Is There A Way To Tell If Someone Is Converted?

[Stargazer]

I think, though, that the OP is a valid question given the propensity to use labels. 'Active' is not the same as 'converted'. My experience is that very few are converted, yet many are 'active' - they come to church, hold callings, do all the outward things, but when you see them in a non-Church environment, they are not the people they lead others in their 'church-life' to believe they are.

One of my missionary companions told me that his mother freely admitted that she had no testimony of the Church, yet she was very active and served faithfully in every calling she was asked to fill. On the other hand, her sister, his aunt, had a strong testimony of the Church, but hardly ever came to any meetings, and was largely inactive.

I'm not sure what this shows, but ...

[The Grimace]

There are also titles on the books in the libraries, brand names on the copiers and staplers and individual members of the ward carry their given and family names -- sometimes there will even be people who share given and or family names.

All of which is irrelevant to the notion of "leadership at the local level" as you asserted.

I think you are just trying to pick a fight.

[CASteinman]

I think you are just trying to pick a fight.

I am certainly disagreeing with you. But not in order to fight. I think your view of things is a cynical generalization to the point of distortion -- and is defamatory to the many fine Bishops and Ward leaders who exercise leadership and discretion under the Spirit of God.

Edited July 30, 2012 by CASteinman

[The Grimace]

I am certainly disagreeing with you. But not in order to fight. I think your view of things is a cynical generalization to the point of distortion -- and is defamatory to the many fine Bishops and Ward leaders who exercise leadership and discretion under the Spirit of God.

I don't mind disagreement, but when you make overt statements like 'you are cynical' or 'you are defamatory' without actually showing how I'm cynical or defamatory, then it feels as though you aren't interested in discussion. Mind you, there are a lot of people on this board, so I don't really care if you feel the way you do - I can just ignore you.

So, you can start over, and state *exactly* where you disagree with me, and then we can talk, or I'll just keep on chatting with others and disregard your presence.

[wenglund]

I think, though, that the OP is a valid question given the propensity to use labels. 'Active' is not the same as 'converted'. My experience is that very few are converted, yet many are 'active' - they come to church, hold callings, do all the outward things, but when you see them in a non-Church environment, they are not the people they lead others in their 'church-life' to believe they are.

I guess, unlike you, I don't busy myself keeping track of people's at-church and non-church activities, let alone to the point where I may come anywhere close to being in a position to judge their respective actions, let alone their heart. I don't know where you find the time since minding our own business is a full time, and perhaps even an over-time job. I am sure Christ appreciate you taking some of his judging load onto yourself, particularly given the level of charity and mercy permeating your posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

One of my missionary companions told me that his mother freely admitted that she had no testimony of the Church, yet she was very active and served faithfully in every calling she was asked to fill. On the other hand, her sister, his aunt, had a strong testimony of the Church, but hardly ever came to any meetings, and was largely inactive.

I'm not sure what this shows, but ...

That there are social and family reasons only active members and faithless testimony holders?

[CASteinman]

So, you can start over, and state *exactly* where you disagree with me, and then we can talk, or I'll just keep on chatting with others and disregard your presence.

I don't have a problem with you disregarding. Its irrelevant to me or my objection.

I specifically and exactly disagree with this:

"Leadership at the ward level is all about labels and classification "

This is a harsh, cynical and defamatory statement. I object to it from the first L to the last n. The whole thing. What more detail can I give you than that?

[The Grimace]

I guess, unlike you, I don't busy myself keeping track of people's at-church and non-church activities, let alone to the point where I may come anywhere close to being in a position to judge their respective actions, let alone their heart. I don't know where you find the time since minding our own business is a full time, and perhaps even an over-time job. I am sure Christ appreciate you taking some of his judging load onto yourself, particularly given the level of charity and mercy permeating your posts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh brother. Seriously, Wade? I'm not keeping tabs on people any more than you are. But, I do hang out with Mormons in my social life, and I've seen them in church, and they often act differently in different scenarios. Observation is not judgment. I haven't consigned any of them to a lower kingdom.

[The Grimace]

I don't have a problem with you disregarding. Its irrelevant to me or my objection.

I specifically and exactly disagree with this:

"Leadership at the ward level is all about labels and classification "

This is a harsh, cynical and defamatory statement. I object to it from the first L to the last n. The whole thing. What more detail can I give you than that?

I don't see how it's cynical or defamatory. Listen, regardless of how you feel, Ward Councils do classify people so that they can deal with them - people are bucketed using whichever scheme is mandated from HQ or most appropriate. Lists do exist. The Rescue Program is based on keeping lists of people and classifying them according to inactivity levels and receptivity levels.

You may not like it, but that is how it works. Personally, I think it's somewhat ineffective because it causes ward leaders to sometimes write people off too early because of what a certain label means - inactive, less-active.

[ANACO]

Luke 22:32

[CASteinman]

I don't see how it's cynical or defamatory. Listen, regardless of how you feel, Ward Councils do classify people so that they can deal with them - people are bucketed using whichever scheme is mandated from HQ or most appropriate. Lists do exist. The Rescue Program is based on keeping lists of people and classifying them according to inactivity levels and receptivity levels.

None of what you described is leadership.

That a man has a wrench in his drawer does not make him a mechanic. Even if a mechanic is holding a wrench in his hand he may not be doing any sort of mechanical repair.

That leaders use tools does not mean that leaders are tools or that people who use tools are so limited that they do not use the spirit and discernment and actual leadership in their callings.

Saying that the tools are what leadership is all about is an extremely unkind and harsh generalization that is not valid.

[wenglund]

Oh brother. Seriously, Wade? I'm not keeping tabs on people any more than you are. But, I do hang out with Mormons in my social life, and I've seen them in church, and they often act differently in different scenarios. Observation is not judgment. I haven't consigned any of them to a lower kingdom.

Yes, Seriously. You must be keeping so much better tabs than me on people in order to judge things of the heart like whether they are converted or not. At the very least you must be far better than me in determining when exactly different behaviors at church than outside of church are a function of conversion/non-conversion rather than other things like personal weaknesses or environmental appropriateness (cheering and getting rowdy at a football game is somewhat appropriate in that environment, where it wouldn't so during an endowment session at the temple), etc..

Again, I don't consider myself anywhere close to being in a position to judge who is converted and who isn't, even were I to want to (which I don't). You evidently do. So, there is a huge difference between us. I would just as soon leave that sort of observation/judgement to Christ, whose job it really is.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[kmw27]

I think technically, with regards to baptism, the primary responsibility of judging whether or not a person is ready for baptism is the missionaries who have stewardship over the area and their leaders through the baptismal interview (using this standard D&C 20:37). It is part of their calling. For the rest of us there are some ways to discern if someone is truly converted (e.g. their fruits, bearing of sincere testimony) but it's not necessarily something that we need to know. So it's not always given to us to know.

Just my two cents

[Evangeline]

I think technically, with regards to baptism, the primary responsibility of judging whether or not a person is ready for baptism is the missionaries who have stewardship over the area and their leaders through the baptismal interview (using this standard D&C 20:37). It is part of their calling. For the rest of us there are some ways to discern if someone is truly converted (e.g. their fruits, bearing of sincere testimony) but it's not necessarily something that we need to know. So it's not always given to us to know.

I think sometimes God gives people the ability to discern if something "fishy" is going on with another person. As parents, for example, we have the stewardship to receive revelation to know whether we should allow our children to be entrusted in the care of another individual -- whether it be physical, mental or spiritual care.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Evangeline

[The Grimace]

Yes, Seriously. You must be keeping so much better tabs than me on people in order to judge things of the heart like whether they are converted or not. At the very least you must be far better than me in determining when exactly different behaviors at church than outside of church are a function of conversion/non-conversion rather than other things like personal weaknesses or environmental appropriateness (cheering and getting rowdy at a football game is somewhat appropriate in that environment, where it wouldn't so during an endowment session at the temple), etc..

Again, I don't consider myself anywhere close to being in a position to judge who is converted and who isn't, even were I to want to (which I don't). You evidently do. So, there is a huge difference between us. I would just as soon leave that sort of observation/judgement to Christ, whose job it really is.

Wow, between you and CASteinman, I feel like I'm having a completely different conversation than the one I'm actually having.

[CASteinman]

Wow, between you and CASteinman, I feel like I'm having a completely different conversation than the one I'm actually having.

I am sorry if I got an incorrect meaning from your words. It seemed to me you were being very critical of local Church leadership -- on a matter of the tools they use.

[Evangeline]

Conversion is not a one-time deal. There are many levels of conversion, and we can progress or regress at different times in our life. We often show our conversion by our actions, particularly those not seen by others. I just went to "lds.org" to look up some inspirational quotes on the topic of conversion.

Elder Oaks has said,

"Testimony is to know and to feel, conversion is to do and to become."

(Dallin H. Oaks, quoted in Kenneth Johnson, “Coming to Know for Ourselves,” Ensign, July 2008, 29)

Here's a nice quote from Cheryl C. Lant (former Primary general president):

"There is only one way to become personally converted. It is through a witness of the Spirit as we study these very scriptures that testify of Jesus Christ. It comes as we pray and as we fast. It comes only when we have a deep desire to know the truth. Our motivation must be to openly seek truth rather than justify our actions by finding fault with the scriptures, the teachings of the prophets, or the Church itself. Our effort must be toward hearing the interpretations of the Spirit rather than the understandings of the world. We must be willing to open our hearts and minds, accept the Lord's way, and, if need be, change our lives. Our personal conversion comes as we begin to live the way the Lord wants us to live—steadfast and immovable in keeping all of the commandments, not just those that are convenient. This then becomes a process of refinement as we strive to make each day a little better than the last. Thus our traditions become traditions of righteousness."

I also love this quote from Marjorie Hinckley (for those who don't know, President Hinckley's wife):

“There is something about spirituality that is central to the life of a woman. I do not mean the kind of spirituality that only takes you to church on Sunday. Sitting in church will not necessarily make you into a Christian anymore than sitting in a garage will make you into a car. I am talking about the kind of spirituality that makes you behave like a child of God. I am talking about the kind of spirituality that breathes reverence into every act and deed. I am talking about the spirituality that makes you loving and grateful, and forgiving, and patient, and gentle, and long-suffering. I am talking about the kind of spirituality that compels you to get in touch with your Heavenly Father every single day of your life.”

If someone is going through all the motions at church, but outside of church is engaging in behaviour that is serious enough to warrant a visit to the Bishop (which certainly does occur), then I think I'm on safe ground in thinking that perhaps that person has not been fully converted. The observation may not necessarily be in a spirit of judgment, but in a spirit of concern for that person's spiritual welfare.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Evangeline

[BCSpace]

Is there a way to tell if someone is converted? I know that it is easy to tell who is coming to church, activities etc but is there a way to tell if someone is converted?

They pay a full tithing.

[ERayR]

They pay a full tithing.

[The Nehor]

They pay a full tithing.

Nope though it is an indicator.

[Duncan]

Nope though it is an indicator.

I know a person who pays but couldn;t care less about the welfare of others, I knwo so because he told me

[wenglund]

Wow, between you and CASteinman, I feel like I'm having a completely different conversation than the one I'm actually having.

I don't know what to tell you. I feel like I am having the exact same conversation as I am actually having.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Nehor]

I know a person who pays but couldn;t care less about the welfare of others, I knwo so because he told me

Then I wouldn't bother paying tithing. That whole "You never knew me" at the Last Day makes it kind of pointless. I'd spend the money on booze and hookers instead.

[rongo]

A really interesting topic, Duncan. I have upset some stake leaders in my stake over the last five years because I have suggested that the worldwide Church's struggles with activation and retention are to be expected, and that things have always been this way (with notable exceptions: e.g., 4 Nephi, cities of Enoch and Salem, United Brethren, etc.). This isn't to say that we become pessimistic and cynical, but an important defense against this is to have realistic expectations and proper context. Look at how many of Jesus' parables deal with high percentages of inactives and falling away compared with valiance (the Sower, wheat and tares, gospel net, etc.).

I get tired of hearing how if we will just do a better job of fellowshipping, we will have 80%+ of new converts remain active. I have never been in a unit that didn't do a great job of fellowshipping (Idaho, Utah, Chicago, Arizona, Germany, etc.) ----- members everywhere do a good job of spotting visitors and striving to make them feel welcome and comfortable and friendshipping them outside of Church. I have been a ward mission leader (twice), elders quorum president (twice), bishopric member (three times, currently a bishop), so I've been pretty close to the front and the trenches on this, and I don't think fellowshipping is the issue.

I think the real issue is the difference between convincing people to allow themselves to be baptized, and true conversion. I think the vast majority of people who agree to be baptized are not converted, and yet "who can forbid water, that these same should not be baptized?" In other words, I think we should continue to baptize those who accept and agree to live the commitments, but realizing that many of these will go missing or inactive despite our best efforts. It's just the way it is.

I'm amazed at how investigators process what we tell them. Most people don't bat an eye about the restoration of the priesthood, and this surprises me ----- shouldn't they be either really excited or really angry about our claim that resurrected angels came down and laid hands on people? Yet, few seem to have any reaction at all to this. And let's be honest ------ the quality of teaching from the missionaries at this current time is generally atrocious. If you don't believe me, accompany them on teaching appointments more than just once in a while. I don't think that most emphasize the covenants and commitments in a way that encourages commitment and activity after baptism. We are in an era where many become convinced to be baptized, but few are converted, and there's an actual, big difference between the two.

[rongo]

Another thought: according to the New Testament, thousands flocked and thronged to hear Jesus "gladly," many were baptized by John the Baptist and Jesus and His disciples, and yet the Church right after the ascension "were about an hundred and twenty," including "the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren" (Acts 1:14-15). As I said, I think this is the exact setting we have right now, and I think it's been the default setting throughout history, with a few notable and rare exceptions.

My former ward mission leader and the current high councilor over missionary work and I taught his neighbor with the missionaries (he was baptized; we're still working with his wife and 12 year old son). Nothing could be done more for the vineyard with them; they have been hyper-fellowshipped and there is a genuine, heartfelt friendship between the two families that is not dependent on their baptism or state of conversion ---- it's unconditional. And yet, the brother has struggled mightily to be active. He originally begged me to come frequently to the teaching appointments because he was concerned with the missionaries (several sets of them). They would not take a firm stand on us being the only true and fully-authorized church (the family is heavily-involved with another church, and the brother still attends frequently with his family). The missionaries were really squishy and "kumbaya" about the good in all churches, to the point where it was a concern. I'm not saying that we shouldn't rightly point out the good in other churches, but we must emphasize that only in the Church is there the proper authority and fullness of the gospel that will enable people to return to the presence of the Father. The missionaries studiously avoided taking this stance, lest they scare investigators away. The first lesson I helped with had the apostasy and restoration as the overall theme, and I emphasized this. The missionaries were very nervous and bothered, but the brother began making progress and was eventually baptized. The brother who was on the high council and I talked about how hard it was helping with bad teaching, because it's their job and role to do the teaching (supported by us), and we have to avoid the temptation to "preempt the networks" and push them aside and "teach how it's supposed to be done."

This isn't an isolated experience. The overall quality of our missionaries' teaching has deteriorated dramatically over the last several years or so, and I think this exacerbates "the default setting" of high inactivity and low-commitment rates.