This weekend's tip: No "DNC" on membership records

Here's a copy of this weekend's tip that will be going to all units in US and Canada. The wiki has been updated as well to show the most current information. Enjoy!

For those that don't have Office 2007 yet, here's the tip in PDF format:

And for those who just want to read it here:

Title: Do Not Contact Membership Records

Description:
Membership records should not be adjusted or coded in MLS using any method designed to show the record as DO NOT CONTACT.
...
Members that no longer wish to be contacted by the Church need to have their wants addressed with sensitivity and care. These cases should be reviewed on an individual basis by the local priesthood leader and a plan made without making adjustments to the member record.

Out of curiosity, what type of adjustments are you talking about? Creating a custom member field? Removing contact info? There needs to be some way to keep track of this. More helpful would be telling us HOW to do it.

crislapi wrote: Out of curiosity, what type of adjustments are you talking about? Creating a custom member field? Removing contact info? There needs to be some way to keep track of this. More helpful would be telling us HOW to do it.

In the past, wards have created a variety of ways of tracking members labeled as "Do Not Contact." A couple of the things you mentioned above have been tried.

The problem is that once people were labeled this way, they were too easy to ignore. I see this new directive as encouragement to continue to seek ways to minister to those who may have said at some time that they do not want to be contacted.

I know that these situations can be challenging, but we should never give up on anyone. I believe that is why we are now not only not being told "HOW to do it"; we are being told NOT to label people this way in MLS in any way.

Do not contact membership records

Whew. For a moment there I thought clerk support was giving us the brush-off!

crislapi wrote:Members that no longer wish to be contacted by the Church need to have their wants addressed with sensitivity and care. These cases should be reviewed on an individual basis by the local priesthood leader and a plan made without making adjustments to the member record.

Yes, but this basically leaves the only option to them of contacting the local leader and requesting their names be removed from the church records. Is that really preferable?

I know that many clerks in my Stake don't
even read the tip of the week, and if they
read it, would only consider this a "tip".

Which authority has given this specific direction,
and will it be followed by a letter sent to the
Bishops ?

Without a letter from the Office of the Presiding
Bishopric, I really don't see many wards following
this direction.

My ward currently keeps a Do_not_contact label
in the primary telephone number field (because
the primary telephone number shows up in the
majority of the ready-made reports), for those
who don't want contact, but also don't want their
names removed from the records of the church either.

If this is a direction from the Brethren, we will of
course follow it. If it is just a "tip", it will be harder
for me to sell my Bishop on the importance of following
the "advice". The whole, "But our ward's needs are
different..." defense is bound to come up. Unfortunately,
"Do not contact" lists will probably be kept outside of MLS,
by local leaders.

- Atticus

atticusewig wrote:Which authority has given this specific direction,
and will it be followed by a letter sent to the
Bishops ?

Without a letter from the Office of the Presiding
Bishopric, I really don't see many wards following
this direction.

I have to agree with this one. The purpose of the clerk is to support the bishopric. If the bishop wants a way to mark "no contacts" the bishop gets it unless someone can change his mind. This isn't something the clerk dreams up on their own. They do it because the leaders ask for it.

I think the way some wards deal with this is to create a special HT/VT district. At least that keeps the monthly visitors off their doorstep.

OTOH, there could be a certain stigma attached to an explicit "do not contact" that is counter productive to our goals. I know some members ask that we put "unlisted" for the phone number to remind those who have it to be careful about who they give it to. That's different.

atticusewig wrote: Without a letter from the Office of the Presiding Bishopric, I really don't see many wards following this direction.

RussellHltn wrote:If the bishop wants a way to mark "no contacts" the bishop gets it unless someone can change his mind.

I would recommend that you review the original MLS message. It was addressed to "All Priesthood Leaders," not just to clerks. This directive comes from the Membership Department, which has responsibility for setting policies regarding how membership records are kept. It does have authority in this area, under the direction of its own priesthood leadership, which ultimately is the same priesthood leadership we all have.

I have no inside knowledge, but I am confident such a message was not sent out casually. I would be very wary of simply disregarding this; rather all priesthood leaders and those who support them should carefully consider the spirit as well as the letter of these instructions and seek to "remember" and "nourish" all members of the Church.

crislapi wrote:Yes, but this basically leaves the only option to them of contacting the local leader and requesting their names be removed from the church records. Is that really preferable?

I'm very tempted to say "yes." It would certainly make things much easier for church leaders and administrators to allow those who no longer want to be members of the church (many of them already thinking they are no longer members) to have their names removed. Having said that, each case should be carefully dealt with individually by the bishopric - I'm sure that there are opportunities not only for re-activation but also for missionary work, as many of these are part-member families. ... but that would be a topic for another thread.

There are certainly other options to modifying the membership record. It was already mentioned that these families can all be assigned to a special HT/VT district. Also, if MLS lists are restricted to only ward leaders, and the only "public" list is from the LUWS, then names can be removed from the "public" list without modifying the membership records.

RussellHltn wrote:I know some members ask that we put "unlisted" for the phone number to remind those who have it to be careful about who they give it to. That's different.

And even that is a problem. As a well meaning, but naive new ward clerk, I cross-checked several membership records with the local phone book and supplied missing phone numbers and addresses. A few of those had been removed on purpose. Some were listed in MLS as "unlisted" even though they were published in the phone book. Looking back, I should have checked with someone before making the correction, but I was new and naive.

I like the new tip. I think it is spot on. I like the idea of restricting published membership lists to LUWS because of its greater control over what is displayed. I like the idea of creating special home teaching districts to manage special situations. Neither of them runs afoul of the published tip, IMO.

I have been tempted to suggest moving the phone number to the "secondary" position in MLS and leaving the "primary" phone number blank, and also moving the address to the "mail" address position and leaving the main address fields blank. Those have the benefit reducing (maybe only slightly) accidental unwanted contact. But I feel that even those suggestions or "work-arounds" are contrary to the intended counsel.

I can't help but wonder if the counsel regarding visiting members were followed more diligently (see page 166 of CHI book 2) if these "do not contact" situations would be greatly reduced.

jbh001 wrote:I like the new tip. I think it is spot on. I like the idea of restricting published membership lists to LUWS because of its greater control over what is displayed. I like the idea of creating special home teaching districts to manage special situations. Neither of them runs afoul of the published tip, IMO.

I don't see where the tip covers anything about restricting published membership lists to LUWS. MLS still provides for general ward directories. The tricky issue of when to suppress publication of information that members (even active members) have requested to be private is not handled well in MLS. It seems that further guidance -- and possibly some enhancement to the software -- would be helpful there.

But that is a different matter than the Do Not Contact situation. I agree that the tip here is spot on, and I also think that managing such situations with special home teaching assignments, either by district or companionship, does not contravene the published tip. The last time I looked, that is what our quorums have been doing.

boomerbubba wrote:I don't see where the tip covers anything about restricting published membership lists to LUWS. MLS still provides for general ward directories. The tricky issue of when to suppress publication of information that members (even active members) have requested to be private is not handled well in MLS.

Correct, the tip does not. But as you pointed out LUWS has flexibility when needing to suppress information at a member's request. MLS does not, thus the membership record hacks. This is why I like the the idea of sending people to LUWS for a general ward list instead of using MLS.

I have a feeling all of this will start changing soon as the updated modules to LUWS currently under development get rolled out. I also expect that future enhancements to MLS are also in the works.

Alan_Brown wrote:I would recommend that you review the original MLS message. It was addressed to "All Priesthood Leaders," not just to clerks.

Looking at the post and not the PDF, I missed that. In practical terms, I think this would require the clerk to print it off and hand it to the bishop - assuming a clerk as looked at the weekly "tip".

Is this is the first time this level of communication has been sent out via MLS messaging? This is fine as a secondary way to communicate, but I find it lacking if it's the primary one for this message.

crislapi wrote:Yes, but this basically leaves the only option to them of contacting the local leader and requesting their names be removed from the church records. Is that really preferable?

In certain situations, the answer is yes. I know that if I were faced with someone angry at being contacted I would strongly consider letting them know about this option.

The handbook outlines the procedure and it needs to be something from the member in writing. So I'm not too concerned about it happening casually. I think we need to respect the agency of the person. If they no longer wish to be a member, we need to accept that and act accordingly.

RussellHltn wrote:Is this is the first time this level of communication has been sent out via MLS messaging? This is fine as a secondary way to communicate, but I find it lacking if it's the primary one for this message.

This is not the first time. And it may still come out in printed form through regular channels.

However, this particular message concerning Do Not Contacts is not new guidance or information, though it may seem new to a clerk who has been functioning under a bishop who wishes to hide a few paper membership records in his desk instead of in the official file box.

But, I have received instruction from many a general authority reminding that those who are baptized have agreed to be contacted periodically by the Church, and that there is no such thing as a Do Not Contact. The basis for this is actually scriptural (D&C 20).

And I am equally aware that few bishops even know what the Handbook tells them to tell the non-member parent(s) of a baby being blessed, and that fewer actually do it (see CHI p. 32).

Yet, I am still wary of messages that come through MLS. I think they are intended to be helpful, but a message sent a few months ago shows that they do not receive the same care, attention, and level of review as messages that come printed through formal channels.

RussellHltn wrote:I know that if I were faced with someone angry at being contacted I would strongly consider letting them know about this option [name removal].

I felt the same way as a young priest when we went to home teach a family where the father met us at the door and we were looking down the wrong end of a shotgun.

When I returned from my mission, the father thanked us for coming. He and his family had been sealed in the temple.

This is not the way it usually turns out, I realize, and I have personally had less fortunate results. But, I share this story anyway, as one of the highlights of my own home teaching experience.

RussellHltn wrote:Looking at the post and not the PDF, I missed that. In practical terms, I think this would require the clerk to print it off and hand it to the bishop - assuming a clerk as looked at the weekly "tip".

I've printed it off, and posted it on the bulletin board of the stake clerks' office. Sometime tomorrow I'm going to email the ward clerks that have something like that visible in their respective Directories of Members (some do several times), to please remove it posthaste. We shall see what their response will be to that. At one point there was at least one temple recommend holder in the stake whose membership record had "DNC" as part of the telephone number.

I also have some concerns about this message. I'm a little bit concerned about the fact that the message cites no authority. (There's a reason why many communications come from the first presidency.)

This thread speaks of the message as a "tip", but this does not seem accurate, as it is not worded as a "tip". It is worded as a directive or policy statement. (What is it then?)

Considerations of the importance of a "Do Not Contact" list seem far too shallow here. I, for one, agree with many who might feel that "Do Not Contact" lists have been abused. However, they can also be important. Some individuals can be violent (I see a shotgun mentioned above). Other individuals can have violent relatives. Among certain muslims, having members inadvertently make contact might mean the difference between life and death.

The last time I surrendered to the idea of putting somebody on a Do Not Contact list, it was due to a long history of hostile behavior perpetrated against home teachers. On my personal contact attempt, all went well the first time I visited (member in question wasn't home though, just a polite acquaintance), but on the second time around two apparently unstable individuals on the property called the police.

Now, this sort of thing has to be noted. We NEED a way of recording this information for the benefit of other members who might visit and for the benefit of the members who might be visited.

Really a Do Not Contact list gives the wrong idea. I agree with that. In my area, we were directed to follow up on Do Not Contacts (generally, individuals who had requested no contact) at least once a year. Now really that may not be good enough for some individuals in special circumstances, but it does serve an important need by helping the Bishop, Elders, etc. manage their stewardship. It helps decide who may not get the home teachers (we rarely have enough of them) in favor of those who might be better served by those resources.

Now, one interesting point is that the communication does not actually state that "Do Not Contact" lists are forbidden. It simply says that they can't be maintained by modifying the member's record. Hence, we can hack a list by creating a "Do Not Contact" HT zone/route. (Would that screw up our statistics?)

This would seem to suggest that the issue is with flagging the record in such a way that it might be misunderstood when transferred. That makes sense, but if that is so, it should have been made more clear. Such a hack would seem contrary to the poor doctrinal basis provided in the letter however.

Members who request no contact are usually not worried about privacy issues (which is the only concern addressed by the wiki). They generally have no notion of such matters as ward lists or websites. They are typically inactives who are simply irritated by monthly visits. (Possibly temporarily irritated, but irritated nonetheless.)

If "Do Not Contact" has become politically incorrect, (and it *is* too easy to misunderstand) can we use the annotation "Annual Contact Only", "Do Not Contact Until 2010", "Threat to Life if Contacted", "Violent Relative", or "Violent Tendencies"?

It is hard to know what we can do or ought to do when we are not really given a solid idea of what is really wrong.

seanmcox wrote: Now, one interesting point is that the communication does not actually state that "Do Not Contact" lists are forbidden. It simply says that they can't be maintained by modifying the member's record. Hence, we can hack a list by creating a "Do Not Contact" HT zone/route. (Would that screw up our statistics?)

It makes no difference to HT statistics how the households are arranged into districts. The base number for reporting HT is the total number of families in the ward. The top number is the number of families visited.

However, I would not use the term "hack" in this regard, and in the spirit of this weekend's message, I would drop the "Do Not Contact" term in any context. I would note that some wards do create a HT route or routes for people who don't currently wish to be contacted, and then assign it to the HP group leader or EQ president or a particularly creative, faithful home teaching companionship so that some contact can be made. It would probably not be a regular home teaching lesson, but there are often other ways to help people feel cared for.

seanmcox wrote: If "Do Not Contact" has become politically incorrect, (and it *is* too easy to misunderstand) can we use the annotation "Annual Contact Only", "Do Not Contact Until 2010", "Threat to Life if Contacted", "Violent Relative", or "Violent Tendencies"?

I don't see how it has anything to do with being "politically incorrect." It is a renewed emphasis on ministering to the one and not neglecting anyone. The way I read the directive, "Membership records should not be adjusted or coded in MLS using any method designed to show the record as DO NOT CONTACT," these are all just variations on the same theme and should not be connected to a membership record.

For records that have critical concerns where a bishop would need to talk to a new bishop if records are moved to another ward, there are approved mechanisms for placing a Move restriction on a record.

seanmcox wrote: It is hard to know what we can do or ought to do...

It seems pretty clear what you are to do: "Members that no longer wish to be contacted by the Church need to have their wants addressed with sensitivity and care. These cases should be reviewed on an individual basis by the local priesthood leader and a plan made without making adjustments to the member record."

There are no blanket statements, and no detailed guidance, because local priesthood leaders are supposed to make a plan on an individual basis.

seanmcox wrote:I also have some concerns about this message. I'm a little bit concerned about the fact that the message cites no authority.

Any message sent from Church headquarters through the MLS messaging system such as the one being addressed in this thread has the purpose of informing MLS users as to the use of MLS. Authority does not need to be cited. There can be no other source than Church headquarters.

seanmcox wrote:This thread speaks of the message as a "tip", but this does not seem accurate, as it is not worded as a "tip". It is worded as a directive or policy statement. (What is it then?)

You will find that many tips in the past have been restatements of policy or procedure as a reminder that needs reinforcement. I would consider this tip in the same manner. It is a reminder of the procedure that should be followed when keeping records of members in MLS. In this case the reminder is not to make adjustments to membership records or for the records to be coded in MLS in any manner to identify the member as DO NOT CONTACT.

seanmcox wrote:Considerations of the importance of a "Do Not Contact" list seem far too shallow here. I, for one, agree with many who might feel that "Do Not Contact" lists have been abused. However, they can also be important. Some individuals can be violent (I see a shotgun mentioned above). Other individuals can have violent relatives. Among certain muslims, having members inadvertently make contact might mean the difference between life and death.

The issue of the tip is not to prevent priesthood leaders from identifying those individuals that want their needs from being addressed with sensitivity and care. The tip is not addressing or readressing the permissability of DO NOT CONTACT lists. It is stating the procedures that are acceptable in MLS. Granted, one can surmise the connection to a some Church policy since MLS closely mirrors Church policy. Extending this tip beyond anything else other than MLS procedure is pure conjecture.

seanmcox wrote:Now, one interesting point is that the communication does not actually state that "Do Not Contact" lists are forbidden. It simply says that they can't be maintained by modifying the member's record. Hence, we can hack a list by creating a "Do Not Contact" HT zone/route. (Would that screw up our statistics?)

Arranging members into home teaching zones do not in any way affect the unit's statistics. Either they did or did not receive a home teaching visit. The question about statistics should not even be a concern. When statistics are placed ahead of the members then there is a real missunderstanding as to the purpose of those numbers. Having low home teaching numbers with a large number of inactives with special contact needs should be of little concern as long as those members willing to receive home teachers are visited.

seanmcox wrote:This would seem to suggest that the issue is with flagging the record in such a way that it might be misunderstood when transferred. That makes sense, but if that is so, it should have been made more clear.

When guidance is provided from Church leaders the reason for doing so may not be stated or explained. It would be nice to know why but not necessary to carry out the procedure.

seanmcox wrote:Members who request no contact are usually not worried about privacy issues (which is the only concern addressed by the wiki).

The first part of this statement is a bold, reckless and highly speculative statement that cannot be supported by fact. I would not like to be the one to make that reckless assumption and then be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. The second part of the statement is also false. The wiki states

Members who request no contact may not want their phone number, address or other information shown on the ward website.

This is an additional consideration for members not wanting contact and not the only concern.

seanmcox wrote:It is hard to know what we can do or ought to do when we are not really given a solid idea of what is really wrong.

It is quite clear that the membership record should not be adjusted or coded in MLS using any method designed to show the record as DO NOT CONTACT. What is wrong is adjusting the membership record or coding in MLS to show the record as DO NOT CONTACT.

seanmcox wrote:We NEED a way of recording this information for the benefit of other members who might visit and for the benefit of the members who might be visited.

. . . can we use the annotation "Annual Contact Only", "Do Not Contact Until 2010", "Threat to Life if Contacted", "Violent Relative", or "Violent Tendencies"?

In my own personal opinion, some of those annotations will get you sued.

While there may be a need to record this information, I think the memo is a reminder that using the membership record is not the place to do it.

As I mentioned earlier, our ward will be following the
directive. It is probably a re-statement of something
official, but it would be nice if the local units didn't have
to look up the source material.

In LUWS, members can op-out on disclosure of information
in degrees (ex. Do not show my Phone number, Don't show
my address, don't show anything, buster!)

It would be nice for MLS to mimic this functionality for
some of the pre-generated reports. When I print out
an Abbrev. Ward Directory for someone in the clerk's office,
it should suppress information about members who opt-out.
This opt-out info should be bi-directional with the LUWS.

The problem with the omission of opt-out controls, is that
the extreme cases of people who do not want contact
are not properly communicated. I have yet to find a ward
where information is freely shared. So without someway
to mark or omit certain people from specific lists, we
put our members in harm's way. But fortunately, we have
God on our side.

- Atticus

atticusewig wrote:I have yet to find a ward
where information is freely shared. So without someway
to mark or omit certain people from specific lists, we
put our members in harm's way. But fortunately, we have
God on our side.

Most directories should be going only to leaders who, through Priesthood Executive Committee meetings and Ward Council, should be aware of those members who do not desire to be contacted. These are the same meetings where plans to actually contact (or not contact) the member would be made.

The LUWS is generally available, and has the ability to restrict data. Since the MLS directories are not normally widely distributed, the need to restrict data, while still present, is not as compelling.

I do fully agree with you that it would be wonderful to have a way to suppress certain information in MLS directories. The workaround of using spreadsheets or other means is time consuming and should not be necessary.

lajackson wrote:Most directories should be going only to leaders who, through Priesthood Executive Committee meetings and Ward Council, should be aware of those members who do not desire to be contacted. These are the same meetings where plans to actually contact (or not contact) the member would be made.

There is a more general issue than that. Even if the "Ward Directory" report is not generally disseminated, there are a plethora of reports in MLS that can contain member contact information. These reports might be given to home and visiting teachers (the most likely to make contact) or even youth and primary leaders. Just as callings are spread throughout the ward, so is information incidental to those callings.

I am not saying I have an answer to the tricky question of which callings should be informed of such special situations, or how they should be informed. I am just stating scope of the problem. We do know that whatever the answer is, it is not to annotate the member record in MLS with such a status.

seanmcox wrote:... can we use the annotation ... "Threat to Life if Contacted" ... "Violent Tendencies"?

If these are real scenarios, then that bishop should likely review the handbook (see CHI book 1 (2006), page 109, item 3).

jdlessley wrote:The issue of the tip is not to prevent priesthood leaders from identifying those individuals that want their needs from being addressed with sensitivity and care. The tip is not addressing or readressing the permissability of DO NOT CONTACT lists. It is stating the procedures that are acceptable in MLS. Granted, one can surmise the connection to a some Church policy since MLS closely mirrors Church policy. Extending this tip beyond anything else other than MLS procedure is pure conjecture.

Conjecture just happens to be the way we fill in the holes in our understanding left by information gaps. Now, hopefully, the spirit steps in and clears things up, but at the same time, we are also expected to exercise our due diligence and seek out what information we can. (Which is part of what I have been doing here.)

jdlessley wrote:When guidance is provided from Church leaders the reason for doing so may not be stated or explained. It would be nice to know why but not necessary to carry out the procedure.

Assuming the procedure was communicated clearly and understood correctly, and I'm not the first person to have sought clarification here.

jdlessley wrote:The first part of this statement is a bold, reckless and highly speculative statement that cannot be supported by fact. I would not like to be the one to make that reckless assumption and then be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. The second part of the statement is also false. The wiki statesThis is an additional consideration for members not wanting contact and not the only concern.

I think you overextend my assertion. My statement is well qualified, and is thus not really all that bold or wreckless at all. Oddly enough, your supposed "additional consideration" is not really an additional consideration at all. It is the same privacy concern. Being worried about the publication of PII is a privacy protection issue. (Being annoyed by home teachers stopping by is not here being considered as a privacy issue, per se, though perhaps I can see some cause for confusion.)

jdlessley wrote:It is quite clear that the membership record should not be adjusted or coded in MLS using any method designed to show the record as DO NOT CONTACT. What is wrong is adjusting the membership record or coding in MLS to show the record as DO NOT CONTACT.

Right, but as I have mentioned there are other ways to do nearly equivalent things, and it is necessary to know more in order to determine whether those other things also qualify for the prohibition.

For example, based on the communication received it would seem logical that redistricting to hack a no contact list should be forbidden.

Perhaps this doesn't affect the "member record" per se, but that's all a matter of how systems engineers decided to organize data. It really has very little to do with what we might conjecture from the citation of Moroni provided as context for the policy.

If we take this context at face value it implies not only that we shouldn't tag member records as "do not contact", but that we should also not use any other method to indicate a strict avoidance of contact. This may not be within the purview, authority, scope, bounds, whatever, of the specific body within church headquarters which had this statement issued, but on the local level, it is nonetheless important because our call to apply correct principles is not restricted to MLS.

Hence, when we are given direction, and the principle seems unclear, then it behooves us to inquire more into the principle so that we might arrive at a sound understanding.

Now, I happen to agree that a strict "do not contact" list is a bad idea very generally. Nevertheless, I have never used a "strict" "do not contact" list. I never had the slightest insight into how a "do not contact" list was created and thought that the lists I had seen in the past which said "do not contact" were created due to the existence of some standard "do not contact" flag in the database. I discover that this was not the case, and if not, I wonder as to why such a term was ever used by my former units.

Anyhow, based on Moroni's comments as a context for the policy statement, it would seem to me that playing around with districts in order to hack a "do not contact" list is a bad idea. Nevertheless, I find in this thread, that such a procedure has received praise, and I don't understand why. (Though I would like to.)

On the other hand, creating alternative markings (which I came up with off the top of my head, but needn't be so alarming) would seem to be permissible as it does not create a "do not contact" list at all, but instead provides a method for individualized handling of special contact considerations, which would seem to be in line with the policy. Nevertheless, my hypothetical procedure is criticized.

I do not discount the possibility that I am missing something, but telling me that things are clear does not make them clear for me, and picking apart incidentals is also not helpful.

seanmcox wrote:On the other hand, creating alternative markings (which I came up with off the top of my head, but needn't be so alarming) would seem to be permissible as it does not create a "do not contact" list at all, but instead provides a method for individualized handling of special contact considerations, which would seem to be in line with the policy. Nevertheless, my hypothetical procedure is criticized.

OK, so I'm a bit confused with your idea. How do you propose a method of "creating alternative markings", without actually making the MLS record "adjusted or coded" (as stated in the document)?

seanmcox wrote:Anyhow, based on Moroni's comments as a context for the policy statement, it would seem to me that playing around with districts in order to hack a "do not contact" list is a bad idea. Nevertheless, I find in this thread, that such a procedure has received praise, and I don't understand why. (Though I would like to.)

If the quorums, under direction of the bishop, actually do treat a subset of households with special care -- for example, with special home teaching districts or companionships assigned to quorum leaders -- those home teaching assignments certainly should be recorded in MLS. (It is not possible to assign a home teacher or supervisor named "Do Not Contact.")

Mikerowaved wrote:OK, so I'm a bit confused with your idea. How do you propose a method of "creating alternative markings", without actually making the MLS record "adjusted or coded" (as stated in the document)?

The memo/tip/policy/whatever does not say we are not allowed to mark records. It says we are not allowed to mark records in any way that would "show the record as DO NOT CONTACT". (or any equivalent)

I am not saying we should have a list that says "Do Not Contact", in our Ward, we have a Home Teaching District set up under the Bishopric that is a list of people who do not want contact or want their names to be removed from the records of the church. It simply says District 4. No ones feeling get hurt if they see the reports.

But My concerns are that those in the assigned (District) should be excluded from the Home Teaching Statistics. Because they are included in the monthly Home Teaching statistics. We always hover around 50% Home Teaching. When in fact our Home Teaching with out them is about 78%. I understand it is not about the numbers. That being said, The people assigned to the Bishopric's District, have asked the Church not to contact them, they are not assigned Home Teachers due to that fact.

Of the Districts that I am directly responsible for we all have a driving desire to get our home teaching done, just seems like there would be a way to show true home teaching numbers. Doesn't seem the Church is getting true data this way.

rickgwilliams wrote:I am not saying we should have a list that says "Do Not Contact", in our Ward, we have a Home Teaching District set up under the Bishopric that is a list of people who do not want contact or want their names to be removed from the records of the church. It simply says District 4. No ones feeling get hurt if they see the reports.

But My concerns are that those in the assigned (District) should be excluded from the Home Teaching Statistics. Because they are included in the monthly Home Teaching statistics. We always hover around 50% Home Teaching. When in fact our Home Teaching with out them is about 78%. I understand it is not about the numbers. That being said, The people assigned to the Bishopric's District, have asked the Church not to contact them, they are not assigned Home Teachers due to that fact.

Of the Districts that I am directly responsible for we all have a driving desire to get our home teaching done, just seems like there would be a way to show true home teaching numbers. Doesn't seem the Church is getting true data this way.

I think there is a dychotomy of understanding about the doctrine behind home and visiting teaching and the purpose for keeping track of the monthly results and then reporting those numbers to Church headquarters. On the one hand you say you "understand it is not about the numbers." But then you want to create an unrealistic image of the success of teaching and visiting all the members of the Church in your unit's stewardship.

I am sure you have heard the great statement "Doctrine can change behavior quicker than talking about behavior will." So we have to ask ourselves what the doctrine is in doing home and visiting teaching. That doctrine is of course that we all are the children of Heavenly Father and that we came here to gain our mortal bodies, prove ourselves and return to live as He is in our eternal families. Tracking home and visiting teaching numbers is not an end unto itself and should not be the goal of our efforts. Rather it is seaking to reach out to teach, edify, support, and love one another so that we can reach the goal and purpose for which we have come here to be.

Yes it is difficult to reach out to those who accepted the Gospel and now for whatever reasons seek to pursue a course of life distanced from that very same Gospel.

Let us understand the purpose of the home and visiting teaching numbers and the reports sent to Church headquarters. It is not to measure anyone's success or failure. The Brethren leading Christ's Church need to know in as accurate a measure as possible the status of the home teaching and visiting teaching programs. It gives them a metric as to the status of the membership. Hiding the success of reaching out to all the members of the Church in your or my portion of the Lord's vineyard will not provide the information needed by the Brethren. The "true home teaching numbers" includes all the members visited and taught and not just those willing to have the Gospel in their lives.

I drafted a reply similar to jdlessley's, and so I will only add a few things to what he has said.

I agree in that I don't think what you are proposing is "true home teaching numbers." What happens when you hit "100%" according to your proposed reporting? Is the stewardship of your stake, ward, quorum/group, or even yours individually now fulfilled? My personal answer is no, because there are still those on the ward records not being looked after.

As for the people requesting their names to be removed, it is your ward's responsibility to promptly fulfill that request. The Church Handbook outlines the correct procedure for this process.

I highly doubt our priesthood leadership in Salt Lake are only interested in "true" Home Teaching numbers that exclude "Do Not Contact" members and families. Your local ward and stake leadership have the authority and inspiration to decide matters like this. But I will say I have seen some wards and stakes make decisions that help Do Not Contact people get ministered to and looked after, even if not through official sit-down, here's-a-lesson home teaching visits. And those local leaders felt justified in counting the visit as Home Teaching if the visit had substance and the members were cared for, even if they didn't know they were being watched over.

As we consider how to minister to those who are difficult to contact, it is helpful to recall President Monson's counsel in the Ensign article Sugar Beets and the Worth of a Soul.

So, this topic came up yesterday while we were in the clerks office. Our membership clerk went through every record and removed the "DNC" in the phone number field (we had a bunch).

He then created a list outside of MLS and put all the old "DNC" household names onto that list and I think he had planned to just keep it up-to-date.

Would it be easier if he created HT/VT Districts, put these households into those districts, and then got rid of the separate list? Is that encouraged? Is it okay? Should he just maintain a list outside of MLS?

I suppose the answer seems to be, great care needs to be taken with this and work with the Bishop regarding the stewardship of the members and their records.

In other words, it doesn't seem like there is a set answer for every unit. Instead it seems the Ward Clerk, Membership Clerk, and the Bishop should counsel with each other and the Lord on how best to handle the situation in our ward.

Thanks~!