Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[bluebell]

Just now, rockpond said:

I'm just using the quote and text of the article that is linked in the OP.  I accept that others, including you, may interpret it differently.

So we don't know what practices Elder Ballard is actually talking about when he is implied to have said that church leaders don't know where these practices came from?  We don't know if he was talking about inviting people to be baptized in the first or second discussion or if he's talking about inviting people to be baptized before his three qualifiers have happened.

I do interpret him as talking about inviting before the three qualifiers, as to me, that's the only interpretation with evidence to support it.  Is there a reason that you interpret him as talking about not knowing where the practice of inviting people during the first two discussions comes from?

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So we don't know what practices Elder Ballard is actually talking about when he is implied to have said that church leaders don't know where these practices came from?  We don't know if he was talking about inviting people to be baptized in the first or second discussion or if he's talking about inviting people to be baptized before his three qualifiers have happened.

The article makes it seem like he is referring to the practices he mentions in the previous paragraph.  From the article, here is the previous paragraph:

"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.”

Quote

I do interpret him as talking about inviting before the three qualifiers, as to me, that's the only interpretation with evidence to support it.  Is there a reason that you interpret him as talking about not knowing where the practice of inviting people during the first two discussions comes from?

Because of what I quoted above in the full article.  He lists some "practices" and then the next paragraph of the article begins with the statement about church leaders not knowing where these practices began.  I think it is clear that they began because the published discussions (80's and 90's versions) encouraged missionaries to invite early... possibly as early as the first time they met.

 

Here's a link to the article so you don't have to go back to the OP:  https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-06-26/president-ballard-baptize-2019-mission-leadership-seminar-50222?fbclid=IwAR2Xo4KtxPd1JFedXKvp1bKtzc95bwEKbxY4X7so8KOTdTm1TFYpVEeU_Tw

Edited July 3, 2019 by rockpond

[Amulek]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

But that is entirely different than instructing that the baptismal invite should be extended in the first and/or second discussion.

How else could one possibly write an instruction that is to take into consideration the workings of the Spirit?

Because here's the reality: the proper time to extend the invitation to baptism is in the first, second, third, fourth...and/or n^th discussion. Whenever someone has received a witness of the truth, that is when they should be invited to act, and that's going to vary from person to person.

Now, I have no doubt that Elder Ballard is aware of the various teaching materials which have been used over the years, but he isn't writing a gospel topics essay on the historic practices of inviting people to baptism.

He is talking to newly called mission presidents and is addressing a concern about the (apparent) current practice of inviting people to be baptized right away - using the baptismal invitation as a filtering tool rather than an authentic invitation to follow the spiritual revelation received by reading the Book of Mormon and praying to God about its truthfulness.

When the reporter summarizes that church leaders don't know where these practices began, the "practices" being referred to are the current practices by current missionaries. The current lesson manuals don't instruct missionaries to push for baptism early; the lesson manuals from 20 years ago didn't require that either. You've got to go back 50+ years to find a scripted invitation in the first discussion, and - even then - it's an invitation conditioned on the Spirit revealing that what they have learned is true.

So yes, I think it's fair to say that church leaders do not know where the current fad among missionaries has come from, but it truly never was their "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," just as Elder Ballard said.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How else could one possibly write an instruction that is to take into consideration the workings of the Spirit?

Because here's the reality: the proper time to extend the invitation to baptism is in the first, second, third, fourth...and/or n^th discussion. Whenever someone has received a witness of the truth, that is when they should be invited to act, and that's going to vary from person to person.

Now, I have no doubt that Elder Ballard is aware of the various teaching materials which have been used over the years, but he isn't writing a gospel topics essay on the historic practices of inviting people to baptism.

He is talking to newly called mission presidents and is addressing a concern about the (apparent) current practice of inviting people to be baptized right away - using the baptismal invitation as a filtering tool rather than an authentic invitation to follow the spiritual revelation received by reading the Book of Mormon and praying to God about its truthfulness.

When the reporter summarizes that church leaders don't know where these practices began, the "practices" being referred to are the current practices by current missionaries. The current lesson manuals don't instruct missionaries to push for baptism early; the lesson manuals from 20 years ago didn't require that either. You've got to go back 50+ years to find a scripted invitation in the first discussion, and - even then - it's an invitation conditioned on the Spirit revealing that what they have learned is true.

So yes, I think it's fair to say that church leaders do not know where the current fad among missionaries has come from, but it truly never was their "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," just as Elder Ballard said.

 

Funny that you state that church leaders don't know where the practice came from as you describe where it came from.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Funny that you state that church leaders don't know where the practice came from as you describe where it came from.

No, they didn’t. Amulek pointed out the absurdity of thinking it came from 50 year old practices.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, they didn’t. Amulek pointed out the absurdity of thinking it came from 50 year old practices.

Where do you believe it came from?

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, they didn’t. Amulek pointed out the absurdity of thinking it came from 50 year old practices.

How is that absurd?  Those who served as missionaries 50 years ago have likely been among the leaders for the past 10-20 years.

I don't have copies of those missionary lessons from 50 years ago but from what we've been told, it sounds like the baptismal invite was scripted into the first or second discussion.

I know that the baptismal invite was a part of the published first/second discussions from the 80's and 90's.

So, if one is wondering where the practice of inviting someone to be baptized in the first/second discussion (and the various offshoots of that as detailed in the article) came from - there you have it.

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The article makes it seem like he is referring to the practices he mentions in the previous paragraph.  From the article, here is the previous paragraph:

"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.”

Because of what I quoted above in the full article.  He lists some "practices" and then the next paragraph of the article begins with the statement about church leaders not knowing where these practices began.  I think it is clear that they began because the published discussions (80's and 90's versions) encouraged missionaries to invite early... possibly as early as the first time they met.

 

Here's a link to the article so you don't have to go back to the OP:  https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2019-06-26/president-ballard-baptize-2019-mission-leadership-seminar-50222?fbclid=IwAR2Xo4KtxPd1JFedXKvp1bKtzc95bwEKbxY4X7so8KOTdTm1TFYpVEeU_Tw

I see where you are coming from.  For me, the quote from the article makes it seem like he is referring not to the early invites, but the invites for the wrong reasons.

"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.”

For me, the bolded parts are the practices that Elder Ballard is talking about church leaders not knowing where they came from. The published discussions do not encourage the missionaries to do any of the bolded things above and in fact the first discussion teaches that an invitation should only be extended at that time if the spirit specifically prompts, meaning that such an invitation would be the exception and not the rule.  

I think it's especially significant that the spirit prompting is not listed anywhere in the bolded statements above as to why the missionaries were extending early invitations.

[alter idem]

On 7/1/2019 at 9:38 AM, ALarson said:

I just mentioned how this happened this year with a new convert in our stake.  Yes, he was baptized after only 1 or 2 discussions and had only attended church once....he had not read the Book of Mormon either.   

They also baptized his wife two weeks later (who had started taking the discussions after he was baptized).  

They are both completely inactive now too.  I just could not understand how this happened and was approved....but it was.

There are requirements for baptism which, it sounds like, were not followed.  I'd expect that Elder Ballard would not approve of this.  I think it's situations like this that brought him to make the comments he did.

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I see where you are coming from.  For me, the quote from the article makes it seem like he is referring not to the early invites, but the invites for the wrong reasons.

"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.”

For me, the bolded parts are the practices that Elder Ballard is talking about church leaders not knowing where they came from. The published discussions do not encourage the missionaries to do any of the bolded things above and in fact the first discussion teaches that an invitation should only be extended at that time if the spirit specifically prompts, meaning that such an invitation would be the exception and not the rule.  

I think it's especially significant that the spirit prompting is not listed anywhere in the bolded statements above as to why the missionaries were extending early invitations.

You bring up a good point. It would be nice to root it out and find out who was over the information put into the missionary guidelines. Find them and we have our answer! 

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, alter idem said:

There are requirements for baptism which, it sounds like, were not followed.  I'd expect that Elder Ballard would not approve of this.  I think it's situations like this that brought him to make the comments he did.

Exactly (I agree).

But I have observed that in our area there are very few baptisms and I really see how over zealous (and dedicated and hard working) missionaries who are starved for success and for a baptism, were excited about these baptisms.  However, the leaders should have caught it and advised them to slow down and wait until this couple was better prepared for the commitment.  It's was sad to watch and the outcome was predictable, IMO.  I'm happy to see that church leaders are addressing this when speaking to Mission Presidents.

Edited July 3, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where do you believe it came from?

Overzealous missionaries and mission leaders but that is just a guess. I don’t know.....like Elder Ballard.

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How is that absurd?  Those who served as missionaries 50 years ago have likely been among the leaders for the past 10-20 years.

I don't have copies of those missionary lessons from 50 years ago but from what we've been told, it sounds like the baptismal invite was scripted into the first or second discussion.

I know that the baptismal invite was a part of the published first/second discussions from the 80's and 90's.

So, if one is wondering where the practice of inviting someone to be baptized in the first/second discussion (and the various offshoots of that as detailed in the article) came from - there you have it.

No, I was out in the 90s. There was a soft invite in the First Discussion.....more a note that this is where the discussions are headed and an option to invite directly in the First if led by the Spirit. The same as it is now. At the end of the Second you were supposed to invite unless you are led not to. President Ballard was not knocking that practice. It is STILL the written practice. President Ballard objected to a culture of forcing the invitation into the First Discussion or even before it. He would be a fool to object to practice that is explicitly written in the discussions in Preach My Gospel.

If it was common practice 50 years ago to always invite very early I would still have doubts that the practice came from there. That would mean 70 year old Mission Presidents (rare, but okay) are stuck in the past and not using the material given by Salt Lake. Most Mission Presidents are more dynamic then that. I could see Mission Leaders instructing early invitations to inspire zeal in their missionaries and I can see (and did see) on my mission companionships inviting earlier then prescribed in misplaced zeal at going beyond the commandments. Same kind of missionaries who believed that getting up at 6:30 was obedience so getting up at 5 AM would bring blessings and then wonder why they are so tired.

I suppose either could be true or both could be true in different missions and other reasons could be behind it but I do not know and you do not know and I am not sure why anyone expects President Ballard to state a conclusive conclusion. I have little doubt that if he had stated he definitively knew where it came from our critics here would state that they knew from their mission that the practice came from somewhere and he would be accused of lying. No way to win.

 

Aside: I have repeatedly referred to President Ballard as Elder Ballard in this thread. Still constantly forgetting he is active president of the quorum. No slight was intended.

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You bring up a good point. It would be nice to root it out and find out who was over the information put into the missionary guidelines. Find them and we have our answer! 

What guidelines? The practice is not described anywhere in Preach My Gospel.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Overzealous missionaries and mission leaders but that is just a guess. I don’t know.....like Elder Ballard..

For sure that's a big part of what caused the practice.  However, I believe the missionaries (and even the Mission President and other mission leaders) believed they were being obedient to church leader's instructions.  Also, the pressure to produce the numbers was a big part of it too.

I can believe that Elder Ballard may be unaware of how the practice started, but I honestly cannot believe there are no church leaders who know or who didn't experience it themselves on their missions.  That's my only issue and as I've already stated....it's not a big deal and I chalk it up to needing to word things more carefully (easy to happen when speaking to a group). 

Edited July 3, 2019 by ALarson

[alter idem]

18 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

The church I have belonged to has long been numbers driven. 

I'm sure many of you have had different experiences.  This has been mine, and I was thrilled to see HT VT be replaced by the new program,.  Im much more inclined to look in on my gals from a place of genuine concern and worry less that THEY think I'm just doing it to fill a quota.

I would have failed miserably in a sales profession.   I don't respond well to pressure to deliver a quota. 
 

Since many of you cannot relate and have not observed any quota pushing at church then we will agree to disagree.  I don't doubt that many missions were quota driven and that much was lost in translation along the way.  I'm not shocked, don't know why Ballard claims to be befuddled, but apparently I'm learning that we can all be sitting in the same room and seeing very different things.

I don't believe the actual 'church' of Jesus Christ is numbers driven because the Lord doesn't care about numbers.  Remember his comments about saving just one soul, and about leaving the 90 and nine to search for the one?  But I will agree that a certain percentage of members are numbers driven--likely because they are the Type A, goal oriented, extroverts who are energized by this way of thinking.  And, they are often the ones who become leaders and attempt to push it on everyone else.  If they lose sight of what's important within the gospel, if they are too absorbed with their own thoughts and beliefs and not thinking about the fact that this is the Lord's church and his work and we need to be humble and submit to his will in building the kingdom, the work of the church can get off course and become skewed, until it is righted--as I see Elder Ballard is attempting to do.

 

[alter idem]

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

Well, it seems now we don’t know what he said (the article states “church leaders” didn’t know.)   I think knowing would clear up some questions.

Duncan is trying to get a copy of his talk which would be helpful!

I honestly haven’t seen anyone specifically accuse President Ballard of actually starting the practice he referenced.  (I know other accusations took place in the OP mainly).

I don't think anyone accused him directly--but I think they did indirectly as he's a member of the Quorum of 12, who are responsible for the missionary discussions and training.  Some have inferring Pres. Ballard of lying because he said he doesn't know how the practice started.  Some apparently believe that he should 'know' that church leaders are responsible for how the practice started, because as some see it, the missionary discussions directed missionaries to invite to baptism in the first discussion.  While it does say this, it also states 'as prompted by the spirit', which is a crucial step that seems to have been left out at times, and the part, I think Pres. Ballard is addressing.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I don't believe the actual 'church' of Jesus Christ is numbers driven because the Lord doesn't care about numbers.  Remember his comments about saving just one soul, and about leaving the 90 and nine to search for the one?  But I will agree that a certain percentage of members are numbers driven--likely because they are the Type A, goal oriented, extroverts who are energized by this way of thinking.  And, they are often the ones who become leaders and attempt to push it on everyone else.  If they lose sight of what's important within the gospel, if they are too absorbed with their own thoughts and beliefs and not thinking about the fact that this is the Lord's church and his work and we need to be humble and submit to his will in building the kingdom, the work of the church can get off course and become skewed, until it is righted--as I see Elder Ballard is attempting to do.

 

There is a danger in disparaging numbers as well though. Those numbers often represent souls. While leaving the ninety and nine to get the one is important sometimes we are sent out to find a lost dozen.

I also believe church records and the numbers we collect are important. While the most important work in the church is almost always done on the micro level (person to person or better Holy Ghost to person) the macro level does need to be tended to and reports and records are important in that effort. The Type A people have certain gifts and those gifts should be honored though, like many gifts, they can be abused in excess. Every demand met with its proper emphasis. Paul had it right when he gave us the members thing and showed they were more like human parts and organs. Not interchangeable but accomplishing the things that need to be done in their own unique way that will bless others in ways that others could not do.

[JulieM]

28 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I don't think anyone accused him directly--but I think they did indirectly as he's a member of the Quorum of 12, who are responsible for the missionary discussions and training.  Some have inferring Pres. Ballard of lying because he said he doesn't know how the practice started.  

Yes, I’ve seen that (and thanks for the other info).  I don’t agree with calling anyone a liar (here on the board or any church leader).  I think many have expressed valid reasons for why Pres. Ballard’s comments made them feel confused or upset.

As I talked to my husband about it, he could totally see this too (but would never accuse Pres. Ballard of being dishonest).  It’s kind of a complex topic with so many having strong emotions and memories from their missions.  It’s obvious people experienced varied things as they served at different times and under different leaders.

I do believe some leaders knew what was taking place and why this practice was going on.  I think some reached out to correct individual occurrences, but it’s good this may be finally corrected in a uniform, organized manner.  If it raises the retention rates, that will be a very positive thing!

Edited July 3, 2019 by JulieM

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I see where you are coming from.  For me, the quote from the article makes it seem like he is referring not to the early invites, but the invites for the wrong reasons.

"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.”

For me, the bolded parts are the practices that Elder Ballard is talking about church leaders not knowing where they came from. The published discussions do not encourage the missionaries to do any of the bolded things above and in fact the first discussion teaches that an invitation should only be extended at that time if the spirit specifically prompts, meaning that such an invitation would be the exception and not the rule.  

I think it's especially significant that the spirit prompting is not listed anywhere in the bolded statements above as to why the missionaries were extending early invitations.

Let’s take one example to illustrate:

”inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries faith”.

Where would such a practice have originated?

Well, the first discussion can and often was taught the first time missionaries met with someone.  The first discussion directed to invite to baptism if so prompted by the Spirit.  That first discussion is very powerful and I frequently felt the Spirit while teaching it.  So it isn’t hard to see how going ahead and extending that invitation would be a demonstration of faith — i.e. Spirit is present, so I should consider that to be enough of a prompting and extend the suggested invitation. 

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, I’ve seen that (and thanks for the other info).  I don’t agree with calling anyone a liar (here on the board or any church leader).  I think many have expressed valid reasons for why Pres. Ballard’s comments made them feel confused or upset.

As I talked to my husband about it, he could totally see this too (but would never accuse Pres. Ballard of being dishonest).  It’s kind of a complex topic with so many having strong emotions and memories from their missions.  It’s obvious people experienced varied things as they served at different times and under different leaders.

I do believe some leaders knew what was taking place and why this practice was going on.  I think some reached out to correct individual occurrences, but it’s good this may be finally corrected in a uniform, organized manner.  If it raises the retention rates, that will be a very positive thing!

I have a statement from Pres. Hinckley from 1983 saying that they want conversions and not just baptismal numbers. I know the First Presidency issued statements in Aug.1979 and June 1991 about a balanced approach to baptizing. I suspect there have been more since and we all know Pres. Hinckley was big into retention and got after everyone to do it, or try to do it anyways

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

For sure that's a big part of what caused the practice.  However, I believe the missionaries (and even the Mission President and other mission leaders) believed they were being obedient to church leader's instructions.  Also, the pressure to produce the numbers was a big part of it too.

I can believe that Elder Ballard may be unaware of how the practice started, but I honestly cannot believe there are no church leaders who know or who didn't experience it themselves on their missions.  That's my only issue and as I've already stated....it's not a big deal and I chalk it up to needing to word things more carefully (easy to happen when speaking to a group). 

Being aware that it was going on is not the same thing as knowing when and how it got started, nor is it the same thing as jumping to the conclusion that it was brought on by what was published in the discussions. Obviously, President Ballard knows it has been going on or he wouldn’t have made it the subject of his comments. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I have a statement from Pres. Hinckley from 1983 saying that they want conversions and not just baptismal numbers. I know the First Presidency issued statements in Aug.1979 and June 1991 about a balanced approach to baptizing. I suspect there have been more since and we all know Pres. Hinckley was big into retention and got after everyone to do it, or try to do it anyways

That’s interesting (thanks!).  I do believe leaders have worked on improved retention for a long time now.  It’s a valid concern and I know there are a lot of variables involved.  But this is why I think leaders knew about this practice and that it was a part of the problem.  There’s no quick or easy solution either and I believe we’re working towards the same goal here.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Obviously, President Ballard knows it has been going on or he wouldn’t have made it the subject of his comments. 

Exactly.  And, he seems to address what he believes the cause was/is as well.

I do believe there were some church leaders who were aware of how pressure to baptize and produce the numbers (that many have reported took place on their missions) has resulted in at least contributing to low retention numbers.  That's my only quibble with what he stated (as I've already expressed in a few other posts).   But again, that's not even a direct quote (although most likely accurate from what you've said). 

 

[Kenngo1969]

Baptism without retention, pretty much, is useless.  That's been true since the first baptisms into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were performed in 1830, and it remains true today.  

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

So we don't know what practices Elder Ballard is actually talking about when he is implied to have said that church leaders don't know where these practices came from?  We don't know if he was talking about inviting people to be baptized in the first or second discussion or if he's talking about inviting people to be baptized before his three qualifiers have happened.

I do interpret him as talking about inviting before the three qualifiers, as to me, that's the only interpretation with evidence to support it.  Is there a reason that you interpret him as talking about not knowing where the practice of inviting people during the first two discussions comes from?

From my copy of the six "Brother Brown/Señor Gomez" flannel board missionary discussions that I memorized in English and Spanish in 1966 and participated in many, many times in Central America....(capitalization and bolding in the original)

Quote

FIRST DISCUSSION

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST.

Page 9 

I. Outline......

   D. Baptismal date

II. Basic Conclusions.....

6. The priesthood is necessary to act for God.

7. There is no priesthood today without apostles.

8. I agree the Church must be like this today.

9. There was a complete apostasy and my church is false.

10. I will be baptized as I come to believe the restoration

11. There was a restoration of the priesthood and the true Church.

12. I will study, pray, and attend church to meet a specific baptismal date.....

Page 17

Elder: WHY WAS THE LOSS OF THE PRIESTHOOD SUCH A SERIOUS THING?

Brown: Because men no longer had the authority to act for God.

Elder: HOW ABOUT THEIR BAPTISMS?

Brown: The Lord would not recognize them....

Page 18

Elder: ....AS WE COMPARE THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST WITH THESE MODERN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CHURCHES, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES YOU SEE?

Brown: Why, none of the Catholics or Protestants have apostles in their churches!

Elder: What about the authority, then?

Brown They don't have that either.

Elder: In comparison with the true church of Jesus Christ then, what about these other churches?
Brown: They are false.

Elder: The things you have just said are true, Mr. Brown. WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN THE SIGHT OF GOD WHEN A CATHOLIC PRIEST OR A PROTESTANT MINISTER BAPTIZES A MAN? 

Brown: The Lord does not recognize it.

Elder: Now we do not want you to worry about the people in these other churches. God is going to provide a way for these people eventually to learn the truth, because he loves them; but you are right about those baptisms not being recognizes. IN FACT, MR. BROWN, WHAT ABOUT A BAPTISM IN THE CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY CHURCH?"
Brown: I wasn't really baptized then. 

Elder: Now, the beautiful thing that we are going to tell you about today is that the Lord has restored his true Church and the priesthood back to the earth again. WHEN YOU COME TO KNOW IN YOUR OWN HEART THAT THIS IS TRUE, WILL YOU BE BAPTIZED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS THE PRIESTHOOD?

Brown: Yes, of course, when I know it's true.

Page 19

Elder: We hold regular baptismal services in the Church. We shall be having a baptism on the (date). We want. you to keep that date in mind as you continue to learn about the Church. IN YOUR OWN MIND, MR. BROWN, IS BAPTISM INTO THE CHURHC OF JESUS CHRIST  SOMETHING IMPORTANT FOR WHICH TO PREPARE?

Brown: Yes, it is.

10. I will be baptized as I come to believe the restoration.

Page 22

Elder: MR. BROWN, HOW CAN YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE PRIESTHOOD BEING HERE AGAIN?

Brown: I can be baptized by someone with that authority.

Elder: We did mention the date of our coming baptismal service, did we not?

Brown: Yes it was (date).

Elder: WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO PREPARE FOR BAPTISM?

Brown: I'll want to be sure that the Church is true before I am baptized....I'm going to come to church and study more.

[Elders give Mr. Brown an invitation to attend church, the Joseph Smith story pamphlet, the "Which Church is Right" pamphlet, and a request he invites others to attend their next discussion and prays about their message]

Page 23

12. I will study, pray and attend church to meet a specific baptismal date.

Elder: ....As we have talked together here, Mr. Brown, what stands out in your mind as the most important part of our discussion?
Brown: The fact that I can now be baptized and God will recognize it.

Elder: We can see that you do have a testimony of these things already. Before we leave, may we kneel with. you in prayer: We would be honored to have you offer that prayer. Will you do that, please? [The elders give extensive instructions on how to pray if Mr. Brown does not know how or does not want to pray. They teach about individual and family prayer and commit Mr. Brown to pray about what they have taught and to have family prayers.]

Page 26

(It is vital that he offers the prayer. Ask more than once until he finally does, expressing confidence in him, then bowing heads in prayerful expectation that he will do it....Make contact feel happy that he prayed, and express gratitude to him, even if he did poorly.)

 

SECOND DISCUSSION

A NEW WITNESS FOR CHRIST

Page 33

Elder: .....HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE THE RESTORATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD A PART OF YOUR OWN LIFE?

Brown: Well, I've been thinking about what you said about  baptism, and I think it's a pretty good idea.

4. There was a complete restoration making it possible for me to be baptized.

Elder: Wonderful. As you prepare for (date), I am sure your study of the pamphlets and the Bible is a great help.....

 

THIRD DISCUSSION

YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH

Pages 46-57

Brown: Brown reads D&C 20:77 or Moroni 4:3

Elder: You will note that the member of the Church makes here the same three distinct promises to the Lord which he makes at the time of baptism:
1. He is willing to take upon himself the name of Christ.

2. He will remember the life and atonement of the Savior.

3. He is willing to keep all the commandments of the Lord.

Why, then, Brother Brown, do we renew our covenants of baptism whenever we partake of the sacrament?
Brown: Because we make the same promises when we partake of the sacrament as we do when we are baptized....

Page 51

Elder: [after reviewing the apostasy and restoration] AND HOW DOES THIS AFFECT YOUR OWN LIFE?

Brown: It means I can be baptized.

7. There was a complete restoration and I will be baptized.

Elder: What are some of the things that you are doing to prepare for (date)?

Brown: Reading the Book of Mormon and attending church.

Elder: Further to help you prepare for baptism, Brother Brown,  and to increase your knowledge of the truth...[introduces and commits Brother Brown to keep the Word of Wisdom].

 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Bernard Gui