speaking of Mormons

[_cafe crema]

The young missionaries and singles ward leaders you are so concerned about received the paperwork from the church, that's how they got her name in the first place.

No, missionaries would have been going off of their own records, and the clerical error would have come either from them or the ward.

So yes the church (all those past ward leaders and missionaries) is refusing to correct this. The passing on information to another ward after you have been informed that it is incorrect goes beyond a simple clerical error.

It only indicates carelessness on the part of the person who didn't remember to remove the name. A missionary or ward leader who simply refused to remove a name after it was pointed out that it did not belong would be in direct and flagrant violation of church policy and common decency. I've worked with ward and mission leadership on three different continents, and I currently work in the Church office building. I have never seen anyone in the church even approximate such a depraved and disobedient approach to record keeping. I see no reason to give that assumption priority over simple carelessness, which happens pretty much every day in every mission and ward around the world. That you do give that assumption priority, again, betrays how much more important it is for you to have something to whine about than to acknowledge the truth.

It indicates a chain of careless forgetful people, this isn't an event that occurred once but a number of times in different places. I find it hard to believe the LDS church is filled with people who don't care enough about their work to do it right, but apparently while a depraved and disobedient approach to record keeping is not acceptable, a sloppy and careless approach is just fine. Funny thing is either approach has the same outcome for those on the receiving end. Maybe in your position at the Church office building you could suggest that wards clean up their records and remove people who don't belong on their lists.

[_angsty]

It indicates a chain of careless forgetful people, this isn't an event that occurred once but a number of times in different places. I find it hard to believe the LDS church is filled with people who don't care enough about their work to do it right, but apparently while a depraved and disobedient approach to record keeping is not acceptable, a sloppy and careless approach is just fine. Funny thing is either approach has the same outcome for those on the receiving end. Maybe in your position at the Church office building you could suggest that wards clean up their records and remove people who don't belong on their lists.

Totally agree.

Ultimately, the church should bear responsibility for the people it sends out to do its business, the quality of the data they're sent out to do it with, and what they do when they find out about clerical errors. I have total confidence that if the leadership cared enough to do so, they could institute measures to minimize unwanted contact-- through data scrubbing, training, etc. They'd probably do a more efficient job than the federal government if they put their minds to it. That they don't, speaks volumes about their regard for the people on the receiving end of their unwanted contact.

Human error is a fact of life. That this kind of unwanted contact persists over time indicates more than just human error committed by a string of proxies. It indicates a refusal to accept institutional responsibility.

[_maklelan]

It indicates a chain of careless forgetful people, this isn't an event that occurred once but a number of times in different places.

I don't see that in the events Madeleine has related. Would you mind pointing out where she has stated that this error has been pointed out "a number of times in different places"?

I find it hard to believe the LDS church is filled with people who don't care enough about their work to do it right,

Not filled, but certainly you can understand that people who are assigned responsibilities for which they are not being paid and have little guidance or oversight might tend to slip up from time to time.

but apparently while a depraved and disobedient approach to record keeping is not acceptable, a sloppy and careless approach is just fine.

I didn't say it was morally acceptable, I said it is a more likely conclusion. Don't misrepresent me.

Funny thing is either approach has the same outcome for those on the receiving end. Maybe in your position at the Church office building you could suggest that wards clean up their records and remove people who don't belong on their lists.

I do whenever such circumstances fall under my notice and my purview. In the mean time, maybe you can be a little more charitable with fellow human beings who think better of you than you obviously do of them.

[_maklelan]

Totally agree.

Ultimately, the church should bear responsibility for the people it sends out to do its business, the quality of the data they're sent out to do it with, and what they do when they find out about clerical errors. I have total confidence that if the leadership cared enough to do so, they could institute measures to minimize unwanted contact-- through data scrubbing, training, etc.

They do. You just don't have message boards blowing up with threads every time the church doesn't contact someone who asked not to be contacted.

They'd probably do a more efficient job than the federal government if they put their minds to it. That they don't, speaks volumes about their regard for the people on the receiving end of their unwanted contact.

By all means, share these data you have that compare the church's numbers to those of the federal government. Certainly you're not just making up a fact.

Human error is a fact of life. That this kind of unwanted contact persists over time indicates more than just human error committed by a string of proxies. It indicates a refusal to accept institutional responsibility.

You don't understand the institution, so how can you possibly presume to make judgment calls about where along the spectrum of responsibility this event falls?

[_cafe crema]

It indicates a chain of careless forgetful people, this isn't an event that occurred once but a number of times in different places.

I don't see that in the events Madeleine has related. Would you mind pointing out where she has stated that this error has been pointed out "a number of times in different places"?

Re-read her posts on the first page of the thread it indicates a number of times but not places.

I find it hard to believe the LDS church is filled with people who don't care enough about their work to do it right,

Not filled, but certainly you can understand that people who are assigned responsibilities for which they are not being paid and have little guidance or oversight might tend to slip up from time to time.

Yes I can see, this is one of those things that makes a paid ministry so contemptible.

but apparently while a depraved and disobedient approach to record keeping is not acceptable, a sloppy and careless approach is just fine.

I didn't say it was morally acceptable, I said it is a more likely conclusion. Don't misrepresent me.

You and I, not being one of those negligent/depraved record keepers really can't say if it is accidental, intentional or just a matter of thinking, aaannnhh I don't know if I have the authority to remove the name so I'll leave it alone.

Funny thing is either approach has the same outcome for those on the receiving end. Maybe in your position at the Church office building you could suggest that wards clean up their records and remove people who don't belong on their lists.

I do whenever such circumstances fall under my notice and my purview. In the mean time, maybe you can be a little more charitable with fellow human beings who think better of you than you obviously do of them.

Why just when it falls under your notice and purview, can't you, all up there in the Church office building, suggest to those that discuss and set policy that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

[_maklelan]

Re-read her posts on the first page of the thread it indicates a number of times but not places.

I have read it multiple times, but I do not find a single instance of her stating that a clerical error was recognized and/or pointed out beyond the OP. The only thing I see is multiple missionary visits, the knowledge of the girl's name, and the missionaries being broadly turned away. Am I to understand at this point that you cannot support your statement, or can you point to some iteration of the story that I have overlooked?

Yes I can see, this is one of those things that makes a paid ministry so contemptible.

It comes with the territory. Certainly you can understand that paid ministry also has problems associated with it.

You and I, not being one of those negligent/depraved record keepers really can't say if it is accidental, intentional or just a matter of thinking, aaannnhh I don't know if I have the authority to remove the name so I'll leave it alone.

You can't, but I've had more than enough experience with that record-keeping, and not only is it quite unlikely that they intentionally refused to remove the name, but no one simply ignores it because they don't think they have the authority to correct an error.

Why just when it falls under your notice and purview,

Several reasons. First, because I cannot correct an error I do not see. Second, I have neither the authority nor the access to go digging through the membership rolls of wards not under my purview. Third, in order to determine that someone does not want contact, I would have to contact them, exponentially increasing the occurrence of unwanted contact. People don't magically have glowing footnotes in membership rolls saying "you don't know this, but this guy is going to get mad if you knock on his door!" If a do not contact request is entered into the system, can you guess what happens to their information?

can't you, all up there in the Church office building, suggest to those that discuss and set policy that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.

They know very well it's an issue that needs to be addressed, and it is frequently addressed. I get the feeling you are under the impression that no one ever talks about this, and that if someone ever did, no one would ever be subjected to unwanted contact ever again. You keep overlooking that the church is made up of millions of imperfect human beings with varying degrees of competence, discipline, conviction, compassion, empathy, and tact. You're not really considering any facts, nor do you appear to be forwarding any of your own. It seems you're just committed to a specific presupposition and are trying to reason your way around the facts I'm pointing out to you with what little exposure you have to this issue and its mechanisms. Please stop doing that. You're not going to stumble across a magic argument. The church is not out to get you. Why is it so difficult to understand that?

[_cafe crema]

On Reddit more harassment from the stalker church.

[_NorthboundZax]

But she is not a member and she doesn't belong on the list, so they are tracking/following/hounding a non member.

No, they're not. A clerical error resulted in a non-member being mistaken for a non-active member and having contact attempted. Lets not interpret a single clerical error as a sinister standard practice. That can lead to all kinds of misunderstandings, can't it?

I don't think this can be so easily chalked up to a clerical error. Both when I was missionarying and ward clerking, I have had lists that had marks, like "U" or "N". They stood for statuses like "blessed but not baptized" or "BIC but not blessed or baptized" and a few others. I remember one on the list that was a non-member widower whose wife had been a member. My initial reaction was that these names shouldn't be there, but was told otherwise. I forget whether this was for missionary/reactivation purposes or just for more complete record keeping. Either way, it was clear that these were not considered errors to be fixed.

[_Gunnar]

I think it highly improbable that madeleine would still be having this problem without direct involvement by her TBM parents who talked her into having her daughter blessed in the Mormon manner.