Page 1 of 3
History, you mean in the present tense?
Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 8:31 pm
The church preaches the importance of history (geneology, stake/district annual history projects, etc), but MLS doesn't even keep a historical record of callings.
I suggest that MLS should keep such.
Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 11:16 am
In fact it might be nice if MLS could print something off that could be used as-is within the stake/district annual history project (http://www.lds.org/annualhistory).
official ward history has callings in it
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:00 pm
The Ward Historian (or the ward clerk who is in charge of keeping the official ward history if there is no Ward Historian) is supposed to get a copy of the sustaining list that was read at Ward Conference. They are supposed to include that sustaining list as a part of the official ward history, which is supposed to be submitted each year to Church Headquarters (through the Stake, if I remember right). It becomes a permanent part of the history that the Church keeps in Salt Lake City. The procedure for doing all that is explained in the online training on lds.org for ward historians. So the Church does keep a history of callings (although it is discrete, sampled at a resolution of 1 year). Not sure if that is what you meant, or if you were interested in tracking history of callings for some other purpose than record-keeping and history.
Posted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:06 pm
Not what I want. In fact that sustaining list doesn't list *all* callings.
I was recently called as a clerk. The district had not been submitting an annual history.
The clerks of cource don't have have a copy of the sustaining lists. And of course nobody is sure who had what calling a year ago, two years ago, or beyond.
If MLS kept a historical record of callings, I could log into MLS and see who was the EQ president a year ago, two, three, four years ago.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:33 pm
That makes sense... the sustaining list only has things like quorum/auxilliary/class presidencies, etc. instead of all ward callings. Is there a need for knowing who was in a particular calling several years ago (other than curiosity) that isn't on the sustaining sheets? If so, then maybe this is something that could be useful. However, that would pre-suppose that all of the callings are being entered into the MLS system to begin with and being consistently kept up-to-date. It is my experience that that is quite rare, since there is so much time overhead involved and MLS is only accessible at the church computer. In my ward, for example, we share the computer with other wards, so the computer is very busy on Sundays for taking care of tithing and other financial matters. We also have a very high turnover of members (and therefore callings, too), and keeping the list up-to-date on MLS would be a constant battle requiring extra trips to the MLS computer (at inconvenient times since the computer is being used for other things on Sundays) in addition to the time for entering the information. It is already a major task for the clerks to keep up with getting records in and out of the ward because they often have to make special weekday trips for that, I can't imagine them wanting to spend even more time entering all the calling changes. Maybe there is a good reason for having that information that I haven't thought of that would justify all the extra effort and man-hours. And maybe in other wards with less turnover it wouldn't be as much of an extra effort, but at least in the high-turnover wards I have been in, I think it is safe to say (unless my leaders tell me otherwise) that MLS was made for the clerks, not the clerks for MLS, and I'm very glad we aren't required to track all of the callings there.
But maybe having the ability to do so would be useful for those wards that do want to track that in MLS.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 12:37 pm
dougk wrote:That makes sense... the sustaining list only has things like quorum/auxilliary/class presidencies, etc. instead of all ward callings. Is there a need for knowing who was in a particular calling several years ago (other than curiosity) that isn't on the sustaining sheets?
I think its important to record all holy ordinances. And yes this should include administering/healing, even if only in the person journals of those directly involved.
It seems to be alone the lines of what the annual history asks for: "Lists of ordinances performed", "should include faith-promoting events taking place in the lives of members and in Church units" (http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... D&locale=0
and I'm very glad we aren't required to track all of the callings there.
You can actually record all callings in MLS (you can do custom callings). The sustaining list just doesn't list any but those you mentioned previous.
Keeping calling information current in MLS
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:23 pm
Maybe there is a good reason for having that information that I haven't thought of that would justify all the extra effort and man-hours. And maybe in other wards with less turnover it wouldn't be as much of an extra effort, but at least in the high-turnover wards I have been in, I think it is safe to say (unless my leaders tell me otherwise) that MLS was made for the clerks, not the clerks for MLS, and I'm very glad we aren't required to track all of the callings there.
There are some very good reasons for keeping the callings up-to-date in MLS. When this information is current Bishoprics can list:
- Which members do not have callings
- Which calling(s) members do have
- How long a member has had a calling
- Which positions are not currently staffed
I agree with AdrianLP that it would be beneficial for MLS to keep a history of past callings. I have been in bishopric meetings where questions have come up with regard to what callings a member has had or when a member had a particular calling.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:09 pm
If MLS were to keep a history, it would be necessary to distinguish between changes in callings and data-entry corrections (otherwise we have a incorrect history). We'd also probably need to have a way of editing the history.
Members are frequently surprised that their membership records don't contain a history of their callings. However, I'm not sure as the added effort is worth the results. That would be a policy decision.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:26 pm
RussellHltn brings out some good points - if callings for a person followed them around then we need much better consistency across the Church on entering the data accurately because it could quickly become a mess depending on where a person was at and how well MLS was utilized.
I also think that there are some privacy issues that come into play that would have to be considered. You would get a visibility into people's past that might not be appropriate. I could see tracking history of leadership callings as perhaps a step in the right direction that might work more effectively. Leadership Callings are "generally" more up to date in MLS so accuracy should be higher and not having that in your history doesn't bring about the same kind of privacy concerns.
Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:45 pm
HintonBR wrote:I also think that there are some privacy issues that come into play that would have to be considered. You would get a visibility into people's past that might not be appropriate.
What calling could you have had that the current membership clerk (even if in a new ward/branch) should not be allowed to see that you had it?
The clerk can see your phone number (unlisted or otherwise), record number, temple recommend status, etc. Why would knowing you were a primary teacher, usher, etc in the past be such a secret?