Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Who is blaming him for that?  I’ve seen no one do that!

And, my husband wasn’t a lazy missionary.  Quite the opposite.  He’s anything but lazy. Just because missionaries obeyed and baptized (sometimes too soon), that certainly does not mean they weren’t hard working and well intentioned.  Remember that those baptisms were approved by his leaders.

 

I said nothing about being lazy. The word I used was "conscientious." One can lack conscientiousness without being lazy. Conscientiousness could refer to being willing and eager to follow authoritative instructions and established norms. Maybe the lack of conscientiousness rested wholly or in part on leaders in the mission who approved baptisms of people who weren't ready for them.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said nothing about being lazy. The word I used was "conscientious." 

Well, I can assure you that he was not lazy and he was also a conscientious missionary (I’ve read his missionary journals and he was an amazing, dedicated and obedient missionary!). 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Well, I can assure you that he was not lazy and he was also a conscientious missionary (I’ve read his missionary journals and he was an amazing, dedicated and obedient missionary!). 

What about others in the mission? You implied earlier that making sure converts were ready for baptism was a “perfect world” kind of thing but not realistic in his mission at that time. It sounds to me like there was a general lack of conscientiousness about following instruction, maybe on the part of individual missionaries, maybe on the part of leaders in the mission, maybe both. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about others in the mission? You implied earlier that making sure converts were ready for baptism was a “perfect world” kind of thing but not realistic in his mission at that time. It sounds to me like there was a general lack of conscientiousness about following instruction, maybe on the part of individual missionaries, maybe on the part of leaders in the mission, maybe both. 

I was speaking about your description and how all 18 or 19 year olds would fit that description in a perfect world.   I honestly believe most missionaries strive to do things by the spirit, but they get over zealous I think when it comes to baptisms (especially if their leaders are pushing high numbers).  

And, I know my husband was an obedient missionary (he was strict about that and it’s obvious from his daily journal).  I can’t speak for the others in his mission.

[MustardSeed]

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I was speaking about your description and how all 18 or 19 year olds would fit that description in a perfect world.   I honestly believe most missionaries strive to do things by the spirit, but they get over zealous I think when it comes to baptisms (especially if their leaders are pushing high numbers).  

And, I know my husband was an obedient missionary (he was strict about that and it’s obvious from his daily journal).  I can’t speak for the others in his mission.

Then you don’t really have a quarrel with me, since I never stated or implied that all missionaries are conscientious enough to make sure converts are ready before baptizing them. I would hope most are, and I see President Ballard’s talk as part of an effort to see that even more are in the future. I think he should be supported in that, not criticized. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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

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

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

That’s the first discussion (from those that were in use during the 80’s and 90’s).   The second discussion (which I quoted earlier) states that the baptismal invite should be extended unless the Spirit directs NOT to do so. 

So we need to assume that he feels his three qualifiers to be invited to be baptized were typically  met by the end of the second discussion.  Or, he is making a change to the process. 

And I stand by my statement that we do know where early invite practices came from... they are encouraged by the discussions themselves. 

[rockpond]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

I think we can all stipulate (I certainly can) that the Missionary Guide isn’t going to suggest that missionaries rush investigators into baptism. 

Nor is such anything that I have ever claimed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think we can all stipulate (I certainly can) that the Missionary Guide isn’t going to suggest that missionaries rush investigators into baptism. 

Nor is such anything that I have ever claimed. 

So would you concede, then, that laxness in seeing that investigators are properly prepared for baptism does not stem from Elder Ballard or anything put out by the Church under his leadership? That he was speaking sincerely in saying he doesn’t know how such behavior originated? 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That’s the first discussion (from those that were in use during the 80’s and 90’s).   The second discussion (which I quoted earlier) states that the baptismal invite should be extended unless the Spirit directs NOT to do so. 

So we need to assume that he feels his three qualifiers to be invited to be baptized were typically  met by the end of the second discussion.  Or, he is making a change to the process. 

And I stand by my statement that we do know where early invite practices came from... they are encouraged by the discussions themselves. 

But you just stipulated (your word) that the instruction referenced in the second discussion (I assume that’s what you mean by “Missionary Guide”) does not encourage rushing people into baptism before they are ready. 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then you don’t really have a quarrel with me, since I never stated or implied that all missionaries are conscientious enough to make sure converts are ready before baptizing them. I would hope most are, and I see President Ballard’s talk as part of an effort to see that even more are in the future. I think he should be supported in that, not criticized. 

I think the question wasn’t about whether missionaries are conscientious but more about saying leaders didn’t know how the practice of too many early or rushed baptisms started (if that was accurately reported).   I think this has been a good discussion and interesting to read how leadership was at different times and in different missions.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think the question wasn’t about whether missionaries are conscientious but more about saying leaders didn’t know how the practice of too many early or rushed baptisms started (if that was accurately reported).   I think this has been a good discussion and interesting to read how leadership was at different times and in different missions.  

Yes, and in the process, President Ballard’s honesty has been impugned in saying they don’t know how it started. 

If, as you acknowledge, leadership has varied from mission to mission and from time to time, that would support what President Ballard said about not knowing the origin. How could Church leaders be expected to know if there has been such variance? 

[JulieM]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, and in the process, President Ballard’s honesty has been impugned in saying they don’t know how it started. 

If, as you acknowledge, leadership has varied from mission to mission and from time to time, that would support what President Ballard said about not knowing the origin. How could Church leaders be expected to know if there has been such variance? 

I don’t know for sure of course, but I would hope they’d know what’s going on over the years in the different missions.  But if some of us know, I’d imagine at least some of the leaders know.  

And the majority here (nearly all who’ve raised an issue) believe it could have just been worded better maybe (nothing dishonest).  

And, I’ve not seen anyone specifically blame President Ballard in any way for this practice starting.

Edited July 2, 2019 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

That’s the first discussion (from those that were in use during the 80’s and 90’s).   The second discussion (which I quoted earlier) states that the baptismal invite should be extended unless the Spirit directs NOT to do so. 

So we need to assume that he feels his three qualifiers to be invited to be baptized were typically  met by the end of the second discussion.  Or, he is making a change to the process. 

And I stand by my statement that we do know where early invite practices came from... they are encouraged by the discussions themselves. 

I think you and Elder Ballard have a different conception of when it is “too early”. That is fine but trying to make an apostle appear deceptive because of it is really not.

I agree with Elder Ballard that the second discussion should meet the qualifiers generally.

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don’t know for sure of course, but I would hope they’d know what’s going on over the years in the different missions.  But if some of us know, I’d imagine at least some of the leaders know.  

And the majority here (nearly all who’ve raised an issue) believe it could have just been worded better maybe (nothing dishonest).  

And, I’ve not seen anyone specifically blame President Ballard in any way for this practice starting.

They have and accused him of rewriting history, gaslighting, and a couple of other accusations but most of those pushing those theories have backed off or left the thread.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They have and accused him of rewriting history, gaslighting, and a couple of other accusations but most of those pushing those theories have backed off or left the thread.

Someone posted that President Ballard started the rushed or too early baptism practice?

Do you have a link for that?  (I missed it if he’s been blamed for this practice.)

(I saw the other things you listed but was referring specifically to that accusation.)

Edited July 2, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I don’t know for sure of course, but I would hope they’d know what’s going on over the years in the different missions.  But if some of us know, I’d imagine at least some of the leaders know.  

And the majority here (nearly all who’ve raised an issue) believe it could have just been worded better maybe (nothing dishonest).  

And, I’ve not seen anyone specifically blame President Ballard in any way for this practice starting.

It’s not a question of knowing “what’s going on over the years in the different missions.” President Ballard said he didn’t know how it got started. For that, his honor was questioned and he was accused of “gaslighting” (a particularly vicious accusation, since gaslighting, by definition, is malicious and deliberate deception). 

I don’t concede that the majority here think President Ballard’s message was poorly worded. 

What I’ve seen occurring here is the tenuous assertion that the printed discussions brought on the practice of too-hasty baptizing and that this happened on President Ballard’s watch, therefore he is culpable. 

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not a question of knowing “what’s going on over the years in the different missions.” President Ballard said he didn’t know how it got started. 

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).

Edited July 2, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes 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!

Isn’t President Ballard a Church leader?

And what would you expect to find from a copy of the talk (assuming one is available) that cannot be ascertained from the report linked to here? Why do you assume the talk was falsely or incompetently reported? 

Edited July 2, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Isn’t President Ballard a Church leader?

And what would you expect to find from a copy of the talk (assuming one is available) that cannot be ascertained from the report linked to here? Why do you assume the talk was falsely or incompetently reported? 

Yes, he’s a leader 😊  

Go back a bit to see the discussion about the article.  Duncan has requested a copy of the talk.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yes, he’s a leader 😊  

Go back a bit to see the discussion about the article.  Duncan has requested a copy of the talk.

My questions are to you, not Duncan. 

Edited to add: The article was published in the Church News. I haven’t worked there in over a year, but for the entire 33 years I did, the standard practice when reporting talks by General Authorities, especially apostles, was to give the leader the opportunity to read the report in advance and make any needed corrections. Don’t you think, in this instance, President Ballard would have caught any inaccuracies prior to publication? 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My questions are to you, not Duncan. 

The discussion ended with him saying he had requested a copy (that’s why I mentioned it).  Go back a bit and you can read through it if it’s of interest to you (the discussion about the accuracy).

Edited July 3, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The discussion ended with him saying he had requested a copy (that’s why I mentioned it).  Go back a bit and you can read through it if it’s of interest to you (the discussion about the accuracy).

So you’re not going to answer my questions, then?

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

That’s the first discussion (from those that were in use during the 80’s and 90’s).   The second discussion (which I quoted earlier) states that the baptismal invite should be extended unless the Spirit directs NOT to do so. 

So we need to assume that he feels his three qualifiers to be invited to be baptized were typically  met by the end of the second discussion.  Or, he is making a change to the process. 

And I stand by my statement that we do know where early invite practices came from... they are encouraged by the discussions themselves. 

Yes, I think we do need to assume that he feels the three qualifiers to be invited to be baptized were typically met by the end of the second discussion.  I don't see that that is in dispute but maybe I have misunderstood something.

As to the bold part, can you provide the quote where Elder Ballard says that the church leaders don't know where early invite practices came from?  I ask because I think you are making some assumptions about what Elder Ballard said that isn't supported by the quote we have from him, (or even the quote from the journalist) but I might have missed a different quote that you are referring to.

From my perspective, it's obvious that Elder Ballard isn't talking about asking someone to be invited to baptism in the first or second discussion when he implied that church leaders don't know where the practice came from.  I think he's talking about the practice of inviting people to be baptized before the three qualifiers were met.  That is the only interpretation that makes any sense to me when I take into account the other evidence that I have to work with.

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps at this juncture it would be helpful to review precisely what it is that President Ballard was quoted as saying. Here it is: 

QUOTE:

“Church leaders don’t know where these practices began, but ‘it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel, felt the Holy Ghost, and had been properly prepared to accept a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ,’ said President Ballard. ‘Our retention rates will dramatically increase when people desire to be baptized because of the spiritual experiences they are having rather than feeling pressured into being baptized by our missionaries.’”

CLOSE QUOTE

So what is it that President Ballard objects to? Is it early invitations to be baptized per se? No. According to his words, it is invitations “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.” 

It is the practice of such premature invitations that he says Church leaders don’t know how got started but that he wants it to stop.