Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[california boy]

1 hour 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. 

I served my mission 50 years ago In the New Zealand North Mission. Ruling G Craven was my mission president the first half of my mission and Leo w. Russon was my mission president the second half of my mission.  Each year the mission printed a booklet called the NZNM Challenger. Listing the top baptizers in the mission.  It also lists who the zone leaders were.   The Challenger had a black line drawing of a Maori in traditional dress holding a spear on the cover.  If you can find any newsletters or a copy of the Challenger from 1969 or 1970, I will be glad to show proof to Calm (because I certainly don’t trust you) a copy of my drivers license and she can match that with what is printed. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by california boy

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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 agree (and me too regarding my mission).  I'm still not in favor of baptizing any investigator after only one or two discussions (other than someone who already knows and has read a great deal about the church and has read the Book of Mormon).  But mentioning it as a goal is fine, IMO.   

 

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

  That's easy to do (I have fond memories of my mission too).  

 

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

Because I am not convinced a mistake was made.

I know apostles can make mistakes and have no problem admitting it. I was in a meeting with an apostle where he was talking about Jesus and Peter and the “Get thee behind me Satan” line. At one point he mistakenly confused the three and referred to Satan when he hopefully meant God. If it was not a mistake it was an apostle endorsing Satanism. I wrote it in my notes for fun. My Mission President was once talking about callings in the Church and talked about Stake Presidents, member of a Stake High Council, Bishops, and Relief Society Presidents. He then made the comment that being a full time missionary was different because of the level of consecration required and then added that he did not mean to demean those calling and that he had held them all but they were not at the same level of consecration. Based on that I remember writing in my notes that my Mission President claimed to have once served as a Relief Society President.

Those are mistakes. If Elder Ballard had forgotten something and claimed something wrong about past missionary practices that would be a mistake. That is not what people are claiming or were not at first. They were claiming intentional deception, an insult to their own missionary service, gaslighting, or even that Elder Ballard was trying to rewrite history. That is not a mistake. That is an attack on character and, based on the little information we have, an unsubstantiated one.

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

To the bold, I think that it would be helpful to reiterate that it's an invitation to start the steps towards baptism, vs. just inviting them to be baptized and setting a date. 

Also, your sentimental memories of serving your mission sound wonderful. I often feel like it would have been pretty cool serving a mission, but not with my beliefs now. 

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

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?

Possibly and that may be a good suggestion as well.  But if one is to pray about the Book of Mormon being true, I would hope they had read it.  Do you disagree?

But I'm sure some did not read the Book of Mormon, were baptized and have remained active members of the church.  I'm not claiming this doesn't take place.  However, I think our retention rates would be higher if we made sure converts had attended church regularly for awhile, had the discussions and read the Book of Mormon (then prayed about it).

28 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. 

That's not what I've seen here (or on other threads).  I think overall this has been a very even and fair discussion with people expressing what their experiences have been.  There's almost always the extremes on both sides....that's pretty common here too (and in real life  )

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[california boy]

39 minutes 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.

I never remember inviting an investigator to be baptized after the first discussion.  For me that always took place at the end of the second discussion.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

I served my mission 50 years ago In the New Zealand North Mission. Ruling G Craven was my mission president the first half of my mission and Leo w. Russon was my mission president the second half of my mission.  Each year the mission printed a booklet called the NZNM Challenger. Listing the top baptizers in the mission.  It also lists who the zone leaders were.   The Challenger had a black line drawing of a Maori in traditional dress holding a spear on the cover.  If you can find any newsletters or a copy of the Challenger from 1969 or 1970, I will be glad to show proof to Calm (because I certainly don’t trust you) a copy of my drivers license and she can match that with what is printed. 

I do not doubt this happened but I dislike the practice. I could see listing the leadership for the mission but crowning missionaries for success rates is a disservice to everyone. It increases the temptations to “aspire to the honors of men”, divides the mission into those who succeed and those who did not (everyone knows who the good missionaries are in any case), and demeans those who succeeded because they metaphorically gave alms in public and were seen and now already have their reward. It also subtly encourages missionaries to cut corners and sometimes just to get baptisms by any means, honorable or not.

One of the top baptizers in my Mission did it wrong. He was a salesman and did not Preach by the Spirit.

17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

His retention rate was not good either. I went to areas after him twice and tried to hold on to his converts. It was not easy. Last I heard he was less active and became very rich as a salesman.

I have no dislike of mission newsletters in general though. We had one called the Millenial Star after the old British equivalent of the Ensign that was discontinued in the 80s (if I remember right). It had a baptism profiled, some church history from the mission area, an address from the Mission President and one from his wife, some jokes and oddball experiences missionaries reported. My favorite was the missionary teaching an unmarried couple and the girl’s first spritiual experience led her to believe she was in love with the missionary and she declared this in front of her boyfriend. Fortunately the missionaries convinced her that the sensation came from somewhere else. When an apostle came through he told us not to use that name anymore because it belonged to the other publication but the newsletter continued.

I actually did find an old copy of the original Millenial Star in a missionary apartment. I kept it. Most of it was good but some would not go over well today. The funniest article was “You Could Be Lovelier” and contained tips on female grooming and presentation. I should dig that out and do a thread on it with pictures.

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because I am not convinced a mistake was made.

I know apostles can make mistakes and have no problem admitting it.

I believe he at least misspoke or should have stated that he didn't know how this practice got started (he may not).  But, I have to believe that at least some of the church leaders know why it became a common practice in at least many of missions over the years (if they are familiar with what was in the discussions).  His mistake may only be that he included all church leaders in his statement (or so it appears when he stated: "Church leaders don’t know where these practices began").

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Danzo]

I have always thought that if the church weren't true, then the missionaries would have killed it a long time ago. 

[The Nehor]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

I never remember inviting an investigator to be baptized after the first discussion.  For me that always took place at the end of the second discussion.

I mostly did the same but did the soft invite in the first discussion we had ‘we hope as you come to know these things are true you will follow the example of Christ into baptism’. Do not remember the exact words but something like that. I invited a few more directly in the First but it was rare.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Possibly and that may be a good suggestion as well.  But if one is to pray about the Book of Mormon being true, I would hope they had read it.  Do you disagree?

I hope they have read it but do not expect them to read the whole thing. The Book of Mormon is an amazing conversion tool but many members have joined with a testimony of its truthfulness even when they are not literate. In previous dispensations access to the scriptures was even more limited. Paul probably only had the set of scriptures in his head. Most Christian missionaries probably had less.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

To the bold, I think that it would be helpful to reiterate that it's an invitation to start the steps towards baptism, vs. just inviting them to be baptized and setting a date. 

Also, your sentimental memories of serving your mission sound wonderful. I often feel like it would have been pretty cool serving a mission, but not with my beliefs now. 

I like the harder invite. It gives them enthusiasm. It also motivates church attendance to try it out.

Thanks, but I was not a fantastic missionary so please do not get that idea. I know better now why my Mission was so difficult for me (undiagnosed problem) and I also found my personal spiritual gifts were not particularly well suited for missionary work. In the experience it was exhausting both physically and mentally and I was not as diligent or as effective as I could/should have been. Looking back brings back a mixed bag of happy, silly, funny, depressing, and regretful memories. I was relieved when it was over and for years afterwards had quasi-nightmares about President Hinckley Calling me and telling me I was not done and needed to go back.

I am glad in the aggregate that I went but I do not want to sugarcoat it.

Edit: I had a longer reply with more examples of my failures and less then mature but the board 403’d it and ai could not get back to it. Probably because of the ex-minister who kept hitting on my companion story. Oh well 😔.

Edited July 1, 2019 by The Nehor

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I hope they have read it but do not expect them to read the whole thing. The Book of Mormon is an amazing conversion tool but many members have joined with a testimony of its truthfulness even when they are not literate.

True.  I do believe that more than just a discussion or two needs to take place before someone is asked to make the commitment to join the church (and also regular attendance along with more reading and discussions regarding the Book of Mormon).  Think of the emphasis that Elder Holland put on the Book of Mormon.  A testimony of it is key to having a testimony of the truthfulness of the church.  I firmly believe an investigator should read it before baptism (or at least most of it along with prayer).

I think Elder Ballard's comments show us that the church leaders are working on ways to correct some past common practices and improve retention for newly baptized members.  I'm happy to see this taking place and applaud it too.

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe he at least misspoke or should have stated that he didn't know how this practice got started (he may not).  But, I have to believe that at least some of the church leaders know why it became a common practice in at least many of missions over the years (if they are familiar with what was in the discussions).  His mistake may only be that he included all church leaders in his statement (or so it appears when he stated: "Church leaders don’t know where these practices began").

How would they know? I doubt Mission Presidents were reporting to the Seventies and Apostles the percentage of First Discussion invites and apostles were not teaching discussions with the missionaries. Also, the written discussions do not suggest a firm First Discussion commitment should be the norm (either now or in the past).

[Danzo]

I think one of the biggest challenges for missionaries is learning to go by the spirit and adjust for person they are teaching. There is no set time to invite someone to be baptized.

I have seen situations where it is appropriate to set a baptismal date before lessons begin and sometimes it takes years of investigating before they are ready for baptism.

Trying to reduce it to a set of instructions, like a recipe is foolish.  Missionaries need to  learn to follow the spirit.  

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Danzo

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How would they know? I doubt Mission Presidents were reporting to the Seventies and Apostles the percentage of First Discussion invites and apostles were not teaching discussions with the missionaries. 

How many of the current "church leaders" were mission presidents themselves?  (honest question....)

But either way, I have to believe that at least some (most?) of the leaders served missions themselves, or had sons serve missions and so on.  It's quite obvious where this practice began and why numbers became so important (at least for some mission presidents).  I have a difficult time believing that none of the church leaders have any idea why this has been taking place over the years.   I'm glad that it hopefully will be corrected and I'm happy to see these comments by Elder Ballard.

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True.  I do believe that more than just a discussion or two needs to take place before someone is asked to make the commitment to join the church (and also regular attendance along with more reading and discussions regarding the Book of Mormon).  Think of the emphasis that Elder Holland put on the Book of Mormon.  A testimony of it is key to having a testimony of the truthfulness of the church.  I firmly believe an investigator should read it before baptism (or at least most of it along with prayer).

 

Many of the people I have seen come into the church were prepared to come into the church before they met with the missionaries.  My wife asked for baptism from the missionaries and then was bummed out that she would have to wait through 6 lessons before they would let her be baptized.  For these people, there is no minimum number of discussions before making a commitment to be baptized.  Others, it could be years.  

I have also met people who had never read the book of Mormon (didn't know how to read, or in one case the book of Mormon hadn't been translated to their language) who had joined the church 

There is no one sized fits all approach. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Many of the people I have seen come into the church were prepared to come into the church before they met with the missionaries. 

Yes, and I've stated that above too.  I agree.  My comments were more specific to those who know very little (if anything) about the church or the Book of Mormon prior to the first discussion.

I do know that some join and remain active who don't read the Book of Mormon as well.  I am just speaking to general guidelines and suggestions.  I believe investigators should have more exposure (attendance and reading the Book of Mormon) before baptism (most) if we want our retention rates to improve.  I think Elder Ballard's comments reflect that as well.

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[SettingDogStar]

Just now, Danzo said:

 

Many of the people I have seen come into the church were prepared to come into the church before they met with the missionaries.  My wife asked for baptism from the missionaries and then was bummed out that she would have to wait through 6 lessons before they would let her be baptized.  For these people, there is no minimum number of discussions before making a commitment to be baptized.  Others, it could be years.  

I have also met people who had never read the book of Mormon (didn't know how to read, or in one case the book of Mormon hadn't been translated to their language) who had joined the church 

There is no one sized fits all approach. 

I'm glad they have the required 6 discussions before baptism, for the exact reason this thread was started. Many missionaries got the wrong idea and baptized investigators before they were actually ready. Whether that was to be the "top baptizer", aspire to leadership, or because they thought it was expected of them to baptize as fast as the investigator would commit it happened. 

If the missionaries were told that they didn't have to teach all 6 before baptism I think we'd have a lot more "early baptizees."

Though I do agree that not one size fits all!!!

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, ALarson said:

.  I have a difficult time believing that none of the church leaders have any idea why this has been taking place over the years.

Most human behaviors have complex causes, more than one influence, more than one human tendency involved. 

There is a difference between not having “any idea” and not knowing the full picture.  Elder Ballard more than likely was referring to the latter. I think he may have phrased it that way so mission presidents would look in their own behaviours for possible contributors without feeling targeted or shamed. 

And while if there were some leaders who knew likely causes, if they hadn’t informed Ballard of their opinions on this while others he discussed it with had less certainty, it seems a reasonable assumption by him to say “we” in my view. For all we know research was done on the topic and there were multiple ideas of causes, none standing out more than others and that is why he said “don’t know”.  OTOH, he might have assumed his position was the usual one without discussing it with anyone else.

It comes across to me as requiring a lot of assumptions that may or may not be accurate to assume he is making an error. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Calm

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most human behaviors have complex causes, more than one influence, more than one human tendency involved. 

There is a difference between not having “any idea” and not knowing the full picture.  Elder Ballard more than likely was referring to the latter. I think he may have phrased it that way so mission presidents would look in their own behaviours for possible contributors without feeling targeted or shamed. 

And while if there were some leaders who knew likely causes, if they hadn’t informed Ballard of their opinions on this while others he discussed it with had less certainty, it seems a reasonable assumption by him to say “we” in my view. For all we know research was done on the topic and there were multiple ideas of causes, none standing out more than others and that is why he said “don’t know”.  OTOH, he might have assumed his position was the usual one without discussing it with anyone else.

It comes across to me as requiring a lot of assumptions that may or may not be accurate to assume he is making an error. 

Well like I said, I think the only error or mistake was in the wording of what he stated (giving the impression that no church leader knows where this practice came from rather than just speaking for himself).  His experiences may have been like some on here who haven't seen the emphasis some Mission Presidents (and other leaders on missions) put on numbers and the push to get investigators baptized after the first or second discussion that many missionaries experience. 

So I think he should have just state that and then let these new Mission Presidents know this is not how the leaders want things done regarding investigators.  I firmly agree with him too and I'm glad to see them addressing practices that have caused such a low retention rate.

Edited July 1, 2019 by ALarson

[let’s roll]

I’ve benefited from posters sharing their missionary experiences as well as their opinions on how best to approach baptismal invitations.  That portion of this thread is worth thoughtful contemplation, and I am grateful to those who have shared.

Frankly, I’ve resolved to ignore the other portion of this thread.  I don’t see the benefit of trying to read Elder Ballard’s mind or of ascribing a certain meaning or motivation to an isolated comment.  Some of the questions and defense seem well-intended, but too much on both sides has been disheartening.  We can do better.

Edited July 1, 2019 by let’s roll
typo

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours 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. 

As I recall it’s not an invitation to be baptized there and then, but to prepare oneself for some specified future date. No conscientious missionary is going to baptize or approve someone for baptism who has not reached the requisite level of preparation by the time that date arrives. Nor would he or she ignore a prompting from the Spirit not to extend a baptism invitation to one who is not ready for it. And nothing I’ve seen in materials put out by the Church indicates that they should do any of those things. Again, President Ballard has been unjustly accused here and has been collectively blamed along with the Church for the errant actions of individuals, which President Ballard is obviously endeavoring to put a stop to. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I’ve benefited from posters sharing their missionary experiences as well as their opinions on how best to approach baptismal invitations.  That portion of this thread is worth thoughtful contemplation, and I am grateful to those who have shared.

Frankly, I’ve resolved to ignore the other portion of this thread.  I don’t see the benefit of trying to read Elder Ballard’s mind or of ascribing a certain meaning or motivation to an isolated comment.  Some of the questions and defense seem well-intended, but too much on both sides has been disheartening.  We can do better.

I don’t see anything well-intended about impugning the honesty of an apostle, accusing him of “gaslighting,” (which, by definition, is malicious deception), etc. I make no apology for defending him against such slander. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Duncan]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I served my mission 50 years ago In the New Zealand North Mission. Ruling G Craven was my mission president the first half of my mission and Leo w. Russon was my mission president the second half of my mission.  Each year the mission printed a booklet called the NZNM Challenger. Listing the top baptizers in the mission.  It also lists who the zone leaders were.   The Challenger had a black line drawing of a Maori in traditional dress holding a spear on the cover.  If you can find any newsletters or a copy of the Challenger from 1969 or 1970, I will be glad to show proof to Calm (because I certainly don’t trust you) a copy of my drivers license and she can match that with what is printed. 

did you ever know Elders Woolley, Olsen, or Gross?