Tech Forum

I have a Bishop that was filling out the Quarterly Report and noticed that when he looks at the section on new members, the numbers show that there are 3 recently baptized males who are 12+ years old. The next item states that none of the 3 has received the Aaronic Priesthood since baptism. The number should be 2 instead of 0, but there is no way to edit the information for that line.

Apparently the number is pulled automatically from MLS, and when you look at the records for the 3 males, 2 of them have the AP ordination, and one does not--so the number should show up as 2.

I suggested that he do a UNIT REFRESH to see if that will pull the data from SLC and then correct the report. He is running MLS 2.7.3. Are there other suggestions of what might be happening to cause this discrepancy?

Were they ordained as of Dec 31?

RussellHltn wrote:Were they ordained as of Dec 31?

Yes, they were, but I found out a few items after calling MLS Support:

(1) One member had been counted as receiving the AP during the previous quarter, so in Q4 2007 he was not counted as having received it.

(2) One member was ordained during the last week of December, but the clerk did not submit the information until Jan 5th, so his ordination will not count until Q1 2008.

I guess this reminds clerks how important it is to submit the information in a timely manner so that it will count for the appropriate quarter.

opee wrote:(1) One member had been counted as receiving the AP during the previous quarter, so in Q4 2007 he was not counted as having received it.

That's interesting. Back in my day, once a new convert got the Priesthood, he was counted has having it until he was no longer "new". Seems to me you'd want to know that you've ordained them, not how many you've done in a quarter. Or maybe I was doing it all wrong.

RussellHltn wrote:That's interesting. Back in my day, once a new convert got the Priesthood, he was counted has having it until he was no longer "new". Seems to me you'd want to know that you've ordained them, not how many you've done in a quarter. Or maybe I was doing it all wrong.

I thought the same thing, but I was told that it is a "Quarterly Report" and therefore only counts it for the Quarter... (The wording of the line item does not make that clear either: "Males 12 and older who old the AP within six months of membership". Maybe it should add "...ordained this Quarter" for clarification.)

I had a similar discussion --- if the question asks if ordinations were done in a timely manner, then *somebody* probably wants to have that question answered.

It could easily cover 3 calendar quarters, and still be OK, according to the question asked -- however:
If the baptism, confirmation and ordination don't all happen **and get reported** in the same quarter, it gets reported as "0"

As it now stands, the data is polluted. I did suggest (by way of MLS Message sent as a bug report) that they get the data needs/ questions/ programming in alignment. :rolleyes:

elderj1 wrote:if the question asks if ordinations were done in a timely manner, then *somebody* probably wants to have that question answered.

I think many people fret about their numbers too much. I believe the quarterly reports are more for self-evaluation then to satisfy headquarters desire for stats. Many of the questions force you to identify members who are falling though the cracks. Once identified, it's expected that local leaders will act appropriately. Consistently bad numbers may prompt some response from above, but the normal lumps and bumps won't.

RussellHltn wrote:I think many people fret about their numbers too much. I believe the quarterly reports are more for self-evaluation then to satisfy headquarters desire for stats. Many of the questions force you to identify members who are falling though the cracks. Once identified, it's expected that local leaders will act appropriately. Consistently bad numbers may prompt some response from above, but the normal lumps and bumps won't.

I agree with your on headquarters view of these numbers and as a ward clerk it is our responsibility to accurately record and reflect data at the local level. If it is not understood how to record the data accurately or read the report by the local leaders then the integrity of the data is "garbled" and wonder creeps in to the work of a clerk.

The situation does not excuse the long delay in recording the data for ordinances performed. Understanding how the report works, whether it is a bug or not, will allow clerks to ensure data is recorded and confidence in the software improves through the bishopric and auxiliaries.

RussellHltn wrote:I I believe the quarterly reports are more for self-evaluation then to satisfy headquarters desire for stats.

The quarterly reports are transmitted to SLC. And they do "come back at us" with $ budget $ and accountability enquiries from assorted "higher levels". (yes, we have been asked about our "failure to ordain", per the quarterly reports --- eg. for people who were ordained 3 weeks after baptism-- recorded --- just happened to cross a quarter boundary---still not "picked up" for the next Q report))

If the purpose was merely for self evaluation, then it would (should?)be like the "Membership Audit", or the Bishops interview and action list --- which walk you through some "take a look" procedures, and doesn't get transmitted to anybody.

opee wrote:(1) One member had been counted as receiving the AP during the previous quarter, so in Q4 2007 he was not counted as having received it.

Sorry, but this sounds like someone was grasping at straws to supply a reason for you. If I were that ward clerk, I would verify that that the ordination is still recorded on the members record.

I had a situation once where several children showed up on the Action Interview list as approaching baptism. The children were baptized, the ordinances were recorded in MLS and transmitted to HQ. I have the transmission report and confirmation report from HQ to prove it. About a month later, these same children were showing up on the list have not having been baptized I checked the records and there was no ordinance information there. Puzzled, I pulled out my hard copies and re-entered the data and re-transmitted it to HQ.

This may have just been a glitch in the system, but it doesn't hurt to double check when things don't seem right. Fortunately these type of system glitches have been getting fewer as the version numbers of MLS get higher.