Tech Forum

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?