General Conference request: please speak about updating ward and stake boundaries

[nuclearfuels]

the what informs.

the why transforms. (certain units and stakes need help, support, etc. so stakes and wards with surplus, if priesthood leadership studies it out and obtains confirmation thru prayer. We're all beggars before the throne, etc.

I'd like to know the how - more than prayer. priesthood and promptings - which i understand is the how. 

Two units of our stake were absorbed by another stake a while back. i wasn't aware of this and missed the church session where it was explained and testified about. It was simply rude and inconsiderate to not tell the stake members this was going to happen - even with potential complaints from members. 

in UT a few years back we were in three family wards in three years, without moving. Too large of a Primaries?  Wouldn't have been a shortage of priesthood holders. Welfare or assistance needs balancing?

These facts make me hesitant to get emotionally invested in my current ward, big city, lots of churn, not many lasting ties / relationships.

[bluebell]

I think it’s standard practice to spring these kinds of things on stakes, and I think it’s another example of secrecy for the sake of being secret.

It really is hard to become invested in a ward family. I can understand not wanted to make the effort after going through Ward boundary changes a few times. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think it’s standard practice to spring these kinds of things on stakes, and I think it’s another example of secrecy for the sake of being secret.

It really is hard to become invested in a ward family. I can understand not wanted to make the effort after going through Ward boundary changes a few times. 

I have been in a ward with no morale as every few years the stake carves off a bit more to form new wards when the ward was already having problems staffing itself. Each time we got our head above water the axe fell again. Almost everyone treated their callings as drudgery to get through and members routinely turned down callings they didn’t want.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/24/2022 at 8:14 PM, nuclearfuels said:

the what informs.

the why transforms. (certain units and stakes need help, support, etc. so stakes and wards with surplus, if priesthood leadership studies it out and obtains confirmation thru prayer. We're all beggars before the throne, etc.

I'd like to know the how - more than prayer. priesthood and promptings - which i understand is the how. 

Two units of our stake were absorbed by another stake a while back. i wasn't aware of this and missed the church session where it was explained and testified about. It was simply rude and inconsiderate to not tell the stake members this was going to happen - even with potential complaints from members. 

in UT a few years back we were in three family wards in three years, without moving. Too large of a Primaries?  Wouldn't have been a shortage of priesthood holders. Welfare or assistance needs balancing?

These facts make me hesitant to get emotionally invested in my current ward, big city, lots of churn, not many lasting ties / relationships.

 

On 9/24/2022 at 9:01 PM, bluebell said:

I think it’s standard practice to spring these kinds of things on stakes, and I think it’s another example of secrecy for the sake of being secret.

It really is hard to become invested in a ward family. I can understand not wanted to make the effort after going through Ward boundary changes a few times. 

The term “ward family” is a catch phrase that, as far as I can tell, crept into widespread use without having any official imprimatur from the high leadership of the Church (I could be wrong on that point, and if I am, I’m sure someone here will waste no time in proving me so). I’m not saying they object to it, but I just don’t see it as having the institutional gravitas that many seem to assume it does. 
 

The fact is that any of us are prone at any time to having our local unit affiliation changed without our having any say in the matter. I’m not convinced that’s altogether a bad thing, but when it happens, whence goeth the “ward family”? Was it ever intended to have any permanence? I wonder. 
 

I think we need to become more expansive and less provincial, to accustom ourselves to regarding the entire body of the Church, the covenant people of God, as being our “family” and not limit our affinity to a couple hundred folks who reside in a geographic district to which we happen to be assigned for the time being, such that we suffer distress when something occurs to change that status quo. 

Edited September 26, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

If the topic under discussion is spoken about in General Conference, likely, it would be spoken of in a leadership meeting involving Quorums of Seventies, since that's who comprises Area leadership, where, as I understand it, final responsibility for boundary change decisions resides [though perhaps you're right that members would benefit from knowing more about the process]. 

I feel your pain, as well as that of those who have opined that such decisions are made without adequate input from those most directly affected.  While I don't mean to minimize, in any way, those problems (a few years ago, I was in a Ward and a Stake in which, regularly, boundaries were realigned within a short time), I would encourage anyone in a similar situation to do the best one can to "be the leaven that leavens the new lump."

Edited September 25, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The term “ward family” is a catch phrase that, as far as I can tell, crept into widespread use without having any official imprimatur from the high leadership of the Church (I could be wrong on that point, and if I am, I’m sure someone here will waste no time in proving me so). I’m not saying they object to it, but I just don’t see it as having the institutional gravitas that many seem to assume it does. 
 

That fact is that any of us are prone at any time to having our local unit affiliation changed without our having any say in the matter. I’m not convinced that’s altogether a bad thing, but when it happens, whence goeth the “ward family”? Was it ever intended to have any permanence? I wonder. 
 

I think we need to become more expansive and less provincial, to accustom ourselves to regarding the entire body of the Church, the covenant people of God, as being our “family” and not limit our affinity to a couple hundred folks who reside in a geographic district to which we happen to be assigned for the time being, such that we suffer distress when something occurs to change that status quo. 

Just search "ward family" on the church's website.  The very first hit that came up for me was a talk by an apostle with the title "Belonging to a Ward Family".  There are many many talks that follow that one.

But even without doing the web search, it seems odd that anyone could be a member for decades and not think that this push to create ward unity and a ward family isn't that much of a focus and doesn't come from the top down.  I've lived in 4 different states, in multiple wards in each state, and served in leadership positions in many of them, and creating unity in a ward was always one of the main goals.  It was so much a goal that a large chunk of the budget and planning went towards promoting it with ward activities every 2-3 months.

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I feel your pain, as well as that of those who have opined that such decisions are made without adequate input from those most directly affected.  While I don't mean to minimize, in any way, those problems (a few years ago, I was in a Ward and a Stake in which, regularly, boundaries were realigned within a short time), I would encourage anyone in a similar situation to do the best one can to "be the leaven that leavens the new lump."

Reforming ward boundaries is a hard task and I don't envy anyone that is put in charge of doing it. 

Our stake changed multiple ward boundaries 2 1/2 years ago and we already need to do so again because those in charge of redrawing them didn't take into consideration new construction in some of the wards.  We have over 600 members with a 60% activity rate right now, and they are still building more townhouses in our area.  It's a bit of a mess (no one's fault, it just is what it is). 

[The Nehor]

To those who think that wards splitting and being merged should be discussed with the members I have seen that happen in one instance (weird case) and it was ugly. I understand why they do not publish it in advance. Soliciting input includes the tacit idea that you will act on that input and even if you do in some cases in some you just will not and this leads to potentially even more hurt feelings.

As one bullheaded member of a splitting ward once said blatantly to people complaining people you know and like being another ward does not mean you have to cut off all friendship. In this area the church not being a dominant thing all week like it used to be is arguably a help.

 

Again though I have also seen splits deplete and weaken multiple wards. While it happening every so often is tolerable and an energized leadership can pull through. When it is continuous and it seems like the stake is just fiddling with the borders to make them perfect or when it seems like some stake president thinks that if he creates half a dozen wards during his tenure he will get an automatic promotion to one of the seventy it is just tiring.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

To those who think that wards splitting and being merged should be discussed with the members I have seen that happen in one instance (weird case) and it was ugly. I understand why they do not publish it in advance. Soliciting input includes the tacit idea that you will act on that input and even if you do in some cases in some you just will not and this leads to potentially even more hurt feelings.

As one bullheaded member of a splitting ward once said blatantly to people complaining people you know and like being another ward does not mean you have to cut off all friendship. In this area the church not being a dominant thing all week like it used to be is arguably a help.

 

Again though I have also seen splits deplete and weaken multiple wards. While it happening every so often is tolerable and an energized leadership can pull through. When it is continuous and it seems like the stake is just fiddling with the borders to make them perfect or when it seems like some stake president thinks that if he creates half a dozen wards during his tenure he will get an automatic promotion to one of the seventy it is just tiring.

I agree that asking for input would be a disaster.  I'm surprised that a stake actually tried that and thought it would go over well.  

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that asking for input would be a disaster.  I'm surprised that a stake actually tried that and thought it would go over well.  

It was a plan to integrate a language ward into the English speaking ward because 90% of the people in the foreign language ward speak English fluently. It was ugly. Letters were written to Salt Lake. Videos protesting went online. Cries of racism went up. Wards swapped attending at a certain building due to animosities. This happened before my time in the ward so I am only going on the accounts of others so I have no idea if this was a general sentiment led by some hotheads or if it was just really loud hotheads.

[Peacefully]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The term “ward family” is a catch phrase that, as far as I can tell, crept into widespread use without having any official imprimatur from the high leadership of the Church (I could be wrong on that point, and if I am, I’m sure someone here will waste no time in proving me so). I’m not saying they object to it, but I just don’t see it as having the institutional gravitas that many seem to assume it does. 
 

That fact is that any of us are prone at any time to having our local unit affiliation changed without our having any say in the matter. I’m not convinced that’s altogether a bad thing, but when it happens, whence goeth the “ward family”? Was it ever intended to have any permanence? I wonder. 
 

I think we need to become more expansive and less provincial, to accustom ourselves to regarding the entire body of the Church, the covenant people of God, as being our “family” and not limit our affinity to a couple hundred folks who reside in a geographic district to which we happen to be assigned for the time being, such that we suffer distress when something occurs to change that status quo. 

I tend to agree with your take on this. We are really one big family and should be ready to “lift where we stand,” no matter how we are split up. Sometimes, I would like to choose a ward where I feel comfortable, but we aren’t set up that way so I try to be flexible when changes occur. On the flip side, I am currently in a very transient ward. Just imagine trying to tell people they can’t move because they would be tearing apart the ward family.

[rpn]

I'm sorry Nuclearfuels.  I know how hard it is because we've experienced the same 3 ward in six years without moving.   Having had an intimate view of process,  I've learned the following things about it:

1.   It starts with preserving the required priesthood in each unit.   Then they look at natural boundaries (the way people get to church, school zoning, where the buildings are (and how many any building can accommodate, making sure to even out the demographics (well-off/poor, white/blue color work, ) as much as possible so that the eventual wards can each be self-sufficient for staffing youth programs, for ministering to all, young and old, and to not get wards that can do whatever they want, and wards that cannot be financially or practically self-sufficient).   Other considerations might be youth membership activity, music skills. 

When the committee has figured out a plan that works logistically, that has considered all the local concerns/issues, and meets the list of criterion required and the committee feels it consistent with Their will and the SP and high council agree with the committee, it gets submitted to Salt Lake, which may send it back telling the committee to try again, with advice or sometimes without feedback.   SLC may keep it for a very long time before sending it back.  When SLC approves a proposal, THEN the SP decides timing and starts the calling process for all the new callings required.  At some point in that process, the SP decides on the timing of the meeting.

2.   While I understand completely the need for not disclosing who is on the committee nor the details or the various considered options (you probably cannot believe how hard it is to deal with the few who have to know and want to be sure  X, Y or Z happens, and the pressure from various ward members, and they are pretty persistent and even awful to any known committee members, and tend to start rumors and instigate lobbying groups), I DO NOT AGREE with not telling members that the new boundaries will be announced  for the disclosure meeting.   I suppose one could argue about going to all invited meetings willingly when asked is part of our membership duties and to some extent our personal faithfulness, I just don't see the point of trying to prove that in these circumstances when people are juggling multiple important ways to use their time.

3.   The fact that we no longer worship every week with those we have learned to know, IMHE enriches the real relationships we have.  We can many more friends, just have to put some extra effort in to meeting up or talking together.   I guess it makes us real friends rather than church sunday people we call friends.   Instead of mourning the regular church contact, maybe we spread our influence and time further.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It was a plan to integrate a language ward into the English speaking ward because 90% of the people in the foreign language ward speak English fluently. It was ugly. Letters were written to Salt Lake. Videos protesting went online. Cries of racism went up. Wards swapped attending at a certain building due to animosities. This happened before my time in the ward so I am only going on the accounts of others so I have no idea if this was a general sentiment led by some hotheads or if it was just really loud hotheads.

That sounds horrible.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I tend to agree with your take on this. We are really one big family and should be ready to “lift where we stand,” no matter how we are split up. Sometimes, I would like to choose a ward where I feel comfortable, but we aren’t set up that way so I try to be flexible when changes occur. On the flip side, I am currently in a very transient ward. Just imagine trying to tell people they can’t move because they would be tearing apart the ward family.

I've lived in two very transient wards and they do come with some big challenges that are unique to that situation.

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It was a plan to integrate a language ward into the English speaking ward because 90% of the people in the foreign language ward speak English fluently. It was ugly.

When a foreign language ward got disbanded in Australia, a bunch of members of the ward sued the Church.

Edited September 25, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

When a foreign language ward got disbanded in Australia, a bunch of members of the ward sued the Church.

Oh boy.

[Stargazer]

Weird situations occur sometimes that could theoretically be softened by ward boundary changes. Back in my old Washington state stake, our ward boundary included youth from two different, and rival, high schools. The kids from the one school barely tolerated the kids from the other, and sometimes were openly hostile (especially when the two schools were about to play football against each other). If the stake had adjusted the ward boundaries to more closely align with the high schools (there were three within the stake), it might have made things more harmonious for the teens in each ward. But there were two stakes in the area, and the teens in one of the high schools were split between the two stakes. So it wouldn't have worked anyway.

Obviously there has to be a way to convince the kids that their school loyalties did not need to extend into church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

Just search "ward family" on the church's website.  The very first hit that came up for me was a talk by an apostle with the title "Belonging to a Ward Family".  There are many many talks that follow that one.

I saw that one after I posted. It was given quite a number of years ago by a now-deceased speaker and was addressed to single adults in the Church. It pertained to the use of another catch phrase, “family ward,” and was advocating that members of singles wards, after a period of transition, consider going back to a traditional ward, which he called “ward family,” a play-on-words reversal of the catch phrase popular among single-adult members. In the context I didn’t really see in that a promotion of “ward family” as institutional terminology, though it did serve to make his point for that particular talk. 
 

I didn’t see any other talks cited, but I admit I didn’t spend much time looking. 
 

What I did see from a cursory glance or two were a number of links to articles about genealogical lines with the surname of Ward. 

Edited September 25, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

When a foreign language ward got disbanded in Australia, a bunch of members of the ward sued the Church.

It would greatly bolster my confidence in the Australian justice system to have you tell us that case was summarily thrown out of court. 

[JustAnAustralian]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It would greatly bolster my confidence in the Australian justice system to have you tell us that case was summarily thrown out of court. 

There were two initial trials (that the judge combined and then tossed out together). They (55 people) then appealed it. The appeal was denied.

https://austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2014/26.html

The jist was that by disbanding the Samoan speaking wards, the church was denying their right to worship freely (i.e. in their own language). Both the Church and the Courts disagreed.

Edited September 25, 2022 by JustAnAustralian

[nuclearfuels]

On 9/25/2022 at 12:05 AM, The Nehor said:

I have been in a ward with no morale as every few years the stake carves off a bit more to form new wards when the ward was already having problems staffing itself. Each time we got our head above water the axe fell again. Almost everyone treated their callings as drudgery to get through and members routinely turned down callings they didn’t want.

Yikes

Sounds like a branch

[freedad]

Boundary changes are not done secretly for secrecy sake.  Immediately afterward the Stake Presidency is swamped with people looking to be the exception to the new boundary so they can stay in their old ward with their friends.  Unfortunately, the requests can be so numerous it can be overwhelming and feelings are hurt.  So if it's done quietly the Stake President can more easily say no to the requests with, "It's done."

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, freedad said:

Boundary changes are not done secretly for secrecy sake.  Immediately afterward the Stake Presidency is swamped with people looking to be the exception to the new boundary so they can stay in their old ward with their friends.  Unfortunately, the requests can be so numerous it can be overwhelming and feelings are hurt.  So if it's done quietly the Stake President can more easily say no to the requests with, "It's done."

When I said that in a previous post, I was speaking of the secrecy that often occurs around a coming ward boundary change.  Not the secrecy around what the new changes will be.   

[mfbukowski]

On 9/24/2022 at 11:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

The term “ward family” is a catch phrase that, as far as I can tell, crept into widespread use without having any official imprimatur from the high leadership of the Church (I could be wrong on that point, and if I am, I’m sure someone here will waste no time in proving me so). I’m not saying they object to it, but I just don’t see it as having the institutional gravitas that many seem to assume it does. 
 

That fact is that any of us are prone at any time to having our local unit affiliation changed without our having any say in the matter. I’m not convinced that’s altogether a bad thing, but when it happens, whence goeth the “ward family”? Was it ever intended to have any permanence? I wonder. 
 

I think we need to become more expansive and less provincial, to accustom ourselves to regarding the entire body of the Church, the covenant people of God, as being our “family” and not limit our affinity to a couple hundred folks who reside in a geographic district to which we happen to be assigned for the time being, such that we suffer distress when something occurs to change that status quo. 

We are a worldwide church and need to see ourselves as a worldwide family.

As I see it, make the changes just to break up cliques and add diversity.

Sounds good to me.

Ward changes don't mean you have to divorce your old buddies, you just get chances for new buddies!

I actually like meeting new people who brighten up the stuffy old folks home I have been in since the last change!

I have visited wards in Poland and Germany that are much more friendly than we are!

Edited September 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

20 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

When a foreign language ward got disbanded in Australia, a bunch of members of the ward sued the Church.

How did that work out?    Between the religious provisions of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine (which has been discussed here at length by our legally erudite friend @smac97 and is something that, it seems to me, is a natural outgrowth of the First Amendment), I can tell you how it would work if someone were to try it here (read, "not well").  My response, if someone were to try it here, would be, "Yeah, um, good luck with that, Friend."