Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Oh, but it is okay for you to question the candor of Elder Ballard? 

CFR on your grand missionary achievements. show me a mission news letter, or a companion or mission president we can interview and if it turns out you were the perfect missionary as you claim, I will issue an apology. 

Good grief.  What he experienced was common for many missionaries from what I have seen and heard expressed from others who served missions.  But others experienced something different.  Neither are lying.

I lived through the nightmare of what took place with baptisms when Hartman Rector, Jr. was the mission president down in California.  And, remember the baseball baptisms?

There were mission presidents who took rushing people into baptism to a new level.  Was that the norm?  Of course not!  But let's not forget or pretend that things didn't  happen that were wrong.

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Anijen]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Not cool.  How is this any different than you objecting to anyone stating that church leaders are lying?  

I just now read through this thread and what I see is that each person had their own experiences on their missions.  Everyone seems to be expressing and reporting how it was for them regarding the pressures to get baptisms and if the numbers were important (over making sure the investigator was truly ready for baptism).  For me, the numbers were everything (at least that's how it felt much of the time and all other missionaries seemed for believe this too)....but of course, the Mission President did not want anyone forced into baptism either.  

Evidence that this happened often in missions is the lack of retention and how many newly baptized end up going inactive (and some very quickly).  

So, it will be a positive, IMO, if the emphasis now is not on the numbers as much.  But do I believe anyone is lying here?  No. 

Put on your big boy pants.

It is alright to call into question the truthfulness of an Apostle, but I cannot question the truthfulness of an anonymous poster claiming he was a perfect missionary, who led the mission in baptisms? I'm tired of posters who rail on the Church and its leaders and posters who defend them.

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Put on your big boy pants.

It is alright to call into question the truthfulness of an Apostle....

That's not what I said....quite the opposite.

You're out of line here and need to stop the personal attacks, IMO.  Why not just acknowledge that it's quite possible each of us experienced a variety of different styles of leadership when we served our missions at different times and years and we served under a great many different Mission Presidents.  

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Hestia]

Anjien is taking a break from the site for personal insults.  

[rockpond]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“If they have kept their commitments” being the operative phrase here. Inviting someone so committed to be baptized would presumably not be rushing them before they were ready, as you are accusing President Ballard of having promoted or consented to. And even here, the caveat is present: “Unless you are otherwise prompted by the Spirit,” thus obviating any rash behavior on the part of a missionary who is heeding instruction. 

Therefore, the accusations here against President Ballard of dishonesty, “gaslighting,” etc. are baseless. 

The only commitments that needed to be completed to move on to the second discussion we’re read something in the Book of Mormon and pray. Do you feel that meets the standard that President Ballard is indicating of someone ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Christ?  And if so, why would he diminish early baptismal invites?

And yes, the 19 year old missionary could skip the baptismal invite in the second discussion IF the Spirit prompted them NOT to invite to baptism.  So do we really need to wonder where the early baptismal invite practices started?  Nope, they started because of what the missionaries were told to do in the discussions. 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read him as saying the opposite: They don't permit the teaching of the second <until> the commitments from the first have been kept. 

Correct.  That is what I meant to write. 

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The only commitments that needed to be completed to move on to the second discussion we’re read something in the Book of Mormon and pray. Do you feel that meets the standard that President Ballard is indicating of someone ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Christ?  And if so, why would he diminish early baptismal invites?

And yes, the 19 year old missionary could skip the baptismal invite in the second discussion IF the Spirit prompted them NOT to invite to baptism.  So do we really need to wonder where the early baptismal invite practices started?  Nope, they started because of what the missionaries were told to do in the discussions. 

This very definitely took place in my mission (and also what my sons have told me regarding their experiences on their missions).  I'm puzzled as to why some are denying this was common?  (I don't doubt that some here may have not experienced this though.)

I've told about the recent new convert in our stake who was baptized after only one (possibly two?) discussions, who had attended church only once and had not read the Book of Mormon.  He is now completely inactive.  

Now, do some new converts stay active who have been baptized under the circumstances above?  Yes.  But our retention rate has been horrible overall, IMO, and this is a big part of what has caused it to be so low.  

IMO, no one should be baptized who has not read the Book of Mormon and had most of the discussions....and attended church regularly for some time.  Once again, compare what someone has to complete and experience before they can convert and be baptized into the Catholic Church.  

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Is it okay to allow posters to question the truthfulness of an Apostle of the Lord?

I don’t personally know President Ballard but I imagine him to be a generally honest and exceedingly good and righteous man.  I think that’s true of all our apostles. 

But they still make mistakes and I think President Ballard’s comment about not knowing where early baptismal invites practices came from was mistaken. 

 

1 hour ago, Anijen said:

 If so, can we question the truthfulness of a poster with a history of angst against the church?

Happens all the time here. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The only commitments that needed to be completed to move on to the second discussion we’re read something in the Book of Mormon and pray. Do you feel that meets the standard that President Ballard is indicating of someone ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Christ?  And if so, why would he diminish early baptismal invites?

And yes, the 19 year old missionary could skip the baptismal invite in the second discussion IF the Spirit prompted them NOT to invite to baptism.  So do we really need to wonder where the early baptismal invite practices started?  Nope, they started because of what the missionaries were told to do in the discussions. 

“what the missionaries were told to do in the discussions” .......decades ago.......

The issue is transference. Missions do not have long memories due to the regular turnover. Stories of something that happened four years ago in a mission might as well be myth. The idea that this idea propagated from our missionary experience twenty years ago or more is silly. I was told missionary stories by my father when I was young but they were never about commitments and how to do them. I learned what I did from the MTC and my trainers and the missionaries I served with. It seems disingenuous to believe that current practice came from 20 years ago when all that is long forgotten.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

“what the missionaries were told to do in the discussions” .......decades ago.......

Not according to my sons who have just recently completed missions (within the last 5-10 years).  I'll ask them again to confirm, but they have all expressed that they were instructed to try to get converts to commit to baptism after the first or second discussion.  I know that for sure, one of my sons experienced tremendous pressure to do this from his mission president and other leaders in his mission (and iirc from hearing my boy's discuss this, the others agreed that it was the same for them.)

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

Just now, The Nehor said:

“what the missionaries were told to do in the discussions” .......decades ago.......

The issue is transference. Missions do not have long memories due to the regular turnover. Stories of something that happened four years ago in a mission might as well be myth. The idea that this idea propagated from our missionary experience twenty years ago or more is silly. I was told missionary stories by my father when I was young but they were never about commitments and how to do them. I learned what I did from the MTC and my trainers and the missionaries I served with. It seems disingenuous to believe that current practice came from 20 years ago when all that is long forgotten.

I’m not speaking of stories that have been told or my personal experience.  

I have consistently referenced the documented instructions in the missionary discussions that were published by the Church in the 80’s and 90’s.  Those discussions instruct that the baptismal invite can happen in the first discussion if so prompted or should happen in the second unless the Spirit tells you not to. 

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

This very definitely took place in my mission (and also what my sons have told me regarding their experiences on their missions).  I'm puzzled as to why some are denying this was common?  (I don't doubt that some here may have not experienced this though.)

I've told about the recent new convert in our stake who was baptized after only one (possibly two?) discussions, who had attended church only once and had not read the Book of Mormon.  He is now completely inactive.  

Now, do some new converts stay active who have been baptized under the circumstances above?  Yes.  But our retention rate has been horrible overall, IMO, and this is a big part of what has caused it to be so low.  

IMO, no one should be baptized who has not read the Book of Mormon and had most of the discussions....and attended church regularly for some time.  Once again, compare what someone has to complete and experience before they can convert and be baptized into the Catholic Church.  

I do not deny that these things do happen but actually baptized after two discussions? What convinced the missionaries that was okay? Their mission president? I doubt Elder Ballard or any of the apostles would approve of this. It is against what is written. I bet Elder Ballard would also correct that problem and be unsure of where the practice came from. Would he be accused here of deception for saying that?

[ALarson]

Just now, The Nehor said:

I do not deny that these things do happen but actually baptized after two discussions? What convinced the missionaries that was okay? 

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.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I’m not speaking of stories that have been told or my personal experience.  

I have consistently referenced the documented instructions in the missionary discussions that were published by the Church in the 80’s and 90’s.  Those discussions instruct that the baptismal invite can happen in the first discussion if so prompted or should happen in the second unless the Spirit tells you not to. 

Yes, I did the same thing. The current discussions are similar. Elder Ballard laid down the prerequisites for that invitation. Some are shooting for it even sooner. He seeks to curtail it.

I would love to see the full text of his remarks. I would bet he is referring to missionaries who force the invitation in the First Discussion when the investigator has had no spiritual witness or sometimes asking even before really teaching them (there was a companionship on my mission rebuked for that practice). That is wrong under both the present and past discussions.

I recommend the wisdom of C.S. Lewis: “I never heard the programme which created all that scandal, and naturally one wouldn't condemn a dog on newspaper extracts.” Some here are quite content to condemn an apostle based on them.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, 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.

Again, I do not doubt it. Worse has happened. When I was a ward missionary I tried to get some overzealous missionaries to slow the baptism of a person they were teaching who was riddled with doubts and was “hot and cold” depending on the visit as he needed more certainty before baptism (and they wanted to go ahead with only three discussions done). For better or worse he ended up blowing up at us and the relationship ended. Looking back he might have been bipolar.

I do think it is unfair to judge the apostles for practices the mission material specifically forbids. Then again before I throw the missionaries too far under the bus the wards are worse in many ways. Of the six new member discussions supposed to be taught after baptism while I was out I would guess less then 20% of the converts on my mission got more then one.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Again, I do not doubt it. Worse has happened. When I was a ward missionary I tried to get some overzealous missionaries to slow the baptism of a person they were teaching who was riddled with doubts and was “hot and cold” depending on the visit as he needed more certainty before baptism (and they wanted to go ahead with only three discussions done). For better or worse he ended up blowing up at us and the relationship ended. Looking back he might have been bipolar.

I do think it is unfair to judge the apostles for practices the mission material specifically forbids. Then again before I throw the missionaries too far under the bus the wards are worse in many ways. Of the six new member discussions supposed to be taught after baptism while I was out I would guess less then 20% of the converts on my mission got more then one.

I think you are very fair with your comments here (and I agree).

I honestly believe that very, very few investigators are even close to being ready for baptism after the first or second discussion (unless they have already done extensive studying and reading on their own prior to or during this time).  How can we be baptizing anyone who has not at least read the Book of Mormon?  

But the instructions and pressure are real (for many missionaries).  I wonder why baptism is even brought up until all of the discussions have been taught, the person has attended church regularly for a determined span of time and they have read the entire Book of Mormon.  That's just my opinion....but I think our retention rates would be much better if these were the instructions given.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I did the same thing. The current discussions are similar. Elder Ballard laid down the prerequisites for that invitation. Some are shooting for it even sooner. He seeks to curtail it.

I would love to see the full text of his remarks. I would bet he is referring to missionaries who force the invitation in the First Discussion when the investigator has had no spiritual witness or sometimes asking even before really teaching them (there was a companionship on my mission rebuked for that practice). That is wrong under both the present and past discussions.

I recommend the wisdom of C.S. Lewis: “I never heard the programme which created all that scandal, and naturally one wouldn't condemn a dog on newspaper extracts.” Some here are quite content to condemn an apostle based on them.

I agree - nobody should be condemning President Ballard over that mistake.  But I think it’s okay to point out the error in his statement. 

[The Nehor]

I reread the article and wow, I think I might know the writer. Has the same name as a girl I know growing up in my home ward. If so, I also just saw her parents. Small church.

Also, I did some digging to see if I could find more about the address in discussion and did not have to dig far to find that President Oaks had given the previous missionary address and had this to say:

“Persons being taught should be invited to be baptized, “but the invitation should not be programmed rigidly into the first lesson,” said President Oaks, acknowledging that President M. Russell Ballard, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, would be speaking on that topic in a subsequent session.”

So the intent was to not have it stuck rigidly into the first discussion which was never in the written material. Note that it, of course, still can be if inspired to do so. So mission presidents or missionaries or whoever that were rigidly doing so are being corrected and Elder Ballard off-handedly commented he was not sure where this notion that it had to be done every time came from.

Cool, mystery solved.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

I reread the article and wow, I think I might know the writer. Has the same name as a girl I know growing up in my home ward. If so, I also just saw her parents. Small church.

Also, I did some digging to see if I could find more about the address in discussion and did not have to dig far to find that President Oaks had given the previous missionary address and had this to say:

“Persons being taught should be invited to be baptized, “but the invitation should not be programmed rigidly into the first lesson,” said President Oaks, acknowledging that President M. Russell Ballard, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, would be speaking on that topic in a subsequent session.”

So the intent was to not have it stuck rigidly into the first discussion which was never in the written material. Note that it, of course, still can be if inspired to do so. So mission presidents or missionaries or whoever that were rigidly doing so are being corrected and Elder Ballard off-handedly commented he was not sure where this notion that it had to be done every time came from.

Cool, mystery solved.

So your understanding here is that President Oaks and Ballard are teaching that a baptismal invite extended in the second discussion is not too early and by that point the investigator is ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Christ?

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I agree - nobody should be condemning President Ballard over that mistake.  But I think it’s okay to point out the error in his statement. 

This is what I am shaking my head over when reading through this thread.

Once again....all agree that our leaders are not infallible.  But, getting some to admit a mistake may have been made here seems near impossible for them to do.

[Raingirl]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you are very fair with your comments here (and I agree).

I honestly believe that very, very few investigators are even close to being ready for baptism after the first or second discussion (unless they have already done extensive studying and reading on their own prior to or during this time).  How can we be baptizing anyone who has not at least read the Book of Mormon?  

But the instructions and pressure are real (for many missionaries).  I wonder why baptism is even brought up until all of the discussions have been taught, the person has attended church regularly for a determined span of time and they have read the entire Book of Mormon.  That's just my opinion....but I think our retention rates would be much better if these were the instructions given.

Read the entire Book of Mormon before baptism? What about the Bible? Shouldn’t it then also be a requirement to read the entirety of that, as well?

i think this is an unnecessary, over-the-top requirement. And I’m saying that as a convert. 

But, as I’m not an avowed church critic of the church, my opinion counts for nothing on this thread and on this board.  

If I wanted kudos on this board, I’d have to do something like wrongfully call an Apostle a liar. Then I’d get high fives all around. 

[The Nehor]

Just now, ALarson said:

I think you are very fair with your comments here (and I agree).

I honestly believe that very, very few investigators are even close to being ready for baptism after the first or second discussion (unless they have already done extensive studying and reading on their own prior to or during this time).  How can we be baptizing anyone who has not at least read the Book of Mormon?  

But the instructions and pressure are real (for many missionaries).  I wonder why baptism is even brought up until all of the discussions have been taught, the person has attended church regularly for a determined span of time and they have read the entire Book of Mormon.  That's just my opinion....but I think our retention rates would be much better if these were the instructions given.

If it were any other enterprise other then preaching the gospel I would agree that two meetings is not enough for a lifetime commitment but I believe that is the way God wants it to work despite my reasoning that it is too fast.

I like that the goal of baptism comes early (at least hinted at in the first meeting if not more and explained in the second). It gives the investigator something to shoot for even if my reasoning says the process should be longer. To me leaving it out leaves the investigator like someone going to school without knowing about graduation. It is easy to think this will just continue or to wonder why they are doing this and lose interest. If I had to go back and do my mission one (of many) changes I would make would be to be more explicit in the beginning about the number of discussions from the start. The material encouraged this but I never did it. I would handle my investigators less like I would an animal I thought would bolt if I was “too pushy” and more like an adult who trusts more the more information I give them about my intent.

I would also have spent a lot more time with the less active. All my baptisms came from friends of less actives. I would also do more street meetings. There is something wonderful about standing on a bench preaching to a crowd of people who stop instead of passing by and then stopping to sing hymns. I would also sing our mission anthem more “Jerusalem”. On the rare occasions we did many people would stop and mouth the words and once one sweet old couple came and stood with us once to sing it. I would have spent more time with the Christian refugees who fled their homeland over rumors of Christians burning the Koran. I would have helped the old holocaust survivor out in his garden more. The story his son told me is still hard for me to tell without tearing up and a great caution about how quickly things can change. I would not have fallen for the deceptions my companion used to sneak out at night. I would play more soccer with the kids and teens in the area. That got us in more doors then knocking on them.

okay, I am getting nostalgic. I will stop.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So your understanding here is that President Oaks and Ballard are teaching that a baptismal invite extended in the second discussion is not too early and by that point the investigator is ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Christ?

Yes, and I agree with them. Not rationally and I would never try it with a secular commitment of a similar nature but the Spirit works differently. Scriptural history is not full of people who studied the gospel for a year and then joined. It does happen (Brigham Young for example) but it is very rare.

Edited July 1, 2019 by The Nehor

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

...

But, as I’m not an avowed church critic of the church, my opinion counts for nothing on this thread and on this board.  

If I wanted kudos on this board, I’d have to do something like wrongfully call an Apostle a liar. Then I’d get high fives all around. 

Not sure why you feel that way.  Opinions on this thread’s topic seem fairly evenly split with “likes” happening on both sides of the discussion. 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

If I wanted kudos on this board, I’d have to do something like wrongfully call an Apostle a liar. Then I’d get high fives all around. 

I don't call Apostles liars and get kudos all the time as demonstrated by my rep points.  There are certainly those who prefer critical voices, but plenty of those who respond case by case or tend more positive, imo.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Calm