Leaders ability to track member outreach, circumstances

Having worked in sales and client management, I find it interesting that there is no way to input ward member contact data. Meaning, inputting notes of when you spoke to a member and capturing the jest of the interaction, etc for future leaders to see.
When a new set of leaders is called, it's a challenge understanding what type of interaction has transpired with a member over the years. I've been in a ward outside of Utah for two years, luckily I have a counselor who has lived in the general area for decades. Otherwise, I would stumbling around trying to figure some of this out and possibly offending people in the process. I understand we should and are guided by the spirit, but part of doing the right thing involves being informed and having some background or history.

As far as I know there is no official answer about why this kind of thing doesn't exist. So this is just my personal speculation (which may very well be wrong). But my guess is that the church is very concerned about conforming to privacy laws in the many different jurisdictions it functions in. If any kind of free form notes were allowed in a membership record the church would have a hard time ensuring that is conforming with some of those laws, particularly in areas with much more strict laws than the US has. Even if it provided training on the appropriate kinds of information to enter, it would be hard to enforce, potentially leaving the church open to significant legal or civil liability.

Even disregarding legal issues, there is potential for very bad PR problems. If local leaders enter information on personal hardships, moral issues or or other private information, critics could frame it as the church creating a database of private information on members. Even though the local leaders would generally do it just to better minister to them, many outside the church (and possibly many inside the church) could see it as inappropriate (or even sinister).

There are very often efficiency trade offs that have to be made because of privacy and security. My guess is that this is one of those cases.

winwardut wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:03 am Having worked in sales and client management, I find it interesting that there is no way to input ward member contact data. Meaning, inputting notes of when you spoke to a member and capturing the jest of the interaction, etc for future leaders to see.
When a new set of leaders is called, it's a challenge understanding what type of interaction has transpired with a member over the years. I've been in a ward outside of Utah for two years, luckily I have a counselor who has lived in the general area for decades. Otherwise, I would stumbling around trying to figure some of this out and possibly offending people in the process. I understand we should and are guided by the spirit, but part of doing the right thing involves being informed and having some background or history.

I have mentioned adding something like you are talking about. No idea why the church won't add features that we need to effectively administer at the stake and ward level but they apparently won't and there is zero communication. So instead of keeping potentially sensitive information locked down to those who have a need to know based on their calling we are recreating pseudo-LCR functionality in Google Sheets and Google Docs that are administered by people who don't have a clue what security is and in many times either wide open or when restricted not kept current. I have about 10 different documents I have to keep up with because some stuff is bishopric only, some stuff is full ward council, some stuff is bishopric and EQ/RS presidents only, some stuff is wide open, some stuff is bishopric + stake presidency, and so on.... Today I've updated three different spreadsheets and three different Google Docs (two of which are still open on my other screen). Additionally, I manage or help manage three different Google Drives with these documents in them.

I'm also not privy to the reasons behind the church's LCR design decisions, but my observations largely match those @eblood66 highlighted.

My take:
Legal-
Data privacy laws may have many far reaching [and often unintended] consequences. These laws are not uniform, frequently change, and can differ greatly between country, state, and even sub-jurisdictions.

The church directs that confidential information must not be stored outside the church's systems. That isn't a suggestion, it's an instruction. Any choosing to violate that directive are potentially exposing themselves [and any who provided data] to personal lawsuits. Keep in mind the definitions of personal and confidential information can vary greatly [between privacy law jurisdictions] and often don't align/ are broader than what the typical member would consider to be personal or confidential information.

Often, storing [even potentially] sensitive information is not worth the risk to the organization storing it.

Spiritual-
Members, circumstances, hearts, leaders, change.
Following the Spirit is always the best plan. If you're a new leader, meeting the member will help you understand the present state. Chatting with the ministering Brothers/Sisters before the visit can also be helpful.

mdigi wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:22 pm I'm also not privy to the reasons behind the church's LCR design decisions, but my observations largely match those @eblood66 highlighted.

My take:
Legal-
Data privacy laws may have many far reaching [and often unintended] consequences. These laws are not uniform, frequently change, and can differ greatly between country, state, and even sub-jurisdictions.

The church directs that confidential information must not be stored outside the church's systems. That isn't a suggestion, it's an instruction. Any choosing to violate that directive are potentially exposing themselves [and any who provided data] to personal lawsuits. Keep in mind the definitions of personal and confidential information can vary greatly [between privacy law jurisdictions] and often don't align/ are broader than what the typical member would consider to be personal or confidential information.

Often, storing [even potentially] sensitive information is not worth the risk to the organization storing it.

Spiritual-
Members, circumstances, hearts, leaders, change.
Following the Spirit is always the best plan. If you're a new leader, meeting the member will help you understand the present state. Chatting with the ministering Brothers/Sisters before the visit can also be helpful.

The church enables some confidential information to be attached to a record but that is only viewable at a very high level. The problem is you have just about every auxiliary and bishoprics operating outside of the church system because they have no real choice to operate with any level of efficiency outside of the church system. I guarantee you if you go to any EQ/RS/YW/SS presidency or bishopric where there is a good level of information sharing going on they are operating on Google Drive (or something similar, but most likely Google Drive because it's free and wide-spread). Even personal emails are outside the church system.

While a CRM system is a great tool in business, in a church situation where you're recording personal lives along with struggles, it's a huge liability. I don't know as we'll ever see such a tool come down until the second coming. Sure, local leader will keep notes, but exactly what it contains will be a mystery for anyone contemplating a lawsuit considering there's nothing in the handbook or even standardized forms. It would be hard to hold "big church" responsible for any complaints.

While I have not heard anything, it wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the big drivers in the change to Ministering was doing away with recording what families were getting monthly attention from home and visiting teachers. The only thing being recorded now is if a internal meeting took place. A meeting where information was passed and notes may or may not have been kept. And if they were kept, they may or may not be legible and understandable to someone else.

tonynocchi wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 3:31 pm I have about 10 different documents I have to keep up with because some stuff is bishopric only, some stuff is full ward council, some stuff is bishopric and EQ/RS presidents only, some stuff is wide open, some stuff is bishopric + stake presidency, and so on.... Today I've updated three different spreadsheets and three different Google Docs (two of which are still open on my other screen). Additionally, I manage or help manage three different Google Drives with these documents in them.

And should this all go horribly wrong because of a member who takes great offense, whoever made that decision to store information and manage it that way is likely to find themselves pushed in front of the preverbal bus. There's nothing in church instructions suggesting to do this. The church will have to distance itself from it to protect itself.

I understand why people who are used to using computers want to do it this way, but they're taking on a lot of hidden risk.

russellhltn wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 2:16 am

tonynocchi wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 3:31 pm I have about 10 different documents I have to keep up with because some stuff is bishopric only, some stuff is full ward council, some stuff is bishopric and EQ/RS presidents only, some stuff is wide open, some stuff is bishopric + stake presidency, and so on.... Today I've updated three different spreadsheets and three different Google Docs (two of which are still open on my other screen). Additionally, I manage or help manage three different Google Drives with these documents in them.

And should this all go horribly wrong because of a member who takes great offense, whoever made that decision to store information and manage it that way is likely to find themselves pushed in front of the preverbal bus. There's nothing in church instructions suggesting to do this. The church will have to distance itself from it to protect itself.

I understand why people who are used to using computers want to do it this way, but they're taking on a lot of hidden risk.

People are doing this because it's the most effective/efficient way to do it. Our weekly Bishopric meeting would probably be monthly and a lot less efficient if we didn't have the technology to meet over Zoom, share screens and documents, and make updates on the spot. We've had members of the meeting 'dial in' from work, while traveling, etc....

My wife is the RS President and they used to struggle to find a time that works to hold a monthly RS presidency meeting because two of the four had jobs. Think of how much time is being saved and how much more is being done because technology makes the administrative overhead easy so leaders can focus on the ministering aspects and spend more time with their families.

Also, think of this from the perspective of a highly-transient ward like a military ward (which mine is). Of the prior bishops my ward has had, only one of them is still in the ward (going back to 1986). Three of ten bishopric first counselors are still in the ward, no bishopric second counselors, three of the clerks (counting assistant ward clerks), and two of the executive secretaries (one of which is serving again as the executive secretary). But we also have non-military members that have been been in the ward since 1986. This is based on the Historical Information in the Unit Information.

Sure, the Church ran before computers. We had General Conference before it could be broadcast world-wide via satellite. People are going to use the tools available to try to do the best they can and the Church can either embrace this and empower members to be more effective, discourage it and hamstring their effectiveness, or sit by the wayside and let things happen. I feel like they've chose the last option when it comes to administering at the stake and ward levels while embracing it (although not very effectively) when it comes to other aspects (e.g. Circles App, Member Tools App).

Another concern with keeping shared notes that hasn't been mentioned on this thread: What if one of those members with extensive notes becomes a leader and now sees everything that's been written about them? I hope that if wards are keeping these kind of shared notes, they're not including anything that they would be embarrassed to show to the member. And I hope it's not in a shared folder that's accessible to a large number of past and current leaders.

sbradshaw wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 12:31 pm Another concern with keeping shared notes that hasn't been mentioned on this thread: What if one of those members with extensive notes becomes a leader and now sees everything that's been written about them? I hope that if wards are keeping these kind of shared notes, they're not including anything that they would be embarrassed to show to the member. And I hope it's not in a shared folder that's accessible to a large number of past and current leaders.

There's a lot of hope there and I'd be willing to bet that in a lot of situations folders/documents are either wide open or they have legacy leaders with access. In our ward the bishopric and RS folders are locked down pretty well but the only reason the RS folder is locked down is because I manage it for my wife who is the RS President (I am also on the Ward Council so it's not like I'm seeing stuff I shouldn't see). If my wife had to manage it...it would probably be wide open, as she's pretty technologically challenged while my education and work was in network security (among other things).

But that's the problem I've mentioned here and in the thread about consolidating feedback for LCR. The Church is basically 'outsourcing' functionality and security to other platforms because of the limitations LCR poses to leaders. Leaders are doing the best they can and that means using other tools to collaborate. Our bishopric meeting is basically conducted on Zoom using a shared Google Doc and referencing multiple other Google Docs or Google Sheets to try to turn date from LCR into information and ultimately knowledge to guide our focus. We rarely touch LCR during our bishopric meetings unless we need something specific or we may reference a report. There's 504 members in our ward.

sbradshaw wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 12:31 pm What if one of those members with extensive notes becomes a leader and now sees everything that's been written about them?

That is also a very important point to keep in mind.
A member doesn't even necessarily need to be called as a leader to potentially read notes about them -- major data breaches (Google, Azure, AWS, ...) routinely happen in today's world.

Technology can definitely make our lives easier, but easier often yields worse results for privacy/security. I would definitely closely follow the instruction in the General Handbook, 38.8.31

If private/confidential matters or notes need to be discussed, I would recommend having those discussions/sync-ups in-person within a private setting.

tonynocchi wrote: Fri Jan 03, 2025 7:33 am Sure, the Church ran before computers. We had General Conference before it could be broadcast world-wide via satellite.

Hang in there, Brother. Things are slowly improving.
It is definitely a great blessing being able ot watch GC via streaming (and older addresses on-demand) these days

Re: the OP, I think we all sympathize greatly with the burden leaders face when trying to ensure that members who are going through challenges that last a while, are not disadvantaged when there are leadership changes. And also trying to manage issues that go across organizations, where it's crucial to share information as well as notes and updates, in a timely manner. For anyone that has been on the receiving end of Church outreach, it's quite frustrating to feel like nobody remembers any of the previous efforts that other leaders made, or conversations you had with different leaders. Obviously there's a lot of grey area when trying to manage digital data (nobody is solely using paper to manage everything), and trying to determine what is confidential and what is not. Yet the Church has purposefully and intentionally established policy that provides strict guidelines, as shown in GHB 38.8.31 and elsewhere -- and as with most issues, the Church is unlikely to provide explanations.

When I found myself in a position of responsibility where there were members with truly important life issues, I took comfort in remembering that this is the Lord's work, and while Church policy may constrain me and those other leaders I was working with, He would honor and bless my efforts to work within those constraints. Even when, or maybe especially when, I may not have agreed with those constraints. That often helped soften the frustration I may have been feeling at being unable to minister as effectively as I felt was necessary, for a variety of real constraints that were out of my control.

I'm willing to bet just about every stake and ward out there is in violation of the 'letter of the law' when it comes to GHB 38.8.31 and most of them don't even know it. It's like the Church wants to hamstring ministering efforts and taking care of members because about 50% of what we do would come to a halt or leaders would run themselves into the ground trying to keep up.

You can even make the case that the system for placing food orders is in violation of GHB 38.3.31 because it sends confirmation emails to food order recipients (who have email addresses outside of the church system) which then discloses temporal needs which is specifically mentioned.

One last thought: In the eternal perspective, what is the 'punishment' for putting information about members in a Google document or spreadsheet in violation of GHB 38.8.31 for the purpose of improving our ability to minister to them and help them progress spiritually?

tonynocchi wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2025 11:54 pm In the eternal perspective, what is the 'punishment' for putting information about members in a Google document or spreadsheet in violation of GHB 38.8.31 for the purpose of improving our ability to minister to them and help them progress spiritually?

I am not sure of the eternal "punishment" other than obedience. My concern is when the District Judge subpoenas the notes in a legal proceeding and they become a matter of public record. Personally, I would not want to put out any information I would not want to see on a billboard, in the newspaper, or on the Internet the next morning.

lajackson wrote: Sun Jan 05, 2025 9:51 pm

tonynocchi wrote: Sat Jan 04, 2025 11:54 pm In the eternal perspective, what is the 'punishment' for putting information about members in a Google document or spreadsheet in violation of GHB 38.8.31 for the purpose of improving our ability to minister to them and help them progress spiritually?

I am not sure of the eternal "punishment" other than obedience. My concern is when the District Judge subpoenas the notes in a legal proceeding and they become a matter of public record. Personally, I would not want to put out any information I would not want to see on a billboard, in the newspaper, or on the Internet the next morning.

So let's break this down in one simple example. In my ward, members who have receive orders from the Bishop's Storehouse for the last several years have submitted their orders to the RS president via text or email. Both methods are in violation of GHB 38.8.31. These orders are placed through the church system but the Bishop's Storehouse (which is three hours away), emails the RS/EQ Presidents and a member of the stake high counsel who oversees food distribution for our stake the order information so we can prepare to receive and distribute the food which is also a violation of GHB 38.8.31. Additionally, if a member has a temporal need, and the need is discussed over the phone (voice or text) between say the Bishop and the RS and/or EQ Presidents, this is a violation of GHB 38.8.31 because it is not a "Church-provided" phone "system".

In fact, logging on to LCR at home on my home computer to do Church-related work is a violation of GHB 38.8.31 because of the way browser pages cache information.

The Church provides only one option and it really only applies to the Bishopric and Ward Council and that is the Circles app. However, because our cell phone or home networks aren't "Church-provided internet services" technically this would only be authorized while on the Church-provided Wi-Fi.

I worked network security and information assurance for the DoD, so it's pretty easy for me to just replace the terms "store or share confidential Church information outside of Church-provided applications, systems, or internet services" with "store or share classified information outside of authorized classification enclaves and networks". I was in the military and I moved around quite a bit. I've basically had "Ward Council" callings for the past 20 or so years and in that time I've served in 10 wards or branches and everyone of them used something other than "Church-provided applications, systems, or internet services" because the leadership would have been significantly less effective otherwise.

GHB 38.8.31 also contains a contact email address for any data privacy concerns. You're more likely to find traction on that route. We're just fellow users.

I'm surprised that this thread has progressed so far without someone mentioning that this type of data collection already exists by full-time missionaries using the official Preach My Gospel (previously Area Book Planner) app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... t.areabook

This app has different records capabilities depending on the nation it's used in, but in the US there are missionary-created notes on most members going back nearly a decade. Oftentimes, missionary records for current addresses can be more up to date simply because some missionaries reach out to less-active people more frequently than some wards, and afaik there isn't an easy way to submit a correction to the ward clerk through the app. You can see in the play store comments that many ward members and returned missionaries want continued access for a variety of reasons, one of which would be to improve ministering outreach. You also have to remember that missionary phones are loaded with MDM software that (in addition to internet filtering) plays a role in data privacy compliance, though the MDM is not required for use of this app.

missionarypro1 wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2025 5:05 pm I'm surprised that this thread has progressed so far without someone mentioning that this type of data collection already exists by full-time missionaries using the official Preach My Gospel (previously Area Book Planner) app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... t.areabook

This app has different records capabilities depending on the nation it's used in, but in the US there are missionary-created notes on most members going back nearly a decade. Oftentimes, missionary records for current addresses can be more up to date simply because some missionaries reach out to less-active people more frequently than some wards, and afaik there isn't an easy way to submit a correction to the ward clerk through the app. You can see in the play store comments that many ward members and returned missionaries want continued access for a variety of reasons, one of which would be to improve ministering outreach. You also have to remember that missionary phones are loaded with MDM software that (in addition to internet filtering) plays a role in data privacy compliance, though the MDM is not required for use of this app.

Being an adult convert I have heard of the app but have never seen it. Sounds like a great thing to have...only I'm not authorized to use it (I tried) and I'm the one person in my Ward that would probably have the most positive effect with a tool like that. Right now all of our feedback is going through various channels and ends up on a Google Sheet so we can action it through the Ward Council (primarily the Bishopric, EQ/RS Presidencies, and Ward Mission Leader).

Thanks for all the good information and insight on this. I am familiar with the tool the missionaries use and thought, why can't we have something like that. In my mind, regarding contacts, I was just thinking basic captures such as: visited on date, ok with church contact, not coming to church right now, has health challenges, etc. like someone mentioned, it would be nice to have the basics so I'm not causing the person I contact to get upset or frustrated... As they might say, I told so and so XYZ. Why don't you know that. But, given the way this gone for years, the people we're reaching out to are used to the lack of information.

mdigi wrote: Thu Jan 02, 2025 5:22 pm The church directs that confidential information must not be stored outside the church's systems. That isn't a suggestion, it's an instruction.

Thanks.
Where is that instruction?

GrasseDD wrote: Thu Sep 25, 2025 7:09 amWhere is that instruction?

That would be GHB 38.8.31 "Privacy of Members", as referenced by @russellhltn a couple of posts above. That Handbook section talks about confidential Church information being only maintained on Church-provided applications, systems, or internet services.

Like many others, when I was in a leadership position I struggled with where exactly to record specific details about a member's temporal needs -- balancing the need to specifically minister to and track a member's status, with the lack of a church-approved method for retaining any of that confidential information. I definitely followed the counsel in GHB 0.4 to help determine what I should do, based on my presiding authority's guidance. But sharing that counsel here won't help, since every leader needs to follow GHB 0.4 in their specific stewardship.

Thanks for that reference - very helpful!

And, thanks for great counsel!