No More PEC

[Buckeye]

My stake has recently instructed its wards to cease holding PEC meetings. All ward leadership meetings will now be ward councils. In the event that an issue needs to be addressed by only priesthood-office-holding council members that discussion should happen at the end of a ward council meeting after the sisters have been allowed to leave (e.g., EQ and HPG coordinating home teaching assignments).

Is this change happening in other stakes? Is it new for everyone? Or is my stake late to the game? I can't find anything on DN or Mormon Newsroom discussing it. Considering the historical importance of PEC, I would have thought there would be something official said if the entire church was discontinuing the meeting.

For those unfamiliar with ward leadership meetings, below is the current instruction from church handbook 2. Prior to this handbook coming out in 2010, most wards (in my experience) prioritized PEC over ward council, meaning there would be more PEC meetings than ward councils. Following the 2010 handbook change that flipped. PEC was still held (once a month), but ward council was the more frequent meeting. Now its just ward council.

Ward priesthood executive committee meeting

• Purpose: Consider priesthood matters. As needed, preview matters that will be on the ward council’s agenda, discuss confidential welfare matters, and coordinate home teaching and visiting teaching assignments.
• Participants: Bishopric, ward clerk, ward executive secretary, high priests group leader, elders quorum president, ward mission leader, and Young Men president; the Relief Society president may be invited to attend as needed to discuss confidential welfare matters and to coordinate home teaching and visiting teaching assignments
• Frequency: Regularly

Ward council meeting

• Purpose: Plan ways to strengthen individuals and families. Coordinate efforts in spiritual and temporal welfare, missionary work, retention, activation, temple and family history work, and gospel teaching and learning. Review and coordinate programs and activities.
• Participants: Bishopric; ward clerk; ward executive secretary; high priests group leader; elders quorum president; ward mission leader; Relief Society, Young Men, Young Women, Primary, and Sunday School presidents; and others as invited
• Frequency: Regularly (at least monthly)

[smac97]

In our ward the RS president has been instructed by the stake RS presidency (apparently on instructions from the stake presidency) to participate in PEC meetings.

[gopher]

We stopped having PEC a few years ago.  We meet three times a month as a Ward Council.  The full time missionaries are invited to attend.  Ward Council on the third Sunday is used to plan Sacrament meeting topics and speakers for the next month.  I don't remember if the change came from SLC or from the stake.

[jkwilliams]

PEC always seemed redundant to me when I was executive secretary. Very little of what we discussed in bishopric meeting wasn't carried over into PEC, and pretty much everything we talked about in PEC carried over into ward council. Getting rid of PEC is a good move if the goal is to reduce and simplify.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

PEC always seemed redundant to me when I was executive secretary. Very little of what we discussed in bishopric meeting wasn't carried over into PEC, and pretty much everything we talked about in PEC carried over into ward council. Getting rid of PEC is a good move if the goal is to reduce and simplify.

I agree. I just thought there would be some announcement if this is church-wide. Sounds like stakes are choosing on their own to drop or lower use of PEC.

[juliann]

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

Have they done away with bishopric meetings? Serious question, as I have not heard of that. I must have been playing games on my tablet during church.

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Have they done away with bishopric meetings? Serious question, as I have not heard of that. I must have been playing games on my tablet during church.

Nope. Bishopric meetings, Stake Presidency meetings, Stake High Council meetings all regularly happen in my stake. I can only presume that the FP and Q12 are still meeting.  So there remain plenty of meetings where women are not included. For some of these, I completely agree (YM Presidency) and would likewise expect to find women-only corollaries (YW Presidency). I appreciate the moves to include women in more general-governance meetings (ward council, stake council, etc.) but as long as senior leadership is primarily defined by priesthood office and women are excluded from priesthood office, either the women will be excluded from the meetings, women will participate as tokens, or the importance of priesthood office will be diluted.

It's no different than women performing blessings. If priesthood office somehow enhances a blessings (authority, inspiration, other) than women are excluded from operating with that enhancement. If priesthood office does not enhance the blessing, then it calls into question why we care about offices and the scriptural instruction to "seek the elders." Either way, things will not be optimal so long as the sisters are excluded from office.

[Buckeye]

19 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on including women in bishopric meetings. I've been in many such meetings myself and often felt that things would go better with sister's voices in attendance. However, I can't justify including the RS president without also bringing in the EQP, HPGL, and then pretty soon you've got just another ward council. So IMO, the best way to get sister's voices into bishopric meetings (and stake presidency meetings) would be to remove the requirement of priesthood office for clerks and ward/stake secretaries. Let sisters be called to those positions and their voices will be heard, even if they are not formal "counselors."

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

Functionally it's not there yet but I like this approach.

I sometimes had the RS Pres. attend bishopric meetings when I knew we'd be discussing significant callings for women so she could add her input. But beyond "women's issues" I think the church would benefit dramatically by having women in every meeting.

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'd love to hear your thoughts on including women in bishopric meetings. I've been in many such meetings myself and often felt that things would go better with sister's voices in attendance. However, I can't justify including the RS president without also bringing in the EQP, HPGL, and then pretty soon you've got just another ward council. So IMO, the best way to get sister's voices into bishopric meetings (and stake presidency meetings) would be to remove the requirement of priesthood office for clerks and ward/stake secretaries. Let sisters be called to those positions and their voices will be heard, even if they are not formal "counselors."

Indeed, the Relief Society would have been a welcome presence in bishopric meetings. So many times an issue from bishopric meeting was left unresolved because discussion was needed with the Relief Society.

[hearserve]

We hold PEC on the first Sunday each month. The RS President attends. The whole focus is  correlating HT and VT assignments with current member needs. WC is held immediately after and on third Sundays.  No duplication of topics. 5 minutes correlating calendar, the rest discussing member needs.  To date, no women in Bishopric meeting.

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed, the Relief Society would have been a welcome presence in bishopric meetings. So many times an issue from bishopric meeting was left unresolved because discussion was needed with the Relief Society.

That happened for me too, but just as often there were unresolved issues that needed involvement from the ward mission leader, HPGL, primary president, or other member of the WC. That's one reason for WC. 

In my experience, while I would love to have had the RS president in bishopric meetings full-time, our RS president would not have liked that. She would be fine attending if there was a specific need (just like the instruction for PEC meetings) but she would not be fine attending just to be "the women's voice." And she really didn't like meetings.  Me either. I can understand the hesitancy to be repeatedly invited to a meeting where one doesn't have any formal role. It would be like me - a father of primary age kids - being invited to the Primary Presidency meeting so that a father's voice could be heard. Sure, I'd feel needed on some level. And I'm sure I could add some wisdom. But I'd be continually uncomfortable in the situation and questioning why I was there. 

Women's voices are very much needed. But so too is women's authority. And so long as women are denied priesthood office, they will lack organizational authority that brings them to the same level as men in the church. Inviting the RS president to bishopric meetings is a fine start. But much better that a sister is called as a counselor (or even the bishop). So too with all other organizations that oversee both genders (Sunday School, Primary, etc.); as much as practicable they should be encouraged to be mixed-gender in their leadership. A father attending Primary Presidency meeting because he's the second counselor is much better than one who attends just because he's male.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Buckeye

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, juliann said:

This is good. There should no longer be any formal meeting at any level without women present.

Including bishopric meetings?  Disciplinary councils?  Bishop interviews?  SSP meetings?  EQP meetings?  HPGL meetings?  YM meetings?  High council meetings?  Stake presidency meetings?  Bishop interviews with the stake president?  

It seems like there are all sorts of meetings at the ward and stake levels that take place "without women present" (there are also meetings that take place without men present).  Do you oppose those as well?  Should a man be present at all RS meetings?  YM meetings?  Primary presidency meetings?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[Buckeye]

One other complication with RS presidents in bishopric meeting: political conflicts between the sister-led organizations. Callings are a major topic in bishopric meetings. When sisters are given new callings, usually it means they are taken away from an existing responsibility. At the ward level, there are three primary organizations where sisters serve: Primary, RS, and YW. So if the RS President is part of bishopric meetings, and it turns out that the "best" sisters keep getting called into RS positions, I could easily see concerns raised by the Primary President and YW President about their lack of equal access to the decision body. 

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I agree. I just thought there would be some announcement if this is church-wide. Sounds like stakes are choosing on their own to drop or lower use of PEC.

PECs are governed by section 18.1 of the Handbook-2, and provides that PECs should be held "regularly" and that attendees include "Bishopric, ward clerk, ward executive secretary, high priests group leader, elders quorum president, ward mission leader, and Young Men president," and that "the Relief Society president may be invited to attend as needed to discuss confidential welfare matters and to coordinate home teaching and visiting teaching assignments."

So there does seem to be some degree of flexibility regarding how often the PEC is conducted, and how often the RSP attends.  I'm not sure eliminating the PEC altogether is authorized.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

All this talk of meetings makes me realize how much more I enjoy Sundays these days.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

One other complication with RS presidents in bishopric meeting: political conflicts between the sister-led organizations. Callings are a major topic in bishopric meetings. When sisters are given new callings, usually it means they are taken away from an existing responsibility. At the ward level, there are three primary organizations where sisters serve: Primary, RS, and YW. So if the RS President is part of bishopric meetings, and it turns out that the "best" sisters keep getting called into RS positions, I could easily see concerns raised by the Primary President and YW President about their lack of equal access to the decision body. 

Maybe the political conflicts would fade if the RS Pres saw herself more as an advocate for all women and organizations rather than just the president of her own where she had to compete for personnel. She could function almost as a bishopric 3rd counselor and work specifically with the women's organizations. If she had to answer and be responsible to the other women's organizations I think any RS Pres. would take it seriously and try her best to be fair.

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe the political conflicts would fade if the RS Pres saw herself more as an advocate for all women and organizations rather than just the president of her own where she had to compete for personnel. She could function almost as a bishopric 3rd counselor and work specifically with the women's organizations. If she had to answer and be responsible to the other women's organizations I think any RS Pres. would take it seriously and try her best to be fair.

That's a fair point. When in bishopric meeting she wears a different hat. There's always the potential for politics but most all members I've worked with do their best to "share the wealth."

My RSP would still balk, though, because of the weight of attending so many meetings. Bishopric meeting is most every Sunday. And it can last well over an hour. Add to that even more WC meetings (since there's no more PEC) and her own RS Presidency meetings, and I'm certain that many RSPs would curse the name of female equality. Especially if they have children at home. And doubly-so if the trend of more female involvement continues and suddenly RSPs are supposed to sit on the stand during sacrament meeting. 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe the political conflicts would fade if the RS Pres saw herself more as an advocate for all women and organizations rather than just the president of her own where she had to compete for personnel.

We could just as easily extend that reasoning to the bishop.  That is, that he is "an advocate for all women and organizations" in the ward.

But that would not be convenient, I think, to the narrative necessary to import and foment gender wars into the Church of Jesus Christ.

Quote

She could function almost as a bishopric 3rd counselor and work specifically with the women's organizations.

How is that superior to the RS president representing the RS, the Primary President representing the Primary, and the YW president representing the YW?

Are we seriously suggesting that it would be better to have fewer women in participating in leadership roles in the Church?

Quote

If she had to answer and be responsible to the other women's organizations I think any RS Pres. would take it seriously and try her best to be fair.

I don't see this as being a better solution.  I think the YW and Primary presidents want to have stewardship over their organizations, without an added layer of bureaucracy (e.g., YW President --> RS President --> Bishop).  I think this could very likely create more frustration, not less.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

I'd be interested to see a ward and how it functions without these meetings.  For all the times I've attended I've left wondering why we're all wasting our time.  But we all still go...maybe to make it seem we're important enough?  or to demonstrate the Bishop's authority?  Really not sure why they are held.  To plan sacrament sounds like it's something, at least. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd be interested to see a ward and how it functions without these meetings.  For all the times I've attended I've left wondering why we're all wasting our time.  But we all still go...maybe to make it seem we're important enough?  or to demonstrate the Bishop's authority?  Really not sure why they are held.  To plan sacrament sounds like it's something, at least. 

Our ward works hard to keep meetings to a minimum, and the number of participants to a minimum.  PEC and BYC are held once a month.  Ward Council twice a month.  The bishop delegates quite a bit of work to his counselors, leaving him more time to attend to pastoral and welfare matters.  The RS Presidency has reduced RS activities to once per quarter.  Primary has 2-3 activities per year.  The EQP and HPGL each have 2-3 activities per year.  The ward has 3-4 activities per year.  

The bishop takes Fast Sunday off from any pastoral/welfare appointments (except for emergencies), so he can spend more time at home on that Sunday.  He often asks one of his counselors to attend stake welfare meetings (held once a month) in his place.  He cancels bishopric meetings whenever possible.  He keeps bishopric meetings and ward council meetings as brief as possible.

With all that said, the councils of the Church are important and necessary, particularly at the ward level.  Our ward's primary focus (75%+ of each meeting) is spent discussing missionary work and the practical needs of people in the ward.  There is no gossip.  There is no judgment.  There is no criticism.  There is love expressed.  There is counsel shared and received.  There are real-world needs discussed and addressed.  There are many times when the scope of our efforts are curtailed so as to respect the privacy of individuals.

Our ward meetings are overwhelmingly concerned with the temporal and spiritual welfare of our ward members and with people in our ward boundaries.  

The LDS Church is constantly accused by its critics of being obsessed with money, of not caring about the welfare of individual church members.  And yet the meetings during which the temporal needs of specific individuals are are addressed, and where measures designed to meet those needs are crafted, are complained about as a waste of time.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Our ward works hard to keep meetings to a minimum, and the number of participants to a minimum.  PEC and BYC are held once a month.  Ward Council twice a month.  The bishop delegates quite a bit of work to his counselors, leaving him more time to attend to pastoral and welfare matters.  The RS Presidency has reduced RS activities to once per quarter.  Primary has 2-3 activities per year.  The EQP and HPGL each have 2-3 activities per year.  The ward has 3-4 activities per year.  

The bishop takes Fast Sunday off from any pastoral/welfare appointments (except for emergencies), so he can spend more time at home on that Sunday.  He often asks one of his counselors to attend stake welfare meetings (held once a month) in his place.  He cancels bishopric meetings whenever possible.  He keeps bishopric meetings and ward council meetings as brief as possible.

With all that said, the councils of the Church are important and necessary, particularly at the ward level.  Our ward's primary focus (75%+ of each meeting) is spent discussing missionary work and the practical needs of people in the ward.  There is no gossip.  There is no judgment.  There is no criticism.  There is love expressed.  There is counsel shared and received.  There are real-world needs discussed and addressed.  There are many times when the scope of our efforts are curtailed so as to respect the privacy of individuals.

Our ward meetings are overwhelmingly concerned with the temporal and spiritual welfare of our ward members and with people in our ward boundaries.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, ok, so that's the nice way to put it.  I've never minded giving the time, and I think in theory there's some purpose to the meetings.  But they never really amount o much in my mind.  But if you're ward members somehow perfectly proceeds without any error (rush to judgment, criticism, or gossip) at all, then great.  I'd love to see it, in fact.  I'd learn a lot I'm sure. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, ok, so that's the nice way to put it. 

That's the accurate way to put it.  We don't dither about in our ward.  A while back our bishop shared that his personal philosophy is that bishops should view time as a valuable commodity, and that the principles of frugality and prudence which bishops deploy in administering welfare funds should also be deployed in how they ask members to spend their time.  Hence meetings are brief and efficient (and curtailed whenever possible).

Quote

I've never minded giving the time, and I think in theory there's some purpose to the meetings. 

The temporal and spiritual needs of ward members are not "theory."  These needs are discussed in the councils of our ward, and real-world measures are formulated and implemented.  So we discuss things like Bro. H. getting out of the hospital with his broken hip, and how he has asked for frequent visits (he's a widower, and he's lonely).  We discuss the fundraiser for the Young Women and ways we can maximize their management of it.  We discuss the family of Bro. S., who is in prison for the foreseeable future and whose kids could probably use more interaction with other kids and families.  We discuss the C. Family, who has an autistic child who has had some altercations with the neighbor kids.  We discuss Sister P., whose house was broken into over the weekend, and who may need help in making her home more secure.  And on and on and on.

We also discuss spiritual matters.  Ways to invite the Spirit into lessons taught during the block.  Ways to improve the content of Sacrament Meeting.  Ways to improve missionary work.  Ways to make people not of our faith feel more welcome and more at home in the neighborhood.  And on and on and on.

This is not "theory."  It's reality.  These things requires real effort and coordination.

Quote

But they never really amount o much in my mind. 

The LDS Church is constantly accused by its critics of being obsessed with money, or its reputation, or power, and of not caring about the welfare of individual church members.  And yet the meetings during which the temporal needs of specific individuals are addressed, and where measures designed to meet those needs are crafted and implemented, are complained about and criticized as a waste of time.  

Quote

But if you're ward members somehow perfectly proceeds without any error (rush to judgment, criticism, or gossip) at all, then great.  I'd love to see it, in fact.  I'd learn a lot I'm sure. 

We're not perfect.  Far from it.  But we are trying hard to extend the hand of fellowship to our fellow man.  We succeed in some ways and fail in others.  But we are trying.  And I am grateful for these efforts.  I have seen lives transformed and families and individuals strengthened and made better due, in part, to the efforts which are being whined about in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's the accurate way to put it.  We don't dither about in our ward.  A while back our bishop shared that his personal philosophy is that bishops should view time as a valuable commodity, and that the principles of frugality and prudence which bishops deploy in administering welfare funds should also be deployed in how they ask members to spend their time.  Hence meetings are brief and efficient (and curtailed whenever possible).[/quote]

I'm sure he's a fine bishop.  Hope that helps. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not just "theory."  The temporal needs of ward members are not "theory."  So we discuss things like Bro. H. getting out of the hospital with his broken hip, and how he has asked for frequent visits (he's a widower, and he's lonely).  We discuss the fundraiser for the Young Women and ways we can maximize their management of it.  We discuss the family of Bro. S., who is in prison for the foreseeable future and whose kids could probably use more interaction with other kids and families.  We discuss the C. Family, who has an autistic child who has had some altercations with the neighbor kids.  We discuss Sister P., whose house was broken into over the weekend, and who may need help in making her home more secure.  And on and on and on.

I get ya.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

We also discuss spiritual matters.  Ways to invite the Spirit into lessons taught during the block.  Ways to improve the content of Sacrament Meeting.  Ways to improve missionary work.  Ways to make people not of our faith feel more welcome and more at home in the neighborhood.  And on and on and on.

This is not "theory."  It's reality.  These things requires real effort and coordination.

Well the required part is perhaps a little premature.  Maybe all of these things can be accomplished without the meetings at all. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The LDS Church is constantly accused by its critics of being obsessed with money, of not caring about the welfare of individual church members.  And yet the meetings during which the temporal needs of specific individuals are are addressed, and where measures designed to meet those needs are crafted, are complained about as a waste of time.  

 

Not sure what you're getting at.  I've only expressed my experience.  I've not constantly accused the Church of being obsessed with money, or not caring about the welfare of individual church members.  But I will say much of what goes on in the meetings i've attended have amounted to a waste of time.  And I rather think all the good things the local wards are about can be accomplished without the meetings.  But I could be wrong.  We'll never know, I guess, since these meetings happen.

 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

We're not perfect.  Far from it.  But we are trying hard to extend the hand of fellowship to our fellow man.  We succeed in some ways and fail in others.  But we are trying.  And I am grateful for these efforts.  I have seen lives transformed and families and individuals strengthened and made better due, in part, to the efforts which are being whined about in this thread.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm glad you're ward's trying.  Sounds like the average ward in that respect.