Tech Forum

So we have some members in our ward who don't live in our ward boundaries. We literally just requested their records. The husband grew up in our ward and his wife is a non-member. They are progressing toward baptism and the Temple. We requested their records because any attempts at working with their actual ward were unsuccessful by his father and our bishop.

I understand that there's some approvals that need to happen in order to make a boundary exception 'official'. I have scoured the manual and the forums with no results. Has anyone had experience with this?

robljamiesonjr wrote:I understand that there's some approvals that need to happen in order to make a boundary exception 'official'. I have scoured the manual and the forums with no results. Has anyone had experience with this?

It isn't really a "boundary exception"; it's a membership record exception to allow the records to be in a ward other than where the member lives. The policy is in Handbook 1, section 13.6, second paragraph. But be forewarned -- the approval process is rather daunting.

Ah, thank you.

aebrown wrote: -- the approval process is rather daunting.

Having been through this process I agree with that.

I just wanted to point out that even though the 'records' are in your ward (they shouldn't be), by policy, the bishop is not their ecclesiastical leader. Therefore, he should not issue them a temple recommend, etc. Non member baptisms are done by the mission, but would be complicated by the situation. By the way, the 'system' may let you do those things, but that would be violating policy. And the bishop of the ward they belong in cannot since they do not have the member's records.

My guess is the fact that he "grew up in our ward" will not be a good enough reason for the move.

Thanks for the input. I've simplified the situation for the sake of privacy and other reasons. We'll see what happens as we go down that road. Thanks again for your insight.

Sorry, but is there a template for this letter that should be sent to the First Presidency from the Stake President?

Not that I know of, but I'd suggest the following pattern:

That you want (Boundary exception).

The short version why.

The details.

That way the people reading it won't have to wade though an entire saga to figure what what's desired and why.

I wonder if those on the forum could help me on this policy. I have read 13.6 and see the requirement for Stake and First Presidency approval, but I recall recently reading somewhere (I think in the manuals) a statement that talks about how members may attend other wards and partake of the sacrament, go to classes, etc. but that the Bishop cannot give them callings, interview for temple recommends, advance them in the Priesthood . . .

Section 13.6 implies this in the first section, but I know I have read it more clearly somewhere else and hoped that someone here knew the reference?

Thanks!

silus99 wrote:but that the Bishop cannot give them callings, interview for temple recommends, advance them in the Priesthood . . .

Handbook 2: 19.1.1 has interesting verbiage:
"Leaders may extend a Church calling only after (1) a person’s membership record is on file in the ward and has been carefully reviewed by the bishop or (2) the bishop has contacted the member’s previous bishop to determine that the member is worthy for the calling and to verify that his or her membership record does not include an annotation or a comment about unresolved Church discipline."

One can debate what a "previous" bishop is, but I'm not sure how the last part would be fulfilled unless the records are still in that "previous" ward. I can understand the purpose of this in the old days when membership transactions were done via the post office, but not today when one can get a move-in within the hour. Seems to me that this could be interpreted as allowing someone to hold a calling in a ward other than where their membership records are. (Local leaders hold the keys to interpretation for their units.)

Handbook 1: 16.7.4 "Unusual Circumstances" specifically allows wards to ordain someone when they do not have the membership record. Although that may not apply if someone is still living at home and attends a different unit. It comes down to the definition of living away from home.

russellhltn wrote:

silus99 wrote:but that the Bishop cannot give them callings, interview for temple recommends, advance them in the Priesthood . . .

Handbook 2: 19.1.1 has interesting verbiage:
"Leaders may extend a Church calling only after (1) a person’s membership record is on file in the ward and has been carefully reviewed by the bishop or (2) the bishop has contacted the member’s previous bishop to determine that the member is worthy for the calling and to verify that his or her membership record does not include an annotation or a comment about unresolved Church discipline."

Yes, that option (2) is interesting. Clearly the bishop of a ward where a person may attend but where the records do not exist cannot issue a temple recommend or record any kind of ordinance, including priesthood ordinations. Those processes require the membership record to actually exist in the ward.

That wording in 19.1.1 clearly implies that someone might receive a calling in a ward without having their membership record in the ward. That raises a couple of questions:

• Is there a good reason why the records aren't in the ward? I suppose one possibility is that the person spends enough time in that ward (for example, he regularly spends month-long stretches in that ward because of business, but doesn't stay long enough to meet the 3-month guideline for moving records).
• How would you record the calling? In such a case, an out-of-unit membership record could be created in MLS, and the calling recorded.