D'oh! I didn't see that even the second time around.unixguy wrote:Sorry, I took advantage of your typo that I frequently make myself. YM == Young Men, right?
18-year-old Young Women
-
- Community Administrator
- Posts: 34422
- Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
- Location: U.S.
- terrysackett
- Member
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:58 pm
smithgw wrote:Maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't have any trouble doing this. I went to "Relief Society," looked in the "Members" section and found the name of a 19-year-old female. I clicked Remove. In the "Destination Organization" field in the window that appeared, I used the drop-down arrow and chose "Laurels." She was moved from the Relief Society to the Laurels. I was using a 2.7 version of MLS.
See if this works for you.
Alan_Brown wrote:I'd be interested in hearing why you didn't have any trouble doing this. Do you have some sort of experience or knowledge that led you directly to the "Remove" option, or is it the case that to your way of thinking, it makes perfect sense to Remove from RS rather than Add to the Laurel class?
I did exactly what smithgw did, and it does work for prospective elders, too. I've been working with my elders quorum president and high priests group leader to move prospective elders from the group to the quorum based on the PE's age, assigned HTs, familiarity with active men, etc.
I don't know what prompted him to use the REMOVE function instead of ADD MEMBER, but for me it was a matter of seeing REMOVE next to the names of people that MLS placed in wrong Sunday School classes, then having the idea to remove adults from their default classes that are serving in Primary, YM, and YW.
After doing this, I saw that one of the Laurels' names was handwritten on the class roll. I had already corrected an issue at the beginning of the year with MLS not placing many young women into classes, and many young men not being placed in AP quorums (which is an issue I'll be posting elsewhere). So I asked my YW president if that happened with this young woman, and she said the young woman turned 18 on Christmas, and was placed on the RS roll, but she is still in high school, and therefore still in YW. She asked me if I could fix it, and I gave it a try by removing her from RS first.
I don't think MLS thinks the way I do, but in my mind, I could not add someone to a roll without first removing them from the current one. That's why I went to REMOVE in the RS roll first.
I hope all that helps you.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:17 pm
- Location: Las Vegas, NV
This sounds like a bad idea. Those that are unable to attend EQ, HP, or RS meetings because they are serving in Primary, YM, or YW should still appear on the respective EQ, HP, and RS attendance rolls (and probably Sunday School rolls too) and be marked as attending. Don't manually remove them from these rolls. The same goes for those that have callings that take them out of the unit, such as those with stake callings and full-time missionaries. Doing otherwise might artificially affect your units statistical report in a negative way.SR Ward Clerk wrote:I don't know what prompted him to use the REMOVE function instead of ADD MEMBER, but for me it was a matter of seeing REMOVE next to the names of people that MLS placed in wrong Sunday School classes, then having the idea to remove adults from their default classes that are serving in Primary, YM, and YW.
Someone went to the trouble of putting together a hand reference sheet on how to collect the data for the qurterly report. You can find it here. However, the quarterly report is supposed to change somewhat as of 01 April 2008, and an upgrade to MLS (version 2.8.1) is also required in order for the report to be completed properly. As of this posting, the download of 2.8.1 is not yet available generally.
I had a primary president ask what to do when they have a teacher that does not show up to teach a class, should they be counted as attending RS? I advised her (right or wrong) that they should automatically be counted as attending RS until they are released from their Primary calling regardless of whether or not they show up to church. If they are not functioning in their calling, then they should probably be released. Prior to this, the primary president had been going to the trouble to prepare and hand an attendance list to the RS secretary of all the primary teachers that were in Primary each Sunday.
- mkmurray
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
- Location: Utah
- Contact:
Yes, I just leave EQ for a few minutes and go peek in the auxiliaries to count anyone attending that day who is part of the quorum but has a calling that prevents them from attending Priesthood. They are still part of the quorum and should be on the roll in my opinion (plus, MLS puts them on the roll by default; there might have been some foresight there).jbh001 wrote:This sounds like a bad idea. Those that are unable to attend EQ, HP, or RS meetings because they are serving in Primary, YM, or YW should still appear on the respective EQ, HP, and RS attendance rolls (and probably Sunday School rolls too) and be marked as attending. Don't manually remove them from these rolls. The same goes for those that have callings that take them out of the unit, such as those with stake callings and full-time missionaries. Doing otherwise might artificially affect your units statistical report in a negative way.
- opee
- Member
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:00 am
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
mkmurray wrote:Yes, I just leave EQ for a few minutes and go peek in the auxiliaries to count anyone attending that day who is part of the quorum but has a calling that prevents them from attending Priesthood. They are still part of the quorum and should be on the roll in my opinion (plus, MLS puts them on the roll by default; there might have been some foresight there).
Having them on the rolls will also remind the Quorum/Aux leaders that those members need to be told about activities, announcements, etc. If they aren't there, they will be forgotten--"out of sight, out of mind".