Membership Records and boundaries


Plumb
 Share

Recommended Posts

The General Handbook says that members are to attend the ward in which boundaries they live.  If members have a problem with someone in their ward or other possible problems, they are to talk to their Bishop and Stake President who will decide if a formal request to the First Presidency can be initiated to attend where they want to.  Makes sense or we would have people changing wards whenever the bishop or someone else was put in a calling.

However - We have a family in our ward that moved just across the boundary into another ward.  For those out west there are only two wards in our city.  They do not want to go to the other ward because the children have some physical and mental problems we won't go into and already have some very close friends in our ward.  When they came to our bishop to renew their temple recommends, they were refused because their records were shipped to the other ward.  So they got an appointment with the bishop in the other ward through his executive secretary, went there and waited more than an hour for the interview.  When the bishop came out of his office, he asked what they were there for, and told them he couldn't give them a recommend because they didn't attend church. (they are a very faithful family and rarely miss church - in our ward).  Recently two of their children went to the bishop in the other ward for a dance card (required to attend the youth dances) and were refused for the same reason.

The rules are clear - they should attend the other ward.  Neither bishop will allow them to attend our ward.  The Stake President says there is no issue.

This sounds like transgression versus sin to me.  These are temple worthy people, but because of a boundary rule are being denied the blessings of the gospel.  They feel they need to attend in our ward for their children.  They are becoming increasingly frustrated and I am concerned for them.  

I am a counsellor in our bishopric and feel that for the sake of an arbitrary rule we may lose a family.  Any thoughts?  Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a husband and wife choose to move into another ward, but don't wanna attend that ward, they may face consequences.  My thoughts would be for you to not try to remove the consequences of their use of agency just because those consequences are not what they want.  

Were they like forced to move or something?  Were there financial pressures that made them move?  Did they not do their homework about ward boundaries?

Basically, are this family's difficulties caused by anything deeper than "I don't wanna"?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when I got out of high school I kept my records in my family ward but immediately started attending the local singles ward because i wanted to meet nice Mormon girls and not go to church with a bunch of old people (no offense).  After three months, the missionaries from my home ward came to my house to try and "reactivate" me, as I had been going to the singles ward.  I thought that was just hilarious.  Then, my bishop said I would need to come to my home ward to be considered "active" to submit my mission papers.  So I obliged (and moved my records to the singles ward the second I returned from my mission).

That said, perhaps the Lord wants the family in this new ward?  I believe there is no such thing as am arbitrary rule in the Church.  I believe the Lord is more intimately involved in our lives than we think and may be trying to position this family in a new ward for a reason.  Perhaps someone is in the new ward that will be just what the children need?  Who knows?  When three different priesthood leaders (the bishops and he stake president) all agree that the family should attend the new ward, it may be a sign that attending the proper ward is what the Lord wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a couple of options--

Option 1)  If there is some major valid reason for them to have to remain in your ward, then they should make it official.  A major valid reason would be (for example): my daughter is deaf and the only translator is in this ward.  This should be explained to the bishops and made official.

Option 2)  If there is NOT a major valid reason for them to remain, then they should move wards because they already physically moved.  An example NOT valid reason to stay in your ward would be: my kid's friends are only in this ward.  This is remedied by simply making friends in the new ward (doesn't mean you have to get rid of the old ones).  

Option 3) If there is a major valid reason for them to stay in the old ward, and the bishop's refuse to change it, even after petitioning the stake president... that's a tough one.  One to be consulted with prayer and the Spirit much.  It might have to be to stay in the old ward despite the lack of recommend.  It might have to be physically move (you'd move for a school district, would you not?).  It might be something else.

Obviously we don't know the details of what's going on or the validity of the reasons, but it's some food for your thought.   Have you also asked the bishop about your concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a family that moved to the ward next door, who told their kids they can choose which ward they like best. This is annoying for a few reasons: 1) These kids are trouble makers, 2) We have no stewardship over them but are still responsible for them, 3) As they aren't on our records, they aren't counted in the budget... and yet they attend activities and partake of things that have been paid for, and 4) Their mom is mean and scary. We were kind of excited when we heard they were moving.

Where are they paying their tithing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The petition to attend a ward in which you do not live is not because of preference or a perceived benefit from attending another ward.  It is often for legal reasons such as divorce or something of equal magnitude.  "We have friends there" is not generally considered a justification for attending a ward outside the boundaries.

I need to assure you that the placement of ward boundaries is a painstaking process which is accompanied by prayer and subsequent revelation.

One ward that I had moved into had a special adult fireside for the stake.  It was to announce the new ward boundaries.  The Stake Presidency felt the need to explain the process by which the boundaries were established:

Quote

Brother and Sisters,

We were given the assignment to change the boundaries several months ago.  It was a long time coming with the growth of the stake.  The stake leadership gathered together to set the new ward boundaries.  We did what we thought would be best based on a number of factors.  We submitted the boundaries for approval.  That plan was rejected.

We gathered again trying to determine what we though the Brethren were looking for in the new ward boundary layout.  We established a new plan with a number of different factors.  We submitted that plan and it was also rejected.

Pres. **** (I don't remember the stake pres name) gathered us again for the meeting and he said,"Brethren, we need to repent.  We have forgotten who leads this Church.  We've forgotten that it is HIS will that we need to satisfy.  We've sought our own will.  We've sought the will of the Brethren.  Today, we're going to seek the will of the Lord."

We set about not knowing what the criteria were that we would set the boundaries by.  We were simply led by the Spirit.  When we were done, we all felt the Spirit testify that these were the boundaries that the Lord wanted.  We submitted that plan and it was accepted.

Please, don't think the boundaries are arbitrary.  Think about it.  If it really were arbitrary, why would it require First Pres. approval to change ward boundaries or allow for a household to attend outside said boundaries?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Where are they paying their tithing?

yep..
Where are they serving as HT & VTers?
Where are they fulfilling an assigned calling?
What ward are they giving sacrament talks in?
Paying fast offerings?
Assigned church cleaning?
etc. etc. etc.

They have placed both Bishops in a no win situation when it comes to temple recommends. Both Bishops are correct in not issuing a recommend. 
Your Bishop can't (no records) and the other shouldn't. 

People move all the time. Wards change all the time. Friends move, people change, etc. 
They need to go to the ward "they" moved into OR get the Stake Pres. to sign off on it. 
This isn't meant to sound harsh but they get to coast in your Ward and avoid lifting the Saints (calling, HT/VT) in their assigned Ward.
 

22 hours ago, Plumb said:

These are temple worthy people, but because of a boundary rule are being denied the blessings of the gospel.   we may lose a family.  Any thoughts?  Any ideas?

Please remember, if this family "chooses" not to follow the rules and "chooses" to become lost...it was their "choice". No one is forcing them to attend the wrong ward or become inactive. Hang in there, sounds like your heart is in the right place. 

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Eowyn said:

We have no stewardship over them but are still responsible for them

And how about the people who have stewardship, but who can't do their duty because the family won't participate in the ward where they live.  Many of us seem to forget that we are in a community of saints, where we are all intended to work together for everyone's good, often at the expense of some of our own desires.

IMO, the children in this family could be greatly blessed by learning to maintain friendships without external influence (i.e. without a church program to schedule their time together), to adjust to losing some friends who won't do this, and to make new friendships.  Creating and losing relationships is a part of life, and learning to do this well makes for a healthy adult.

(The following statement is based as much on personal observation as this post.)  I find it fascinating that members seem to think friendships can only be maintained through church assignments (e.g. requests to never, ever change VT / HT assignments / companionships), and therefore such assignments must not be changed (for them, at least).  While other members complain if their assignments aren't changed "often enough" (whatever that means), so that they never get a chance to meet someone new.  Surely, if we really wanted to make and/or remain friends, we could do so in spite of church assignments / ward boundaries.  (Yeah, I know, everyone's too busy - in which case, the friendship isn't as important to you as whatever else is taking your time - admit that and deal with it.  Yes, sometimes I'm a hard person.)

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zil said:

And how about the people who have stewardship, but who can't do their duty because they family won't participate in the ward where they live. 

Yes, I was picturing a frustrated well meaning Ward Council, week after week worried about this family and wondering what they could do to encourage them to come to their correct Ward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Yes, I was picturing a frustrated well meaning Ward Council, week after week worried about this family and wondering what they could do to encourage them to come to their correct Ward. 

Been there, pictured that.  While we want the best for the individuals involved, we also want the best for everyone involved, and that includes the ward they live in, and the ward they're attending.  When you back up and look at the broader picture, the obvious answer is quite different from when you look only at this individual family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also a counselor in the bishopric in our ward. 

I'd say that there's the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Both are important, but which one should prevail? Souls are more important than rules. Of course, things need to be taken care of seriously and carefully, but despite the rules and procedures of our handbook, the Spirit, as president Ezra Taft Benson once said, is what really matters.

Talking to the family, praying with them, having them tell the reasons they want to stay in the ward and reading with them the scriptures will help you and them to see the right direction they should go. Please read. 2 Nephi 32:9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Let the family go to the ward they are most comfortable in. There. That simple. If you say "No, you have to stick in this ward" you'll lose them.in particular if they don't fit in with the ward. They'll just stop going, I assure you.  I'm under this wild idea that happy people are more beneficial to the Church than unhappy people. Keep people happy, they'll keep coming back to church. 

It's very hard to go to a ward you don't feel comfortable in   I speak from personal, first hand experience.  

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

They could give the new ward a good, honest try. If, after that, it's awful... then there's something to talk about. 

Absolutely. When a family is heavily involved in their old ward, never missed church, stayed for all three hours, did all their callings-then in their new one isn't as involved it might be a ward problem, not with the family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Absolutely. When a family is heavily involved in their old ward, never missed church, stayed for all three hours, did all their callings-then in their new one isn't as involved it might be a ward problem, not with the family. 

If a family is more involved in one ward than the other, their could be a huge number of reasons why.  It does not automatically mean that the new ward is "bad" or "bad for us".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself am in a situation in which I attend a different congregation than the one my record is in. 

Generally speaking, thanks to my job with the newspaper I'm a night owl. I'm awake Monday night into Tuesday morning and Thursday night into Friday morning delivering newspapers. I'm also usually awake Friday night into Saturday morning writing that week's movie reviews. The other nights of the week usually see me up well into the wee hours doing research, writing columns, or working on side projects. 

Given this, the fact that the ward I'm supposed to be at starts at 9 AM is a big deal since I'm lucky to get up before 9 on a Sunday morning. Instead, the branch I attend starts at 1 PM and has Sunday school first, meaning that it's easier for me to attend and I don't miss sacrament if I do end up being late. 

I've worked this out with the respective bishoprics and branch presidencies, so everyone understands my situation. 

As such, I find myself wondering why no such arrangement has been worked out in a case like the one in the OP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

If a family is more involved in one ward than the other, their could be a huge number of reasons why.  It does not automatically mean that the new ward is "bad" or "bad for us".

I agree it doesn't automatically make the ward bad, but it is a potential red flag. I get it, we don't want to blame ourselves of course-neither the ward or the family. A bit of self-critique would do both sides well. 

To me it's like your sister (not you in particular of course @Jane_Doe, royal usage of the word "your") who has been divorced three times and blames everyone but herself. If you have been to eight wards in the county and STILL can't find a home, it's on you. And if people keep leaving your ward and no one stays for very long-maybe it's on the ward itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I agree it doesn't automatically make the ward bad, but it is a potential red flag. I get it, we don't want to blame ourselves of course-neither the ward or the family. A bit of self-critique would do both sides well. 

I can agree with this: honest self critique/awareness is ALWAYS a good thing.  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a sad story in the rural area of my stake. A single mother and her 4 children lived in a house that backed on a ward building. Despite this, the bishopric visited and told them they had to attend a branch about an hours drive away. New ward boundaries. They stopped attending the  lds church and started attending a local Protestant church. Message to all bureaucrats everywhere "don't do stupid stuff". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2016 at 9:06 AM, Plumb said:

The General Handbook says that members are to attend the ward in which boundaries they live.  If members have a problem with someone in their ward or other possible problems, they are to talk to their Bishop and Stake President who will decide if a formal request to the First Presidency can be initiated to attend where they want to.  Makes sense or we would have people changing wards whenever the bishop or someone else was put in a calling.

However - We have a family in our ward that moved just across the boundary into another ward.  For those out west there are only two wards in our city.  They do not want to go to the other ward because the children have some physical and mental problems we won't go into and already have some very close friends in our ward.  When they came to our bishop to renew their temple recommends, they were refused because their records were shipped to the other ward.  So they got an appointment with the bishop in the other ward through his executive secretary, went there and waited more than an hour for the interview.  When the bishop came out of his office, he asked what they were there for, and told them he couldn't give them a recommend because they didn't attend church. (they are a very faithful family and rarely miss church - in our ward).  Recently two of their children went to the bishop in the other ward for a dance card (required to attend the youth dances) and were refused for the same reason.

The rules are clear - they should attend the other ward.  Neither bishop will allow them to attend our ward.  The Stake President says there is no issue.

This sounds like transgression versus sin to me.  These are temple worthy people, but because of a boundary rule are being denied the blessings of the gospel.  They feel they need to attend in our ward for their children.  They are becoming increasingly frustrated and I am concerned for them.  

I am a counsellor in our bishopric and feel that for the sake of an arbitrary rule we may lose a family.  Any thoughts?  Any ideas?

These types of scenarios are intriguing because the Church Handbook of Instruction already answers the scenario you have given. In one case, you have already answered your own question with your first's paragraph last sentence, "Makes sense or we would have people changing wards whenever the bishop or someone else was put in a calling." The house and gospel of the Lord is one of order, and for peace to remain order must be maintained.

Within the CHoI, we are also informed that stake presidents and bishops have the ability to adapt to local needs. As with any change in the Church, this change will fall under those who have been given keys of the priesthood: stake president and bishop. If the stake president says there is no issue, then the stake president needs to discuss the situation with the bishops and the families together. This conversation should have occurred already with the family, and the family should have been the one to address their concern right away with the bishops and the stake president in the beginning. If so, none of this would be occurring right now.

The fourth paragraph's opening sentence is an intriguing use of words, "This sounds like transgression versus sin to me," and remember Adam transgressed the law/rule and was still kicked out of the garden of Eden with Eve. Transgression doesn't remove responsibility, accountability, and restoration, and people need to own up to their own choice and responsibility. It appears (understanding you have only given us a small portion of what has occurred), that this family simply made a choice themselves without counseling with those who have proper authority and proper keys to make this decision. In this case, the bishops are correct; however, we should all act with faith, hope, and charity and charity being the greatest. If the family has extenuating circumstances (I would say like @Sunday21 shared with the single mother of 4), then it can be discussed further. If the family is making their own decision, "Not thine be done Lord, but mine be done," then they will face the consequences of their decision. Adam had to face the consequence of his transgression, even though he was keeping the one other commandment given.

This sentence is a conundrum, a quandary of sorts, "These are temple worthy people," as the individual with the keys to determine temple worthiness has deemed them currently as not temple worthy, thus no temple recommend extended. A more accurate statement would be, as to everything but attending their meetings they are temple worthy. And according to the Handbook, any worthiness issues are dealt with by the bishop and the stake president should he need to be involved, and it looks like it might be good that he is involved more in this situation.

A key term, "they feel," rather than what the Lord feels. They appear to need to pray for humility and patience and a willingness to do whatever the Lord requires; however, if there are truly mental issues that can't be resolved withe the new ward, then they have every right to speak with the bishop and stake president. I love the Handbook, it really answers the majority of questions when pertaining to the organization of the wards.

As a random brother on the internet, I don't personally believe this rule is arbitrary. The rule already has built within it flexibility, revelation, priesthood authority, and priesthood keys to pray and make the right decision. I wish you the best.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, zil said:

I find it fascinating that members seem to think friendships can only be maintained through church assignments (e.g. requests to never, ever change VT / HT assignments / companionships),

How about the opposite?  I'm starting to think I'm going to have to file for a protective order because through at least eight sets of assignments, one guy has been either my HT or my HT companion constantly since I joined the Church...and he only does HTing on Sunday afternoons, when I'm usually with family or friends that I don't get to see the rest of the week.

14 hours ago, MormonGator said:

If you have been to eight wards in the county and STILL can't find a home, it's on you. And if people keep leaving your ward and no one stays for very long-maybe it's on the ward itself. 

Agreed...frankly, the only thing that keeps me from doing the same as the family in the OP is that the best wards I've found are over an hour away and meet at 9AM.  Instead, I just go to mine once a month or so, and it's interesting to watch the turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, NightSG said:

How about the opposite?  I'm starting to think I'm going to have to file for a protective order because through at least eight sets of assignments, one guy has been either my HT or my HT companion constantly since I joined the Church...and he only does HTing on Sunday afternoons, when I'm usually with family or friends that I don't get to see the rest of the week.

If you have discussed all that with the person who assigns companionships and routes, I don't know what to tell you.  That does sound like something that ought to change (though I have no authority, so I can't be sure it isn't the best available option).  I can't get sisters to communicate their schedules, thus making accommodating those schedules overly difficult.  Beyond that, I have a new appreciation for why we need HT/VT and that managing HT/VT is administratively very difficult (and more so than necessary because so many of the members have no vision thereof and thus won't cooperate to make said administration easier).

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe sometimes we are put into a less ideal Ward family because we have the potential to help improve things. Of course this would require time and endurance, regular attendance, and an attitude of charity (over "what's in it for me" or "let's watch how much they can get wrong").

The fact is that "they" is "us" in this church. Our end of the covenants we make is very outward-focused; our promises are to serve, give, comfort, mourn together, and also endure to the end. Of course we are entitled to significant rewards/blessings for doing so, but those blessings aren't always immediate and we are still subject to the offerings of the fellow imperfect mortals around us. 

Sometimes we are lifted. Sometimes we are to do the heavy lifting. I think the point is that Heavenly Father wants us to ascend together.

I would like to thank myself for this much-needed pep talk, because gosh, it's hard sometimes, and I get tired. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Heavenly Father wants us to ascend together.

Amen Sister, amen.

When it comes to the family in the OP:

Option 1: Stop going to church <_<
Option 2: Attend the wrong ward, remain active :)
Option 3: Attend your correct ward, remain active, qualify for a temple recommend :D

Option 2 is better than 1, but Option 3 is better than 2. No one wants Option 1. Some are happy with at least Option 2, others (including myself) hope they will chose Option 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/25/2016 at 11:06 AM, Plumb said:

The General Handbook says that members are to attend the ward in which boundaries they live.  If members have a problem with someone in their ward or other possible problems, they are to talk to their Bishop and Stake President who will decide if a formal request to the First Presidency can be initiated to attend where they want to.  Makes sense or we would have people changing wards whenever the bishop or someone else was put in a calling.

However - We have a family in our ward that moved just across the boundary into another ward.  For those out west there are only two wards in our city.  They do not want to go to the other ward because the children have some physical and mental problems we won't go into and already have some very close friends in our ward.  When they came to our bishop to renew their temple recommends, they were refused because their records were shipped to the other ward.  So they got an appointment with the bishop in the other ward through his executive secretary, went there and waited more than an hour for the interview.  When the bishop came out of his office, he asked what they were there for, and told them he couldn't give them a recommend because they didn't attend church. (they are a very faithful family and rarely miss church - in our ward).  Recently two of their children went to the bishop in the other ward for a dance card (required to attend the youth dances) and were refused for the same reason.

The rules are clear - they should attend the other ward.  Neither bishop will allow them to attend our ward.  The Stake President says there is no issue.

This sounds like transgression versus sin to me.  These are temple worthy people, but because of a boundary rule are being denied the blessings of the gospel.  They feel they need to attend in our ward for their children.  They are becoming increasingly frustrated and I am concerned for them.  

I am a counsellor in our bishopric and feel that for the sake of an arbitrary rule we may lose a family.  Any thoughts?  Any ideas?

I do not think it is an arbitrary rule; it is part of a Priesthood order that we embrace when we join the Church (see D&C 107). Somehow the couple needs to be brought to understand correct doctrine ("True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. ...The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. . . . That is why we stress so forcefully the study of the doctrines of the gospel. [Boyd K. Packer, “Little Children,” Ensign, November 1986, 17]).

A transgression is a sin committed in ignorance or inexperience. A sin is to " willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth." Only the couple's priesthood authorities are in a position to decide on that. Hopefully they have a friend, a responsibility and are nurturing themselves with the good word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share