Hiding a member?

[mkmurray]

it is always the preferred name that shows on the directory change there perfered name to some thing like spanky or spud problem solve

Problem solved...except for when people start calling me Spanky or Spud!

[gardnerward-p40]

lol
You could call him or her Slim or Tiny

[geek]

That is another kettle of fish entirely. I suggest that if this is more than hypothetical, you follow jbh001's advice and take this situation to appropriate priesthood leaders as high up the chain as necessary. But it would have to be an extraordinary case.

I have a hard time conceiving of such a situation. Home and visiting teachers, supervisors and quorum/auxiliary leaders have callings to minister to those on their lists, just as other leaders do.

"Bro. Jones, here are your new home teaching assignments. Notice that the name and address of one family has been redacted because it is a secret. But please report monthly on your visits."

Send me a private message and I'll give you two examples. Both real-world. And neither are what I would consider to be particularly unique.

[geek]

Follow-up question:

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

Anyone hear of this before? Is there a special ward created, like the UNKNOWN ward, to hold certain membership records of otherwise active members. If so, how do things like tithing settlement and temple recommends get updated. (So I have my doubts.)

[lajackson]

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

I can think of a hypothetical situation where the member would not want to have any record of his or her existence in the ward. If I were the bishop, a member made such a request, and I felt it was valid, I would call CHQ and ask if this were possible. It might be.

Otherwise, I would bite the bullet and instruct my clerks to made certain that the name never showed up on any printed paper that came out of the clerk's office.

This would be a pain for all of us because, as has been noted previously, MLS does not support this option.

And yes, there is an Address Unknown stake with lots of records in it, and with lots of Church service missionaries working each day to move as many records as possible out of it. So, that would not be the place to put our hypothetical membership record. [grin]

[jbh001]

Follow-up question:

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

Anyone hear of this before?

No. And if that's "how it has been done in other wards," having the bishop call Clerk Support should provide quick instruction. Failing that, having the bishop ask the stake president to ask his presiding leader for the proper process in this situation is plan B.

Additionally, even if that is "how it has been done in other wards," a significant thing has changed within the last 2 years: barcoded temple recommends. If this record was retained at CHQ, and the member needs to get a temple recommend, how does the stake scan the temple recommend to activate it if the record is not in the ward? This is a legitimate question for Clerk Support, or the stake president's presiding leader. Because the scenario would affect so few I can't think of anywhere instructions would be stated that anyone at the ward or stake level would have access to.

I just thought of another possible work-around (yet I doubt it would work), and that includes sending the record out of the ward (to where I don't know) and then using the Out-Of-Unit Member feature within MLS to add them back in without actually having the record "in the ward". But because that feature was not designed for that purpose, it probably will not accomplish the kind of "hiding" you are aiming for, because it was designed for the opposite reason: getting a record to show up on printouts that is not actually in the ward, as in the case of bishops of student wards.

[RossEvans]

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

The record could not have been sent to the ward in the first place except via CHQ

If there is such a practice as described, it is so extraordinary that I don't think your question is going to be resolved by a membership clerk. Your bishop would need either to contact CHQ himself to ask about this, or ask the stake president for guidance.

As far as this forum -- which is concerned primarily with technical issues -- is concerned, I think the factual consensus here is that there is no such suppression functionality in the MLS software. It sounds like the member is actually asking not to be on any ward roll at all, which is probably technically possible if priesthood authorities allow it. But that hypothetical is a different status than you originally asked about. The record would not be "hidden" in your MLS system, but would simply not be there at all.

[russellhltn]

Suppose that in my hypothetical situation, a member claims that his family's record is supposed to be held at CHQ and not sent to the ward, "because that's how it's been done in other wards."

I'd call CHQ. Maybe they're right, but I'm starting to think that one should check out their story carefully. It could be all fabricated. I've seen that before.

Anyone hear of this before? Is there a special ward created, like the UNKNOWN ward, to hold certain membership records of otherwise active members. If so, how do things like tithing settlement and temple recommends get updated. (So I have my doubts.)

Nope. That said, I'm sure the church would be supportive of witness relocation and other stuff where the need is legitimate. But in that case I'd except the members to have a new identity and the ward would be none the wiser.

[jbh001]

This would be a pain for all of us because, as has been noted previously, MLS does not support this option.

It could be accomodated, though, by simply adding a check box labeled "Confidential" or "Suppress on Printouts" or (something else equally descriptive) next to the appropriate fields (full name, maiden name, preferred name, primary phone number, secondary phone number, e-mail address, physical address, mailing address.) I'm sure the are other user-friendly ways this could be implemented too.

[RossEvans]

It could be accomodated, though, by simply adding a check box labeled "Confidential" or "Suppress on Printouts" or (something else equally descriptive) next to the appropriate fields (full name, maiden name, preferred name, primary phone number, secondary phone number, e-mail address, physical address, mailing address.) I'm sure the are other user-friendly ways this could be implemented too.

As far as MLS goes, I think the need to accommodate this extreme hypothetical situation is less compelling than the more common desire to suppress these items only in the abbreviated directory that is generally published.

Actually, to conform to the letter of policy you quote above, MLS would need to have a form of the abbrieviated directory that suppresses all names and contact fields by default, and only includes those that clerks have affirmatively investigated and checked off as okay to publish. If this policy is ever to be taken seriously in practice, the church software -- both MLS and LUWS -- should support it.