First Presidency Approval for Ward Members Outside the Boundaries

I would like to hear about any situations where approval from the First Presidency was granted to allow a member to be in a ward while their residence is outside the ward boundaries.

Obviously, reasons such as "the member prefers to be in the other ward" or "the other ward's building is closer" are not good reasons to ask for approval from the first presidency. I've heard of exceptions being granted for ward leaders called from outside the boundaries, but I'm curious of what else may be allowed.

We have a situation in our ward where a recently baptized family's residence was discovered to be just within a neighboring ward's boundaries (even though the town listed in their address is within our ward's boundaries). The family doesn't own a car, and the parent's don't have driver's licenses. Their primary mode of transportation to church is the mother's sister who lives close to them and is a member of our ward. The bishop wants to discuss first presidency approval for them to remain in our ward.

I'm sure you've read the Handbook (1:13.6 (1:13.6.4)) Wouldn't you just send it up the "chain of file leadership" until it comes back down?
Bishop > Stake President > etc. > etc.>

greggo wrote:I would like to hear about any situations where approval from the First Presidency was granted to allow a member to be in a ward while their residence is outside the ward boundaries.

Obviously, reasons such as "the member prefers to be in the other ward" or "the other ward's building is closer" are not good reasons to ask for approval from the first presidency. I've heard of exceptions being granted for ward leaders called from outside the boundaries, but I'm curious of what else may be allowed.

We have a situation in our ward where a recently baptized family's residence was discovered to be just within a neighboring ward's boundaries (even though the town listed in their address is within our ward's boundaries). The family doesn't own a car, and the parent's don't have driver's licenses. Their primary mode of transportation to church is the mother's sister who lives close to them and is a member of our ward. The bishop wants to discuss first presidency approval for them to remain in our ward.

I wouldn't think that a decision of this nature would require the 1st Presidency to be involved. A Bishop or Stake President should be all that's necessary to make a prayerful decision.

In our area in consultation with Mission President (who talked to SLC) and stake President, we let them attend where they are friendshipped and feel comfortable, and let them know up-front that this is an exception that we would like to transition at some point, but importantly, it is not forced, or given some kind of timeline.... just transition when the family is strong enough to be on their own.

greggo wrote:I would like to hear about any situations where approval from the First Presidency was granted to allow a member to be in a ward while their residence is outside the ward boundaries.

Personally, I've never heard of such approval being granted -- for the simple reason that I've never heard of a stake president actually making such a request. However, I know of many situations where the member does not actually reside in the ward where the records are. It's interesting to me that this particular provision in the handbook is so widely disregarded by stake presidents and bishops. And yet we recently got a new edition of the handbook that was reviewed thoroughly by many people, including apostles and the First Presidency, and that provision is still there. I get the impression that many leaders think that it's not worth "bothering" the Office of the First Presidency on such matters and so they can just make the decision themselves. The last couple of posts in this thread seem to espouse that philosophy. But the First Presidency could have eliminated all such bother simply by deleting that provision in the Handbook about a year and a half ago -- yet they didn't choose to delete that provision. To my thinking, that is strong evidence that they actually want that handbook provision to be followed.

Of course the fact that the Mission President obtained his direction from SLC as stated in my post seems to indicate that the messages are mixed from SLC, not just local issue.

aebrown wrote:Personally, I've never heard of such approval being granted -- for the simple reason that I've never heard of a stake president actually making such a request.

Same here.

I have heard (rumor mill) of situations such as a divorce where the two parties ended up in the same ward. I can see how having the ex in the same ward would not be conducive to the spirit.

We typically are able to counsel with the members who have requested it and help them to understand the principles behind the policy. There has been one case in our ward where it was approved by the 1st Presidency. The teenage daughter of an inactive family living in our ward was fellowshipped by schoolmates who attend the bordering ward. The family began attending that ward before it was discovered that they lived in our boundaries. The other bishop and I felt that the family would benefit more from the friendships recently developed in that ward while they are still tender and getting comfortable in the gospel. Our stake president ran it to SLC and they approved. It was stated, though, that this was meant to be temporary and when the bishops felt they could handle the swap, they should begin attending the appropriate ward.

aebrown wrote:Personally, I've never heard of such approval being granted -- for the simple reason that I've never heard of a stake president actually making such a request.

My parents lived in a ward where a member right at the boundary sought and received permission in the 1960s to have records in the closer ward. The exception is still in place.

Our last stake had two approved exceptions based on distance to the nearest ward or branch from the city in question.

In 1985 our stake made three requests. Two were approved and one was not.

techgy wrote:I wouldn't think that a decision of this nature would require the 1st Presidency to be involved. A Bishop or Stake President should be all that's necessary to make a prayerful decision.

Actually it does take permission from the First Presidency. I was serving as Exec. Secretary to our Stake President when a situation came up where permission was saught to allow a member to attend a ward outside of his own.

The reasoning given is that Bishop Smith, of the 1st ward, has responsiblity for Brother Brown. Bishop Smith holds the keys of being that members sheppard and common judge. He, Bishop Smith, has to sign off on a temple recommend, accept tithes and offerings etc. Bishop Green of the 45th ward does not have that charge over Brother and sister brown. From what we were told, the Prophet, who holds all keys of the Priesthood would need to give his conent for this action to be taken. Keep in mind that wards are set up for a specific reason, one of them being that the Lord's House is a house of order. It is far easier to meet the needs of a member if he/she attends a set congregation within a specific geographical boundry.

Two wards meet in our building. Across the street from my ward and in the other ward is a business. The nature of this business requires that two adults be present at the business 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year. In order to accommodate that, the business has two apartments in the building. Apartment A and Apartment B. We received permission from the First Presidency to have Apartment B be in our ward so that on Sundays, Apartment A can attend the other ward and Apartment B can attend our ward, and they never have the same block time. Otherwise, one or the other family would not be able to attend Church each week, and one or the other family would miss all ward functions. Or, an employee would need to be hired to sit at the business during church functions and they didn't want to do that on Sundays. It has been this way for several years.

Hi,

It seems it has been awhile since the last post in this thread; so I hope I'll get a response.
I have always thought it took the 1st Presidencies approval for someone to have their records in a ward they did not reside in; however, I cannot find the actual instructions detailing such.
Can someone point me to the instructions?

Thanks,
Kyle

exec1266 wrote:however, I cannot find the actual instructions detailing such.

Handbook 1: 13.6, paragraph 2.

Thanks!
I must have read over that paragraph three times and still did not "see" it!
Kyle

I would like to know where and how to apply for a boundary exception online. Does anyone know?

Vernelmay wrote:I would like to know where and how to apply for a boundary exception online. Does anyone know?

I'm pretty sure this is something you would address with your bishop and/or stake president. There is not an online application for this type of request.

Vernelmay wrote:I would like to know where and how to apply for a boundary exception online.

The current procedure requires that the stake president send a letter to the Office of the First Presidency making the request. If the membership record will be in another stake, both stake presidents must send letters. The bishops involved must also consent to keeping the membership record in a ward in which the member does not live.

Handbook 1, 13.6 outlines the requirement.

russellhltn wrote:

aebrown wrote:Personally, I've never heard of such approval being granted -- for the simple reason that I've never heard of a stake president actually making such a request.

Same here.

I have heard (rumor mill) of situations such as a divorce where the two parties ended up in the same ward. I can see how having the ex in the same ward would not be conducive to the spirit.

It happened in our ward a couple of years ago. As part of a divorce, there was an order for the ex-husband to stay a certain distance from his ex-wife. Our building wasn't that big, so we applied and got permission for him to attend another ward in the stake.

cfitch wrote:As part of a divorce, there was an order for the ex-husband to stay a certain distance from his ex-wife. Our building wasn't that big, so we applied and got permission for him to attend another ward in the stake.

With only one ward in the city at the time, in a similar circumstance we had a judge who was a member who ruled that the distance between the two sides of the chapel was sufficient to meet the court order when they were both in the building, as long as they behaved civilly.

They attended different Sunday School classes.

At a basic level, what is the question?

If the ultimate objective is to enable individuals to partake of the sacrament, receive instruction, and to receive /provide service to others, then does the question of where they do this matter? What non-administrative consequences warrant potentially alienating families due to difficult conditions?

Demographic inequality, for example, places unnecessarily stress on already struggling families. Forcing them to attend meetings with affluent individuals from outside their neighborhoods forces unnecessary intimate comparisons, contributing, in part, to the depression so common among members.

So, returning to the first question-what’s the objective? Administrative optimization, or supporting families in their efforts to engage with the Church?

jamesricks wrote:So, returning to the first question-what’s the objective? Administrative optimization, or supporting families in their efforts to engage with the Church?

We're not told. Any ideas are just speculation. Nor is this a forum to ask questions hoping for a change in policy as no decision-makers visit here.

Speaking for myself, I think we'd see significant problems if we just let everyone go where they want. Some wards with popular bishops would get to be large, with no real means of controlling ward size. A large ward will have a big budget, but a limited number of callings and opportunities for service. Other wards could fall in size and have a hard time functioning. It seems clear to me that we need to have some kind of control so that members go to the unit whose boundaries they're assigned to but allows exceptions for valid reasons. And that's pretty much what we have now.

If members lived the gospel, the need for exceptions would be minimal.

The current way we report attendance on the quarterly report is interesting. While visitors are counted for Sacrament Meeting, only members of the ward are counted for attendance at priesthood, Relief Society, YM, YW, and Primary meetings. So other than Sacrament Meeting, we only receive budget funds if the members of our ward attend the meetings of our ward.

jamesricks wrote:At a basic level, what is the question?

If the ultimate objective is to enable individuals to partake of the sacrament, receive instruction, and to receive /provide service to others, then does the question of where they do this matter? What non-administrative consequences warrant potentially alienating families due to difficult conditions?

Demographic inequality, for example, places unnecessarily stress on already struggling families. Forcing them to attend meetings with affluent individuals from outside their neighborhoods forces unnecessary intimate comparisons, contributing, in part, to the depression so common among members.

So, returning to the first question-what’s the objective? Administrative optimization, or supporting families in their efforts to engage with the Church?

This is a good and important question that can't be fully answered (as mentioned above, we don't know all the reasons), but as I understand it, the need for ward boundaries is both administrative and spiritual.

Having set ward boundaries gives each ward member a clear line of accountability and stewardship. A bishop is called and set apart to preside over the geographical area where he has stewardship. Your elders quorum or Relief Society president is set apart and blessed to minister to you. You can't receive the same spiritual support in another ward, no matter the intentions of the other ward's leaders, because it is your ward leaders who have the right to revelation and the keys to minister to you.

The right to revelation based on stewardship and the organized delegation of priesthood keys is something that sets The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apart from other churches and organizations. When the First Presidency approves an exception, they are approving another bishop's keys to be activated in your behalf.

zaneclark wrote:I just found this discussion and wonder if something has changed in 5 years... I couldn't find anything in the Handbook on sending the request to the first presidency but I did find this.... Not sure if it is relevant...

Handbook 1-13.6.4

The paragraph that mentions First Presidency approval is Handbook 1, 13.6, paragraph 2.

My family and I moved from Arizona to Kentucky to be closer to my two children from my previous marriage. The house we bought was within the boundaries of the ward my children were in, so we asked about being approved to have our records sent to the ward our children were in. We were told it would have to be approved by the First Presidency. With the help of our bishop and stake president, the First Presidency approved our request. It was a long process, but well worth the effort.

Please state where in Handbook 1 the instructions are found with regard to this.

Sorry! I did not notice that the answer is in the previous comment. Does it still apply?

williamgdunbar wrote:Does it still apply?

That part is unchanged.

Was just asking because I learned about a member who several years ago had fallen out with others and refused to attend their ward and attended another ward 35 miles away. Somehow the member persuaded the Bishop there for an interview for a Temple Recommend and then it was signed by the Stake President.

The member must had been asked 'do you attend YOUR sacrament meetings?' , but of course the member was attending OTHER sacrament meetings. Then the membership record was transferred to the 'foreign' ward and when that was discovered by the Bishop of the original ward, he asked for it to be transferred back but 6 months later, the membership record was transferred back to the other ward again.

I doubt that the First Presidency would have given permission under circumstances of failing to sustain the Bishop of the ward they should have attended due to a fall out with. You will note that I have been careful not to mention the identity of the member or whether a brother or a sister.

williamgdunbar wrote:Was just asking because I learned about a member who several years ago had fallen out with others and refused to attend their ward and attended another ward 35 miles away. Somehow the member persuaded the Bishop there for an interview for a Temple Recommend and then it was signed by the Stake President.

There's a few issues with that, but since it was "several years ago", it's pretty pointless to get into it. Suffice to say that the reason to attend a different ward has to be enough to get the cooperation of both bishops and the stake president(s) involved to go to the Office of the First Presidency.

Of course, no one is likely to throw someone out for attending the wrong ward. But they shouldn't expect to get a calling or a temple recommend.

drepouille wrote:The current way we report attendance on the quarterly report is interesting. While visitors are counted for Sacrament Meeting, only members of the ward are counted for attendance at priesthood, Relief Society, YM, YW, and Primary meetings. So other than Sacrament Meeting, we only receive budget funds if the members of our ward attend the meetings of our ward.

Correct. I've always thought of it as the difference between a general budget which is used for all members (Sacrament attendance) and special interest budgets used for a subset of members (quorums and organizations). Since the goal is progressing non-members to members and members to full activity and the next priesthood ordination; this method puts a motivation towards those goals.

Since there can be and often are non-members or visiting members who may participant in organization activities, it can seem like there isn't enough money allotted for the number of people attending. However, since activities should be a simple as possible to achieve their goal and always have a spiritual focus leaders (including youth leaders who should be planning for their organizations) need to focus on creating activities for the budget they have; not the one they wish they had.

This is a great reason we have Ward Council. We've had organizations share their budgets for some activities which they felt would enhance members and non-members experiences but were too large for just one organization's budge.

Hopefully I've conveyed my thoughts without giving offence -that is the last thing I'd want to do.

Cheers,
Kyle

Does anyone know how long it takes for Salt Lake to respond back? (Permission has been requested thru Stake President about 2 months ago for a family regarding out of boundaries)

There isn't a set time period. You should ask you bishop/stake president. They would have the best channels to ask for an update.

Based on issues I've followed in the past, the leaders seem to have a set schedule for their meetings. They work though the issues until time is up and everything else is deferred to the next meeting. Even church employees have difficulty in determining the timing.

With everything going on, I don't know as they can get to your application anytime soon.

YES and YES; all a Stake President needs to do is make the inquiry...the First presidency will NOT deny nor prevent a family (or individual) from moving wards to feel more comfortable because of abuse by the current ward or uncomfortable situations. With this being said people can't just move wards because they don't like someone, LOL. It needs to be more significant than that. For example: Our family was attacked by a "clique" in our ward and this carried on for years and included our previous Bishop...we received the First presidency permission to move wards but ironically we chose to stay in our current ward...we began to recognize the incredible blessings we were receiving from the Lord because of our adversity and it seems contrary to a sane mind but we chose to stay in the adversity and have enjoyed even more blessings from the Lord...we have prayed for those individuals and have seen some of them prosper due to their repentance and have seen some burdened with heavy burdens because of their lack of repentance...however the abuse we have suffered is more like what you would experience in HighSchool by the stuck-up popular kids, which is exactly what was happening...but more serious abuse (not that this is not serous) should be dealt with immediately and you SHOULD change wards in that case...Keep in mind you may voluntarily change wards even if you do not have permission but you may not be eligible for a Calling, Temple Recommend, etc. until your request is officially recognized. Either way I recommend counseling with both Bishops, if you can. Good luck Saints.

Is this still stated in Handbook 2 and if so where?

grahamaudenart wrote: Mon Dec 06, 2021 1:22 am Is this still stated in Handbook 2 and if so where?

Generial Handbook section 33.6