Everyone knows Church members can't actually choose which ward they attend--you go to the ward which covers the geographical location where you live , and you just deal with it.

That is, Church members except for *me*...

Like a handful of other fortunate saints, I belong to the 'exception to the rule' when it comes to ward attendance--the select group of people who actually have 'ward choice'....sort of.

(Okay, I get my choice of *two* wards to attend, rather than one.  Hey, it's still a 'choice'!)

Thanks to having the great privilege of being married to "The Baroness"--a Taiwanese native--we have the option of attending the BYU Chinese Ward in lieu of our local ward.  Other ethnicities--as well as unmarried Saints--in select areas also have a choice between a regular ward and a 'specialized' ward more tailored to meet their individual needs.

How does having 'ward choice', even to a limited extent, affect life in the Church for those of us select souls?  Let's discuss...

It should be obvious why current policy is, essentially, 'anti-choice':  where you attend your local ward without the option of 'transferring' (short of actually moving).

Imagine how ward organization would suffer if members came from a wider geographical area...and could come and go at any time.  (Ward clerks would be shuffling member records back and forth almost weekly)  Home teaching would be more difficult with assignments spread across a large distance.  And if a new member family moved into a neighborhood, attended three different wards once, and then went inactive, who's now responsible for visiting them?

Ward 'cliques' would become more pronounced...where each clique would simply choose one particular ward to congregate in, while everyone else transferred out to find a ward with people 'more like themselves'.  Ward unity, especially among a previously diverse group of members, would likely become a thing of the past.

There would be major "grass is greener..." syndrome, where members would travel around looking for better sacrament talks, or a bishopric more to their liking.  (And then, of course, start the process over again, once the current leadership was released and new people called).  Speaking of which, there would be a LOT of releasings and new callings, since people are switching a lot.  Say goodbye to ward continuity...

In the worst case, there would be an 'advertising' effect, where some wards go out of their way to 'attract' members to attend their ward, possibly to the extent of liberalizing doctrine.  (Imagine a bishop who became known for less strict standards in allowing missionaries to serve...and imagine a little 'advertising' so parents who wished their borderline sons would be judged mission-worthy would know which ward they should start attending.  Imagine the exodus in a ward where the bishop happened to be on the strict side...)  Imagine bishops in adjacent wards 'campaigning' for neighborhood families to attend their wards...or perhaps bishops who felt their wards were too big already, attempting to pressure families he didn't care for to transfer somewhere else.

All things considered, it should be obvious that the current policy is correct, with a simple thought experiment on what would happen if it were not the case.  Having said that, can we see any of those same consequences in those 'specialized' wards where people do have a choice?.

Single wards are non-controversial for the most part, since single members are worthless and need a place to get their act together...er, um, could benefit from an environment where they can meet other singles like themselves.

Ethnic wards are more controversial--after all, isn't it counter-productive to have every ethnicity divided into separate, segregated congregations instead of everyone being together and learning from a more diverse group of members?  We're essentially creating Church 'cliques' here, not just enabling them...

On the other hand, we should note that ethnic wards provide leadership opportunities for faithful saints who, let's face it, would never be called to certain leadership positions in regular (read: white) wards in the US.  Not necessarily because of overt racism, but in most cases because of language.

Our Chinese ward bishop would likely never be called upon to be a bishop of an English ward, because English isn't his strongest language.  In the Chinese ward, the language barrier doesn't exist, whereas all of the other attributes that make him a good bishop can still be developed and utilized.  (At age 29, "The Baroness" was also called to be Relief Society President of the Chinese Ward...no, I don't think that would ever have happened in our local ward)

The 'grass is greener' syndrome also has a noticeable effect--we know members who don't like past or present Chinese ward leaders...and just switch to the local ward.  (And sometimes they don't like the local ward leadership either, and switch back.  And so on...)

In a way, it's comparable to the debate over living together.  Statistically speaking, couples who live together are less likely to get married (and more likely to divorce if they do).   In a way, the ease in which one can leave the relationship presents an inherent temptation to leave once the going gets rough.  Likewise, if one has an 'out' in terms of which ward to attend, wouldn't that make it more likely for Church members to switch if the going gets rough in their current ward rather than stick it out?  (You can debate, of course, whether switching wards back and forth is still preferable to just going inactive...)

So, is it better to have 'choice', or just to learn to live with what you're given?   At the very least, ethnic wards provide a look into the benefits and the consequences of 'choice' when it comes to church attendance.