Major Stake and Ward Realignment Today. Do such moves hurt or help?

[bsjkki]

31 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I have never seen anyone kicked out of a ward meeting for attending the wrong ward.  Never!

Sometimes people can't attend church at their scheduled meeting hour because of work or other issues.  I have always encouraged people in those situations to attend a different ward sacrament meeting.  I have never had anyone tell me (or them) that this was wrong.

In our ward, there was a young woman who had been attending our ward (who lived outside the ward boundaries). All of her friends and social groups were in our ward.  The missionaries of the other ward refused to teach her (don't exactly know why, but they are eighteen year olds.) I finally convinced our ward missionaries to teach her and her mother and I had the privilege of  baptizing them and they are members of our ward.   We often talk about them in ward council.  I suppose someday, we will suggest that they might try their home ward, but for now, while they are new members and are getting used to things, their records are in our ward.  Nobody has complained.   No one in our ward is about to tell them to get lost, just to satisfy some rule somewhere.

There is another family that just got activated when they moved into our ward, The husband was just baptized as well as a couple of their children.  They just moved slightly outside the ward boundaries (in a section of the countryside that looks like somebody's child scribbled the boundaries.).  They requested to stay in our ward and everyone is fine with it. They still have callings.

I know there are rules, and good reasons for rules, but the church is run by the priesthood and revelation, not by handbooks and legalisms.

If someone has a hard time attending their home ward, I will always tell them its better to attend a different ward than to just stop attending. 

 

 

This is such a sane approach.  We had a investigator that came to our ward with a friend. He was taught the lessons and attended in my ward. When it came time to get baptized, it almost did not happen. The Bishop in his home ward wanted him to be baptized in his ward and attend his ward. He would not give permission for him to be baptized in our ward. It confused him and he almost did not get baptized. We had his baptism in his home ward building and many from my ward attended and then he began attending the other ward because he was told he had to. He has struggled and struggled. He quit going to church. His friend convinced him just to come back to our ward and I have seen him a few times. He wasn't ready to leave the people who he had gotten to know and the friends he had and go to church with strangers. I feel it was a case of "policy over people." My mother-in-law explains it this way.  She had a special needs daughter and asked her daughters teacher to give her daughter some extra help. The teacher exclaimed, "I can't do that for everybody." My mother-in-law stated, "you don't have to do it for everybody." Exceptions to policy should be made when appropriate.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Danzo said:

I have never seen anyone kicked out of a ward meeting for attending the wrong ward.  Never!

Sometimes people can't attend church at their scheduled meeting hour because of work or other issues.  I have always encouraged people in those situations to attend a different ward sacrament meeting.  I have never had anyone tell me (or them) that this was wrong.

In our ward, there was a young woman who had been attending our ward (who lived outside the ward boundaries). All of her friends and social groups were in our ward.  The missionaries of the other ward refused to teach her (don't exactly know why, but they are eighteen year olds.) I finally convinced our ward missionaries to teach her and her mother and I had the privilege of  baptizing them and they are members of our ward.   We often talk about them in ward council.  I suppose someday, we will suggest that they might try their home ward, but for now, while they are new members and are getting used to things, their records are in our ward.  Nobody has complained.   No one in our ward is about to tell them to get lost, just to satisfy some rule somewhere.

There is another family that just got activated when they moved into our ward, The husband was just baptized as well as a couple of their children.  They just moved slightly outside the ward boundaries (in a section of the countryside that looks like somebody's child scribbled the boundaries.).  They requested to stay in our ward and everyone is fine with it. They still have callings.

I know there are rules, and good reasons for rules, but the church is run by the priesthood and revelation, not by handbooks and legalisms.

If someone has a hard time attending their home ward, I will always tell them its better to attend a different ward than to just stop attending. 

 

 

I never said people are "kicked out of a ward meeting" for visiting a different ward than the one to which they belong. 

I was addressing your assertion that you have "members" in your ward who live outside the boundaries. I said that would be irregular, because typically people are not officially made members of a ward whose boundaries they don't live, even though they can visit the ward to their heart's content. It cannot happen without involvement and approval of local leaders  

Kindly address what I did say, not what I did not say, if you respond at all. 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Danzo]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never said people are "kicked out of a ward meeting" for visiting a different ward than the one to which they belong. 

I was addressing your assertion that you have "members" in your ward who live outside the boundaries. I said that would be irregular, because typically people are not officially made members of a ward whose boundaries they don't live, even though they can visit the ward to their heart's content. It cannot happen without involvement and approval of local leaders  

Kindly address what I did say, not what I did not say, if you respond at all. 

Of course it involves approval of local leaders, but why wouldn't they approve if there is a need.

Learning when to break the rules for a higher cause is a big part of the gospel.

[Kenngo1969]

In answer to the question posed in the opening post, it can be trying to deal with boundary changes in existing units as well as the creation of new ones, as longstanding relationships are altered.  In no way do I wish to diminish the significance of that phenomenon: as human beings, we are social creatures, and it can be difficult for us to adjust to such changes.  So, in the short run and on the micro level, the creation of new units and the adjustment of boundaries hurts.

However, I sat at the elbow of an Elders Quorum President and at the elbow of a Bishop, respectively, for several years between the two callings, and those units were tiny.  Notwithstanding their diminutive size, however, still, they were challenging to administer, and the wider the geography involved, the more challenging the administration of the unit involved.  So even though boundary alteration and new-unit creation may hurt in the short term and on the micro level, in the long term and on the macro level, the aim is to improve how well shepherds can look after the flock (and not just Bishops and Elders Quorum Presidents, but practically every other calling in a ward or stake, down to a Home and Visiting Teacher).

My $0.02.  Your mileage may vary.  

[Yirgacheffe]

On 7/11/2016 at 2:59 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Having lived in the "mission field" most of my life, I've been through quite a few of these realignments. I have mixed feelings, the worst of which is the loss of good friends that became so after time and experiences together. Being in another ward or stake is like being in a different state. While I recognize the need, I usually wished I wasn't in the unit that got redistributed.

Does this kind of upheaval occur in areas where the church population is more dense? I remember living for a while in Springville UT where our ward was just 6 blocks in area.

So why the loss of friends, It's not like you aren't near these friends you could, get together with them and remain friends.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 7/11/2016 at 0:31 PM, bsjkki said:

If losing their friends causes so much anxiety in the youth, let them adjust slowly and give them time.

More of this losing friends stuff, how can friends be lost if they are close enough to be in the same building? 

[Kenngo1969]

On 7/13/2016 at 8:25 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

... An increase of 90 people in a stake, in 2 years, doesn't seem massive or miraculous to me. But that's the narrative.

I wonder how The Good Shepherd feels about that?  (See Matthew 18:12-13).  

[Deleted for irrelevance, per Happy Jack Wagon ... ]

Edited January 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[bsjkki]

46 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

More of this losing friends stuff, how can friends be lost if they are close enough to be in the same building? 

One...This quote was referring to teenagers and logic need not apply 😉Second...it happens to teenagers and adults alike. When you are in the same ward you see each other often. You serve in callings together. The youth see each other at least twice a week and are in seminary together. When ward changes occur, all of that contact disappears and people drift apart. It's happened to me and I've seen devastating effects on youth programs in wards after boundary changes. Many adjust fine but a few do not and forcing compliance doesn't help. 

My husband is a Sunday School president and doesn't enforce the youth Sunday school class assignments. For all but two kids, the assignments are fine. But, for two, every other year they are no longer assigned to class with the other kids in their school year. He is more concerned they attend church than they they attend the right class. For a teenager, sitting through Sunday School class while their friends are in a class next door, is a big deal. Its not entirely logical. He feels  it's important the youth have positive experiences at church.

Edited January 6, 2017 by bsjkki

[HappyJackWagon]

56 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In answer to the question posed in the opening post, it can be trying to deal with boundary changes in existing units as well as the creation of new ones, as longstanding relationships are altered.  In no way do I wish to diminish the significance of that phenomenon: as human beings, we are social creatures, and it can be difficult for us to adjust to such changes.  So, in the short run and on the micro level, the creation of new units and the adjustment of boundaries hurts.

However, I sat at the elbow of an Elders Quorum President and at the elbow of a Bishop, respectively, for several years between the two callings, and those units were tiny.  Notwithstanding their diminutive size, however, still, they were challenging to administer, and the wider the geography involved, the more challenging the administration of the unit involved.  So even though boundary alteration and new-unit creation may hurt in the short term and on the micro level, in the long term and on the macro level, the aim is to improve how well shepherds can look after the flock (and not just Bishops and Elders Quorum Presidents, but practically every other calling in a ward or stake, down to a Home and Visiting Teacher).

My $0.02.  Your mileage may vary.  

It's more than just losing friendships. Members begin to feel like pawns in a SP's efforts to kingdom build. SP's have metrics from which they are judged by their superiors. They want to show growth and in my area there has been a history of manipulating boundaries to give the illusion of growth. I have lived in the same rural (non-Utah) home for 18 years. During that time I have been in 5 wards and had boundary changes 4 other times. That's 9 significant changes in 18 years. So every 2 years we can plan to have our church attendance uprooted in some way, and rarely for the better.

One time my family was assigned to a new ward where we had to drive 45 minutes to get to church instead of 10. Another time we were part of starting a new branch. It did fabulously. Growth. Fantastic attendance/HT/temple and every other metric you can think of. The branch was doing great. 3 years later the branch was dissolved and members were divided between 3 nearby units. Another time we were part of a new ward. It did great. Then members were assigned to far flung areas while others from further away were assigned to attend. 1 year later those changes were reversed. 9 months later, boundaries were changed again. All of these changes had very little regard for driving distances and there was no connection to school districts so the youth were often separated from their friends at church. I've had the SP tell me directly that he knew the changes would be a sacrifice for the members but he was trying to get a new building built and so he was trying to make the numbers in each unit look good. As members we were pawns.

When the branch was created it felt like we were a part of creating something special only to have that destroyed. When the ward was created, same story. I am now to a point where I see very little purpose investing in a "ward family" or trying to build and create anything that is special because it will be obliterated by leaders trying to manipulate the numbers so that they can look good and maybe get a new building. After being heavily involved and serving on various committees to recommend boundary changes I have very little respect for this process.

If there is legitimate growth where one ward no longer can accommodate the numbers. Fine. But the monkeying around with this stuff hurts individual families emotionally, spiritually and financially and over time destroys morale.

Quote

I wonder how The Good Shepherd feels about that?  (See Matthew 18:12-13).  

Couldn't say for sure. But I don't think He's impressed. (BTW- that scripture has nothing to do with this)

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Danzo said:

Of course it involves approval of local leaders, but why wouldn't they approve if there is a need.

Learning when to break the rules for a higher cause is a big part of the gospel.

"If there is a need" is the operative phrase here. I should think the need would have to be compelling to take priority over standard concerns related to the facilitating of shepherding that comes from geographic proximity. And frequently visiting a ward, even weekly, is not the same thing as membership therein. 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's more than just losing friendships. Members begin to feel like pawns in a SP's efforts to kingdom build. SP's have metrics from which they are judged by their superiors. They want to show growth and in my area there has been a history of manipulating boundaries to give the illusion of growth. I have lived in the same rural (non-Utah) home for 18 years. During that time I have been in 5 wards and had boundary changes 4 other times. That's 9 significant changes in 18 years. So every 2 years we can plan to have our church attendance uprooted in some way, and rarely for the better.

One time my family was assigned to a new ward where we had to drive 45 minutes to get to church instead of 10. Another time we were part of starting a new branch. It did fabulously. Growth. Fantastic attendance/HT/temple and every other metric you can think of. The branch was doing great. 3 years later the branch was dissolved and members were divided between 3 nearby units. Another time we were part of a new ward. It did great. Then members were assigned to far flung areas while others from further away were assigned to attend. 1 year later those changes were reversed. 9 months later, boundaries were changed again. All of these changes had very little regard for driving distances and there was no connection to school districts so the youth were often separated from their friends at church. I've had the SP tell me directly that he knew the changes would be a sacrifice for the members but he was trying to get a new building built and so he was trying to make the numbers in each unit look good. As members we were pawns.

When the branch was created it felt like we were a part of creating something special only to have that destroyed. When the ward was created, same story. I am now to a point where I see very little purpose investing in a "ward family" or trying to build and create anything that is special because it will be obliterated by leaders trying to manipulate the numbers so that they can look good and maybe get a new building. After being heavily involved and serving on various committees to recommend boundary changes I have very little respect for this process.

If there is legitimate growth where one ward no longer can accommodate the numbers. Fine. But the monkeying around with this stuff hurts individual families emotionally, spiritually and financially and over time destroys morale.

Couldn't say for sure. But I don't think He's impressed. (BTW- that scripture has nothing to do with this)

It's interesting how our experiences influence our thoughts on things like this.  I'm ok with boundary changes and have seen good in them, but I've experienced that all of twice in my 48 years. I don't recall why it happened the first time,  but remembering back to them I would guess it was because of a lot of new housing. The second time was because my stake had lost 39% of our membership in the last 10 years before that. Both these times were positive experiences, but they were in different cities,  15-20 years apart.  

In my last ward one of my friends has had 9 different wards in the 13 years she had lived in her house. I had just come from the stake that had realigned boundaries.  I was kind of excited because of the good things I had seen and the opportunity to know more people.  She was very much NOT excited about changing again.  I moved 7 years later and it was never changed while I was there.  

Do moves hurt or help?  I have to say it depends.  It sounds like one of the things it depends on is how often it happens. 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Rain

[Yirgacheffe]

4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

When you are in the same ward you see each other often. You serve in callings together. The youth see each other at least twice a week and are in seminary together. When ward changes occur, all of that contact disappears and people drift apart.

So what you are losing really isn't so much friends as it is circumstantial acquaintances, people you wouldn't spend time with if it weren't for the happenstance of being assigned the same place, kind of like associations through work or school.  Friends are people you keep up with after you've left the job/school/kid's sporting  activity.

[bsjkki]

49 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

So what you are losing really isn't so much friends as it is circumstantial acquaintances, people you wouldn't spend time with if it weren't for the happenstance of being assigned the same place, kind of like associations through work or school.  Friends are people you keep up with after you've left the job/school/kid's sporting  activity.

I would disagree with that characterization. I think there are a lot of friendships that exist between those two descriptions. I am happy if you haven't been through this before but in my experience, ward changes can be truly hard on friendships for adults and teenagers. Not always or every time but for some, it is really hard. I think for the youth, it can be traumatic depending on the circumstances. I don't think it should ever be done unless absolutely necessary. Just my two cents based on my own personal experiences. Those experiences vary greatly from member to member.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Yirgacheffe said:

So what you are losing really isn't so much friends as it is circumstantial acquaintances, people you wouldn't spend time with if it weren't for the happenstance of being assigned the same place, kind of like associations through work or school.  Friends are people you keep up with after you've left the job/school/kid's sporting  activity.

You raise a valid point.

However, I think virtually all of us have multiple, even many, friendships that we cherish, even though we seldom see one another. We may be regret that lack of association, but this doesn't mean the friendship ceases to exist. Indeed, the implied purpose of a reunion -- say, a high school class reunion -- is to solidify and verify the friendships that still exist in our hearts even though circumstances don't bring us together very often.

Thus it is that we can feel sadness and regret when, say, a ward division or realignment is going to remove circumstances of association with those whom we know, being realistic, that we are apt to see and associate with far less often.

 

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

So what you are losing really isn't so much friends as it is circumstantial acquaintances, people you wouldn't spend time with if it weren't for the happenstance of being assigned the same place, kind of like associations through work or school.  Friends are people you keep up with after you've left the job/school/kid's sporting  activity.

Friends are people some people keep up with.  Everyone has different ways they connect with friends.  I have a friend I haven't heard from in more than a decade.  I still consider her a friend.  She is different than acquaintances I saw last Sunday.  

When one loses a friend due to boundary changes they don't mean they actually lose the friend.  They mean they lose the regular contact with them.  

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

So why the loss of friends, It's not like you aren't near these friends you could, get together with them and remain friends.

Life is crowded and we are easily distracted.  If one doesn't not see or talk to another frequently, bonds may fade, even quickly, just because other noisy things are drawing our attention away, pushing the relationship to the back of our brain (figuratively speaking, of course).

My son has been in a number of changing wards situation, one because of both building and a high transient population, another because of there now being hundreds of homes with large families where there were once a half dozen homes and lots of orchards.They were one of the first families to move in four years ago and have been in 3 new wards since then without moving.  

They are very annoyed this time because they have been moved to a different building.  At least before there was mingling in the halls and thus contact once a month or so.  Now they won't have that and efforts to keep old friends connected will be that much harder, especially given they just added 2/3 of their neighbourhood group to that former shared ward members.  No school stuff to keep them connected anyone either with a new school or two in the neighborhood....

And don't forget much of their free time is now taken up with trying to establish relationships with the new ward members.  If there is local family as well, it adds to a long list...both sides are extensive for my son...they try to devote two  nights or days a week to extended family, the girls have dance and gymnastics, boy has karate with his dad, one or twice a week..sometimes three or more for a month or two for prep for performances and official bouts, scouts and achievement days , school, cooking for my mom all day for a couple of times a month, babysitting family and friends who are having crisis or just need to be childless for something...playing referee between three opinionated kids, traveling for meetings with bosses elsewhere, traveling to visit family elsewhere, running school fundraisers or helping a room mother.  

Thenthere are those with health issues or emotional that makes it hard to be the one who initiates and so many people feel that way on some level that if they can't see someone's eyes lighting up when they see them, they assume the person is uninterested as opposed to overwhelmed by life.

[Duncan]

it's funny for almost ten years we had this one Stake President and he was very conservative, old school. No real changes were made, status quo with the exception of the announcement of the Temple, which nothing happened until after he got released. If it wasn't a problem to him then it wasn't a problem...and I know for a fact that the mission presidents didn't like him too much. One said as much in stake conference, which was funny. But then he was released. Now, we have changes busting out all over the place. They created a branch recently, which they basically split a ward and took some from another ward and created this branch. I've heard there are some personality problems but the new Stake Pres. lives there so he can deal with it in 2015 Elder Renlund of the 12 came here and said why don't you do this and this to your stake? and the new stake pres. said we've wanted to but the old stake president wouldn't allow it, so changes were made hahhahaha!

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"If there is a need" is the operative phrase here. I should think the need would have to be compelling to take priority over standard concerns related to the facilitating of shepherding that comes from geographic proximity. And frequently visiting a ward, even weekly, is not the same thing as membership therein. 

the examples I gave, the families are on our ward records.

The local leaders are aware.

No one is doing this behind anyone's back.

One should, as a default, follow the standard rules, but one should always be receptive to revelation to deviate, when inspired.

Standard operating procedures do not replace inspired priesthood leadership.

SOP does not replace personal revelation.

See D&C 58:26

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, Danzo said:

the examples I gave, the families are on our ward records.

The local leaders are aware.

No one is doing this behind anyone's back.

One should, as a default, follow the standard rules, but one should always be receptive to revelation to deviate, when inspired.

Standard operating procedures do not replace inspired priesthood leadership.

SOP does not replace personal revelation.

See D&C 58:26

 

 

I've had no quarrel with this.

 

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's more than just losing friendships. Members begin to feel like pawns in a SP's efforts to kingdom build. SP's have metrics from which they are judged by their superiors.

OK.  I admit, I have limited experience serving on the Stake level, and none of the sort that would expose me to the sort of machinations that go on behind the scenes to which you allude here.  Still, it seems to me that the sort of changes under discussion here involve more than a couple of bishops comparing notes and saying, "You know, they really ought to shift the boundaries of our respective wards to create a third," or a couple of stake presidents doing the same thing.  It would seem to me that even if the two bishops or the two stake presidents in my example think it's a good or a necessary idea, discussions need to occur at the Area level, and then still higher than that.

Quote

They want to show growth and in my area there has been a history of manipulating boundaries to give the illusion of growth. I have lived in the same rural (non-Utah) home for 18 years. During that time I have been in 5 wards and had boundary changes 4 other times. That's 9 significant changes in 18 years. So every 2 years we can plan to have our church attendance uprooted in some way, and rarely for the better.

OK.  Personally, I'm loath to attempt to divine the motivations which move people to do the things they do, even people I know rather well, let alone people with whom I might have but an arm's-length acquaintance.  Perhaps you're better at such divination than I am.  

Quote

One time my family was assigned to a new ward where we had to drive 45 minutes to get to church instead of 10.

I can see how a longer commute to church would pose a problem.  While I would hope that such a factor as necessary travel distance would be appropriately weighted in the calculus of what changes can or should be made in ward and stake boundary shifts, perhaps other factors also weighed into the calculus which may, as important as driving distance might be, have merited even more weight.  

Quote

Another time we were part of starting a new branch. It did fabulously. Growth. Fantastic attendance/HT/temple and every other metric you can think of. The branch was doing great. 3 years later the branch was dissolved and members were divided between 3 nearby units. Another time we were part of a new ward. It did great. Then members were assigned to far flung areas while others from further away were assigned to attend. 1 year later those changes were reversed. 9 months later, boundaries were changed again.

OK.  I would be wary of equating your own experiences with those of a representative sample of the members of the units involved.  Perhaps, even if only but for a brief period, such changes were necessary so that "a little leaven [could] leaven[ ] the whole lump."  (See Galatians 5:9;  I know, I know: that scripture doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.   I need to go to Happy Jack Wagon's Gospel Doctrine class.  Alas, he's an anonymous Internet poster, so I'm unsure how to receive the Gospel instruction of which I so clearly am in such desperate need! )

 

Quote

All of these changes had very little regard for driving distances and there was no connection to school districts so the youth were often separated from their friends at church. I've had the SP tell me directly that he knew the changes would be a sacrifice for the members but he was trying to get a new building built and so he was trying to make the numbers in each unit look good. As members we were pawns.

Perhaps the reason why the changes to which you allude were undone in such short order is because it was discovered that stake leaders had sought to have their opinions on the matter carry inordinate weight.  I don't know.  

Quote

When the branch was created it felt like we were a part of creating something special only to have that destroyed. When the ward was created, same story. I am now to a point where I see very little purpose investing in a "ward family" or trying to build and create anything that is special because it will be obliterated by leaders trying to manipulate the numbers so that they can look good and maybe get a new building. After being heavily involved and serving on various committees to recommend boundary changes I have very little respect for this process.

That's unfortunate.  Personally, while members elsewhere have made me feel welcome wherever and whenever I have had the opportunity to attend during this period, I have missed the opportunity of being more a part of a Ward family because my personal circumstances have precluded attendance in the Ward to which I am assigned geographically for most of the last year and a half.  

 

Quote

If there is legitimate growth where one ward no longer can accommodate the numbers. Fine. But the monkeying around with this stuff hurts individual families emotionally, spiritually and financially and over time destroys morale.

I certainly don't want to dismiss the undeniable impact the sort of changes we're been discussing can have on the emotional, spiritual, and financial outlooks of those involved.  Still, if the people involve determine that they were created to be acted upon by boundary changes and new unit creation rather than being free agents who retain the ability to act (no matter how they, personally might feel about the changes), I certainly can understand that reaction.

Quote

Couldn't say for sure. But I don't think He's impressed. (BTW- that scripture has nothing to do with this)

Well, obviously I thought it was relevant. Perhaps I was mistaken.  I desperately need Happy Jack Wagon's Gospel Doctrine class but, alas!, he's an anonymous Internet poster.  

[Yirgacheffe]

I've read the responses from bsjkki, ScottLloyd, Rain and Calm and speaking of adult friendships it still looks like a circumstantial relationship such as you find among co-workers, you are "friends" with those the church puts you in contact with just like you are "friends" with the people you work with, but deep down you know this will end when the ward or the job changes.  When you change jobs or the ward splits the friends move to the nostalgic acquaintance category, people you are delighted to run into or hear from, those you spend time "catching up with".  These are not the people who know you and you know them, who you kept close to your heart, people who you talked to during the ups and downs they are just people you enjoyed interacting with during the mutual assignment.  Calm's point about the amount of time now spent on the new group of fellows rather I think underscores this in that you let former "relationships"  sink in importance in the shadow of forming new ones, it is important to form a good working relationship or camaraderie in order to further the work that put you together.  Keeping the bonds going with individuals from your former group does nothing to get the new group functioning.  There is nothing wrong with this, it is the way things work in a mobile society with a changing workforce, but I think we are sadly lacking in language when we do not have a distinct word for the rare people we meet in these contrived groupings that rate the same time commitment we give to family because we have their hearts like they have ours. 

As for children and teenagers who see their friendships blown apart because of adults mixing up "boundaries" even though they are close enough to  be in the same building, I won't address it, it makes me angry.

 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

I've read the responses from bsjkki, ScottLloyd, Rain and Calm and speaking of adult friendships it still looks like a circumstantial relationship such as you find among co-workers, you are "friends" with those the church puts you in contact with just like you are "friends" with the people you work with, but deep down you know this will end when the ward or the job changes.  When you change jobs or the ward splits the friends move to the nostalgic acquaintance category, people you are delighted to run into or hear from, those you spend time "catching up with".  These are not the people who know you and you know them, who you kept close to your heart, people who you talked to during the ups and downs they are just people you enjoyed interacting with during the mutual assignment.  Calm's point about the amount of time now spent on the new group of fellows rather I think underscores this in that you let former "relationships"  sink in importance in the shadow of forming new ones, it is important to form a good working relationship or camaraderie in order to further the work that put you together.  Keeping the bonds going with individuals from your former group does nothing to get the new group functioning.  There is nothing wrong with this, it is the way things work in a mobile society with a changing workforce, but I think we are sadly lacking in language when we do not have a distinct word for the rare people we meet in these contrived groupings that rate the same time commitment we give to family because we have their hearts like they have ours. 

As for children and teenagers who see their friendships blown apart because of adults mixing up "boundaries" even though they are close enough to  be in the same building, I won't address it, it makes me angry.

 

I think rather than lacking language we probably lack understanding.  There are so few people in the world that I have that you might qualify in a friend level and they are all family. And most of my family doesn't fit either. I used to long for a friend, any friend really. I thought something was wrong with me. Finally I realized that I expect something different out of my friendships than you and others.  My daughter is more like you are.  

To me an aquaintance is surface level, not amount of time spent together or longetivity of friendship. I can get very deep with someone quickly, others build it up over years. Neither one is better or more friendlike, just different personalities and gifts. 

[bsjkki]

57 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said:

As for children and teenagers who see their friendships blown apart because of adults mixing up "boundaries" even though they are close enough to  be in the same building, I won't address it, it makes me angry.

What makes you angry about this? I don't get it. 

I'm happy you have such great "friends" but I've seen and witnessed the challenge kids face with ward changes. My current area has truly been a struggle for my family and I've given up altogether on  my kids having Mormon friends. I'm just happy they are not getting bullied any more at church. We've had two boundary changes in 5 years...the first was such a disaster because the youth program was gutted. The majority of the kids involved are inactive now. I can only think of 1 child who still attends even though she ended up needing therapy and anxiety medication directly related to the youth program. (Not my kid...my kid is inactive.) Our next boundary change was directly the result of the carnage created by the first change. 

I've lived all across the country and could not have imagined the things that have happened at church in our current location. You should count yourself blessed.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  I admit, I have limited experience serving on the Stake level, and none of the sort that would expose me to the sort of machinations that go on behind the scenes to which you allude here.  Still, it seems to me that the sort of changes under discussion here involve more than a couple of bishops comparing notes and saying, "You know, they really ought to shift the boundaries of our respective wards to create a third," or a couple of stake presidents doing the same thing.  It would seem to me that even if the two bishops or the two stake presidents in my example think it's a good or a necessary idea, discussions need to occur at the Area level, and then still higher than that.

I think this would depend upon the SP and how he chooses to do it. However, in a number of cases the bishops were just as blindsided by the changes as everyone else. SP didn't seek input or recommendations from the bishops. Again, I think this is a reflection on leadership style and personality more than church policy. Still, it had a negative impact.

OK.  Personally, I'm loath to attempt to divine the motivations which move people to do the things they do, even people I know rather well, let alone people with whom I might have but an arm's-length acquaintance.  Perhaps you're better at such divination than I am.  

When I watch the sausage being made close up, and sometimes am a part of making the sausage, there really isn't much need to "divine" how the sausage was made. My experience provides knowledge about how it was made.

I can see how a longer commute to church would pose a problem.  While I would hope that such a factor as necessary travel distance would be appropriately weighted in the calculus of what changes can or should be made in ward and stake boundary shifts, perhaps other factors also weighed into the calculus which may, as important as driving distance might be, have merited even more weight.  

Many factors are considered but as I suggested earlier, the factors that were most important to the SP in many of these cases were not factors I agree should have been important. Yes, that is a personal judgment call. I never claimed otherwise.

OK.  I would be wary of equating your own experiences with those of a representative sample of the members of the units involved.  Perhaps, even if only but for a brief period, such changes were necessary so that "a little leaven [could] leaven[ ] the whole lump."  (See Galatians 5:9;  I know, I know: that scripture doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.   I need to go to Happy Jack Wagon's Gospel Doctrine class.  Alas, he's an anonymous Internet poster, so I'm unsure how to receive the Gospel instruction of which I so clearly am in such desperate need! )

I don't teach Gospel Doctrine but I am able to read   Why are you attempting to make personal digs about my gospel understanding? Does that make you feel better?

Perhaps the reason why the changes to which you allude were undone in such short order is because it was discovered that stake leaders had sought to have their opinions on the matter carry inordinate weight.  I don't know.  

No. The reason they were undone was because the purpose was accomplished. The goal for the change was to show that multiple units were meeting in one building so they could get approval to build a new building. Once the new building was approved the changes were undone because they were no longer needed for approval purposes. I know this for a fact.

That's unfortunate.  Personally, while members elsewhere have made me feel welcome wherever and whenever I have had the opportunity to attend during this period, I have missed the opportunity of being more a part of a Ward family because my personal circumstances have precluded attendance in the Ward to which I am assigned geographically for most of the last year and a half.  

OK.

I certainly don't want to dismiss the undeniable impact the sort of changes we're been discussing can have on the emotional, spiritual, and financial outlooks of those involved.  Still, if the people involve determine that they were created to be acted upon by boundary changes and new unit creation rather than being free agents who retain the ability to act (no matter how they, personally might feel about the changes), I certainly can understand that reaction.

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. In the cases of realignments the members are being acted upon. They either accept the change and obey the leadership or they choose to attend elsewhere. In the church I feel that most people would say that the appropriate thing would be to accept the way leadership is acting upon the individual instead of encouraging the individual to act for themselves based on what they feel would be best.

Well, obviously I thought it was relevant. Perhaps I was mistaken.  I desperately need Happy Jack Wagon's Gospel Doctrine class but, alas!, he's an anonymous Internet poster.  

Or perhaps you can explain why you think a scripture applies instead of simply posting a reference with no comment. What you think is self-evident, isn't. So don't take offense that I disagree with you, try to explain why you think it applies. That would be much more helpful.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

What makes you angry about this? I don't get it. 

I'm happy you have such great "friends" but I've seen and witnessed the challenge kids face with ward changes. My current area has truly been a struggle for my family and I've given up altogether on  my kids having Mormon friends. I'm just happy they are not getting bullied any more at church. We've had two boundary changes in 5 years...the first was such a disaster because the youth program was gutted. The majority of the kids involved are inactive now. I can only think of 1 child who still attends even though she ended up needing therapy and anxiety medication directly related to the youth program. (Not my kid...my kid is inactive.) Our next boundary change was directly the result of the carnage created by the first change. 

I've lived all across the country and could not have imagined the things that have happened at church in our current location. You should count yourself blessed.

That doesn't upset you. My experience has been similar and it has caused all kinds of problems for the kids. So depending on why the boundary change was done the children may be suffering for unworthy reasons.