Suggest changing "Current Spouse" field to just "Spouse"
- gregwanderson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:34 pm
- Location: Huntsville, UT, USA
Suggest changing "Current Spouse" field to just "Spouse"
My wife pointed this out to me and, the more I think about it, I agree with her. On the IOS she received it lists me as "Current Spouse." Of course, my loyal wife intends for me to be her only spouse forever, so the word "Current" just grates on her.
Because the word "Spouse" already implies that it's current and since MLS already lists any relevant information about a prior spouse, why can't this field simply be "Spouse" instead of "Current Spouse"? "Current" implies an inevitable end of the relationship. You wouldn't list "Current Children," would you?
(Think of all the toner we can save by eliminating this word from each print-out. )
Because the word "Spouse" already implies that it's current and since MLS already lists any relevant information about a prior spouse, why can't this field simply be "Spouse" instead of "Current Spouse"? "Current" implies an inevitable end of the relationship. You wouldn't list "Current Children," would you?
(Think of all the toner we can save by eliminating this word from each print-out. )
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 427
- Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:29 am
- Location: Alnwick, UK
- kh_design
- Member
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 2:57 pm
- Location: ..
- Contact:
Spouse
I agree. :rolleyes:GregAnderson wrote:(Think of all the toner we can save by eliminating this word from each print-out. )
I have another request for MLS involving joint donations with spouse.
This has been a very sensitive issue with many who donate with their spouse, when on their tithing settlement statement it states (No Donations), many have broken into wisps of tears and feel divided from their spouse. It seams that with joint donors, the joint donor’s record number could be entered also. (When FIS was used, FIS allowed both donors' record numbers to be entered as joint donors.) On the MLS joint donor’s Tithing Settlement Statement it could state something like “Joint donor with ‘spouse’s name’“, also automatically appearing on the Tithing Settlement Report's declarations notes something like “Joint donor with ‘spouse’s name’“. This would be very helpful for not only a Bishop but also the Stake Presidency that reviews this report. See this post http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4881
Also would help in the cases when a spouse dies who's record number is listed as the donor's record number. If both members' record numbers are listed as joint donors, MLS would automatically keep the living spouse record number as the donor's record number. See this post http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?t=928
.
- mkmurray
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
- Location: Utah
- Contact:
While I can see your overall point that "Current" is unnecessary, I disagree with this statement. "Current" does not imply that at all. You could be joined with your "current" spouse from now through all time and eternity. Saying that "current implies an inevitable end of the relationship" does not match any definition of the word in any dictionary. The word "current" has no definition nor connotation implying an end to the present state; it just is the present state. In fact with the knowledge that there is the idea of "Prior Spouse" on the IOS, "Current Spouse" is only in comparison to "Prior." There is no "Future Spouse," so it cannot be that "Current" is compared to that. "Current" is relative to something else, and in this case it's "Prior."GregAnderson wrote:"Current" implies an inevitable end of the relationship.
That's also because there's no such thing as "Prior Children," so "Current Children" would be completely unnecessary.GregAnderson wrote:You wouldn't list "Current Children," would you?
I'm not trying to be contentious or controversial, and I actually think that removing "Current" would do no harm, as I would assume just "Spouse" would be the current spouse and not a prior spouse. "Current" doesn't necessarily need to be spelled out and should be the default, whereas "Prior" would need to be explicitly specified. But in all that I agree with you, I just can't buy the argument that "current" signifies your marriage will end.
-
- Member
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:06 am
- Location: Berea, KY, USA
And in this vein, if I recall correctly, death of a spouse will result in removal of that name from the "Current Spouse" field. This would make sense, since the death of a spouse makes the surviving partner eligible to take a new spouse. So, if my memory serves correctly, this would mean that the Church does recognize an "inevitable end" to the marriage because we assume the probability of inevitable death for any one person to be 1.0mkmurray wrote:While I can see your overall point that "Current" is unnecessary, I disagree with this statement. "Current" does not imply that at all. You could be joined with your "current" spouse from now through all time and eternity. Saying that "current implies an inevitable end of the relationship" does not match any definition of the word in any dictionary. The word "current" has no definition nor connotation implying an end to the present state; it just is the present state. In fact with the knowledge that there is the idea of "Prior Spouse" on the IOS, "Current Spouse" is only in comparison to "Prior." There is no "Future Spouse," so it cannot be that "Current" is compared to that. "Current" is relative to something else, and in this case it's "Prior."
That's also because there's no such thing as "Prior Children," so "Current Children" would be completely unnecessary.
I'm not trying to be contentious or controversial, and I actually think that removing "Current" would do no harm, as I would assume just "Spouse" would be the current spouse and not a prior spouse. "Current" doesn't necessarily need to be spelled out and should be the default, whereas "Prior" would need to be explicitly specified. But in all that I agree with you, I just can't buy the argument that "current" signifies your marriage will end.
- gregwanderson
- Senior Member
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 10:34 pm
- Location: Huntsville, UT, USA
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:17 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
I recall it differently. I recall checking the records of some of the widows and widowers, and they still have their deceased spouse listed as "Current Spouse" on the printouts. So I think it is only changed in MLS when the marriage is terminated in MLS in order to record a divorce or new marriage, etc.nutterb wrote:And in this vein, if I recall correctly, death of a spouse will result in removal of that name from the "Current Spouse" field. This would make sense, since the death of a spouse makes the surviving partner eligible to take a new spouse.
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34422
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
Interesting. I remembered it the other way. I remember that some widows weren't real happy about not having a "current spouse". You had to look for them under "prior".jbh001 wrote:I recall it differently. I recall checking the records of some of the widows and widowers, and they still have their deceased spouse listed as "Current Spouse" on the printouts.
I checked using MLS and the test database and found an oddity. If I record the death of a husband, he remains as "current spouse" - but she does not show up in the "Single Members" list.
However, other Widows do show up in the Singles list. And the widows do have a "current spouse", but with the notation of "deceased".
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
-
- Community Moderators
- Posts: 11460
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:27 pm
- Location: US
This may be because the test database does not accurately emulate the Send/Receive process. After a S/R, an updated record for the surviving spouse will reflect the deceased spouse, and will show up on the Single Members list.RussellHltn wrote:I checked using MLS and the test database and found an oddity. If I record the death of a husband, he remains as "current spouse" - but she does not show up in the "Single Members" list.
However, other Widows do show up in the Singles list. And the widows do have a "current spouse", but with the notation of "deceased".