no else can.

Nit-pick, I believe members of the ward council can as well. However, if it's functioning properly, they should have some idea of the member's desire.

I've asked before if anyone has has heard of a large organization that allows people to call themselves members, but also allows them to demand having no contact from organization leaders. So far, no one has been able to name one.

But then, my opinion doesn't count. That's all decided at a level far above the pay grade of anyone who visits this forum.

I stand corrected. Members marked 'Private - Leadership only" do show in LDSTools for at least the EQ President (and I assume the ward council members). There is apparently no indication in LDSTools of their status, but their information is marked with orange text and a lock icon on the ward Map so anyone who has access and checks there will be alerted of the status.

We have a couple of members married to non-member spouses who are unfriendly to the church and they request no contact in order to keep peace in their marriage. We have some who stopped attending years ago and believe their non-attendance means they are no longer members (this mindset is common in the bible belt) - thus they don't see the need to write a letter. We have some who claim to have written letters multiple times in the past and the bishop/stake president never acted on them so they are now unwilling to go down that path again.

The way to make the OP's concerns heard is with feedback and speaking with his/her Bishop/Stake President. There is little we can do here in the forum about the concern.

As far as I am tracking, people say "Private-leadership only" still show up on Ministering Assignments as without assignment. Which creates a problem when you are trying to see who you should assign minsters to and who you should not.

kalinbh wrote:As far as I am tracking, people say "Private-leadership only" still show up on Ministering Assignments as without assignment. Which creates a problem when you are trying to see who you should assign minsters to and who you should not.

Typically, what's done is the EQ president (or RS President) creates a separate district (with themselves as the teacher) for adding those people who do not want Ministering visits. That way, they don't show up as "unassigned".

While that's a separate step, it's entirely possible that a member wants no contact for sister Ministering. So, by being separate, it allowes some flexability instead of a "one size fits all" situation.

kalinbh wrote:As far as I am tracking, people say "Private-leadership only" still show up on Ministering Assignments as without assignment. Which creates a problem when you are trying to see who you should assign minsters to and who you should not.

Setting someone to "Private-leadership only" is may be one appropriate step for someone who doesn't want contact but it should not be considered equivalent to not wanting contact. It is very possible that someone wants to keep their information private but still wants or is willing to have a ministering assignment. They might even be fully active but has specific concerns about their information.

The problem with the current tools is lack of flexibility. It seems like an 'all or nothing' approach. You can put them in their own ministering group or you don't. You lock their contact info on the directory, but it's still visible to leaders that have no context to that lock.

In our example, we have one family that does not want to be contacted for tithing settlement. So far, that's the only restriction they've requested -- they have ministering people assigned. The above options are too restrictive or don't work in this situation. Even if the record is locked, as a clerk I will still be able to see their contact info and may still contact them for tithing settlement. I don't know why and for what they don't want to be contacted. Callings turn over too. If we have new clerks next year, they won't know and may call. Removing their contact info leads to lost info. In Utah, our emergency response for the cities often is geographically aligned with stakes/wards.

I get the problem with having a note field in LCR (free form notes would lead to poor choice of things being put in) but it does seem we need some check boxes for contact options. I don't know how that would work as the options needed seem endless.

I should add..... I am starting to see a trend (does 2-3 cases make a trend?) where members request their adult children's records to be pulled back into the ward. I later find out that they don't live at home and they wanted the records moved so the ward they actually live in would not contact them. This makes a mess for my annual membership audit. Sometimes the parents don't want to give me the address of their child. I've also had the situation where the adult child actual does live in the ward but the parents don't want to move the record IN because they know the adult child doesn't want any contact from the local ward -- not having the records lets them be invisible.

Regarding those who do not want to be contacted for tithing settlement, but otherwise seem to be involved: I suggest that you let them know that you will try to remember their request and not bother them, and ask forgiveness in advance should someone contact them. Let them know that we can't keep records of such preferences.

Regarding moving records around for people who don't want to be contacted: All I can think of is to follow the Move Records instructions: https://www.lds.org/help/support/move-r ... t?lang=eng. If you've followed the steps and can't get a new address, then ask the bishop to authorize sending it to the address unknown file. It's up to the bishop to receive revelation regarding how to handle situation. I've seen some bishops keep the record and others try to move them out. I don't know the specifics.

We've had family members who don't want to be contacted and don't want the church to know where they are. Some family member has probably given the information to the church and it wasn't well received by the family member. We honestly don't even know if some family members have requested name removal. There has been talk of it by some, but I think it's better not to stir the pot and make things worse. There are other situations over the years where I've known the locations of church members, but if the individual didn't authorize me to give it to the church, I haven't done so. I don't want to make matters worse.

I think it would also be nice for member's to have some control over what emails they receive. We send out a weekly bulletin/program/announcements. There's no opt out option for people so I have to keep a list of those that don't want it and remove them from the email before I send it out (I use the 'send a message' function in LCR).

I am in the same boat, brother. Ward members should be able to opt out LCR communication and the ward clerk should have the ability to take care of this for those who are not in contact with the church that don't want contact.

I know that church leaders in Salt Lake city read some of these posts and I would hope they would bring it to the attention of Pres. Nelson. It's time to eliminate the unrealistic process of getting records out of a Ward/branch .
Serving a full-time mission as a senior missionary couple outside the United States has brought home to me the larger number of people who are less active. In our area of the church activity hovers around 20%. Being in the mission field compounds the numbers of less active versus many areas of the United States were activity is generally higher. We have 300 members of record but only 35 that come regularly. I have seen 4 predominant requests from less active members of the church concerning their activity and exposure to the church.

1. DNC-They want no contact from the church. No visits, ministers, phone calls, emails, texts, postcards. They want to be left alone but do not want to remove their names from the church. I personally feel that this is a lack of understanding what do not contact means. If we truly explain that there will be continued contact in the future (new missionaries, leadership changes, boundary changes will always cause someone to reach out to them) until they remove their names from the records of the church most people would want to remove their names from the record of the church. We must honor that request or we will find ourselves in litigation. Please discourage eager elders quorum president or relief Society president, missionaries trying to reach out to them. Respect their request and leave them alone.
2. REMOVE NAME FROM CHURCH RECORDS – clearly and distinctly they have asked for no further contact with the church, may have joined a different church and don't want any of their information listed on our church roles. We need to honor those requests quickly. In some parts the world if we ignore this request there are grounds for litigation against the church.
3.DNC LIMITED-this individual may only want sister ministers, may only be open to newsletters or postcards. We need a way in Leader's Clerk's Resources to identify those people and the limited contact they desire.
4. LOST- it is unrealistic to expect clerk and branch/ward members to go through the nine steps that are required to remove an unknown person from their ward list. We have 30 active members which includes children and 300 members on our ward list. Many of these people have specifically not provided contact information to the church and want to be lost and left alone. If they don't have an address, email, phone number then send them to the lost members list in Salt Lake City and clean up our roles. It is a tremendous burden and undue levels of guilt on wards and branches that continuously try to track down people that have specifically tried to get lost from the church,

Church leaders, please take note and help us focus on the members that want to be at church so we can keep them active and attending. When the time is right people who have lost their way will have a change in their lives and just like the prodigal son they will reach out to us and we will be ready to embrace them.

There is a new Handbook coming out this month. If I am reading the news article correctly, it will be just one Handbook - and public. This would suggest that the instructions on how to remove one's name from the church will no longer be in portion only available to Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies.

If true, we may see a change in the dynamic described above.

wbodine wrote:it is unrealistic to expect clerk and branch/ward members to go through the nine steps that are required to remove an unknown person from their ward list.

Correct. And there's nothing in the instructions that say it's the clerk's job. The clerk will compile the information and act on it. The ward council, ministers and maybe even the missionaries should be helping out.

I'm a ward clerk and I've just received a request from a ward member (older daughter of a ward family) who does not want to receive any communication through email. I have sent a few email messages to the entire ward over the past couple weeks. I guess she is not interested in the announcements. Anyway, I think it would be useful if members could determine or apply settings to determine what communication and status their membership allows: i.e. email communication, accept or not accept callings, ministering and more. Perhaps it would also be good to have these settings as filters to show a report or list of who is on these lists, or use while setting ministering and calling assignments. I hope this helps with the discussion and that this will progress somewhere.

chrissb wrote:I'm a ward clerk and I've just received a request from a ward member (older daughter of a ward family) who does not want to receive any communication through email. I have sent a few email messages to the entire ward over the past couple weeks. I guess she is not interested in the announcements. Anyway, I think it would be useful if members could determine or apply settings to determine what communication and status their membership allows: i.e. email communication, accept or not accept callings, ministering and more. Perhaps it would also be good to have these settings as filters to show a report or list of who is on these lists, or use while setting ministering and calling assignments. I hope this helps with the discussion and that this will progress somewhere.

If she doesn't want to remove any communication through email then you could suggest that she removes her email address.

mevans wrote:If she doesn't want to remove any communication through email then you could suggest that she removes her email address.

Many members making this request, likely won't welcome a leader telling them to do this, as they may not even want to access anything related to the church, even a direct link to their user account. I'd hope a member requesting the removal of the email address from their account, should be enough for a clerk to do it for them.

And since many leaders keep their own list of email addresses, removing an email address from a user account often will not stop the member from receiving "any communication". And the member may get frustrated since they did what we told them to, and they still are getting contacted. So realistically, we also need to contact any church leaders/members who might be sending group emails, and individually ask them to remove the member's email from their lists (how many move-outs are still receiving emails from their previous EQ or RS President?).

BrianEdwards wrote:

mevans wrote:If she doesn't want to remove any communication through email then you could suggest that she removes her email address.

Many members making this request, likely won't welcome a leader telling them to do this, as they may not even want to access anything related to the church, even a direct link to their user account. I'd hope a member requesting the removal of the email address from their account, should be enough for a clerk to do it for them.

If a member asks/is ok with having their email removed from their record, I don't see an issue with the clerk doing that. (Assuming you're confident you're talking to the member and not someone impersonating them.)

However, I think most of the requests are for not getting leadership emails - which is not the same thing.

The idea of adding some text to the email that can be manually removed for individual emails seems to me to be the best suggestion made so far.

I would love more insight on this. We had a pretty heated discussion today about it. Is there anything official? After an hour of searching all I've found is this.

https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wiki/No_contact

wmchristensen wrote:I would love more insight on this. We had a pretty heated discussion today about it. Is there anything official?

I assume you're talking about marking the record as a "Do not contact".

Some years back, there was a message sent via MLS that indicated "Do not contact" should not be put on any membership records. I'm not finding anything in the General Handbook, nor the Help Center. It's hard to call a MLS message send to a prior clerk "authoritative".

A few thoughts:

General Handbook 33.6 says:

Membership records are to be kept in the ward where the member lives. Exceptions, which should be few, require the consent of the bishops and stake president(s) involved and the approval of the Office of the First Presidency.

How is that going to be verified unless there's some level of contact to confirm the member is still at that address?

Section 33.6.23:

Special Situations
For special situations that are not addressed in this section, such as records for common-law marriages, leaders should see membership records instructions or contact Church headquarters or the area office.

Personally, I have yet to see any organization where someone is allowed to be a member where they forbid the organization from making any contact. Opting out of some of the social or promotions, sure. But they would have to expect some contact when it comes to matters of their membership.

If you're talking about opting out of the bulk emails sent from LCR, that's a little different.

wmchristensen wrote:I would love more insight on this. We had a pretty heated discussion today about it. Is there anything official? After an hour of searching all I've found is this.

https://tech.churchofjesuschrist.org/wiki/No_contact

That Wiki page was posted as a result of a September 2009 MLS message. There is a discussion about that message in the thread titled "This weekend's tip: No "DNC" on membership records". The MLS message is as official as it ever got.

One option we're experimenting with is to add a calling for the individual in LCR. In the "additional callings" section, you can create a custom calling. We added "DNC" (for do not contact). It shows up just under the name of the individual in LDS tools which could be an alert for ward council leaders to keep them off ministering assignments or missionary visits. I'm not sure if headquarters would frown upon this practice - it does prevent hurt feelings or angry responses from individuals who have pleaded with us to be left alone.

weaveru wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:47 pm I'm not sure if headquarters would frown upon this practice - it does prevent hurt feelings or angry responses from individuals who have pleaded with us to be left alone.

Headquarters would frown on this practice.

One thing that you should do is change the privacy settings for all of the members to "leader only." They will still be visible to leaders, but the visual reminder should be enough to help the leader think through whether this is someone who has requested not to be contacted.

weaveru wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:47 pm One option we're experimenting with is to add a calling for the individual in LCR. In the "additional callings" section, you can create a custom calling. We added "DNC" (for do not contact).

Keep in mind the member will see that as well if they log into Directory or use Member Tools.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 5:52 pm

weaveru wrote: Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:47 pm One option we're experimenting with is to add a calling for the individual in LCR. In the "additional callings" section, you can create a custom calling. We added "DNC" (for do not contact).

Keep in mind the member will see that as well if they log into Directory or use Member Tools.

Am wondering if they would also see the leaders only color recommended in the post above yours?

garystroble wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:39 pm Am wondering if they would also see the leaders only color recommended in the post above yours?

Yes, they would see an orange padlock indicating their information has been set to private. Depending on the nature of the issue, I don't know as it would upset them. If they really want no contact, I don't think it would bother them. But if they welcome social contact from members, but have a dislike of the leaders, they may not be appreciative.

Neither tactic is going solve the problem for a member who dislikes an overly chatty leader using Send a Message.

russellhltn wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 9:29 pm

garystroble wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:39 pm Am wondering if they would also see the leaders only color recommended in the post above yours?

Yes, they would see an orange padlock indicating their information has been set to private. Depending on the nature of the issue, I don't know as it would upset them. If they really want no contact, I don't think it would bother them. But if they welcome social contact from members, but have a dislike of the leaders, they may not be appreciative.

Neither tactic is going solve the problem for a member who dislikes an overly chatty leader using Send a Message.

Perhaps a better solution would be to remove the email address from the individual email field and save it only in the household email address field so they don't get the Send a Message emails. Frankly, in our ward, those who have expressed no contact don't have email addresses known to us anyway or they have removed the email addresses themselves. And since phone numbers are so much in flux these days, less actives are very less likely to have correct phone numbers if the Church has a phone number for them at all.

garystroble wrote: Mon Jan 31, 2022 10:35 pm Perhaps a better solution would be to remove the email address from the individual email field and save it only in the household email address field so they don't get the Send a Message emails.

That would likely break any desired subscriptions. That may work for some people, but again, it would make things worse for those who simply don't want a lot of chatty Send A Message mailings.

russellhltn wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:11 am...it would make things worse for those who simply don't want a lot of chatty Send A Message mailings.

This is a pet peeve of mine. "The problem with the person who is good with a hammer is he tends to see everything as a nail." People who love emails (or texts, or FB or...) tend to think everyone else loves the same. It just doesn't work that way and members deserve better than an easy shotgun approach. At the start of the pandemic, I raised concerns with my Stake President about the effect of chatty ward and stake leaders flooding members with the Send A Message tool given there is no "opt-out" option. He told me my concerns were unfounded...

Can one of you define "chatty" in relation to the Send a Message function? Do you mean too many emails or emails which are excessively wordy, both, or some other secret combination?

For me, "chatty" means too many emails. I have seen some organizations begin sending out several emails each week. For some people, 1 email per week is too many and for others, they would like several per week.

In my opinion, "the customer" defines what is acceptable and "the customer" of the email is the recipient (as opposed to the church programming model where the customer is the church, not the members). It really puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the leaders to understand and reach out to each member at their level (just like the Savior does to each of us). This isn't as easy as blasting out an email to everyone in the ward, but I don't believe that is very effective anyway.

In my experience, a member who has requested "no contact" usually means just that - and the reasons for the request can be varied. We have some who have requested no contact where there are other members who know them personally. Those members are asked to check up on them periodically as a friend in a natural way without it being an "official" contact from the church. Thus, we honor their request for no "official" contact while their friends are still keeping tabs on them in case there is a need where we can help.

garystroble wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 12:23 pm Can one of you define "chatty" in relation to the Send a Message function? Do you mean too many emails or emails which are excessively wordy, both, or some other secret combination?

I agree with davesudweeks: whatever the recipient finds unacceptable. What may be fine for you or I may too much for others. Some members may welcome knowing what's happening in the ward, while others only want to be notified that church has been canceled due to weather. This can be particularly true if much of the message doesn't have anything to do with the individual such as announcements of upcoming primary and youth activities to a single childless sister. Some leaders may see SaM as a "tool of engagement" while the recipients see it as so much gossip.

I'm just talking about members who do want some contact, but not that much.

Clearly, there are some that would be non-members if they just knew the procedure for leaving.

Back in the days of the LUWS, I was the stake executive secretary, and I sent perhaps too many mass emails out to stake members. In those days, I received bounce messages for all the invalid email addresses in the system. One active sister had set her email address to something invalid, like me@none.com. I knew her actual email address, so I asked her why she put an invalid email address on her record. She replied that she didn't have time to read emails from the stake or ward. Well, I had to respect her wishes. To each his/her own.

Bottom line is each unit needs to handle this based on the inspired leadership of their bishop or branch president, and also taking into consideration every individual's needs and requests. One size does not fit all.

Being listed as Private does not mean do not contact. LDS tools is very limited and is a poor application to go off of for this information. I wish LDS tools allowed its own membership to update their own information.

woodruffda wrote: Sun Feb 06, 2022 7:47 pm I wish LDS tools allowed its own membership to update their own information.

Member tools does allows members to update their contact and privacy information. What it doesn't allow is changing the address.

My family is still being contacted after I put our info to private and erased phone numbers. My ward doesn't understand the private do not give out info apparently. We don't want to be contacted. Who do I need to tell this to??

hp78 wrote: Wed May 10, 2023 8:48 pm My family is still being contacted after I put our info to private and erased phone numbers. My ward doesn't understand the private do not give out info apparently. We don't want to be contacted. Who do I need to tell this to??

You'd need to speak with your bishop.

From a IT perspective, there are a couple of things you can do:
- You can unsubscribe from mass mailings (instructions will be at the bottom of each email).
- You can set your privacy settings to "leaders only". But it make take some time to take effect as members may be working off of cached copies. (A sync is required only every 30 days or so.)

But even that does not guarantee "no contact". There is no such formal list. The only sure way is to have your name removed. The bishop can help you though that process.

My family is still being contacted after I put our info to private and erased phone numbers

Are you referring to mass emails still arriving, or are you referring to individualized contact? For direct contact, ward leaders/members may already have your emails/phone numbers in their personal contact lists, and removing access to the info in the church directory won't affect their own contact info. It's quite common for well-meaning church leaders/friends to want to still connect with members they miss seeing in church, and they may have no idea about your personal preferences.

As suggested, speaking directly with your Bishop is always a good decision for cases like yours. Also, if there are one or two "repeat offenders", you can always speak directly with them about not including you in their outreach. Most members are just trying to do their best to not have anyone feel left out or forgotten, and will appreciate your communication with them about your situation.