Tech Forum

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.