Do Not Contact list

[greggo]

Perhaps a review of the relevant portions of the handbook is in order (pp. 148-150). Your response still makes it sound like the process is more cumbersome than it really is. The role of the stake president in name removal requests is make sure the bishop followed policy and procedure in processing the request. There is no approval process outlined in the handbook.

While this is true, I've had Stake Presidents send back requests to the bishop for follow-up before he would agree to the request.

[tw.lbean]

Church systems -- and, I believe, policy -- provide for no such designation as DNC, and I am quite sure its omission from MLS is deliberate.

That said, local priesthood leaders follow their own inspired judgment in how best to minister to these members. Many wards evolve some internal convention, such as assigning these households to special HT companionships or creating custom lists in MLS.

Our ward follow both those conventions. But I still recall the explicit directive from a former stake president elsewhere: "In this stake there is no such thing as a "Do Not Contact' member!"

This is one for your priesthood leaders to settle.

Why don't they include options for DNC status in MLS that set local only data. When babies are blessed, a record is created, but the certificate can only be printed until the record is transferred.

Why not do the same with DNC information - allow local usage, don't persist in the member's record, only in local MLS database.

[russellhltn]

Why don't they include options for DNC status in MLS that set local only data.

You may want to go back and re-read the thread. Some valid points have been brought up. I don't knows as you'll find DNC as a valid status in any church manual.

[tw.lbean]

You may want to go back and re-read the thread. Some valid points have been brought up. I don't knows as you'll find DNC as a valid status in any church manual.

I read this thread in its entirety Sunday night. I've slept since then, so who knows what happened to my brain since then...

My opinions generally come from the position that making tools available and "teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves" is the way to go. I think making a "DNC" flag that is kept locally (e.g. not communicated to SLC or made part of their membership record) compromises in a very workable way.

I also think not providing built in support for something like this is the "balloon" problem - squeeze it here, it pops out there. In this case, the squeeze is no built-in support for DNC members and it pops out in the hijacking of other database fields that *are* part of a member's permanent record (e.g. first/last name, phone, etc...) for temporary/local only information.

I see both sides of this issue, but the pragmatist in me says both sides have valid points and we should put the decision in the hands of local priesthood leaders who own the responsibility of ministering to the members in their stewardship. Lets not tie their hands and create undesirable problems (hijacking other database fields).

If I totally missed a point(s) you referred to, please point me in a better direction.

[russellhltn]

Personally, I think giving MLS privacy options like LUWS has would solve the problem. You could just flag the DNC as "private" and leave it at that.

Beyond that, it's up to the leaders to keep track of the needs of their sheep. MLS doesn't do that.

[jdlessley]

... making tools available and "teaching them correct principles and letting them govern themselves" is the way to go. I think making a "DNC" flag that is kept locally (e.g. not communicated to SLC or made part of their membership record) compromises in a very workable way.

You would not provide a tool whose purpose, when used, directly opposes the principles you are trying to teach.

I think the discussion in this thread regarding 'do not contact' points out the opportunities to reach out to these less active members are not lost when ignorance of a previous request to not be contacted causes someone to reach out. We never know when someones heart, mind, or situation may change or has changed.

IMHO a do not contact request is only temporary. If it was not, the individual would ask to have their name removed from the records.

And now the soapbox...
Providing a tool such as any method of tracking in MLS essentially permits us to have a false peace of mind that we are doing the right thing by not proclaiming the Gospel and preaching repentance. Each person is unique and needs attention in a way unique to their situation. I see MLS as an automated tool for administrative purposes. The special needs of less active members who request to not be contacted should not be automated. They must be continually in our thoughts and our prayers. Making it difficult to 'track' a do not contact request forces us to take an approach that forces these people to the front of our minds and efforts. I am grateful for those members who will be contacted by a newly assigned home teacher because their name was not on an easily propogated list. I am grateful that when my High Priest group leader hands me a new home teaching list that he forgets to tell me that a member has requested not to be contacted because MLS makes it difficult to have this type of annotation.

[tw.lbean]

You would not provide a tool whose purpose, when used, directly opposes the principles you are trying to teach.

I think the discussion in this thread regarding 'do not contact' points out the opportunities to reach out to these less active members are not lost when ignorance of a previous request to not be contacted causes someone to reach out. We never know when someones heart, mind, or situation may change or has changed.

...

I love Proverbs 11:14. I respect that point of view. I take a different view..

Allowing a clerk / Bishop to specifically identify those individuals in such a manner allows more focus on those individuals needing special attention (i.e. DNC). A report that lists those individuals requesting no contact could be given to appropriate priesthood leaders and under the direction of their priesthood leaders, they could prayerfully consider those persons/families whose hearts might be receptive at that point in time.

The additional benefit is that those individuals requesting no contact from ward members might also avoid causing more problems. I think making it a local only thing (local to the unit where the records reside currently) combined with a regular review of those members gives the best of both worlds. When the individual moves, the receiving entity (HQ or another ward) would not have the DNC status info from previous unit.

[jdlessley]

Allowing a clerk / Bishop to specifically identify those individuals in such a manner allows more focus on those individuals needing special attention (i.e. DNC). A report that lists those individuals requesting no contact could be given to appropriate priesthood leaders and under the direction of their priesthood leaders, they could prayerfully consider those persons/families whose hearts might be receptive at that point in time.

The additional benefit is that those individuals requesting no contact from ward members might also avoid causing more problems. I think making it a local only thing (local to the unit where the records reside currently) combined with a regular review of those members gives the best of both worlds. When the individual moves, the receiving entity (HQ or another ward) would not have the DNC status info from previous unit.

What you describe is ideal. However for some units once a person is placed on a do not contact list they are lost to any type of contact as long as the presiding leadership is in place or until that same leadership is counselled otherwise.

Case in point: I had a bishop who related in a ward council how he had his eyes opened by a general authority regarding do not contact lists. He had taken the position that once a person requested to not be contacted and was placed on a do not contact list that no effort would be taken to contact that member. He had inherited a do not contact list when he was called as bishop. Many members on that list had not been contacted for years. In a discussion with a general authority about less active members in the ward the situation regarding the do not contact list was brought up. The bishop was told there is no such thing as a do not contact list. He was given counsel about how to handle such requests. The end result was that some of those members on the list were contacted and we had some return to activity.

I can see similar scenarios arrising from apparently innocent attempts to track these do not contact requests in MLS. It also tacitly implies that the Church condones do not contact lists when many general authorities have specifically counselled against such lists.

[tw.lbean]

What you describe is ideal. However for some units once a person is placed on a do not contact list they are lost to any type of contact as long as the presiding leadership is in place or until that same leadership is counselled otherwise.

Case in point: I had a bishop who related in a ward council how he had his eyes opened by a general authority regarding do not contact lists. He had taken the position that once a person requested to not be contacted and was placed on a do not contact list that no effort would be taken to contact that member. He had inherited a do not contact list when he was called as bishop. Many members on that list had not been contacted for years. In a discussion with a general authority about less active members in the ward the situation regarding the do not contact list was brought up. The bishop was told there is no such thing as a do not contact list. He was given counsel about how to handle such requests. The end result was that some of those members on the list were contacted and we had some return to activity.

I can see similar scenarios arrising from apparently innocent attempts to track these do not contact requests in MLS. It also tacitly implies that the Church condones do not contact lists when many general authorities have specifically counselled against such lists.

I totally understand the pitfalls that you describe.

From my perspective, this falls under "teach them correct principles" to me. The specific example you mention was corrected when taught correct principles. The ideal solution and reality clearly diverge frequently.

I think having support for this in MLS is far better than the current practice where clerks / bishoprics come up with their own systems of accomplishing the same thing without any kind of structure around it - frequently polluting a member's record(s) (e.g. their name, nick name, or phone number) in a persistent way that all current and future wards/stakes will have until someone changes.

[marianomarini]

I see that this discussion is going out of topic.
I think that DNC list is a tools. like a knife, then it can be good or bad according with its use.
So I look with interest to this feature in MLS.