Branch vs Ward

What's the basic difference between a branch and a ward? I am thinking that a branch can cover a larger area than a ward but in some areas of the US there are wards that go for miles. So when is it appropriate to create a branch instead of a ward or visa versa?

Thoughts?

The wikipedia page describes how they differ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_%28LDS_Church%29. Scroll down to the section 'Wards and branches. Hope this helps.

The official information is provided in the CHI, Book1, 2006, p 170 -171. But for those who do not have access to the CHI the wikipedia information will do.

Thanks. I hadn't checked wikipedia.

I'm not sure what information you're looking for. Off the top of my head, I believe a Branch has a streamlined leadership structure that makes it a better fit for small congregations, but I don't remember the differences.

Having lived in ward that was bigger then the stake I'm in now I would say it's not about geography at all, at least as far as I know. One of the major determining factors is whether of not you have enough active, worthy, tithe paying, priesthood for all the callings that require priesthood (bishopric/clerks, priesthood quorums, young men).

Techgy wrote:What's the basic difference between a branch and a ward?

All of the information referenced so far is good. The basic difference is that a branch is usually small and created in an area with very few members. They function as best they can and use the basic programs of the Church.

Ideally, a branch will grow in numbers and strength and eventually become a ward. A ward is created when there are sufficient numbers and strength of members to carry out the full program of the Church.

A ward does not have to have been a branch first. If there are enough members in an area, a ward can be created. This happens most often in established areas of the Church, such as when a large and strong ward is divided to become two, or two large wards are divided to create a third ward in the same area.

I appreciate everyone's input. Much of what you have stated I had already considered. It was mostly curiosity. Our stake will shortly be going through some ward boundary changes and I was simply wondering what the basis was for the creation of a branch vs ward.

We have two branches in our stake. One is a singles branch and the other a deaf branch. Both are relatively small in number although they cover a rather wide area.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

I'm not sure if this is useful, but here goes. A branch can have plenty of members, including worthy priesthood holders, when it is outside boundaries of a stake.

A case in point is our branch. A couple hundred people, including recommend holding MP holders, but two hundred miles from the nearest ward, and the stake there is already huge, geographically.

So, I think geography comes to play when you really have relatively few members living in a large area. If we were inside the boundaries of a stake, or even neatly neighboring it, we could easily be a ward (I've lived in a smaller ward).

Theoretically speaking. When I was in the district presidency here, our goal was to become a stake. A lofty goal for around 350 members to be sure, but if you don't reach out you'll never get anywhere.

The membership is growing now, and I see young people come to the Church and get married in the temple. For some time that didn't seem to happen.

Cheers,
--velska

velska wrote:I'm not sure if this is useful, but here goes. A branch can have plenty of members, including worthy priesthood holders, when it is outside boundaries of a stake.

True. A Ward can only exist inside a Stake. No Stake, no Ward.

But a Branch can exist inside a Stake.

Techgy wrote:We have two branches in our stake. One is a singles branch and the other a deaf branch. Both are relatively small in number although they cover a rather wide area.

In such a situation, the number of members would be considered. The geographical area, though large, would have very little to do with the decision.

Just as another example and information (probably useless) about why a branch rather than a ward: I am in a branch that geographically is larger than all the stakes I have been in (several). The branch has about 80 members and gets about 40 attendance at sacrament meeting. The town we meet in is about 80 miles from any of the other wards and branches in the stake. We are just too isolated and dispersed to be practical to be connected with a ward. Also, the branch president is from the stake and does not live in the branch boundaries.

GBarton wrote:The branch has about 80 members and gets about 40 attendance at sacrament meeting. The town we meet in is about 80 miles from any of the other wards and branches in the stake. We are just too isolated and dispersed to be practical to be connected with a ward. Also, the branch president is from the stake and does not live in the branch boundaries.

This is one of the more usual situations in which a branch may be established. Hopefully, the branch president who does not live in the branch will be able to (or already does) have counselors who live within the branch boundaries. Eventually, the ideal would be to have the complete branch presidency called from among the branch members.

Then the branch grows, and someday becomes a ward. This is what building the Kingdom is all about.

Many years ago, I served in a district presidency and visited 12 different branches as part of my responsibility. Today, each of those 12 branches is its own stake, and some of those cities have more than one.

It seemed like forever at the time. But, it seems like just yesterday as I look back on those wonderful experiences.

lajackson wrote:It seemed like forever at the time. But, it seems like just yesterday as I look back on those wonderful experiences.

That is so true.

About the diffences between ward and branch I agree geography can influence things but as also stated it doesnt have to. It is more about the amount of worthy priesthood holders etc.

A branch also has more "flexibility" including the requirements for those called to some of the leadership positions and the curriculum they choose to follow and the individual classes they have.

I am trying to stay general here as I dont want to quote from the CHI but one of the publicly known differences is that the requirement for being a Branch President is that he has be a Priest within the Aaronic Priesthood whereas a Bishop has to be a High Priest.

Some might have read THIS wiki article which is actually wrong stating he has to be an Elder. In fairness many are Elders or High Priests but it is not a requirement.

The Branch Guidebook on lds.org is actually very informative and I can recommend it to anyone who is interested (here is the PDF).
The section about the Branch Presidency is relevant to some of my comments above.

Having had the experience of starting a branch I came to appreciate the differences and the flexibility being a branch gives you.

I just wanted to point out that the policies governing the creation of the different units of the church are not set in stone. They may change and exceptions can be made.

Between 2002-05, I was the stake clerk in the only English speaking stake (not a military unit) outside of any English speaking countries. Before it was organized, we had three English wards within a local language stake. The area president re-organized the units to go from 3 to 4 and then called a District Pres'y (the currently serving Stake Pres'y) to preside over the 4 units. At that time, we were a district with 4 branches, only because by policy a stake needed to have at least 5 wards. So all of the then bishops were made branch presidents, the HP groups were eliminated, and the HPGL's were made EQP's. Soon after all the re-sustainings/settings-apart, it was petitioned to the First Pres'y to have the district not be a part of the mission, but to report directly to the area pres'y and allow us to hold our own disciplinary councils, have our own patriarch, etc. When presented to Pres. Hinckley, he said rather than make these exceptions, why not make the exception on the number of wards and allow us to become a stake? So that's what was done (and everyone had to be re-called, re-sustained, re-set apart - again).

I wondered about this myself...so I was a member of a branch in New York for two years (2001-2003) then moved back to Montana, but I visit occasionally when I come see my daughter and most recently (2021) am visiting the ward which became a ward shortly after we left in 2003...they had 1 YW in the ward and 1 primary age child and maybe 15 sisters and brothers each...how can this b a ward? I was told a ward needs a certain number of priesthood holders yet a certain number of total members...anyone know the ground truth on this one?

Valient wrote:... anyone know the ground truth on this one?

It is dependent on the area of the church. In the United States and Canada there are numbers used for organization membership and attendance over a period of time, worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders necessary to fill leadership callings, and other statistical determinants. There is no requirement for the number of youth and children. There is also leeway for the Area Authority to receive inspiration to make adjustments for local conditions and circumstances. If you are looking for exact criteria, no one here can give that. After a branch becomes a ward there can be a downturn in membership, attendance, and available worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders to fill leadership callings. The stake president, area coordinating council, and area authority watch these things and will discuss necessary unit boundary realignments when appropriate.

The organization of the Church is set out in scripture. Derived from that we have a living document in the General Handbook that provides further guidance for our current day and circumstances. General Handbook, sections 5-15, describes the organization of the Church. After describing the General and Area Leadership in section 5 the Stake Leadership is described and outlined in section 6. One sentence in section 6.1, Purposes of a Stake, states: "Today the Church is organized into stakes."

The organizational goal is to build stakes. Within section 6 is the organization of a stake. Notably there is section 6.3 which outlines the differences between the authority of district presidents and that of stake presidents. In reading that section we can get an understanding as to the differences in organization of a stake and a district. We get an understanding that a district is performing some of the functions of a stake under the leadership of a mission president.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, stake child unit organizations are wards and branches while child unit organizations of districts are branches. For a branch to become a ward it must reside within a stake. I have gone through the processes of making a branch a ward, splitting wards, and reorganizing ward boundaries to combine three wards into two, splitting stakes, and so on while serving in several stake callings and listening to general authorities and area authorities speak on the topic in meetings devoted to those organization changes. While numbers were discussed, they also were focusing on the stability of the unit in the future and meeting the needs of the membership.

The policy on creating new units can be found in the General Handbook 36.2.

Note that's a minimum for creating a ward. It's possible it may fall below that afterward. None of this appears to be automatic - the stake president has to initiate the change.

I recently had stake conference with a visiting General Authority. In the evening session thereof on Saturday, the G.A. mentioned a branch president doesn’t have priesthood keys like a ward’s bishop. He just reports to either the stake president or the mission president. If it’s a collection of branches and Ianin a stake with wards, the stake president. If it’s a collection of branches with no wards at all, it’s a district and reports to the mission president. As far as membership numbers go, congregations with under 100 members a few Melchizedek priesthood holders make branches whereas congregations over 100 with plenty of Melchizedek priesthood holders make wards. For example: when my father was a young missionary, he was once a branch president until the congregation became a ward some years after he went home. In my early childhood, Dad in his early adulthood became a ward bishop. Additionally, even a brother from a stake’s wards can be called as a branch president. This making any sense?

I'd suggest reading General Handbook Section 36 - Creating, Changing, and Naming New Units.