Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I have a question for you. Since you were an employee at Deseret News and now retired, would you be able to contact Sarah Jane Weaver and ask if she heard Elder Ballard say in his talk that he didn't know where the practices came from? I doubt very much Sarah put those words in from her ideas, I very much believe them to be Elder Ballard's words. Why would she do that? I almost PM'd her on FB, but felt very stalker-ish doing it. Then I wondered if there was a way to email her, but couldn't find an email account. Then I thought of you and wondered why not? You would be perfect for clearing this debate or controversy up!

[JulieM]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Sorry, thought I did!

Which ones did I miss?

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, ALarson said:

I was just going from what was in the OP:

I did just now look at the link....so maybe this conversation is all just a misunderstanding?  Was she paraphrasing that part?

I guess we'd need to see a copy of his actual talk in order to continue discussing this with complete accuracy.😉

ETA:

However....

I doubt this would have been published in the church news if it contained inaccuracies or misrepresentations of what Pres. Ballard stated.

I made this point in a prior post, but your assumption is correct: It is highly unlikely the report would have been published in the Church News without President Ballard himself scrutinizing it in advance for accuracy (I say this from many years of personal experience). 

Also, a paraphrase is not necessarily inaccurate. A paraphrase, by definition, is a restatement in different phrasing of a statement that has been made, an indirect quote, as it were. 

My guess is that Sarah said “Church leaders” instead of “President Ballard” because President Ballard himself spoke in the first-person plural (“It was never our intention. ...”). 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

is highly unlikely the report would have been published in the Church News without President Ballard himself scrutinizing it in advance for accuracy

You are saying church leaders clear the article first if they are quoted?

That sounds like much more involvement in the publishing than I understood previously. 

[JulieM]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I made this point in a prior post, but your assumption is correct: It is highly unlikely the report would have been published in the Church News without President Ballard himself scrutinizing it in advance for accuracy (I say this from many years of personal experience). 

Also, a paraphrase is not necessarily inaccurate. A paraphrase, by definition, is a restatement in different phrasing of a statement that has been made, an indirect quote, as it were. 

My guess is that Sarah said “Church leaders” instead of “President Ballard” because President Ballard himself spoke in the first-person plural (“It was never our intention. ...). 

I would hope if she was paraphrasing and President Ballard was specific about only speaking for himself (like “I don’t know how this practice began”), she would have been careful to not broaden it to “church leaders” like he was speaking for all or most of them.

I think that’s why a direct, accurate quote would be good to see.

Edited July 3, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

I would hope if she was paraphrasing and President Ballard was specific about only speaking for himself (like “I don’t know how this practice began”), she would have been careful to not broaden it to “church leaders” like he was speaking for all or most of them.

I think that’s why a direct, accurate quote would be good to see.

Did you miss the part where I said President Ballard would have seen the article and had opportunity to correct any inaccuracies prior to publication, whether he was directly or indirectly quoted?

And did you miss where I said earlier that an indirect quote (paraphrase) is not necessarily inaccurate? In fact, if it were inaccurate, I’d call it a misquote. 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You are saying church leaders clear the article first if they are quoted?

That sounds like much more involvement in the publishing than I understood previously. 

Yes, that’s what I’m saying as regards General Authorities and officers, especially high-level ones. (Bear in mind this pertains to Church News, which is an official publication of the Church.)

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I have a question for you. Since you were an employee at Deseret News and now retired, would you be able to contact Sarah Jane Weaver and ask if she heard Elder Ballard say in his talk that he didn't know where the practices came from? I doubt very much Sarah put those words in from her ideas, I very much believe them to be Elder Ballard's words. Why would she do that? I almost PM'd her on FB, but felt very stalker-ish doing it. Then I wondered if there was a way to email her, but couldn't find an email account. Then I thought of you and wondered why not? You would be perfect for clearing this debate or controversy up!

No, I won’t do that. This thing is not important enough to me to bother Sarah about. 

Here’s a tip, though. I just did a Google search and found that it’s not that difficult to find her contact information. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

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.)

It was said that he was responsible for the earlier Missionary Discussions because he was on the missionary committee. When it was pointed out that earlier discussions were not that different the accusation fell flat but it was made.

[Tacenda]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I won’t do that. This thing is not important enough to me to bother Sarah about. 

Here’s a tip, though. I just did a Google search and found that it’s not that difficult to find her contact information. 

Understand! I will think on it, I've already been given a link to email her. Just don't know the best way to word it! Or if it's all that worth it because I feel like I know the answer. Or maybe I will see what happens and go for it. ETA: I just emailed her so we'll have to see.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Tacenda

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, that’s what I’m saying as regards General Authorities and officers, especially high-level ones. (Bear in mind this pertains to Church News, which is an official publication of the Church.)

Do they do the same for DeseretNews or  just the Church News?

Edited July 3, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do they do the same for DeseretNews or  just the Church News?

Just the Church News. That's why I made a point of saying it pertains to the Church News. The Deseret News, though a property of the Church, is not an official publication of the Church.

[Calm]

I appreciate the clarification and am kind of embarrassed I didn’t catch that. 

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

I think the part in question is: "Church leaders don't know where these practices began".  That's not a quote from President Ballard, but words of the journalist (if I'm understanding correctly).

Many of your other questions should be directed at those who have used words like "gaslighting" or "disingenuous" to describe how his words made them feel.  Most here haven't expressed that (from what I've seen).

Everything is not as black and white as I feel you sometimes make things, Scott.  It's not like our leaders are either always 100% accurate with their words or they are lying and deceiving on purpose. I think it's obvious (to me) that at least some of the church leaders know where this practice began (it's not that difficult to discern and I'd imagine many experienced it themselves on their missions just as many here have) or they wouldn't know what to address and correct here.  So if the part in quotes (in my first sentence) is accurate, that's the only part I take issue with.  I think if he'd just stated that HE wasn't aware of how the practice began, it would have been a more accurate statement (IMO).  But it's not a big deal to me and I think we need to cut him some slack here....these are good men doing the best they can who do make errors or mistakes at times.  They are not infallible.

You can disagree, and I'm fine agreeing to disagree.  

Edited July 3, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Some is quoted of him, others—including the part generally pointed to as disingenuous—-are paraphrases by the reporter so it is currently impossible to know if her interpretation is accurate or not. 

This below seems to be the most significant in accusing him of poor wording or disingenuousness, but it is the reporter’s paraphrase:

”Church leaders don’t know where these practices began...”

 

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The part “church leaders don’t know where these practices began” is not a quote and is the phrase that he was blasted on for allegedly deceiving everyone, rewriting history, being disingenuous, etc.

 

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If they had known how much someone might pick apart that paraphrase and the meaning some would load into it they might have written it differently. Journalists are not renowned for being ultra-careful in avoiding misunderstandings. I am not knocking them. They are expected to put out a lot of volume these days. I would not want their job.

There are plenty of poor journalists, certainly. 

But it should be noted that a paraphrase (known in the trade as an indirect quote) is indeed a quote — an indirect one, but a quote, nonetheless. To write an indirect quote that does not accurately convey the speaker’s intended meaning is regarded not only as unprofessional but as an egregious ethical violation. 

I would add that Sarah Jane Weaver, whom I have known and worked closely with since the 1990s, and who is the current editor of the Church News, is a high quality journalist by every meaningful measure: training, experience, standards, professionalism, accuracy, etc. 

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the part in question is: "Church leaders don't know where these practices began".  That's not a quote from President Ballard, but words of the journalist (if I'm understanding correctly).

Many of your other questions should be directed at those who have used words like "gaslighting" or "disingenuous" to describe how his words made them feel.  Most here haven't expressed that (from what I've seen).

Everything is not as black and white as I feel you sometimes make things, Scott.  It's not like our leaders are either always 100% accurate with their words or they are lying and deceiving on purpose. I think it's obvious (to me) that at least some of the church leaders know where this practice began (it's not that difficult to discern and I'd imagine many experienced it themselves on their missions just as many here have) or they wouldn't know what to address and correct here.  So if the part in quotes (in my first sentence) is accurate, that's the only part I take issue with.  I think if he'd just stated that HE wasn't aware of how the practice began, it would have been a more accurate statement (IMO).  But it's not a big deal to me and I think we need to cut him some slack here....these are good men doing the best they can who do make errors or mistakes at times.  They are not infallible.

You can disagree, and I'm fine agreeing to disagree.  

Regarding whether a paraphrase (what those in the profession call an indirect quote) can properly be regarded as a quote, please see the post I just made the instant before I saw your above post. In this instance, the indirect quote strikes me as accurate in context because President Ballard does speak in the first-person plural, as in “it was never our intention. ...”

But I’ve already addressed whether the indirect quote is accurate when I confirmed your own assumption that President Ballard himself more than likely scrutinized the entire piece for accuracy before it went to press (I hope by now you have seen that I did so).

Regarding the rest of your remarks, I can only say I trust President Ballard as an on-the-ground witness of and participant in Church administration at least since the mid-1970s when he was called as a General Authority.

Finally, I cannot so blithely dismiss baseless and vicious accusations such as “gaslighting” as mere expressions of how statements “make [one] feel.” As I hear so often these days, words matter, and they ought not be used recklessly. 

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Finally, I cannot so blithely dismiss baseless and vicious accusations such as “gaslighting” as mere expressions of how statements “make [one] feel.” As I hear so often these days, words matter, and they ought not be used recklessly. 

Ok, I can understand that.  I'm not one who uses that term and actually try to avoid using it here.  So maybe address those who do with your concerns regarding it? (You may have already done this....)

I can certainly understand how some may feel hearing  (or reading) President Ballard's words.  I know many who had horrible experiences on their missions because of the extreme pressures put on them to produce good numbers and as many have expressed here, now regret rushing some into baptism all because they felt they were simply being obedient to the leaders.  I think those are genuine feelings that need to be acknowledged.  But, I would not go so far as to accuse President Ballard of dishonesty, etc.  I think he simply should have just spoken for himself (regarding what he was aware of or knew).  But once again, he's human and we should cut him some slack.

Edited July 3, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think you and Elder Ballard have a different conception of when it is “too early”.

I actually don't think we do.  I really like and agree with the three qualifiers that he lists.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is fine but trying to make an apostle appear deceptive because of it is really not.

I'm certainly not trying to make him appear deceptive.

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

I'm not convinced that he is saying that.  Insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.

[rockpond]

16 hours 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. 

I feel like we really need to allow for our leaders to make mistakes, and for those mistakes to be acknowledged (even publicly), without considering it to be an impugning of their honesty.

[rockpond]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

That is correct.

The Missionary Guide (the study guide we used as a companion to the published discussions in the 80's and 90's) does not encourage rushing people into baptism before they are ready.  I would hope that nobody would think the missionary guide would suggest such a bizarre thing as that.

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

[rockpond]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

Unknown and not part of what I have been discussing.  You are jumping to "properly prepared for baptism" where President Ballard's comments were specifically about the timing of the baptismal invite.

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That he was speaking sincerely in saying he doesn’t know how such behavior originated? 

If he claimed that church leaders don't know where the practice of early baptismal invites originated than he is being ignorant (which may or may not be intentional) or forgetful.  At least since the 80's the practice came from the published materials of the church.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

There are plenty of poor journalists, certainly. 

But it should be noted that a paraphrase (known in the trade as an indirect quote) is indeed a quote — an indirect one, but a quote, nonetheless. To write an indirect quote that does not accurately convey the speaker’s intended meaning is regarded not only as unprofessional but as an egregious ethical violation. 

I would add that Sarah Jane Weaver, whom I have known and worked closely with since the 1990s, and who is the current editor of the Church News, is a high quality journalist by every meaningful measure: training, experience, standards, professionalism, accuracy, etc. 

I apologize. I generalized too much and meant no offense to her. I mentioned earlier that I thought I might know her as I knew someone by that name when I was young but if you worked with her in the 90s when she and I were in High School it was probably someone else.

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

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

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I actually don't think we do.  I really like and agree with the three qualifiers that he lists.

I'm certainly not trying to make him appear deceptive.

I'm not convinced that he is saying that.  Insufficient evidence to draw that conclusion.

If you believe President Ballard wants to move those three qualifiers until after the Second Discussion and based on the other quote the Apostles have been discussing this with each other they would have to change Preach My Gospel or be guilty of the sin others earlier tried to impute to him. The printed materials put it there. Saying it should move and leaving the materials as is would be contradictory. I am not saying they will not move it at some point but they have not done so yet and such a change would be announced to missions generally and not shared in a training meeting with limited distribution.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Unknown and not part of what I have been discussing.  You are jumping to "properly prepared for baptism" where President Ballard's comments were specifically about the timing of the baptismal invite.

If he claimed that church leaders don't know where the practice of early baptismal invites originated than he is being ignorant (which may or may not be intentional) or forgetful.  At least since the 80's the practice came from the published materials of the church.

No, as has been refuted ad infinitum.