Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[Tacenda]

 

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is not his wording. It is the reporter summarizing. Note that section is NOT in quotation marks because Elder Ballard did not say it. The writer thought he said something that conveyed that.

I said this earlier. Many are demanding explanations from him and vilifying him for a phrase HE DID NOT SAY.

Nehor, there are quotes below. I understand that Elder Ballard said it was never their intention, but it did happen, and I just wish he would have acknowleged what were in instructions, and say that they weren't clear enough or something.

 

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.”

Edited July 2, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess I'm late to the game, he didn't say what is in the OP? 

Some is quoted of him, others—including the part generally pointed to as disingenuous—-are paraphrases by the reporter so it is currently impossible to know if her interpretation is accurate or not. 

This below seems to be the most significant in accusing him of poor wording or disingenuousness, but it is the reporter’s paraphrase:

”Church leaders don’t know where these practices began...”

Edited July 2, 2019 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Nehor, there are quotes below. I understand that Elder Ballard said it was never their intention, but it did happen, and I just wish he would have acknowleged what were in instructions, and say that they weren't clear enough or something.

 

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.”

The part “church leaders don’t know where these practices began” is not a quote and is the phrase that he was blasted on for allegedly deceiving everyone, rewriting history, being disingenuous, etc.

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

ETA:

However....

I doubt this would have been published in the church news if it contained inaccuracies or misrepresentations of what Pres. Ballard stated.

If they had known how much someone might pick apart that paraphrase and the meaning some would load into it they might have written it differently. Journalists are not renowned for being ultra-careful in avoiding misunderstandings. I am not knocking them. They are expected to put out a lot of volume these days. I would not want their job.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The part “church leaders don’t know where these practices began” is not a quote and is the phrase that he was blasted on for allegedly deceiving everyone, rewriting history, being disingenuous, etc.

I'm aware of that now, thanks. Just think there was more he could say. But understand not wanting the church to look like they were in the wrong with printing certain things that the missionaries thought were what needed to happen. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm aware of that now, thanks. Just think there was more he could say. But understand not wanting the church to look like they were in the wrong with printing certain things that the missionaries thought were what needed to happen. 

You shouldn’t judge what he actually said from a very limited summary with a few quotes. It is a news report, not a transcript and shouldn’t be judged as if it were the latter.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I'm aware of that now, thanks. Just think there was more he could say. But understand not wanting the church to look like they were in the wrong with printing certain things that the missionaries thought were what needed to happen. 

They did not print the things we have discussed (commitment before first discussion). Some admittedly took Elder Ballard’s comments about making sure there is a foundation before inviting someone to be baptized and took it to mean the invitation would be much later but there is no real change and they tried to hit Elder Ballard over that.

There is the opportunity for a soft invite to baptism or more if prompted and they feel the spirit. It is still standard to be in the second unless prompted otherwise. Some took this to mean it should always be asked in the First or even before the First which was never written anywhere in the teaching materials.

So, to summarize, what we have are people upset about being deceived by a reporter’s paraphrase of an apostle’s comments that allegedly professed ignorance about a cultural practice the Brethren want to end that was never sent out as instruction from Salt Lake. Any fault in there? Because it seems ridiculous.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So, to summarize, what we have are people upset about being deceived by a reporter’s paraphrase of an apostle’s comments that allegedly professed ignorance about a cultural practice the Brethren want to end that was never sent out as instruction from Salt Lake. Any fault in there? Because it seems ridiculous.

Not really a fair or accurate summary...

As a missionary, I was taught to invite investigators to be baptized as early as possible -- either in the first discussion if the Spirit was there or in the second discussion.  This instruction came from both the church published materials and my leaders.  I faithfully followed those instructions.

To now be told, by the President of the Q12, that they have no idea why I was so instructed is a bit hurtful.

I'm fine with the Brethren changing how/when we extend invites or clarifying when it is important (if that was his goal, it doesn't really appear that he has clarified anything).  But I don't appreciate the indication that church leaders don't know how these practices began -- the practices began with the church leaders' instruction to us as missionaries.  He also insinuated that lower retention is, at least in part, a result of investigators being pressured into baptism by missionaries.  I would have preferred to have waited to extend those baptismal invites but that is not what I was told, by my leaders, to do.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

To now be told, by the President of the Q12, that they have no idea why I was so instructed is a bit hurtful.

Could you please provide the actual quote of Pres Ballard that you believe says this (not the reporter’s possibly inaccurate paraphrase).

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could you please provide the actual quote of Pres Ballard that you believe says this (not the reporter’s possibly inaccurate paraphrase).

All I have is the Church News report.  If it is incorrect, I welcome the retraction.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not really a fair or accurate summary...

As a missionary, I was taught to invite investigators to be baptized as early as possible -- either in the first discussion if the Spirit was there or in the second discussion.  This instruction came from both the church published materials and my leaders.  I faithfully followed those instructions.

To now be told, by the President of the Q12, that they have no idea why I was so instructed is a bit hurtful.

I'm fine with the Brethren changing how/when we extend invites or clarifying when it is important (if that was his goal, it doesn't really appear that he has clarified anything).  But I don't appreciate the indication that church leaders don't know how these practices began -- the practices began with the church leaders' instruction to us as missionaries.  He also insinuated that lower retention is, at least in part, a result of investigators being pressured into baptism by missionaries.  I would have preferred to have waited to extend those baptismal invites but that is not what I was told, by my leaders, to do.

That is still the instruction. Elder Ballard did not change that or suggest it should be changed. Have you read the article? Preach my Gospel? What you were doing is STILL THE STANDARD!

The aberration he discussed was mandatory First Discussion invitations or asking even before the discussion and the investigator having a chance to feel the spirit. How does this non-change insinuate you did anything wrong?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

All I have is the Church News report.  If it is incorrect, I welcome the retraction.

I have had way too much experience with news media, including the Church News, not being completely accurate to be willing to be emotionally damaged even a little bit with what may be a misunderstanding. It seems premature imo to be hurt by something that may not be true.  Why go that route? 

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have had way too much experience with news media, including the Church News, not being completely accurate to be willing to be emotionally damaged even a little bit with what may be a misunderstanding. 

So, if inaccurate (I agree that’s a possibility), then maybe church leaders do know where or how this practice started?

(That makes more sense actually!)

Edited July 2, 2019 by JulieM

[Duncan]

Rarely do they print a transcript of these talks but I posted on church newsroom or something official to see if they could print it? guess we'll see

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not really a fair or accurate summary...

As a missionary, I was taught to invite investigators to be baptized as early as possible -- either in the first discussion if the Spirit was there or in the second discussion.  This instruction came from both the church published materials and my leaders.  I faithfully followed those instructions.

Can you provide a reference from church published materials that the invite to be baptized could happen during the first discussion?  I'm not doubting you but it doesn't match my own experience so I'd be interested in seeing the actual teaching.

[rockpond]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have had way too much experience with news media, including the Church News, not being completely accurate to be willing to be emotionally damaged even a little bit with what may be a misunderstanding. It seems premature imo to be hurt by something that may not be true.  Why go that route? 

That’s a very fair point. 

Why did I go that route?  Perhaps because I see it as a pattern with church leaders in recent years. 

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide a reference from church published materials that the invite to be baptized could happen during the first discussion?  I'm not doubting you but it doesn't match my own experience so I'd be interested in seeing the actual teaching.

I believe it was quoted earlier in the thread.  It’s in the first discussion which can be found online  via google (I don’t think it is still available on the church website).  Here’s a pic...

 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe it was quoted earlier in the thread.  It’s in the first discussion which can be found online  via google (I don’t think it is still available on the church website).  Here’s a pic...

 

that's the caveat though "as prompted by the spirit" perhaps President Ballard is seeing missionaries inviting with teaching or feeling prompted by the spirit?

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I believe it was quoted earlier in the thread.  It’s in the first discussion which can be found online  via google (I don’t think it is still available on the church website).  Here’s a pic...

 

Thanks!  That actually clarifies a lot for me and leads me to believe even more that this thread is more an issue of people misunderstanding what Elder Ballard was saying than Elder Ballard attempting to deny that these invites were ever a part of the missionary discussions. 

The wording given (if prompted by the spirit) doesn't seem to be the practice that Ballard is talking about when the articles implies that church leaders don't know where the practice came from.  It doesn't make any sense to think that Elder Ballard is saying "we don't know where the practice of inviting someone to be baptized if the spirit directs" comes from.  So it doesn't seem valid to me to interpret his words to be speaking about this part of lesson 1.

Add to that that it's still very much our intention to invite someone to be baptized if the Spirit prompts (it's still a part of Preach My Gospel), it adds to the evidence of it not being reasonable to suggest that Elder Ballard was talking about this part of the first discussion when he said "it was never our intention...."

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Maybe I didn't read the thread well enough but I don't think its President Ballard being blamed for the culture of laxness. I think he was being blamed for somehow not being aware how it started, which he obviously didn't have anything to do with. I don't think he was doing either but I that's the accusation.

 

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

They’re saying the culture of laxness stemmed from how the printed missionary lessons were written/arranged under President Ballard’s (and others’) watch. That strikes me as a bad rap. Nothing I’ve seen quoted here from the Church countenances rushing a person into baptism before he or she is ready. 

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

My impression was the criticism was not on contributing to the development of the practice, but presenting himself and/or other church leaders as currently unaware of how the development occurred...thus the criticisms on his honesty, labeling him disingenuous, etc.

See my response to SettingDogStar (quoted above).

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, now it appears you're just making up imaginary accusations against President Ballard.  Or can you provide a link to where anyone here has claimed that he is responsible for the practice he's attempting to correct?

 

See my responses to Calm and to SettingDogStar (quoted in my post just before this one).

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

So, if inaccurate (I agree that’s a possibility), then maybe church leaders do know where or how this practice started?

(That makes more sense actually!)

Or maybe it was more not knowing why stuff was perpetuated over time even though attempts to correct it occurred.  Or it referred to knowing something else and a leap or connection was made by the reporter. Couple of possibilities I can think of.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or maybe it was more not knowing why stuff was perpetuated over time even though attempts to correct it occurred.  Or it referred to knowing something else and a leap or connection was made by the reporter. Couple of possibilities I can think of.

True.  Lots of possibilities if it was reported inaccurately.  

Maybe Duncan will get a response and get an actual copy!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I believe it was quoted earlier in the thread.  It’s in the first discussion which can be found online  via google (I don’t think it is still available on the church website).  Here’s a pic...

 

It cites "Invitation to Be Baptized" in "the instruction booklet." If you have the "instruction booklet," could you do a scan of what it says under "invitation to Be Baptized" and post it here so we could evaluate whether it instructs missionaries to rush investigators into baptism before they are ready?

 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

True.  Lots of possibilities if it was reported inaccurately.  

Maybe Duncan will get a response and get an actual copy!

oddly enough I know a relative of his but she moved...............but if I come up with something I will pass it on! or I dunno, maybe they'll clarify something in the coming days?