Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[HappyJackWagon]

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

Quote

Church leaders don’t know where these practices began, but “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ,” said President Ballard. “Our retention rates will dramatically increase when people desire to be baptized because of the spiritual experiences they are having rather than feeling pressured into being baptized by our missionaries.”

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-06-26/president-ballard-baptize-2019-mission-leadership-seminar-50222?fbclid=IwAR2Xo4KtxPd1JFedXKvp1bKtzc95bwEKbxY4X7so8KOTdTm1TFYpVEeU_Tw

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

Serving as a missionary in the late 80's I never felt any pressure to have people baptized before they were prepared.  Yes, we were asked to report number and we were encouraged to help our investigators prepare, but never pressure to baptize anyone who wasn't ready.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

Yes, the leaders need to apologize, not gaslight. Or recognize how in the past it was handled differently. It's almost as if the hard working missionaries, doing what they were told, are being blamed.

[The Nehor]

I don’t see a disconnect. I was probably out around when you were and the soft invitation for baptism is in the First Discussion and the stronger one in the Second. I have no idea where it is now. I have seen the effect of the opposite though. I went out with the missionaries once to a long time investigator I had befriended at Church and he seemed to be ready in every way. I asked him what was holding him back from being baptized and his response was no one had asked him yet.

I did not exert a lot of pressure when I was out. I did invite people but only because they were feeling the Spirit. Then again I was a very mediocre missionary. 

I think you misunderstand and that Elder Ballard is wanting to stop The practice of “baseball baptisms” and similar phenomena that proliferated in various missions where people were baptized with no spiritual witness. This also happened through salesmanship, crush on a missionary, attraction to the social aspects of the church, access to church welfare, all kinds of reasons that almost always lead to inactivity.

The quick conversion after a spiritual witness is the norm and has been throughout history. The missionary discussions are slower then how we did it back in the 1800s. I doubt Elder Ballard was concerned about speed and does not even mention that, more concern that they got the gospel basics and requirements and felt the Holy Ghost.

Edited June 27, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, the leaders need to apologize, not gaslight. Or recognize how in the past it was handled differently. It's almost as if the hard working missionaries, doing what they were told, are being blamed.

I was one of those supposed missionaries. Please do not make me into a victim and attack the church leaders on my behalf. I was never gaslit. I knew what I was there for and what I was supposed to do and I am proud of what I did and I do not see Elder Ballard attacking either me or my work or the instructions I was given through him and many others.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I was one of those supposed missionaries. Please do not make me into a victim and attack the church leaders on my behalf. I was never gaslit. I knew what I was there for and what I was supposed to do and I am proud of what I did and I do not see Elder Ballard attacking either me or my work or the instructions I was given through him and many others.

Edit: Sorry that you think I victimized you, if you felt that, then I apologize.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Tacenda

[SettingDogStar]

Yeah as much as I loved my mission a good portion of it was very much a numbers game. “Alright everyone if you set a baptismal goal for 2 this week and do it we’ll be a highest baptizing mission in the states!” “Set number goals and the lord will let you achieve those numbers.”

I always felt that was weird. I know the Lord can help us, but who cares about reaching a numbers goal? Does the lord really want you to say “I want two baptisms this week, give them to me, I have faith you can”? I feel like He just wants CONVERTED souls, even if it took you all two years to get someone a testimony. There was Such rush to baptize that while the convert wanted to be baptized i knew they didn’t really have a testimony, he/she was just happy with the missionaries and liked church BUT that isn’t enough. I felt very pressured.

I remember right before my new mission president came. My old one wanted us to have a really high baptism rate two transfers before so we looked really good for the new one coming it. I had a hard time because who cares how we look? Are we trying to impress someone else other then God?

Thankfully my two baptisms are active and married in the temple but it’s only because we worked with them for MONTHS. 

[provoman]

49 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

..I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Where and when did it get started? A poster on reddit reports it occurred in the 1960s. I know it happened in the 1990s.

[Raskolnikov]

 

Yes. This quote is disingenuous at very best and is an example of gas-lighting at its finest. Unless learning something about the gospel and being properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ means hearing the first or maybe first two discussions, I can see no way for Elder Ballard to honestly say that “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ.” Missionaries were given written instructions to invite people to make a baptismal commitment during the first meeting.

First, the documentary proof and then an anecdote:

Through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, until Preach My Gospel became the missionary text, missionaries were given manuals for six discussions. This was the "Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel" and each missionary had these, taught from these and gave lessons based on these. These were read, practiced, memorized and taught in a uniform system all over the globe. They provided the literal script for what missionaries would say and teach investigators (this was before they trusted missionaries to teach by the spirit as per Preach My Gospel). For missionaries going to foreign lands, these discussions allowed kids who were butchering the language to simply read words in that language rather than try to fumble with their own ungrammatical gibberish. The script that we were to read to the investigators included a baptismal commitment in the very first discussion and an instruction in that first discussion to get investigators to make this commitment "as early as possible." During the second discussion (which you were instructed to give as soon as possible after the first, the lone commitment you were told to have the investigators make was to be “baptized on a specific date.”

1. From DISCUSSION 1: The Plan of our Heavenly Father (Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, 1986 [used in my mission in 1997-99]): 

Principal 6: "You Can Be Baptized " (Page 1-20) [This is the Missionary Script] - "As the Lord answers your prayers and you feel that this message is true, we hope you will want to follow Christ by being baptized." In the "Teaching Helps" column next to this invitation script is the following statement, "As prompted by the Spirit, you could now invite the investigators to be baptized. (See the 'Invitation to be Baptized' in the instruction booklet.)"

Conclusion (Page 1-22), "Additional Commitments" - "Whenever the Spirit prompts you that the investigators are ready, invite them to commit themselves to be baptized. This commitment should be made as early as possible. As appropriate, use the 'Invitation to be Baptized' in the instruction booklet" (emphasis added).

2. From DISCUSSION 2: THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST (Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, 1986]

On the first page, "Instructions for this Discussion" - "During this discussion you need to help the investigators feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. This will help them to make the commitments that lead to conversion and baptism. During this discussion the investigators should commit themselves to –

·       Be baptized on a specific date”

[That’s it. That is the one commitment missionaries were told to obtain while teaching the second discussion.]

Principal 5: “Baptism By Immersion for the Remissions of Sins” (Page 2-16) [This is the Missionary Script] – “We must be baptized to become members of the Church of Jesus Christ and to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Baptism must be performed by members of the Church who have the priesthood and are authorized to perform ordinances in the name of Christ.” In the “Teaching Helps” column next to this script, “Invite: As you are prompted by the Spirit, this may be an appropriate time to invite the investigators to be baptized.”

Principal 7: Obedience to the Commandments of God” (Page 2-20) [This is the Missionary Script] – “Will you follow the example of Christ by being baptized by someone holding the priesthood authority of God? We will be holding a baptismal service on (date). Will you prepare yourself to be baptized on that date?” In the “Teaching Helps” next to this discussion script, are the following points: “Invite: “Unless otherwise prompted by the Spirit, you should at this point invite the investigators to be baptized on a specific date. If they need additional preparation for this commitment, use the ‘Invitation to be Baptized’ in the instruction booklet” and “Find Out – Whether the investigators understand that they are to prepare to be baptized on a specific date.”

3. In the third discussions, missionaries were instructed to “Strengthen the investigators’ commitment to be baptized on (date). Confirm their scheduled baptism date (or invite them to be baptized if you have not already done so). Discuss any further preparation that is needed and how you can help.” (Conclusion, Discussion 3, The Restoration, Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, Page 3-18)

Note further, that missionaries were instructed to extract these commitments from investigators before teaching about, (i) the restoration (Discussion 3), including the apostasy, the restoration of truth and establishment of the restored church, the current existence of latter day apostles and prophets and the organization of the church with authority in these days, the sacrament and church attendance, (2) the plan of salvation (Discussion 4), including our premortal existence, mortal life on earth, life after death, work for the dead, the eternal family, chastity, the word of wisdom, (3) living a Christlike life (Discussion 5), including the two great commandments, sacrifice brings blessings, fasting and fast offerings, tithing, and (4) membership in the kingdom (Discussion 6), including the role of Jesus Christ in the plan of salvation, exaltation through Christ and his church, perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and the strait and narrow path.

 

Anecdotally, on my mission in central Russia in the late 1990s, we were instructed to invite everyone to be baptized within the first few minutes of making contact with them. Our mission president clearly took the Church’s instruction to have the baptismal commitment made “be made as early as possible” quite literally. We were instructed to create an interesting lead-in with some of the key highlights we would tell them in the discussions and ask, if they came to understand it was true, whether they would agree to be baptized. This was supposed to occur with each contact, on the street, on a bus, etc… We could and were supposed to have dozens of baptismal invitations to report during our weekly calls with the district leaders.

 

So, for Elder Ballard to say, “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ” is simply not true and shifts the blame on missionaries who were faithfully trying to fulfill the instructions from the Church. He even has the gall to refer to them as “these missionaries” and judges them as having “felt that inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries’ faith and supports their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected.”

Just own, this is how we approached in the past. It may not have worked as well as we would like and now we are focusing on ensuring full instruction and proper preparation before baptism. Just be honest. It is communications like these that erode trust in the leadership of the Church and forms cracks in people’s willingness to accept what the Church teaches as facts.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Yeah as much as I loved my mission a good portion of it was very much a numbers game. “Alright everyone if you set a baptismal goal for 2 this week and do it we’ll be a highest baptizing mission in the states!” “Set number goals and the lord will let you achieve those numbers.”

I always felt that was weird. I know the Lord can help us, but who cares about reaching a numbers goal? Does the lord really want you to say “I want two baptisms this week, give them to me, I have faith you can”? I feel like He just wants CONVERTED souls, even if it took you all two years to get someone a testimony. There was Such rush to baptize that while the convert wanted to be baptized i knew they didn’t really have a testimony, he/she was just happy with the missionaries and liked church BUT that isn’t enough. I felt very pressured.

I remember right before my new mission president came. My old one wanted us to have a really high baptism rate two transfers before so we looked really good for the new one coming it. I had a hard time because who cares how we look? Are we trying to impress someone else other then God?

Thankfully my two baptisms are active and married in the temple but it’s only because we worked with them for MONTHS. 

The numbers reporting was always funny and I get why it was done but I just developed a sense of humor about it. Our mission president wanted 14 discussions a week but you could count each person you taught (designed to encourage teaching families I suppose) and if we were short we would head out to the lamp post at the end of the streets where the high school kids would hang out and chat with them and teach them something about the gospel (usually with subtlety) while they asked questions about where we were from.

I think my favorite satire of numbers was one evening we came home at the end of a P-Day after being out as a group to visit less actives in the evening. There were four elders at the house and the District Leader told his junior companion to “hold me accountable” (basically just a report) for what my companionship had gotten done. He was a hilarious Spanish guy who was still learning English and had a beautiful Spanish accent. Anyways he grabbed two chairs and put them in the middle of the living room with mock gravity:

“Elder, please sit down......Now, how many people did you date for baptism today?”

He got out his blue planner as if to record the number.

”None”

With deep sarcasm he responded: “None?” He then leapt to his feet and threw the chair out from under him and got in my face yelling,

“What the HELL are you doing out there? You are supposed to be working!”

I tried to keep a straight face and played along: “Elder, you were with me all evening and we were only out for a few hours to fulfill some requests from the bishop to visit people”

”Ohhhhhhh! Essssscuses, escuses! Tired of your escuses!”

At this point we both broke down laughing.

I also had a Zone Leader that seemed to think we all needed long alternately haranguing or flattering sermons for motivation every night. I would pick up the phone, do the start of the conversation, and let him get started and then put down the receiver on the table next to the bed where I could not hear it and let him do his thing while I read the scriptures or planned while he droned on. I suspect he is probably an MLM Guy now or maybe he got better.

[SettingDogStar]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The numbers reporting was always funny and I get why it was done but I just developed a sense of humor about it. Our mission president wanted 14 discussions a week but you could count each person you taught (designed to encourage teaching families I suppose) and if we were short we would head out to the lamp post at the end of the streets where the high school kids would hang out and chat with them and teach them something about the gospel (usually with subtlety) while they asked questions about where we were from.

I think my favorite satire of numbers was one evening we came home at the end of a P-Day after being out as a group to visit less actives in the evening. There were four elders at the house and the District Leader told his junior companion to “hold me accountable” (basically just a report) for what my companionship had gotten done. He was a hilarious Spanish guy who was still learning English and had a beautiful Spanish accent. Anyways he grabbed two chairs and put them in the middle of the living room with mock gravity:

“Elder, please sit down......Now, how many people did you date for baptism today?”

He got out his blue planner as if to record the number.

”None”

With deep sarcasm he responded: “None?” He then leapt to his feet and threw the chair out from under him and got in my face yelling,

“What the HELL are you doing out there? You are supposed to be working!”

I tried to keep a straight face and played along: “Elder, you were with me all evening and we were only out for a few hours to fulfill some requests from the bishop to visit people”

”Ohhhhhhh! Essssscuses, escuses! Tired of your escuses!”

At this point we both broke down laughing.

I also had a Zone Leader that seemed to think we all needed long alternately haranguing or flattering sermons for motivation every night. I would pick up the phone, do the start of the conversation, and let him get started and then put down the receiver on the table next to the bed where I could not hear it and let him do his thing while I read the scriptures or planned while he droned on. I suspect he is probably an MLM Guy now or maybe he got better.

There was a solid three transfers where we were being blamed for the lack of baptisms because of our obedience. I quote “elders if you wake up at 6:32 and tile out of bed to prayer at 6:35 you need to repent, the Lord commanded that we get up at 6:30 and He is displeased when we don’t do what He says.” Pure gaselighting. 😂

With a couple of my companions we essentially ignored numbers and just taught like we wanted to, you’ll never guess what happened! It was with those two companions that I got two baptisms. It’s almost like numbers don’t matter 🤔

Plus we were told that you need not to JUST ask them to be baptized by the first or second lesson, but to make them commit to a date. I thought that was really foolish

Edited June 27, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

 

Yes. This quote is disingenuous at very best and is an example of gas-lighting at its finest. Unless learning something about the gospel and being properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ means hearing the first or maybe first two discussions, I can see no way for Elder Ballard to honestly say that “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ.” Missionaries were given written instructions to invite people to make a baptismal commitment during the first meeting.

First, the documentary proof and then an anecdote:

Through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, until Preach My Gospel became the missionary text, missionaries were given manuals for six discussions. This was the "Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel" and each missionary had these, taught from these and gave lessons based on these. These were read, practiced, memorized and taught in a uniform system all over the globe. They provided the literal script for what missionaries would say and teach investigators (this was before they trusted missionaries to teach by the spirit as per Preach My Gospel). For missionaries going to foreign lands, these discussions allowed kids who were butchering the language to simply read words in that language rather than try to fumble with their own ungrammatical gibberish. The script that we were to read to the investigators included a baptismal commitment in the very first discussion and an instruction in that first discussion to get investigators to make this commitment "as early as possible." During the second discussion (which you were instructed to give as soon as possible after the first, the lone commitment you were told to have the investigators make was to be “baptized on a specific date.”

1. From DISCUSSION 1: The Plan of our Heavenly Father (Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, 1986 [used in my mission in 1997-99]): 

Principal 6: "You Can Be Baptized " (Page 1-20) [This is the Missionary Script] - "As the Lord answers your prayers and you feel that this message is true, we hope you will want to follow Christ by being baptized." In the "Teaching Helps" column next to this invitation script is the following statement, "As prompted by the Spirit, you could now invite the investigators to be baptized. (See the 'Invitation to be Baptized' in the instruction booklet.)"

Conclusion (Page 1-22), "Additional Commitments" - "Whenever the Spirit prompts you that the investigators are ready, invite them to commit themselves to be baptized. This commitment should be made as early as possible. As appropriate, use the 'Invitation to be Baptized' in the instruction booklet" (emphasis added).

2. From DISCUSSION 2: THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST (Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, 1986]

On the first page, "Instructions for this Discussion" - "During this discussion you need to help the investigators feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. This will help them to make the commitments that lead to conversion and baptism. During this discussion the investigators should commit themselves to –

·       Be baptized on a specific date”

[That’s it. That is the one commitment missionaries were told to obtain while teaching the second discussion.]

Principal 5: “Baptism By Immersion for the Remissions of Sins” (Page 2-16) [This is the Missionary Script] – “We must be baptized to become members of the Church of Jesus Christ and to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Baptism must be performed by members of the Church who have the priesthood and are authorized to perform ordinances in the name of Christ.” In the “Teaching Helps” column next to this script, “Invite: As you are prompted by the Spirit, this may be an appropriate time to invite the investigators to be baptized.”

Principal 7: Obedience to the Commandments of God” (Page 2-20) [This is the Missionary Script] – “Will you follow the example of Christ by being baptized by someone holding the priesthood authority of God? We will be holding a baptismal service on (date). Will you prepare yourself to be baptized on that date?” In the “Teaching Helps” next to this discussion script, are the following points: “Invite: “Unless otherwise prompted by the Spirit, you should at this point invite the investigators to be baptized on a specific date. If they need additional preparation for this commitment, use the ‘Invitation to be Baptized’ in the instruction booklet” and “Find Out – Whether the investigators understand that they are to prepare to be baptized on a specific date.”

3. In the third discussions, missionaries were instructed to “Strengthen the investigators’ commitment to be baptized on (date). Confirm their scheduled baptism date (or invite them to be baptized if you have not already done so). Discuss any further preparation that is needed and how you can help.” (Conclusion, Discussion 3, The Restoration, Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, Page 3-18)

Note further, that missionaries were instructed to extract these commitments from investigators before teaching about, (i) the restoration (Discussion 3), including the apostasy, the restoration of truth and establishment of the restored church, the current existence of latter day apostles and prophets and the organization of the church with authority in these days, the sacrament and church attendance, (2) the plan of salvation (Discussion 4), including our premortal existence, mortal life on earth, life after death, work for the dead, the eternal family, chastity, the word of wisdom, (3) living a Christlike life (Discussion 5), including the two great commandments, sacrifice brings blessings, fasting and fast offerings, tithing, and (4) membership in the kingdom (Discussion 6), including the role of Jesus Christ in the plan of salvation, exaltation through Christ and his church, perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and the strait and narrow path.

 

Anecdotally, on my mission in central Russia in the late 1990s, we were instructed to invite everyone to be baptized within the first few minutes of making contact with them. Our mission president clearly took the Church’s instruction to have the baptismal commitment made “be made as early as possible” quite literally. We were instructed to create an interesting lead-in with some of the key highlights we would tell them in the discussions and ask, if they came to understand it was true, whether they would agree to be baptized. This was supposed to occur with each contact, on the street, on a bus, etc… We could and were supposed to have dozens of baptismal invitations to report during our weekly calls with the district leaders.

 

So, for Elder Ballard to say, “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ” is simply not true and shifts the blame on missionaries who were faithfully trying to fulfill the instructions from the Church. He even has the gall to refer to them as “these missionaries” and judges them as having “felt that inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries’ faith and supports their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected.”

Just own, this is how we approached in the past. It may not have worked as well as we would like and now we are focusing on ensuring full instruction and proper preparation before baptism. Just be honest. It is communications like these that erode trust in the leadership of the Church and forms cracks in people’s willingness to accept what the Church teaches as facts.

BS!

Elder Ballard did not say what you are trying to shove into his mouth.

Yes, the urge was to make the baptismal commitment early and always has been and probably still is but Elder Ballard’s comments are that no one should be baptized until they feel the spirit and learn the basics of the gospel. A violation of that would be baptizing them after the first discussion and not giving the other discussions or baptizing them before they come to church or baptizing them if they have deep reservations about tithing or word of wisdom issues or Joseph Smith or if they have not felt the Holy Ghost at all and have no witness.

Did Elder Ballard say the baptismal commitment should be moved further back? Did he insist the preparation for baptism needed to be extended in terms of time? No, he was very clear on what was necessary and how sometimes in the past those were violated by missionaries and some mission leadership but the problem was not in the material from Salt Lake. You inserted all this and then proceed to beat the straw man to death. Pretty ironic from someone insisting someone else should “Just be honest”.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

Not sure I understand your issue. Missionaries are taught to teach the gospel and then challenge individuals to be baptized. Exactly how does that conflict with Elder Ballard's statement?  

For what it is worth - we were taught to invite individuals to be baptized when directed by the Holy Ghost.  There was not a specific time frame put on it. Regardless, at no time has the Church taught missionaries to forget about teaching the gospel, just baptize them. I know there are differences between mission presidents, but mission presidents are NOT the Church. 

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

There was a solid three transfers where we were being blamed for the lack of baptisms because of our obedience. I quote “elders if you wake up at 6:32 and tile out of bed to prayer at 6:35 you need to repent, the Lord commanded that we get up at 6:30 and He is displeased when we don’t do what He says.” Pure gaselighting. 😂

Plus we were told that you need not to JUST ask them to be baptized by the first or second lesson, but to make them commit to a date. I thought that was really foolish

That is not even impure gaslighting unless you were getting up on time and they were insisting you were not. That word has a meaning but people use it way beyond where it applies. I suspect it is just used for emotional impact because it conjures up images of domestic abuse. Gaslighting is making someone else doubt events they experienced or their own sanity to manipulate them.

Committing to a date is a good thing. It creates a goal. We usually put it a month out to give us time to teach some more, visit regularly, and give them time to get to Church a few times. Sometimes you have to shift the date but that is not a big deal. The goal is what is important.

Edited June 27, 2019 by The Nehor

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

This was my initial reaction as well and I re-read and re-read his article and this part stood out, which you quoted as well, “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ,”

So maybe he had in mind inviting people to be baptized after, not before, they felt the spirit and had learned something. I guess? he saw missionaries inviting people to be baptized without knowing really what that meant-just a guess though! The invites on the first lesson are 

• Will you read the Book of Mormon and ask God in prayer to know that it is the word of God?

• Will you ask God in prayer to know that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

• Will you attend church with us this Sunday?

• May we set a time for our next visit?

• Commandments from lesson 4 that you choose to include.

but it says "as directed by the spirit" so maybe missionaries weren't doing that? I have much more to say about this topic but I agree with you about too soon. President Oaks said last year to MTC Presidents, 

"He posed the question of when in the teaching process the invitation to be baptized should be given to an investigator.

“Not too soon, but not too late!” was his response. Further instruction on that subject will be forthcoming, he said."

I am not involved in missionary work enough to know what this further information is or was

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/2018-01-18/president-oaks-shares-the-two-most-important-duties-of-missionary-work-with-mtc-presidents-33243

[Storm Rider]

Just now, The Nehor said:

That is not gaslighting unless you were getting up late.

Committing to a date is a good thing. It creates a goal. We usually put it a month out to give us time to teach some more, visit regularly, and give them time to get to Church a few times. Sometimes you have to shift the date but that is not a big deal. The goal is what is important.

But using terms like "gaslighting" sounds so much more sinister. It is the kind of drivel that the worst form of anti-Mormons use - The God Makers...da da dah. Or maybe, old Joe raped little girls and one jumped off the Salt Lake temple escaping by swimming across the Salt Lake to safety. 

This type of drivel is such  yawner.  

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

BS!

Elder Ballard did not say what you are trying to shove into his mouth.

Yes, the urge was to make the baptismal commitment early and always has been and probably still is but Elder Ballard’s comments are that no one should be baptized until they feel the spirit and learn the basics of the gospel. A violation of that would be baptizing them after the first discussion and not giving the other discussions or baptizing them before they come to church or baptizing them if they have deep reservations about tithing or word of wisdom issues or Joseph Smith or if they have not felt the Holy Ghost at all and have no witness.

Did Elder Ballard say the baptismal commitment should be moved further back? Did he insist the preparation for baptism needed to be extended in terms of time? No, he was very clear on what was necessary and how sometimes in the past those were violated by missionaries and some mission leadership but the problem was not in the material from Salt Lake. You inserted all this and then proceed to beat the straw man to death. Pretty ironic from someone insisting someone else should “Just be honest”.

Missionaries (myself included) were taught to do things a certain way, for decades. Teach about baptism and commit them to baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion. Now Elder Ballard seems befuddled by the way missionaries committed people and then baptized them...for decades. He doesn't seem to understand how or why it is done this way and seems to be blaming the missionaries. He is either clueless (which doesn't inspire confidence) or he's not being fully honest (which doesn't inspire confidence).

Your experience may be different than mine, or Raskolnikov's, but I know what I was taught to do. I know how I was held accountable to those expectations. To hear Ballard say the equivalent of "I don't know why you did it that way. That was never our intention" isn't honest. I don't believe he is clueless. I believe he is trying to shift the blame from leaders like him, to the lowly missionaries who did what they were taught to do. If he's truly confused, he should probably stop speaking, or simply go back and read the discussions and review the training program he was involved in administering.

[Raskolnikov]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

BS!

Elder Ballard did not say what you are trying to shove into his mouth.

Yes, the urge was to make the baptismal commitment early and always has been and probably still is but Elder Ballard’s comments are that no one should be baptized until they feel the spirit and learn the basics of the gospel. A violation of that would be baptizing them after the first discussion and not giving the other discussions or baptizing them before they come to church or baptizing them if they have deep reservations about tithing or word of wisdom issues or Joseph Smith or if they have not felt the Holy Ghost at all and have no witness.

Did Elder Ballard say the baptismal commitment should be moved further back? Did he insist the preparation for baptism needed to be extended in terms of time? No, he was very clear on what was necessary and how sometimes in the past those were violated by missionaries and some mission leadership but the problem was not in the material from Salt Lake. You inserted all this and then proceed to beat the straw man to death. Pretty ironic from someone insisting someone else should “Just be honest”.

Nehor,

Be careful about calling BS when the actually quote can controvert your very point. Elder Ballard is speaking solely about the invitation for baptism. He uses the word "invite" six times and never talks about baptism itself - solely about the invitation made by missionaries. Please look at what Elder Ballard said and not what you want him to have said.

•  Some missionaries have felt pressure to invite people to be baptized during the first lesson or even the first contact.
• “These missionaries have felt that inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries’ faith and supports their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected,” he said.
• “Other missionaries have felt that an invitation to be baptized early allowed them to promptly separate the wheat from the tares. In this case, some see the baptismal invitation as a sifting tool.”
• Church leaders don’t know where these practices began
• “It was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ”

 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Not sure I understand your issue. Missionaries are taught to teach the gospel and then challenge individuals to be baptized. Exactly how does that conflict with Elder Ballard's statement?  

For what it is worth - we were taught to invite individuals to be baptized when directed by the Holy Ghost.  There was not a specific time frame put on it. Regardless, at no time has the Church taught missionaries to forget about teaching the gospel, just baptize them. I know there are differences between mission presidents, but mission presidents are NOT the Church. 

Really? How do you explain the training and expectation to commit to baptism by the end of discussion 2?

 

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

Wow.  You actually told people that if God wasn’t telling them something was wrong, that means it is right.  Equating feeling nothing with feeling the Spirit.  I’m pretty sure the scriptures say just the opposite.  The whole stupor of thought concept.

[rchorse]

I don't see anything wrong with what Elder Ballard was quoted as saying. The bolded part of the OP ( Church leaders don’t know where these practices began ) is not a direct quote based on the quotation marks. I'd be interested in what he actually said, rather than the journalist's summary.

My mission was definitely big on the invitation to baptism by the second discussion, no exceptions. But my mission was off the rails in a lot of ways: baptizing someone every week was a "rule", pressure tactics were definitely encouraged, and baptismal success was equated with worthiness / righteousness. I don't think any of that came from the apostles, though. I'm pretty sure it all came from one particularly aggressive seventy in the area presidency at the time. None of my friends who were out at the same time had a similar experience.

 

 

[Tacenda]

35 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

 

Just own, this is how we approached in the past. It may not have worked as well as we would like and now we are focusing on ensuring full instruction and proper preparation before baptism. Just be honest. It is communications like these that erode trust in the leadership of the Church and forms cracks in people’s willingness to accept what the Church teaches as facts.

This would have been so easy for Elder Ballard to have said, and would have not placed blame anywhere.

Also, here's a copy from a reddit post that has some check boxes somewhat similar to the indepth information you provided.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

Can you provide evidence from the Church leaders that they enjoin “a hard push sales approach” that invites a learner to be baptized without learning something about the gospel, feeling the Holy Ghost, and being properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ?

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Nehor,

Be careful about calling BS when the actually quote can controvert your very point. Elder Ballard is speaking solely about the invitation for baptism. He uses the word "invite" six times and never talks about baptism itself - solely about the invitation made by missionaries. Please look at what Elder Ballard said and not what you want him to have said.

•  Some missionaries have felt pressure to invite people to be baptized during the first lesson or even the first contact.
• “These missionaries have felt that inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries’ faith and supports their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected,” he said.
• “Other missionaries have felt that an invitation to be baptized early allowed them to promptly separate the wheat from the tares. In this case, some see the baptismal invitation as a sifting tool.”
• Church leaders don’t know where these practices began
• “It was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ”

 

Wish I could give you rep points!

Thanks for your contributions on this thread

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I don't see anything wrong with what Elder Ballard was quoted as saying. The bolded part of the OP ( Church leaders don’t know where these practices began ) is not a direct quote based on the quotation marks. I'd be interested in what he actually said, rather than the journalist's summary.

My mission was definitely big on the invitation to baptism by the second discussion, no exceptions. But my mission was off the rails in a lot of ways: baptizing someone every week was a "rule", pressure tactics were definitely encouraged, and baptismal success was equated with worthiness / righteousness. I don't think any of that came from the apostles, though. I'm pretty sure it all came from one particularly aggressive seventy in the area presidency at the time. None of my friends who were out at the same time had a similar experience.

 

Do you think your mission was unique? If it didn't come from top leadership, I wonder why so many missions functioned in that way. This went on for decades. Was top leadership not aware of that? Did they not inspect the work of missionaries? Did they not interview mission presidents or even missionaries? You seem to think top leadership had nothing to do with a very common issue across many missions over a significant period of time.

Either they were inept at implementing and inspecting their training program for missionaries, or they're not being honest.