Members asking to not be followed/located

[coreyernst]

When a less or non-active member moves out of ward boundaries, they typically don't provide a new physical address so they can be assigned to the correct ward. Hence their record remains in the old ward. To get the current address, I first try contacting the individual for the new address. Sometimes the individual will respond, asking that their record not be updated with their current address. How to proceed in this situation was a point of contention in a recent stake clerk meeting. The handbook doesn't seem to offer any advice for such situation. Should we respect their request and assign the record to 'address unknown'? Or conversely, proceed and find the address against their request, using a backdoor approach. The latter seems a bit underhanded.

Thanks,
--Corey

[russellhltn]

Personally, I don't think any member has right to be "lost". If they want to leave the church, there's a process for that.

As for Handbook references, how about 33.6:

Membership records should be kept in the ward where the member lives. Exceptions, which should be rare, require the consent of the bishops and stake presidents involved.
...
For situations not addressed in this section, leaders should contact the Global Services Department or the area office.

Also, in going though the process of sending to Address Unknown, wouldn't it require lying to say they weren't found?

Lastly, even if they are sent to Address Unknown, CHQ will work on locating them. So there's absolutely no guarantee the record won't be moved to their new ward anyway.

[BrianEdwards]

It's hard to generalize as each situation is unique. But I agree the overall principle is that when you are a member of the Church, you agree to the Church keeping accurate records. And if you don't want the Church keeping any accurate records, then Church membership seems in conflict with that, since we are all asked to fulfill the mandate to keep accurate records.

The local Bishop is inspired in his stewardship, and can determine for instance if the member just needs encouragement to talk directly with the new Bishop about where they stand with their testimony and desire to engage with the Church. But if the member says they don't want anything to do with the Church anymore, then helping them with that process may be appropriate. Sometimes the softer, compassionate voice will be best, that may help identify unknown underlying issues that the member truly wants to resolve. Other times a more direct approach with the member will be what the Bishop is inspired to do. But punting to Address Unknown is not something I would ever suggest.

[greenwoodkl]

The latter seems a bit underhanded.

Personally, I don't think any member has right to be "lost". If they want to leave the church, there's a process for that.

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

I think elusive members are underhanded and lukewarm for not making a decision. Leave the church or accept the ministering that comes with remaining on the records.

[sareid]

I know I've used fastpeoplesearch.com by looking up phone number, name and/or address, and used county tax appraisal websites to confirm a member has moved - especially if it has been a while.

If we are able to confirm their address through something like this, is it ok to just move the record?

[jdlessley]

I know I've used fastpeoplesearch.com by looking up phone number, name and/or address, and used county tax appraisal websites to confirm a member has moved - especially if it has been a while.

If we are able to confirm their address through something like this, is it ok to just move the record?

The address needs to be confirmed. Showing as an owner on a county appraisal site is not confirmation they live at the house. It confirms they own the house but not that they actually live there. Notwithstanding that, you can send the record to address unknown but then send in a message to headquarters with the information you do have that may indicate that is where they live. But then again, the bishop should make the decision to move the record.

As an aside: A number of years ago my ward ran into that same situation. But before we moved the records based on ownership information we contacted the ward for that address and filled them in to the situation. They sent ward missionaries physically to that address and made the confirmation and the records were moved.

[BrianEdwards]

[EDIT]I just read the entirety of the previous post, and realized it said almost the exact same thing I was saying. So I'm retracting my post about having the local Bishop of the new address send the missionaries over [/END EDIT]

[greenwoodkl]

The address needs to be confirmed.

I can't find a reference in the General Handbook or LCR mentioning a need to "confirm" an address or what would constitute sufficient "confirmation". For example, if I got a forwarding address from the postal service, that also is no guarantee the member lives at the address and hasn't moved yet again in rapid succession. Ownership of property with an associated address could still be more legitimate than retaining an incorrect address in the ward trying to move the record.

[jdlessley]

'Confirmed' is the term the GSD help desk used in a number of communications regarding situations like the one I just posted about. They said local units should use the 8 steps, prior to the current 4 steps, as the most reliable method to confirm the new address. Going beyond that and using, and possibly paying for, unreliable, and sometimes outdated, online sources just passed off the lost member record to another unit and lengthen the effort and time to find them. The help desk people said the preferred action would be to send the record to 'address unknown' to let the membership service department and the service missionaries use the finding resources they had to find the member. Any information that could help should be sent to the membership department.

[BrianEdwards]

I thought about making a separate thread, don't want to fork the discussion too much from the O.P. I'll let the mods prompt me on this

The help desk people said the preferred action would be to send the record to 'address unknown' to let the membership service department and the service missionaries use the finding resources they had to find the member. Any information that could help should be sent to the membership department.

I don't necessarily know why, but previously it seemed like sending records to "address unknown" was considered undesirable by some leaders, because they'd just get put into a big electronic pile and ignored. Now it seems there are dedicated resources actively working on records moved to address unknown (perhaps there always were and many of us were unaware).

The Help Center FAQ Move Records Out does say step 4 is to move the records back to HQ, but it doesn't mention that after doing so the Church then assigns resources to continue looking for that member. Is there any mention in some Church docs about that aspect? I expect some local leaders are hesitant to do step 4, feeling that they'd rather keep the records and have a possibility that "something" might pop up about where the member lives. If it was explained that there's some measure of effort the Church puts forth when records are sent back to Church HQ, that might help those leaders who are a bit reluctant.