Ward Boundaries

Discuss questions around local unit policies for membership (creating records, transferring records, etc.) This forum should not contain specific financial or membership information.
User avatar
marianomarini
Senior Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:13 am
Location: Vicenza. Italy

#11

Post by marianomarini »

Because I don't see the useful of geographic "unit boundary", I would suggest to setup logical boundaries founded under "more close" instead of fixed border.
Now we have all the tools to manage each single case!
But this must be done by The President (of course).
Someoune can pass the suggestion?
La vita è una lezione interminabile di umiltà (Anonimo).
Life is a endless lesson of humility (Anonimous).
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34379
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#12

Post by russellhltn »

As I understand it, unit boundaries are established to maintain units at a desired size. Too small and there are not enough leaders. Too large and there are not enough opportunities for service.

The building location was chosen based on the member population at the time. But as the population shifts, that can change. As a result, some members may find themselves not going to the closest building.
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
User avatar
aebrown
Community Administrator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Draper, Utah

#13

Post by aebrown »

marianomarini_vi wrote:Because I don't see the useful of geographic "unit boundary", I would suggest to setup logical boundaries founded under "more close" instead of fixed border.
Now we have all the tools to manage each single case!
But this must be done by The President (of course).
Someoune can pass the suggestion?
In my experience, distance from the meetinghouse is indeed considered when wards or stakes are divided. But that is not the only factor, and not even the most important consideration. There are natural geographical boundaries (rivers, valleys, etc.), school districts, major highways, etc. The size of the new wards, and the balance of priesthood holders, youth, children, and active members are also important factors, as well as anticipated future growth and the location of key individuals such as a bishop or patriarch.

I'm sure I'm missing many other reasonable considerations, but the main point is that many factors are considered as boundary changes are contemplated, and most importantly, the stake president(s) involved seek inspiration and revelation in their decisions. Finally, any such proposals are reviewed by the Office of the First Presidency and may be adjusted or completely rejected at that level.

Once approved, the final result is a set of very specific geographic boundaries that determine precisely what homes are in what ward. These boundaries may not seem completely logical to those who were not involved in the process, but you can rest assured that much study and prayer has gone into the decision.
User avatar
mkmurray
Senior Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:56 pm
Location: Utah
Contact:

#14

Post by mkmurray »

marianomarini_vi wrote:Because I don't see the useful of geographic "unit boundary", I would suggest to setup logical boundaries founded under "more close" instead of fixed border.
Now we have all the tools to manage each single case!
But this must be done by The President (of course).
Someoune can pass the suggestion?
If I correctly understand what you are suggesting, it appears you are saying that membership of a particular ward could be based on proximity to the closest meetinghouse (your phrase was "more close"), and not based on geographical unit boundaries as is the current Church policy. Is this correct?

I will first point out the fact that wards being based on geographical boundaries is indeed a currently policy, and as pointed out earlier in this thread, exceptions to the rule are to be approved all the way up to the highest levels. In order for the Church to be managed in an efficient and widespread manner, there must be consistency and reliability in knowing to what jurisdiction you belong or are responsible for. From the top to the bottom, everyone needs to depend on knowing where they belong without any question. The Church is ultimately responsible for every single one of God's children here on earth. A geographical break up is a very logical way to delegate these stewardships and cover every square inch of earth on this planet (which covers every human being).

Every Church unit in the world has geographical boundary in it's definition. Some units have further restrictions (like they must be young single adults or Spanish speaking), but geographical boundary is always there as well (even if the boundary is that of the ward's entire stake boundary).

A majority of the time, your closest meetinghouse is also the one your ward is assigned to attend. As Russell points out, there are scenarios that can change this and make it seem less intuitive in its current setup. Size of a ward or branch is an important consideration, and it could be difficult to break up wards based on how close they are to a meetinghouse. You could have two meetinghouses in a stake, but 90% of the members are really close to the one building. It wouldn't make sense to let all 90% of the members attend wards at that one building because the building can only host so many wards on Sundays. A few wards will just have to attend the farther away meetinghouse.

I hope this information helps give you some perspective on why things are they way they are. I am having a hard time thinking of a better solution than the current one. But again, the current solution is an official policy and should be adhered to until it changes (if it ever does).
scgallafent
Church Employee
Church Employee
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Riverton, Utah

#15

Post by scgallafent »

mkmurray wrote:A geographical break up is a very logical way to delegate these stewardships and cover every square inch of earth on this planet (which covers every human being).
We recently had a couple of wards order maps from Salt Lake. I was looking at one of them when it came in and noticed that there was a block of text that addressed the fact that there may be uninhabited areas in the ward boundaries but every part of the earth needed to be assigned a unit. I'll try to remember to get the exact phrasing the next time I'm in that building.
User avatar
marianomarini
Senior Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:13 am
Location: Vicenza. Italy

#16

Post by marianomarini »

I'm an old italian conveted. I joined the Church in the 1974 and I saw many changes in wards, districts, Missions and Stakes boundary.
I'm not questioning about how it was made since now, just wondering if it's came the time to look ahead and use another way, using latter-day (modern) techs.
Any solution has its own "pro et contro" (latin sentence) and, as I said before, this is a matter to First Presidency. This is a technical forum and I'm speaking of technical matters only!
La vita è una lezione interminabile di umiltà (Anonimo).
Life is a endless lesson of humility (Anonimous).
russellhltn
Community Administrator
Posts: 34379
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:53 pm
Location: U.S.

#17

Post by russellhltn »

The basic issues remain regardless of the technologies applied.

The answer is to convert your neighborhood so a chapel will be built closer to you. :)
Have you searched the Help Center? Try doing a Google search and adding "site:churchofjesuschrist.org/help" to the search criteria.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.
User avatar
marianomarini
Senior Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:13 am
Location: Vicenza. Italy

#18

Post by marianomarini »

RussellHltn wrote:The basic issues remain regardless of the technologies applied.
I was thinking about a FUZZY system. Each condition expressed in this thread can be convert into FUZZY rules (distance, gender, marriage, priesthood, ecc.).
So every unit can be divided into homogeneouse conditions. At best we can have two families living in the same building and attending two different units!
The answer is to convert your neighborhood so a chapel will be built closer to you. :)
I live one Kilometer far from meeting house. No need to convert anybody!:)
La vita è una lezione interminabile di umiltà (Anonimo).
Life is a endless lesson of humility (Anonimous).
scgallafent
Church Employee
Church Employee
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:55 pm
Location: Riverton, Utah

#19

Post by scgallafent »

scgallafent wrote:We recently had a couple of wards order maps from Salt Lake. I was looking at one of them when it came in and noticed that there was a block of text that addressed the fact that there may be uninhabited areas in the ward boundaries but every part of the earth needed to be assigned a unit.
I was in an office with one of the maps yesterday. Here's the wording, for those who are interested:[INDENT]
Do not be concerned if your map includes uninhabited areas that you have not considered part of your unit. Church policy requires that all the land area of the world be included in the boundaries of an ecclesiastical church unit.
[/INDENT]
User avatar
marianomarini
Senior Member
Posts: 619
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:13 am
Location: Vicenza. Italy

#20

Post by marianomarini »

Technicaly speaking uninhabited zone can be include as well into logical boundary.
In that case there will be only one variable: distance.
The only problem (problem or opportunity?) I see is about Missionary work.
As said before, all variables must be setup for a real people. This mean that missionaries has to collect all informations before investigator could be assigned to a unit.
La vita è una lezione interminabile di umiltà (Anonimo).
Life is a endless lesson of humility (Anonimous).
Post Reply

Return to “Membership Help”