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.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.
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.