MLS Record Form Info & Record Ordinance Info not the same?

[captainBDSC]

Hi,

I have a question about what seems to be a discontinuity between the Ordinance Record Forms and the information needed to actually Record an Ordinance in MLS.

For example. On the Baptism and Confirmation Record form the information needed for the person performing the baptism and or confirmation is only a full name and priesthood office. But when you go to record the ordinance in MLS it also asks for the birthday and record number of the person performing the ordinance.

Why is this so? Will it be changed in the future?

It would be nice if all the required information to record the ordinance in MLS was on the record form. I hope this makes sense and that I haven't just missed something somewhere.

Thanks

Brent

PS the record forms I am referring to are the ones that you print off through MLS.

[aebrown]

On the Baptism and Confirmation Record form the information needed for the person performing the baptism and or confirmation is only a full name and priesthood office. But when you go to record the ordinance in MLS it also asks for the birthday and record number of the person performing the ordinance.

The birthday and record number of the person performing the ordinance are optional fields for a baptism. If that person is a member of your ward, those fields will be filled in automatically when you select the person (using the Select button). But if the person performing the ordinance is not a member of your ward and you do not have the information, you don't have to fill it in; you can save the ordinance just fine without those fields.

Because of this, it seems to me that changing the Baptism and Confirmation Record to require this information would just create needless work in collecting that optional information.

It is interesting to note, however, that the Melchizedek Priesthood Ordination Record form does include fields for the record number and birth date of the person performing the ordination (and yet those fields are not required when recording the ordination). So this is somewhat inconsistent. The MPOR was modified somewhat recently to include those two pieces of information, so perhaps a similar change is coming for Baptisms. It's far less important for baptisms, however, since no link to the person performing the baptism is retained on the membership record, whereas MP ordinations establish the priesthood line of authority and so some information about the person performing the ordinance is retained on the membership record.

[captainBDSC]

Thank you, I guess I never tried to record the ordinance without that information since it seemed to ask for it. Now I know, and it will make my life a lot easier. I think my lesson here is to trust the form and then just enter what I know and see if it takes.

Would it be possible for those fields to have written by them "optional?" That might make new clerk's lives a bit easier.

[russellhltn]

Would it be possible for those fields to have written by them "optional?" That might make new clerk's lives a bit easier.

Required fields are colored yellow. Optional fields are white. So the information is already there. However, it would be a worthwhile suggestion to place a footnote on the affected screens what the colors mean.

[Biggles]

Required fields are colored yellow. Optional fields are white. So the information is already there. However, it would be a worthwhile suggestion to place a footnote on the affected screens what the colors mean.

Or, whatever colour you have selected to highlight a required field. Ours happens to be green!

[russellhltn]

Or, whatever colour you have selected to highlight a required field. Ours happens to be green!

I believe by default it's yellow, but you're right in that the user can change it.