Ward Boundaries

What is the official policy if a member doesn't want their records to be transferred to their new ward? Here is the situation, the member moved about 1/2 mile outside their current ward boundries and due to the distance to the new ward, they plan to stay at their current ward. The current ward distance is 2 miles and the new ward is 10 miles.

Eric wrote:What is the official policy if a member doesn't want their records to be transferred to their new ward? Here is the situation, the member moved about 1/2 mile outside their current ward boundries and due to the distance to the new ward, they plan to stay at their current ward. The current ward distance is 2 miles and the new ward is 10 miles.

Although this isn't recommended, if the member can convince the Bishops that it's in the best interest of the member to keep the records where they are, then they would remain. The decision is really up to the Bishops.

Eric wrote:What is the official policy if a member doesn't want their records to be transferred to their new ward? Here is the situation, the member moved about 1/2 mile outside their current ward boundries and due to the distance to the new ward, they plan to stay at their current ward. The current ward distance is 2 miles and the new ward is 10 miles.

The bishop would want to discuss this with the stake president. The First Presidency authorizes any exception to the rule that the membership record belongs in the ward where the member actually lives. The stake president would have to be the one to request an exemption, if he so desired.

From what you have described, however, the membership record is the least of the bishop's worries. [grin]

Techgy wrote:Although this isn't recommended, if the member can convince the Bishops that it's in the best interest of the member to keep the records where they are, then they would remain. The decision is really up to the Bishops.

Yes, as lajackson stated, it really isn't only up to the bishops. Every exception is to go before the First Presidency for approval. It really should be a justified reason and not just for convenience.

I have witnessed this situation before. When the member is within the same stake boundaries the decision rests with the stake president. When the member resides in a ward in one stake and desires to be a member of a ward in another stake then the issue goes to higher authority. Where that is I don't know. I presume the stake presidents would have some idea.

Eric wrote:What is the official policy if a member doesn't want their records to be transferred to their new ward? Here is the situation, the member moved about 1/2 mile outside their current ward boundries and due to the distance to the new ward, they plan to stay at their current ward. The current ward distance is 2 miles and the new ward is 10 miles.

Eric,

It would be fair to say that the bishops of both wards would certainly be involved in a discussion about this and more than likely with the Stake President and possibly also having to seek approval from the First Presidency.

If it was decided for them to stay in their current ward it would also be fair to say there would have to be some very good reasons to this.

Sorry if this sound a bit like a general answer but it is better than me trying to involve some form of guessing/presuming/assuming.

Thanks for the replies.

dkjorgi wrote:It would be fair to say that the bishops of both wards would certainly be involved in a discussion about this and more than likely with the Stake President and possibly also having to seek approval from the First Presidency.

jdlessley wrote:When the member is within the same stake boundaries the decision rests with the stake president. When the member resides in a ward in one stake and desires to be a member of a ward in another stake then the issue goes to higher authority. Where that is I don't know. I presume the stake presidents would have some idea.

The above statements are incorrect to the extent that they imply that approval for member records being in a ward other than where the member resides can be handled at a local level; lajackson and mkmurray had it right in saying that approval is required from the bishops involved and the stake president(s) and the Office of the First Presidency. See the Church Handbook of Instructions, p. 145, which states the policy simply and clearly.

Of course, a member can reside within the boundaries of multiple wards (a regular ward, a YSA ward, a Spanish ward, etc.) and the First Presidency approval is not required when the member's records would be in any of these assigned wards/branches.

larrydkb wrote:Mr. Brown, if I decide to attend a different ward in the same building is the situation the same? Obviously I can just go, but I'd like my records transferred too in order to be active in the new ward. Is there a suggested way to do this?

My personal opinion is that it is not a matter of meetinghouses, but that of physical boundaries of jurisdiction for the bishops. In a way, bishops are responsible for the physical and spiritual well-being of every individual (member and non-member alike) within his ward boundaries.

You can imagine the unnecessary burden added on the bishop if members were to just begin attending wherever they chose for unimportant reasons, especially if their attendance patterns became irregular and they change their mind often as to what ward they belong. This can create an administrative (and ministrative) nightmare as far as fellowshipping, callings, etc. Now I'm probably describing more immature situations then what may come up more frequently, but you can see the line needs to be drawn somewhere and a bishop's responsibilities need to be consistent and dependable.

This is my personal opinion as to why the policy is the way it is. There are certainly numerous occasions that would permit an exception to the policy, but it should remain just that...an exceptional case with good justification and approval from proper leadership (and I do interpret this to mean all the way to the top).

If there is a potential situation, I would say do not be afraid to approach your bishop with the concerns and see where it goes from there and what council he gives. Perhaps the two of you can read the passage from the Church Handbook together and discuss the situation in reference to the written policy.

larrydkb wrote:Mr. Brown, if I decide to attend a different ward in the same building is the situation the same? Obviously I can just go, but I'd like my records transferred too in order to be active in the new ward. Is there a suggested way to do this?

You directed this to me, so I'd be happy to respond, but mkmurray's post has already answered the question much better than I could have! I would simply emphasize that it would be best to start by counseling with your bishop, who can help you with your specific concerns.

Because I don't see the useful of geographic "unit boundary", I would suggest to setup logical boundaries founded under "more close" instead of fixed border.
Now we have all the tools to manage each single case!
But this must be done by The President (of course).
Someoune can pass the suggestion?

As I understand it, unit boundaries are established to maintain units at a desired size. Too small and there are not enough leaders. Too large and there are not enough opportunities for service.

The building location was chosen based on the member population at the time. But as the population shifts, that can change. As a result, some members may find themselves not going to the closest building.

marianomarini_vi wrote:Because I don't see the useful of geographic "unit boundary", I would suggest to setup logical boundaries founded under "more close" instead of fixed border.
Now we have all the tools to manage each single case!
But this must be done by The President (of course).
Someoune can pass the suggestion?

In my experience, distance from the meetinghouse is indeed considered when wards or stakes are divided. But that is not the only factor, and not even the most important consideration. There are natural geographical boundaries (rivers, valleys, etc.), school districts, major highways, etc. The size of the new wards, and the balance of priesthood holders, youth, children, and active members are also important factors, as well as anticipated future growth and the location of key individuals such as a bishop or patriarch.

I'm sure I'm missing many other reasonable considerations, but the main point is that many factors are considered as boundary changes are contemplated, and most importantly, the stake president(s) involved seek inspiration and revelation in their decisions. Finally, any such proposals are reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency and may be adjusted or completely rejected at that level.

Once approved, the final result is a set of very specific geographic boundaries that determine precisely what homes are in what ward. These boundaries may not seem completely logical to those who were not involved in the process, but you can rest assured that much study and prayer has gone into the decision.

marianomarini_vi wrote:Because I don't see the useful of geographic "unit boundary", I would suggest to setup logical boundaries founded under "more close" instead of fixed border.
Now we have all the tools to manage each single case!
But this must be done by The President (of course).
Someoune can pass the suggestion?

If I correctly understand what you are suggesting, it appears you are saying that membership of a particular ward could be based on proximity to the closest meetinghouse (your phrase was "more close"), and not based on geographical unit boundaries as is the current Church policy. Is this correct?

I will first point out the fact that wards being based on geographical boundaries is indeed a currently policy, and as pointed out earlier in this thread, exceptions to the rule are to be approved all the way up to the highest levels. In order for the Church to be managed in an efficient and widespread manner, there must be consistency and reliability in knowing to what jurisdiction you belong or are responsible for. From the top to the bottom, everyone needs to depend on knowing where they belong without any question. The Church is ultimately responsible for every single one of God's children here on earth. A geographical break up is a very logical way to delegate these stewardships and cover every square inch of earth on this planet (which covers every human being).

Every Church unit in the world has geographical boundary in it's definition. Some units have further restrictions (like they must be young single adults or Spanish speaking), but geographical boundary is always there as well (even if the boundary is that of the ward's entire stake boundary).

A majority of the time, your closest meetinghouse is also the one your ward is assigned to attend. As Russell points out, there are scenarios that can change this and make it seem less intuitive in its current setup. Size of a ward or branch is an important consideration, and it could be difficult to break up wards based on how close they are to a meetinghouse. You could have two meetinghouses in a stake, but 90% of the members are really close to the one building. It wouldn't make sense to let all 90% of the members attend wards at that one building because the building can only host so many wards on Sundays. A few wards will just have to attend the farther away meetinghouse.

I hope this information helps give you some perspective on why things are they way they are. I am having a hard time thinking of a better solution than the current one. But again, the current solution is an official policy and should be adhered to until it changes (if it ever does).

mkmurray wrote:A geographical break up is a very logical way to delegate these stewardships and cover every square inch of earth on this planet (which covers every human being).

We recently had a couple of wards order maps from Salt Lake. I was looking at one of them when it came in and noticed that there was a block of text that addressed the fact that there may be uninhabited areas in the ward boundaries but every part of the earth needed to be assigned a unit. I'll try to remember to get the exact phrasing the next time I'm in that building.

I'm an old italian conveted. I joined the Church in the 1974 and I saw many changes in wards, districts, Missions and Stakes boundary.
I'm not questioning about how it was made since now, just wondering if it's came the time to look ahead and use another way, using latter-day (modern) techs.
Any solution has its own "pro et contro" (latin sentence) and, as I said before, this is a matter to First Presidency. This is a technical forum and I'm speaking of technical matters only!

The basic issues remain regardless of the technologies applied.

The answer is to convert your neighborhood so a chapel will be built closer to you.

RussellHltn wrote:The basic issues remain regardless of the technologies applied.

I was thinking about a FUZZY system. Each condition expressed in this thread can be convert into FUZZY rules (distance, gender, marriage, priesthood, ecc.).
So every unit can be divided into homogeneouse conditions. At best we can have two families living in the same building and attending two different units!

The answer is to convert your neighborhood so a chapel will be built closer to you.

I live one Kilometer far from meeting house. No need to convert anybody!:)

scgallafent wrote:We recently had a couple of wards order maps from Salt Lake. I was looking at one of them when it came in and noticed that there was a block of text that addressed the fact that there may be uninhabited areas in the ward boundaries but every part of the earth needed to be assigned a unit.

I was in an office with one of the maps yesterday. Here's the wording, for those who are interested:[INDENT]

Do not be concerned if your map includes uninhabited areas that you have not considered part of your unit. Church policy requires that all the land area of the world be included in the boundaries of an ecclesiastical church unit.

[/INDENT]

Technicaly speaking uninhabited zone can be include as well into logical boundary.
In that case there will be only one variable: distance.
The only problem (problem or opportunity?) I see is about Missionary work.
As said before, all variables must be setup for a real people. This mean that missionaries has to collect all informations before investigator could be assigned to a unit.

aebrown wrote:The above statements are incorrect to the extent that they imply that approval for member records being in a ward other than where the member resides can be handled at a local level; lajackson and mkmurray had it right in saying that approval is required from the bishops involved and the stake president(s) and the Office of the First Presidency. See the Church Handbook of Instructions, p. 145, which states the policy simply and clearly.

Of course, a member can reside within the boundaries of multiple wards (a regular ward, a YSA ward, a Spanish ward, etc.) and the First Presidency approval is not required when the member's records would be in any of these assigned wards/branches.

I have been trying to find this in the new Church handbooks and have had no luck locating this policy. Can anyone show me where to find this in the latest handbooks?

Thank you!

kentbingham wrote:I have been trying to find this in the new Church handbooks and have had no luck locating this policy. Can anyone show me where to find this in the latest handbooks?

You may wish to begin at Handbook 1, section 13.6, 2nd paragraph.

[-- Moderator note: Address removed --]

niverson9 wrote:[-- Moderator note: Address removed --]

If you are trying to find the ward boundaries for a specific address, you can do that by doing the following:

• Go to https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/
• Log in using your LDS Account
• After logging in, click on My Account and Ward and then choose Meetinghouse Locator
• Click on the ward name displayed under Residential Wards for this Location or one of the other ward names listed

Anyone can find out the ward any address is assigned to by following the steps before this post (even without logging in). One does not have to have an LDS Account to see what ward their address is in.