Page 1 of 2

Membership Record in Wrong Ward

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:25 am
by jdlessley
I recently discovered two members who do not reside in our ward but are listed as members of our ward. After contacting the ward clerk for membership with this discovery he told me that one of the member's records had been sent to headquarters three times but they keep sending it back to the ward. The other member lives within a few blocks of the first and both are at least a half mile outside our ward boundaries. Both members are inactive. Both members' records are complete to include a full address. There is nothing about their records that we are aware of that would cause Salt Lake to think they should be in our ward.

The questions then are: How should a clerk get a member's record moved out of the ward for a situation such as this? Why would Salt Lake continue to return a member's record to a ward in which they do not reside when the address for the member is clear and without problem?

Since I just notified the clerk yesterday and he replied today I do not have the details on what he did exactly in moving the record out of the ward. I want to make some sort of recommendation to him that will direct a better result. Can comments about where the record should go be included when a record is moved out? Will that help in a situation where Salt Lake seems to think they belong in our ward? I do not know if the ward in which they actually reside (still in our stake) will request the records because they are inactive members.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:39 am
by RossEvans
jdlessley wrote:IThe questions then are: How should a clerk get a member's record moved out of the ward for a situation such as this? Why would Salt Lake continue to return a member's record to a ward in which they do not reside when the address for the member is clear and without problem?


Has the clerk tried looking up the correct unit on maps.lds.org, then transferring the record to that specific unit?

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:41 am
by aebrown
jdlessley wrote:I recently discovered two members who do not reside in our ward but are listed as members of our ward. After contacting the ward clerk for membership with this discovery he told me that one of the member's records had been sent to headquarters three times but they keep sending it back to the ward. The other member lives within a few blocks of the first and both are at least a half mile outside our ward boundaries. Both members are inactive. Both members' records are complete to include a full address. There is nothing about their records that we are aware of that would cause Salt Lake to think they should be in our ward.

The questions then are: How should a clerk get a member's record moved out of the ward for a situation such as this? Why would Salt Lake continue to return a member's record to a ward in which they do not reside when the address for the member is clear and without problem?

Since I just notified the clerk yesterday and he replied today I do not have the details on what he did exactly in moving the record out of the ward. I want to make some sort of recommendation to him that will direct a better result. Can comments about where the record should go be included when a record is moved out? Will that help in a situation where Salt Lake seems to think they belong in our ward? I do not know if the ward in which they actually reside (still in our stake) will request the records because they are inactive members.


If the proper ward is in your stake, I see no reason to involve CHQ in the matter anymore. I would do two things:

  1. Make sure that the ward boundaries are correct by using maps.lds.org for the addresses of the people in question. I know this may seem like a long shot, but we had a case in our stake where the official boundaries did not match the assumed boundaries for several years. We did not notice this until someone moved in between two members of one ward, but their records were automatically put in another ward. We discovered that the boundaries were wrong, and so we made the official correction.
  2. Work with the ward clerk of the ward that should have the records. It really shouldn't matter whether the people are inactive or not -- their records should be in the right ward. The other ward can request them, or if you are absolutely certain that you know the correct ward, you can move them out to that ward. You can move records to a specific ward, and they will indeed go to that ward, even if there is some discrepancy in the address or boundaries. Under no circumstances should you "move them to headquarters" when you have an address and believe it to be correct, and even know the appropriate ward.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:15 am
by mkmurray
boomerbubba wrote:Has the clerk tried looking up the correct unit on maps.lds.org, then transferring the record to that specific unit?

See the following post for more information on how to use maps.lds.org to find out the unit number the address is assigned to:

http://tech.lds.org/forum/showthread.php?p=18744#post18744

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:06 pm
by jdlessley
Alan_Brown wrote:If the proper ward is in your stake, I see no reason to involve CHQ in the matter anymore. I would do two things:

Make sure that the ward boundaries are correct by using maps.lds.org for the addresses of the people in question.
We definitely know the boundaries of the wards. There is no question there.

Alan_Brown wrote:Work with the ward clerk of the ward that should have the records. It really shouldn't matter whether the people are inactive or not -- their records should be in the right ward. The other ward can request them, or if you are absolutely certain that you know the correct ward, you can move them out to that ward. You can move records to a specific ward, and they will indeed go to that ward, even if there is some discrepancy in the address or boundaries.
I wanted to make sure records could be sent to directly to a ward and not pass through Church headquarters before making a recommendation to the clerk. As far as being inactive is concerned - it is an issue and has been an issue in the past due to the large number of inactives in the correct ward. I know they will not request the record if they know the member is inactive. But knowing a record can be sent directly to a ward definitely will be my recommendation to the clerk.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:14 pm
by aebrown
jdlessley wrote:We definitely know the boundaries of the wards. There is no question there.


I didn't intend to imply that there was any lack of knowledge on your part. But as I related in my experience, sometimes everyone knows and acknowledges what the boundaries are, but still the official boundaries at CHQ are somehow different from that. Yet it is the official CHQ boundaries that are used to send records to wards. That's why I suggested that you check the boundaries using maps.lds.org -- not that it would affect what you would do with these particular records, but just to make sure that there is no boundary error that would lead to other problems like these misdirected records in the future.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:27 pm
by jdlessley
Alan_Brown wrote:I didn't intend to imply that there was any lack of knowledge on your part. But as I related in my experience, sometimes everyone knows and acknowledges what the boundaries are, but still the official boundaries at CHQ are somehow different from that. Yet it is the official CHQ boundaries that are used to send records to wards. That's why I suggested that you check the boundaries using maps.lds.org -- not that it would affect what you would do with these particular records, but just to make sure that there is no boundary error that would lead to other problems like these misdirected records in the future.
Sorry if it sounded like I was challenging anything. I should have said that I checked the boundaries against the Church information using LDSmaps before I even contacted the clerk and then again using the procedure you, mkmurray, and boomerbubba described. I even talked to both bishops to make sure their understanding of the boundaries was as I understood them and had checked them. Keeping things brief just doesn't come across in a positive way sometimes.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:40 pm
by russellhltn
jdlessley wrote:I wanted to make sure records could be sent to directly to a ward and not pass through Church headquarters before making a recommendation to the clerk.


Nit-pick: All record transfers go though CHQ, or at least the area office. However, if you specify the destination ward, then CHQ will honor that even if they think it's out of the boundaries.

If possible, you might want to put a note on the transfer: DO NOT RETURN.

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:08 pm
by mkmurray
RussellHltn wrote:Nit-pick: All record transfers go though CHQ, or at least the area office. However, if you specify the destination ward, then CHQ will honor that even if they think it's out of the boundaries.

If possible, you might want to put a note on the transfer: DO NOT RETURN.

Right.

But aren't you only allowed to be a note if the Destination Address is not known?

Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:19 pm
by russellhltn
mkmurray wrote:But aren't you only allowed to be a note if the Destination Address is not known?


That's why I said "if possible" ;)

But that does bring up a good point. Just how is the record being sent? If the clerk is sending it to another ward and not supplying the address (because it's already correct) then the ward receiving it isn't going to see the address and of there's a good chance they are going to send it back.