Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

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?

I shared my experience. Many others had similar experience. Either church leaders were aware of this process or they weren't. If they didn't know, why not?

[Raskolnikov]

6 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.

 

 

• “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.
  • "These missionaries" - he must mean every missionary that served in the 80s, 90s and 2000s and before the Preach my Gospel was written, who took the written instruction from the First Presidency and Church to heart? 
  • "Their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected." - "Their thinking." Really?  It was expected. It was what missionaries were taught to do. It is in black and white in the script for the first discussion. Here is the script that missionaries were told to say to investigators during the first discussion:

"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" (Principal 6: "You Can Be Baptized " (Page 1-20).

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.)"

At the end of the First Discussion is this nugget: 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.” (emphasis added)

It is as clear as day that this is what was expected. The missionaries were told in writing to get this commitment as early as possible. Three times it is mentioned in the first discussion. In the second discussion you were instructed to get a date certain for the commitment.

For those missionaries who took this to heart, who lived the instructions of the discussions and followed this to a “T”, don’t now tell me that it was my unique thinking that led me to believe that inviting peple to be baptized early is what is expected. It was.

• “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.”

This speaks to the intention of missionaries. I can’t speak to that. It wasn’t for me. I was simply trying to do what the Church leaders told me to do – over and over and over again in the discussion script I was to recite to the investigators and in the teaching hints and prompts that were given in those discussions.

• Church leaders don’t know where these practices began

I agree. This is not a direct quote. I’d love to know what he said too. But it is clear with the quotes we do have that this is consistent with his message. It was “these missionaries” that somehow came to understand that inviting early was what was expected. How strange.

• “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”

Again, the written instructions to each missionary was to get a general baptismal commitment during the first discussion, get a date certain for baptism by the second and then get recommitments to those commitments in each of the later discussions. The baptismal commitment (general and for a specific date) were to be made before missionaries had taught such things like: (1) 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. So, if you want to argue that after the first or the first and second discussions people had been “properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ” please go ahead. But, please don’t tell me that it wasn’t the Church’s explicit instructions to invite people to be baptized before missionaries had taught them about all the things I list in items (1)-(4) above.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

Stop it. That approach was not what Elder Ballard was talking about. That was the approach I used. Elder Ballard did not say it was wrong. He said that people were being baptized without the prerequisites.

8 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

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.

Yeah, that part is dead wrong. You will not find it in the old discussions either. That could be one of those errors Elder Ballard was talking about that got in and did not come from Salt Lake. This is the first time I have ever heard of that approach and I find it disgusting.

12 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”

 

And? I did see some missionaries screw up as he said. They thought inviting someone to be baptized before they taught the first discussion was a good idea. There was a soft baptismal invite in the first discussion and we were told that if the Spirit directs to extend the invitation. Some missionaries, mostly idiots, took that to mean you should assume that Spirit will tell you to and do it in all cases. A spiritual bravado thing. 

There was nothing wrong with inviting to be baptized after the second discussion or the first if led to do so. At that point they have “learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ”.

I suppose you can argue that the last one should take weeks or months or even years of preparation but the Savior’s example was to show up and ask some fishermen to follow him for the rest of their lives with little preamble. Did they know that persecution and death by torture lay ahead? Probably not, but they were prepared, felt the Holy Ghost, and most had learned something of the gospel.

More practically do you really think that if you or I or most of the leadership of the Church spoke to Elder Ballard about my mission and how it was done according to the discussion at the time that he would rebuke us and insist that is not what we were told? Why do we have to be intentionally dumb and pretend Elder Ballard is rebuking the given materials he helped create. If they wanted to change them they can. They have done it before. Preach my Gospel is better then what we had. In context he is obviously referring to stuff that went beyond what was in the discussions and Preach my Gospel that missionaries were.

This interpretation is so nit picky and petty it could only come from someone wanting to be annoyed and upset.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I shared my experience. Many others had similar experience. Either church leaders were aware of this process or they weren't. If they didn't know, why not?

Church leaders being aware of unrighteous dominion (which we can expect would be corrected under proper authority, as Elder Ballard is doing), and their not knowing where practices such as an unwarranted invitation-to-baptism-with-the-first-lesson came from (which is the article's summary of whatever Elder Ballard actually said) are two very different things. Note that is is possible for a person to meet Elder Ballard's criteria after the first lesson.

From the article, it can be taken that the Church leaders have and have had an awareness / knowledge of such a thing going on, but do not know its origin since it did not come from them, and runs contrary to their teachings and keys.

I see no evidence that they enjoined it or did not consider or correct it when they came across it.

Edited June 27, 2019 by CV75

[SettingDogStar]

33 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”

 

I didn’t know this was the whole quote. I was told if I didn’t invite them to baptism by the first or second lesson I had failed and didn’t have faith. If i extended the invitation (whether they had a testimony or not) it was an extension of my faith and their faith to accept it. 

[The Nehor]

If you read the whole article it is clear that the main concern Elder Ballard was addressing was investigators not having a spiritual experience before being invited, missionaries extending the invitation for the wrong reasons, and giving the impression (rightly or wrongly) to the investigators that the invitation was extended more out of a desire for a baptism then love for the person being invited. The big bullet point was the first one. Make sure they have a spiritual experience first!

It is also important to note about the “first meeting” thing that from working with the missionaries now the First Discussion is less likely now to be their “first meeting” with the missionaries.

Offender for a word.........never gets old.

[Raskolnikov]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And? I did see some missionaries screw up as he said. They thought inviting someone to be baptized before they taught the first discussion was a good idea. There was a soft baptismal invite in the first discussion and we were told that if the Spirit directs to extend the invitation. Some missionaries, mostly idiots, took that to mean you should assume that Spirit will tell you to and do it in all cases. A spiritual bravado thing. 

There was nothing wrong with inviting to be baptized after the second discussion or the first if led to do so. At that point they have “learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ”.

I suppose you can argue that the last one should take weeks or months or even years of preparation but the Savior’s example was to show up and ask some fishermen to follow him for the rest of their lives with little preamble. Did they know that persecution and death by torture lay ahead? Probably not, but they were prepared, felt the Holy Ghost, and most had learned something of the gospel.

More practically do you really think that if you or I or most of the leadership of the Church spoke to Elder Ballard about my mission and how it was done according to the discussion at the time that he would rebuke us and insist that is not what we were told? Why do we have to be intentionally dumb and pretend Elder Ballard is rebuking the given materials he helped create. If they wanted to change them they can. They have done it before. Preach my Gospel is better then what we had. In context he is obviously referring to stuff that went beyond what was in the discussions and Preach my Gospel that missionaries were.

This interpretation is so nit picky and petty it could only come from someone wanting to be annoyed and upset.

Nehor,

It is hard to keep up with your shifting positions and misinterpretations. Elder Ballard explicitly is talking to missionaries who "invited people to be baptized during the first lesson." He isn't talking about missionaries who invite before the first discussion. That isn't even part of the discussion so no need to invent hypotheticals and then refute them. I believe you already expressed your dislike for this straw man creation.

As to the "idiots" you refer to, please not that most of these were 19-year olds who had a simple trust and faith in the Church and the leaders. Elder Ballard is not discussing whether it was right or wrong to invite that early and neither am I. That is a separate discussion. The issue here is Elder Ballard expressing surprise at learning that missionaries were felt that "inviting people to be baptized early is what is to be expected." That is a tough position to take when the first discussion given to each missionary contained the instruction that "This commitment should be made as early as possible." 

You may be comfortable that people who haven't heard of the priesthood, tithing, the plan of salvation, sacrament, eternal families, perhaps even haven't come to church once or understood any of the commitments they will be asked to make as members, etc... have been "properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ", but I am not. I think this is exactly the problem that Elder Ballard is now trying to address with this outgoing group of missionaries and mission presidents and I applaud him for that.

I don't argue that there is any set time period for preparing a person to be baptized. I grant that it varies from individual to individual. The issue here is simply that Elder Ballard is throwing missionaries who invited people to be baptized in the first discussions under the bus and claiming he has no idea where it came from. That is the sole limited issue to which I am responding.

I am simply trying to respond to what Elder Ballard said. Nothing more. I don't want to be annoyed or upset, but am simply exhausted and tired of Church leadership rewriting the past and claiming to have no idea where members got those ideas from. This was a pretty straightforward case with clear evidence that the Church instructed missionaries to make baptismal invitations "as early as possible." I am surprised that it simply can't be acknowledged and we move on.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I didn’t know this was the whole quote. I was told if I didn’t invite them to baptism by the first or second lesson I had failed and didn’t have faith. If i extended the invitation (whether they had a testimony or not) it was an extension of my faith and their faith to accept it. 

Was that coming from the materials from Salt Lake or from the Mission leadership? Mission cultures did and still can get toxic with stuff like that. Hopefully it was only something a “zeal without knowledge” AP said. I was not taught to extend a baptismal invitation to someone who clearly felt nothing. We often would not proceed with more of the formal discussions if they had not felt the Spirit yet. Then again we also used the Spirit and good judgement. I was teaching a first discussion and the guy’s eyes were glazing over. No connection to what we were saying. We started asking questions and he was grappling with the futility of life and a recent loss to death. Switch gears to fourth discussion (Plan of Salvation) and he got animated and interested. A studious cautious guy I left out the baptismal commitment because I felt he was not ready but gave him other commitments to keep progress moving.

Elder Ballard was clearly not talking about the discussions used years ago in any event so taking it personally is stupid. You do not give apostolic addresses to Mission Presidents about decade old discontinued missionary materials or to throw previous missionaries under the bus. It would be like a talk in the next General Conference on how to do Home Teaching. There is no point. He was talking about Preach My Gospel which was designed to be more freeform and adaptable and misconceptions that had built up about how to use it and cultural mission practices that are not correct. Saying he is ignorant of what the materials say and what is going on is inane. He clearly knows about these misconceptions and bad practices and what the material says and is actually addressing this directly with the leadership who can do something about it.

What mental gymnastics and level of narcissism does it take to make it about missionary service being wrong decades ago?

[Raskolnikov]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you read the whole article it is clear that the main concern Elder Ballard was addressing was investigators not having a spiritual experience before being invited, missionaries extending the invitation for the wrong reasons, and giving the impression (rightly or wrongly) to the investigators that the invitation was extended more out of a desire for a baptism then love for the person being invited. The big bullet point was the first one. Make sure they have a spiritual experience first!

It is also important to note about the “first meeting” thing that from working with the missionaries now the First Discussion is less likely now to be their “first meeting” with the missionaries.

Offender for a word.........never gets old.

Nehor,

I complete agree with you that this is his main concern and am fully supportive of Elder Ballard's new position and emphasis. That isn't what this thread was discussing. I don't think many would disagree that having a significant spiritual experience and being properly prepared for a lifetime commitment should be the goal and emphasis. The OP was wanting to look at the language that Elder Ballard used to get to his conclusion - expressing surprise and a lack of understanding as to how missionaries had been inviting people to be baptized so early. I simply wanted to add that as a missionary who took the missionary discussions literally and taught from them, it wasn't my rogue thoughts or ideas that made me invite early and often. It was the programmatic policy of the Church in both their written materials given to each missionary and in the corresponding day to practice of my mission. Why can't you simply acknowledge this? Elder Ballard could have simply say that this was the emphasis by the Church in the past in its instructions to missionaries, or, better yet, said nothing about it at all and focus on the core concern that you articulated in your summary. It isn't speaking to whether one approach was wrong or right, good or bad.

I am merely saying, "hey, don't blame me. I was doing what I was told. Please don't tell me that this isn't what you told me to do, when I still have your instructions to me."

[Rain]

 

50 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

This touches on a problem I have seen over and over and over again.

I was a missionary 89-90. I learned from the missionary guide. What I constantly saw then and now is that almost everyone focuses on "invite", but the whole process was "Prepare. Invite. Follow-up."

The guide was really clear that BEFORE you invite you prepare and part of that preparing is to "resolve concerns". I can't tell you how many times missionaries skipped resolving concerns before going on. Probably 95% of the time. 

And usually it started with the very first invitation. 

Then you get to the second discussion and you are teaching people who you haven't resolved concerns with in the first discussion and so often when the people hadn't read the Book or Mormon or prayed etc because their concerns were not resolved the missionary jumps right into the baptism invitation because he/she feels the Spirit (truth is being taught) and then thinks the whole system is a failure when the person says no to baptism or yes too early, when really it was the missionary who failed to understand utilize the different parts. 

So now, not only did they miss prepare/resolve concerns because they think follow-up means merely to ask a question and then plow ahead when really it means go back and prepare/resolve concerns.

So no, I don't agree that Elder Ballard is gaslighting etc.  I think from what I've seen is that many missionaries and mission presidents failed to understand how it all works.  

It's funny because I remember when Preach My Gospel came out and everyone was saying it was so different than before, but really it wasn't.  In connection with the Missionary Guide it was very (obviously not completely) similar to what we had before. I kind of felt we needed the name change/new book because people ignored so much of the guide and by changing to a "new" program so that people could get unstuck and start resolving those concerns. Kind of like home & visiting teaching and ministering.

 

[SettingDogStar]

7 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

I am merely saying, "hey, don't blame me. I was doing what I was told. Please don't tell me that this isn't what you told me to do, when I still have your instructions to me."

That’s what i was taught. If I didn’t extend the invitation on the first or second lesson I wasn’t excersizing Faith. Also if the investigator didn’t accept it it was unlikely they would ever get baptized. I was taught this in the MTC and Mission field.

Im not blaming Elder Ballard for this culture, but I’m just curious as to why he is confused as to why missionaries feel pressured to invite the on the first lesson. 

Edit: In other words I agree with you haha

Edited June 27, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Nehor,

It is hard to keep up with your shifting positions and misinterpretations. Elder Ballard explicitly is talking to missionaries who "invited people to be baptized during the first lesson." He isn't talking about missionaries who invite before the first discussion. That isn't even part of the discussion so no need to invent hypotheticals and then refute them. I believe you already expressed your dislike for this straw man creation.

As to the "idiots" you refer to, please not that most of these were 19-year olds who had a simple trust and faith in the Church and the leaders. Elder Ballard is not discussing whether it was right or wrong to invite that early and neither am I. That is a separate discussion. The issue here is Elder Ballard expressing surprise at learning that missionaries were felt that "inviting people to be baptized early is what is to be expected." That is a tough position to take when the first discussion given to each missionary contained the instruction that "This commitment should be made as early as possible." 

You may be comfortable that people who haven't heard of the priesthood, tithing, the plan of salvation, sacrament, eternal families, perhaps even haven't come to church once or understood any of the commitments they will be asked to make as members, etc... have been "properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ", but I am not. I think this is exactly the problem that Elder Ballard is now trying to address with this outgoing group of missionaries and mission presidents and I applaud him for that.

I don't argue that there is any set time period for preparing a person to be baptized. I grant that it varies from individual to individual. The issue here is simply that Elder Ballard is throwing missionaries who invited people to be baptized in the first discussions under the bus and claiming he has no idea where it came from. That is the sole limited issue to which I am responding.

I am simply trying to respond to what Elder Ballard said. Nothing more. I don't want to be annoyed or upset, but am simply exhausted and tired of Church leadership rewriting the past and claiming to have no idea where members got those ideas from. This was a pretty straightforward case with clear evidence that the Church instructed missionaries to make baptismal invitations "as early as possible." I am surprised that it simply can't be acknowledged and we move on.

To get to that interpretation you have to go off the journalistic summary which is always dangerous. The quote used in the article to support it is: 

“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. 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.”

Note he did not say “first lesson”. The reporter probably jumped to making first meeting and first lesson the same thing. Note also the main thrust of the quote. It is not just or even primarily about it being early. It is about them thinking it was a test of faith to ask early or required or that it could be used to avoid wasting their time. Bad reasons except for the required bit and it was never required. It was allowed if led by the Spirit. Some missionaries decided that doing it somehow made them spiritual or something (saw this and undue encouragement of it in my mission. Then again I have known missionaries so timid they would never ask in a first discussion even if the Spirit was bashing their head into a wall to make it happen (me at one point). Do you really think Elder Ballard would instruct missionaries to ignore that prompting if it came? Of course not.

As to wanting to be taught everything first before the commitment that is not usually the way the covenants of the gospel work and it is designed that way intentionally. It takes a lot of seasoning to understand baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, the oath and covenant of the Priesthood, and the meanings of temple covenants but in virtually all cases we are asked to accept and makes them on a very basic level first. It is not meant to be reasoned out. You leave your nets and follow Him and learn later. You join because it feels so right and holy and not because you have figured out it is right. The angel comes to Amulek and tells him to be ready to receive a holy man. Abish was converted because of a vision of her father and likely had little gospel instruction. In Christ’s day the invitation came mostly to those who had only heard a missionary and the listener likely had no personal access to scripture. The early missionaries of this dispensation preached one sermon and invited all in attendance to be baptized the same day or maybe the next day. The Lord reiterated this in scripture for our day saying it is a day of warning and not a day of many words. Baptizing relatively quickly is not an oddity we need to correct. It is standard procedure. There are exceptions of people who study and learn about it for years but they are not the norm. I see how this can be irritating. It used to irritate me through most of my mission thinking this was going too quickly. I am a ‘look before you leap’ kind of person when it comes to big decisions who likes to try to make informed decisions (sometimes excessively to the point I am paralyzed by indecision due to information overload) but I now see some of the wisdom in this method. That being said joining without spiritual experiences is foolhardy.

[rockpond]

3 hours 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, it is either disingenuous or he is losing his memory to make such a statement.  We were taught very clearly to invite investigators to be baptized during the first discussion if the Spirit indicated but definitely by the second discussion.  That baptismal invitation was part of the second discussion back in the 90's when I served.

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,” when the church published discussions told us to invite someone to be baptized the second time we met it ridiculous.

I don't have documentation for this but in our mission we were instructed to do the baptismal invite on the first or second discussion (which could be the first time you had ever sat in their home with them, since we were taught to do the first discussion on the doorstep, and before they had ever attended church) and then to baptize them after they had attended church two times and complete the six discussions.

I know it won't happen but Elder Ballard really ought to issue a retraction for this error.  The re-writing of history needs to stop.

[Raskolnikov]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Was that coming from the materials from Salt Lake or from the Mission leadership? Mission cultures did and still can get toxic with stuff like that. Hopefully it was only something a “zeal without knowledge” AP said. I was not taught to extend a baptismal invitation to someone who clearly felt nothing. We often would not proceed with more of the formal discussions if they had not felt the Spirit yet. Then again we also used the Spirit and good judgement. I was teaching a first discussion and the guy’s eyes were glazing over. No connection to what we were saying. We started asking questions and he was grappling with the futility of life and a recent loss to death. Switch gears to fourth discussion (Plan of Salvation) and he got animated and interested. A studious cautious guy I left out the baptismal commitment because I felt he was not ready but gave him other commitments to keep progress moving.

Elder Ballard was clearly not talking about the discussions used years ago in any event so taking it personally is stupid. You do not give apostolic addresses to Mission Presidents about decade old discontinued missionary materials or to throw previous missionaries under the bus. It would be like a talk in the next General Conference on how to do Home Teaching. There is no point. He was talking about Preach My Gospel which was designed to be more freeform and adaptable and misconceptions that had built up about how to use it and cultural mission practices that are not correct. Saying he is ignorant of what the materials say and what is going on is inane. He clearly knows about these misconceptions and bad practices and what the material says and is actually addressing this directly with the leadership who can do something about it.

What mental gymnastics and level of narcissism does it take to make it about missionary service being wrong decades ago?

Nehor,

This is starting to get borderline personal now. I didn't plan on engaging with this at length or at depth, but I am astonished that you simply can't acknowledge that missionaries may have gotten the idea to invite people to be baptized as early as possible, at least in the first or second meeting, based on the written instructions that Salt Lake gave to them. Fine, you want to discard 30+ years of express instructions to missionaries to have the people make the baptism commitment as "as early as possible" as having something to do with the current practice of missionaries. But, just look at Preach my Gospel. The six lessons are now collapsed into four, and though they are more free form now, the formal instructions at the end of each lesson contain instructions to invite people to be baptized. 

Lesson 1 - "During this or any other lesson, do not hesitate to invite people to be baptized and confirmed. To prepare people for an invitation to be baptized and confirmed, teach the doctrine of baptism and testify often of the importance of all people being baptized by authority, of receiving a remission of sins, and of the wonderful gift of the Holy Ghost. You might say, “As the Lord answers your prayers and you feel that this message is true, will you follow the example of Jesus Christ by being baptized?” The invitation to be baptized and confirmed should be specific and direct: “Will you follow the example of Jesus 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?”"

Lesson 2 - "The invitation to be baptized and confirmed should be specific and direct: “Will you follow the example of Jesus 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?”"

Lesson 3 - "The invitation to be baptized and confirmed should be specific and direct: “Will you follow the example of Jesus 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?”"

Lesson 4 - "The invitation to be baptized and confirmed should be specific and direct: “Will you follow the example of Jesus 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?”"

So, the instructions to these missionaries, now younger and arguably less prepared, are still the same. Invite, invite and invite. Don't hesitate. Even after the first lesson do not hesitate. "Be bold and confident as you invite people to make commitments (see Alma 38:12). Boldness shows your faith that obedience to the Lord’s commandments brings blessings" (page 196).

I fully support Elder Ballard's focus on preparing people to make lifelong commitments and feel that should be the new standard. However, the fact that people are invited early and often shouldn't be blamed on "these missionaries" or "some missionaries." It would take one conversation with almost any former missionary to know exactly where this practice came from - it came from Salt Lake and the missionary department in the written instructions that they were given and in countless meetings, lessons and instructions they received based on those instructions. Let's just call a spade a spade and move on.

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Was that coming from the materials from Salt Lake or from the Mission leadership? Mission cultures did and still can get toxic with stuff like that. Hopefully it was only something a “zeal without knowledge” AP said. I was not taught to extend a baptismal invitation to someone who clearly felt nothing. We often would not proceed with more of the formal discussions if they had not felt the Spirit yet. Then again we also used the Spirit and good judgement. I was teaching a first discussion and the guy’s eyes were glazing over. No connection to what we were saying. We started asking questions and he was grappling with the futility of life and a recent loss to death. Switch gears to fourth discussion (Plan of Salvation) and he got animated and interested. A studious cautious guy I left out the baptismal commitment because I felt he was not ready but gave him other commitments to keep progress moving.

Elder Ballard was clearly not talking about the discussions used years ago in any event so taking it personally is stupid. You do not give apostolic addresses to Mission Presidents about decade old discontinued missionary materials or to throw previous missionaries under the bus. It would be like a talk in the next General Conference on how to do Home Teaching. There is no point. He was talking about Preach My Gospel which was designed to be more freeform and adaptable and misconceptions that had built up about how to use it and cultural mission practices that are not correct. Saying he is ignorant of what the materials say and what is going on is inane. He clearly knows about these misconceptions and bad practices and what the material says and is actually addressing this directly with the leadership who can do something about it.

What mental gymnastics and level of narcissism does it take to make it about missionary service being wrong decades ago?

Was anyone taught the principle of asking if something is NOT true. IOW the prayer would seek a spiritual confirmation if something wasn't true (I'm thinking Moroni 10:4). Or similarly, study it out in your mind and make the decision and then ask for confirmation by asking something like "if this isn't true, or isn't the right thing, please let me know by the spirit."

It's a difference in phrasing the question. It assumes truth or that a decided path is appropriate unless the spirit prompted otherwise.

So instead of seeking a spiritual confirmation that God wants you to do something affirmative (like get baptized) you seek a spiritual witness to tell you if something is wrong or improper. So if the prayer is phrased..."God, the missionaries are teaching me about the church and have challenged me to be baptized on XXX date. If you don't want me to be baptized please let me know by the spirit" a no-response prayer would be viewed as an affirmative answer.

Was anyone else ever taught this way of praying?

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Nehor,

I complete agree with you that this is his main concern and am fully supportive of Elder Ballard's new position and emphasis. That isn't what this thread was discussing. I don't think many would disagree that having a significant spiritual experience and being properly prepared for a lifetime commitment should be the goal and emphasis. The OP was wanting to look at the language that Elder Ballard used to get to his conclusion - expressing surprise and a lack of understanding as to how missionaries had been inviting people to be baptized so early. I simply wanted to add that as a missionary who took the missionary discussions literally and taught from them, it wasn't my rogue thoughts or ideas that made me invite early and often. It was the programmatic policy of the Church in both their written materials given to each missionary and in the corresponding day to practice of my mission. Why can't you simply acknowledge this? Elder Ballard could have simply say that this was the emphasis by the Church in the past in its instructions to missionaries, or, better yet, said nothing about it at all and focus on the core concern that you articulated in your summary. It isn't speaking to whether one approach was wrong or right, good or bad.

I am merely saying, "hey, don't blame me. I was doing what I was told. Please don't tell me that this isn't what you told me to do, when I still have your instructions to me."

I am so sure you do agree with it because you still in your last paragraph think he is somehow blaming you for something. He talks about what is needed before an invitation and is concerned that missionaries are jumping the gun. If you were jumping the gun and inviting baptism to someone who has had no spiritual experience then yeah, you messed up. If not, you are following what was said then and what was said now.

Also, I went ahead and checked Preach my Gospel. The baptismal commitment question was moved to lesson 3 out of 5 and this was revised quite a while ago so it is fair to ask why people think it is a requirement to ask earlier. It is very unlikely to be mission traditions carried down from our day infecting the present (missions have short memories due to turnover) so why are they asking in the First Discussion unless prompted by the Spirit?

Also, how does this have anything to do with our missionary service?

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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.

What is the problem with this?  If the investigator is prepared what is wrong with inviting them to be baptized? 

Also, an invitation to be baptized in not the same as asking someone to commit to being baptized. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by ksfisher

[sjdawg]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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.

I serve in 93-95 and we were definitely coached to invite people to be baptized during the first discussion (even if it was an abbreviated discussion on the street) 

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, it is either disingenuous or he is losing his memory to make such a statement.  We were taught very clearly to invite investigators to be baptized during the first discussion if the Spirit indicated but definitely by the second discussion.  That baptismal invitation was part of the second discussion back in the 90's when I served.

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,” when the church published discussions told us to invite someone to be baptized the second time we met it ridiculous.

I don't have documentation for this but in our mission we were instructed to do the baptismal invite on the first or second discussion (which could be the first time you had ever sat in their home with them, since we were taught to do the first discussion on the doorstep, and before they had ever attended church) and then to baptize them after they had attended church two times and complete the six discussions.

I know it won't happen but Elder Ballard really ought to issue a retraction for this error.  The re-writing of history needs to stop.

HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT US OLD FARTS WHO SERVED A LONG TIME AGO!

HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT MISSIONARIES AND THE CURRENT MATERIAL!

He probably did not expect us to read much about what he was saying. He is not calling you out, blaming you for the program being different, or claiming the program was different then it was back in the 80s and 90s, or suggest that you habits have lasted for decades and are poisoning the current missionaries. His audience included Mission Presidents....probably people who used the material we used. Do you think Elder Ballard was brazenly telling them they all they served their missions wrong or telling them they do not remember what they did on their youth missions? Maybe they just are not egotists and have a sense of perspective and realize the instructions have been altered and somehow misconceptions have slipped in and the current missionaries need to be corrected? Possible?

If this offends are all of you carrying a lot of guilt or a grudge about your mission that you need to lash out on this ridiculous pretext? What is the problem here?

 

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I serve in 93-95 and we were definitely coached to invite people to be baptized during the first discussion (even if it was an abbreviated discussion on the street) 

Those really were abbreviated lessons. I remember being trained in both the MTC and again in the mission to do the diagram discussions which covered a ton of ground in just 15 minutes. I have no problem accepting that I made mistakes teaching on my mission. But I wasn't unique, in fact we were trained to do things that way. It seems my primary mistake was trusting leadership and doing what I was trained to do.

[strappinglad]

Some here would be very upset at the approach to baptism in the days of Joseph S . One meeting and nearly everyone in the room asked for baptism. 😎

I served in the late 60s. Numbers were asked for but I never remember being chastised for being lax. Mind you, this was Central America and we always had plenty of investigators.

It is possible that the majority of Mission Pres. came from a corporate background when there was an expected pressure for numbers and" sales " records. Personally I just let any pressure wash off my back. I was too busy keeping " Montezuma's revenge " at bay. 

[Calm]

Given there is some variation of interpretation of the article, maybe it would be best to wait until the full talk to make sure the Churchnews reported didn't leave out something critical or their paraphrase was just enough off to add confusion.  

This is assuming it will be released, is this likely?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT US OLD FARTS WHO SERVED A LONG TIME AGO!

HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT MISSIONARIES AND THE CURRENT MATERIAL!

 

He said that it was "never [their] intention".  Never.  Not since PMG was published and the old discussions removed from use.  Never.  And Elder Ballard was in the Quorum of the Twelve in the timeframe I am speaking of.

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, The Nehor said:

HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT US OLD FARTS WHO SERVED A LONG TIME AGO!

HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT MISSIONARIES AND THE CURRENT MATERIAL!

He probably did not expect us to read much about what he was saying. He is not calling you out, blaming you for the program being different, or claiming the program was different then it was back in the 80s and 90s, or suggest that you habits have lasted for decades and are poisoning the current missionaries. His audience included Mission Presidents....probably people who used the material we used. Do you think Elder Ballard was brazenly telling them they all they served their missions wrong or telling them they do not remember what they did on their youth missions? Maybe they just are not egotists and have a sense of perspective and realize the instructions have been altered and somehow misconceptions have slipped in and the current missionaries need to be corrected? Possible?

If this offends are all of you carrying a lot of guilt or a grudge about your mission that you need to lash out on this ridiculous pretext? What is the problem here?

 

He may be talking about new material but he claims not to know how it all started. The leadership started it decades ago. It started with training us OLD FARTS to preach the gospel and invite in certain ways. Now he's shocked that people still do that and can't figure out why they are inviting too early. Really?  We old farts all group up learning things a certain way and now our children are missionaries. Old farts like us are now mission presidents and bishops and in other leadership positions. He is blaming us and it's pretty disheartening.

[SettingDogStar]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

He may be talking about new material but he claims not to know how it all started. The leadership started it decades ago. It started with training us OLD FARTS to preach the gospel and invite in certain ways. Now he's shocked that people still do that and can't figure out why they are inviting too early. Really?  We old farts all group up learning things a certain way and now our children are missionaries. Old farts like us are now mission presidents and bishops and in other leadership positions. He is blaming us and it's pretty disheartening.

I think he’s also taking it really personally. We’re not attacking Elder Ballard or saying that we shouldn’t have invited investigators on the first lesson, so long as they had a spiritual experience. All were saying is thst we’re confused as to why Elder Ballard seems to think that it wasn’t Salt Lake pressuring the missionaries to invite that quickly.

Edited June 27, 2019 by SettingDogStar