Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[Raskolnikov]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I can assure you the irony was intentional. Part of the purpose there was self-deprecation and a gentle mocking of church culture in general. Glad you picked up on it. Was worried it was too subtle.  

This I can appreciate.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven’t read the entire thread so hopefully someone else has brought this up, but committing someone to baptism is not the same thing as baptizing them. 

Elder Ballard doesn’t even talk about when it’s appropriate to commit someone to baptism so I’m confused about why people are using the commitment as proof that his words about getting baptized are false. 

HappyJackWagon, were you encouraged to actually baptize people before they had felt the spirit or learned all the discussions?

Elder Ballard stated they they never intended for people to be INVITED to baptism before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment.  The quote isn’t about when they were actually baptized and their readiness at that time. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have no idea.  That’s not the issue.

Elder Ballard said that they never had any intention of early baptismal invites and yet the materials we were given as missionaries encouraged us to invite people to be baptized in the first and second discussions (which in my mission could have been the doorstep/street first discussion and a follow up second discussion at their home or a member’s home before they had ever stepped foot in church). 

Is he saying that he had no knowledge of what was in the missionary discussions published by the church and taught to us in the MTC?

We’ve got another person on this thread saying that Elder Holland was telling he and his wife as missionaries to invite to baptize starting in the first and second discussions.  Who is the “we” that Elder Ballard speaks of that never had such intentions?

Do we really have to parse on this level? It could be that he meant that it was never intended with the new PMG manual. It could mean they never intended it ever and the mandatory first discussion invite back in the day was not intended. One should ask if they wanted missionaries to always invite on the First Discussion back in the day as so many were apparently taught why it was not explicit in the material and the same with today. I agree with Elder Holland and agree that 95% plus of the time you should invite in the second. As the investigator I would want to know where this is going. If they are unsure but are keeping other commitments keep going. If they are not keeping commitments at all it may be time to end it.

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, mapman said:

It's interesting how similar the uncertainty expressed by Elder Ballard over this is to the repeated insistence of "we don't know" with how the priesthood ban began. This despite that we've known for a while now how the priesthood ban began, and I would assume it wouldn't be too hard to find the origins of this either. In any case, the important thing is that it is something that was taught by the leaders of the church. Perhaps if Elder Oaks weren't so insistent that the church never apologizes we wouldn't have all these lame attempts to divert responsibility from the leaders of the church.

It sounds like they are trying to reform some of the bad practices in the mission, which I wholeheartedly welcome. The thing that bothered me the most on my mission was when other missionaries treated baptism flippantly like something that belongs to them, or something they can stick on their resume for being advanced in leadership. I felt like I was blessed to be able to play a part in their baptism, a sacred and life-transforming event in their lives. I wonder if some returned missionaries now feel regret for being too pushy with people.

I agree and welcome the reform. 

I also agree that it echoes the “we don’t know” from the temple and priesthood ban.

We do know.  We know where missionaries got the idea to invite early and we know where the temple/priesthood ban came from. Both are in our own documents. 

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, mapman said:

It's interesting how similar the uncertainty expressed by Elder Ballard over this is to the repeated insistence of "we don't know" with how the priesthood ban began. This despite that we've known for a while now how the priesthood ban began, and I would assume it wouldn't be too hard to find the origins of this either. In any case, the important thing is that it is something that was taught by the leaders of the church. Perhaps if Elder Oaks weren't so insistent that the church never apologizes we wouldn't have all these lame attempts to divert responsibility from the leaders of the church.

It sounds like they are trying to reform some of the bad practices in the mission, which I wholeheartedly welcome. The thing that bothered me the most on my mission was when other missionaries treated baptism flippantly like something that belongs to them, or something they can stick on their resume for being advanced in leadership. I felt like I was blessed to be able to play a part in their baptism, a sacred and life-transforming event in their lives. I wonder if some returned missionaries now feel regret for being too pushy with people.

Comparing one off hand comment in a discourse on a minor correction in missionary labor to the apostles not knowing for sure about the Priesthood Ban? Really? Seems like a warped sense of proportion.

[Raskolnikov]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I agree and welcome the reform. 

I also agree that it echoes the “we don’t know” from the temple and priesthood ban.

We do know.  We know where missionaries got the idea to invite early and we know where the temple/priesthood ban came from. Both are in our own documents. 

Yes! And it will be a wonderful time when we can simply acknowledge these things and then move on. It can be harmful to relationships when the answer to very knowable or known issues is "we don't know."  I think that is what is informing this entire thread. We do know where missionaries got "their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected." It is right there in black and white -- since 1986.

[SettingDogStar]

1 minute ago, Raskolnikov said:

Yes! And it will be a wonderful time when we can simply acknowledge these things and then move on. It can be harmful to relationships when the answer to very knowable or known issues is "we don't know."  I think that is what is informing this entire thread. We do know where missionaries got "their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected." It is right there in black and white -- since 1986.

Bingo. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree and welcome the reform. 

I also agree that it echoes the “we don’t know” from the temple and priesthood ban.

We do know.  We know where missionaries got the idea to invite early and we know where the temple/priesthood ban came from. Both are in our own documents. 

Except not in the first discussion where it was explicitly in the documents that it should be done if led by the Spirit. Ironic comparison considering that in this case mission folklore and local mission customs are now described as “documents” and the scanty information we have on the origins of the Priesthood Ban which also involves a lot of hearsay is also “documents”.

i mean, yeah, you can argue that there are documents about mission customs and standards. If you had only my missionary journal to study missionary work in the 90s you would get only a very provincial look at how missionary work was done. You would probably think street meetings were common worldwide, that lots of missionaries held district meetings in the chapels of old castles, that sheep busting was a common missionary P-Dat activity, and that missionaries all ate horribly unhealthy food (might be true).

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You want me to produce a timeline for the past 50 years that describes changes in missionary policies as well as Elder Ballard's activities during that time? Sounds like a massive assignment. I think I'll pass.

It would be interesting to see how the training shifted during that time. I served my mission in the early 90's but I suspect many of these expectations, training methods started during the early 80's just based on conversations I've had with others. For example, I know for sure that it was very different in the late 60's when my father served, and the 70's when my uncle served.

Beyond just missionary work, things in the church seemed to change quite a bit that affected my generation that doesn't seem to have impacted the previous generation, and in ways the church seems to be trying to correct now. Whether it was correlation, missionary teaching etc, there seems to be a difference in the experience of many in my generation verses other generations. But then, I only really know my own experience so maybe I'm wrong

There was clearly a period when it was all numbers and little else, and I suspect that LDS leaders have tried out a number of different methods over the years.  A long time ago, missionaries used flannel board displays with their lessons.  At one time, Prof Richard Ll. Anderson wrote a new set of discussions designed to appeal directly to the actual interests of investigators, and they were used extensively.  I had a friend who prided himself as a missionary who only baptized those whom he could be sure actually understood and accepted the Gospel (that was in the 60s) -- years later he revisited those areas of Mexico where he had served and found his converts still faithful.  The guys with big numbers?  Not so much.

Just like "The Music Man," there is a wide range of different types of salesmanship.  Which types are best?

https://www.inc.com/video/watch-mark-cubans-best-ever-sales-pitch.html (Mark Cuban's method).

 Moneyball is far more mathematically oriented and smart, but it is about the numbers.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Yes! And it will be a wonderful time when we can simply acknowledge these things and then move on. It can be harmful to relationships when the answer to very knowable or known issues is "we don't know."  I think that is what is informing this entire thread. We do know where missionaries got "their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected." It is right there in black and white -- since 1986.

You have a very milquetoast idea about what wonderful means. Are you one of those people who thought that one conference was “historic with a capital H” because they rededicated the tabernacle.

Acknowledging small errors like that ( I still deny error has to exist in this specific case) is petty and pedantic, not wonderful.

[boo]

I was a missionary in Hong Kong for 2 1/2 years beginning 1966. Yes I am that old. We were told  by the MP ( i served under 3 of them and the instruction was identical in each case )that committing the investigator to baptism was an important part of the 1st discussion and we were suppose to pull out a calendar and pick a date before we left the apartment.  I was always troubled by that approach but fell in line. My wife served in Spain in the 70s  and these were also the instructions she received from her MP.

[MustardSeed]

All you’ll get is some of us saying, yeah, that was a really cruddy model for sharing the gospel. 

You wont hear general authorities admitting that there were missions that did it wrong.  You will also get a lot of denial that such things were ever taught at all, from hard core defenders. 

I agree, the numbers game has always been a poor model in the church.  How many RS vs Elders contests have I seen for visiting and home teaching? A lot.  I have a quota right now to activate one girl in my beehives class per quarter.  

When we are numbers driven, there are likely going to be short cuts.  It’s human nature.  

I doubt that any church leader would ever have approved of short cuts on a case to case basis. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by MustardSeed

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, boo said:

I was a missionary in Hong Kong for 2 1/2 years beginning 1966. Yes I am that old. We were told  by the MP ( i served under 3 of them and the instruction was identical in each case )that committing the investigator to baptism was an important part of the 1st discussion and we were suppose to pull out a calendar and pick a date before we left the apartment.  I was always troubled by that approach but fell in line. My wife served in Spain in the 70s  and these were also the instructions she received from her MP.

Thanks for sharing.

So when an apostle states that he doesn't know where that practice/expectation began and that it was never their intention, how does that make you feel?

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m confident that every mission, mission president, and missionary had variations in how they taught/invited and/or instructed others to teach and invite. 

But the instructions given in the six discussions were clear that we could invite in the first discussion and should invite in the second. 

Has anyone done a good retrospective on all that -- what methods LDS middionaries have used over the years?  A book, master's thesis, or doctoral dissertation.

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Elder Ballard stated they they never intended for people to be INVITED to baptism before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment.  The quote isn’t about when they were actually baptized and their readiness at that time. 

Yes, I edited my post. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

All you’ll get is some of us saying, yeah, that was a really cruddy model for sharing the gospel. 

You wont hear general authorities admitting that there were missions that did it wrong.  You will also get a lot of denial that such things were ever taught at all, from hard core defenders. 

I agree, the numbers game has always been a poor model in the church.  How many RS vs Elders contests have I seen for visiting and home teaching? A lot.  I have a quota right now to activate one girl in my beehives class per quarter.  

When we are numbers driven, there are likely going to be short cuts.  It’s human nature.  

I doubt that any church leader would ever have approved of short cuts on a case to case basis. 

That's a really good point. When people are reduced to numbers it's easy to treat them as numbers, and talk about percentages, and talk about methods to improve the averages. It kind of goes along with the Harman Rector Jr. Law of the Harvest philosophy. If you do X number of golden contacts and Y number of 2nd discussions and Z number of baptismal invitations you will get J number of baptisms. But I don't really believe any church leader would shortcut an actual person, but playing to the average is far more abstract and easier to go along with. I suspect that's what has happened. I can understand how people or even an organization can fall into that trap and I can be pretty forgiving if they recognize the flaw and make adjustments. I'm less forgiving when they are only able to recognize the problem and then claim to have no idea how that problem occurred, when it is quite obvious how it occurred. All Ballard needs to do is say, "we used to do things this way but we believe there is a better way. We are going to do this differently now." I've got no problem.

But stating that he doesn't understand how it happened and that it was never the leaders intention for that to happen, really just seems like a CYA statement from top leadership.

 

[SettingDogStar]

12 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

All you’ll get is some of us saying, yeah, that was a really cruddy model for sharing the gospel. 

You wont hear general authorities admitting that there were missions that did it wrong.  You will also get a lot of denial that such things were ever taught at all, from hard core defenders. 

I agree, the numbers game has always been a poor model in the church.  How many RS vs Elders contests have I seen for visiting and home teaching? A lot.  I have a quota right now to activate one girl in my beehives class per quarter.  

When we are numbers driven, there are likely going to be short cuts.  It’s human nature.  

I doubt that any church leader would ever have approved of short cuts on a case to case basis. 

Not to say goals are bad of course, but number goals very quickly and easily lead to “shortcuts” like you said.

It’s like getting rich, the goal doesn’t automatically make you evil but it can quickly and efficiently corrupt nearly anyone wanting it.

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous?

The implied statement is specifically referring to the preceding paragraph:

Quote

Some missionaries have felt pressure to invite people to be baptized during the first lesson or even the first contact. “These missionaries have felt that inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries’ faith and supports their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected,” he said. “Other missionaries have felt that an invitation to be baptized early allowed them to promptly separate the wheat from the tares. In this case, some see the baptismal invitation as a sifting tool.”

So, it seems to me that he is mainly talking about missionaries feeling pressured to invite people to baptism right up front or during the first lesson. I knew missionaries who took that approach, but it wasn't something they were pressured into doing. The ones who pursued that direction were more motivated by spiritual arrogance (I think Nehor may have used the word bravado which, I think, would also be a fair description); but it wasn't something that was pushed from the top. 

Also, I think it would be helpful if we had Elder Ballard's remarks in their entirety, because I think there may be some miscommunication with respect to the word "early." Does he mean 'early' as in 'early in the teaching process' or 'early' as in 'before the right time.'  

I believe Elder Ballard is correct in saying that "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." 

 

 

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Except not in the first discussion where it was explicitly in the documents that it should be done if led by the Spirit. Ironic comparison considering that in this case mission folklore and local mission customs are now described as “documents” and the scanty information we have on the origins of the Priesthood Ban which also involves a lot of hearsay is also “documents”.

i mean, yeah, you can argue that there are documents about mission customs and standards. If you had only my missionary journal to study missionary work in the 90s you would get only a very provincial look at how missionary work was done. You would probably think street meetings were common worldwide, that lots of missionaries held district meetings in the chapels of old castles, that sheep busting was a common missionary P-Dat activity, and that missionaries all ate horribly unhealthy food (might be true).

The documents in this case are the published missionary discussions. 

Yes, the first discussion suggests that it should be felt by the spirit.  But if it was not their intention it invite early, it shouldn’t be in the first discussion, even with the qualifier. 

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Really? How do you explain the training and expectation to commit to baptism by the end of discussion 2?

 

The average individual taught is a Christian (Let's excuse the today, where it may be possible young people have heard of Jesus Christ, but know absolutely nothing about him or his teachings). They would typically have attended church and have a basic understanding of the gospel. The method was to teach them about Jesus Christ, the apostasy and the Restoration and at that point, IF led by the Spirit, why wouldn't you invite an individual to consider being baptized?  They still have to have the full set of discussions and they still need to be interviewed. 

I am not sure I am seeing your problem. Jesus and the first apostles taught and baptized at once. You are losing me badly here. 

Edited June 27, 2019 by Storm Rider

[SettingDogStar]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

The documents in this case are the published missionary discussions. 

Yes, the first discussion suggests that it should be felt by the spirit.  But if it was not their intention it invite early, it shouldn’t be in the first discussion, even with the qualifier. 

I agree. I’m willing to bet no GA would want us to baptized unprepared people, obviously. However when you give missionaries the idea (19 year olds who have no prior experience)  that you need to extend that invitation as part of the first lesson and it’s an extension of your faith, then you end up with the culture he’s talking about. 

[Raskolnikov]

 

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You have a very milquetoast idea about what wonderful means. Are you one of those people who thought that one conference was “historic with a capital H” because they rededicated the tabernacle.

Acknowledging small errors like that ( I still deny error has to exist in this specific case) is petty and pedantic, not wonderful.

As it pertains to the institutional church, I sure do.

I am certainly not asking him to acknowledge small errors or even big errors. I am not even saying there was an error. I would have loved for him to simply speak about focusing on spiritual experiences and more permanent conversion pre-baptism. I think we all agree that this is a better way of conversion if the goal is retention. This entire discussion would not be occurring if a perceived problem/error wasn't raised by Elder Ballard in his talk, and then the institution wasn't affirmatively absolved of responsibility for this claimed problem/error. This is the sole source of the issue for many on this thread. If he simply said, X is a better way, we should all be doing X, that would be great. But he said, X is a better way, but for some reason Z was being done, Z was a problem, and we have no idea why Z was being done. But we do have a fairly clear idea why Z was being done and that is the issue being discussed.

Underlying all of this, I think, are concerns with how historical issues and other perceived "errors" have been discussed by Church leadership in the past. So, there are more emotions involved and institutional baggage in play with the approach Elder Ballard is taking to this one. 

 

[Raskolnikov]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

The average individual taught is a Christian (Let's excuse the today, where it may be possible young people have heard of Jesus Christ, but know absolutely nothing about him or his teachings). They would typically have attended church and have a basic understanding of the gospel. The method was to teach them about Jesus Christ, the apostasy and the Restoration and at that point, IF led by the Spirit, why wouldn't you invite an individual to consider being baptized?  They still have to have the full set of discussions and they still need to be interviewed. 

I am not sure I am seeing your problem. Jesus and the first apostles taught and baptized at once. You are losing me badly here. 

Not where I served they weren't, Storm Rider. It was incredibly rare for me to find someone who had attended church or had a basic understanding of the gospel. Go back and look what was in the first discussion before the first prompt to invite them to be baptized. Look at the second discussion where there was instruction to have them pick a date, and then read through the balance of the lessons to see what was to be taught after they had committed. 

Elder Ballard is saying that "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." The question is whether this statement is accurate given where in the teaching process missionaries have been and are instructed to invite people to be baptized. 

 

[SettingDogStar]

11 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Not where I served they weren't, Storm Rider. It was incredibly rare for me to find someone who had attended church or had a basic understanding of the gospel. Go back and look what was in the first discussion before the first prompt to invite them to be baptized. Look at the second discussion where there was instruction to have them pick a date, and then read through the balance of the lessons to see what was to be taught after they had committed. 

Elder Ballard is saying that "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." The question is whether this statement is accurate given where in the teaching process missionaries have been and are instructed to invite people to be baptized. 

 

I agree. Most, if not all, investigators are not prepared for a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ (and join His church) in the first lesson. That's why this quote feels so disingenuous because the first lesson plainly says to invite them to baptism. I was often taught to do this because it is somehow a show of faith from them to accept, even before they have received a testimony (what?). Of course it says that you should follows the spirit, but if we're waiting for them to come to that point where they're ready to commit, then why teach missionaries to invite on the first lesson?

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I agree. Most, if not all, investigators are not prepared for a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ (and join His church) in the first lesson. That's why this quote feels so disingenuous because the first lesson plainly says to invite them to baptism. I was often taught to do this because it is somehow a show of faith from them to accept, even before they have received a testimony (what?). Of course it says that you should follows the spirit, but if we're waiting for them to come to that point where they're ready to commit, then why teach missionaries to invite on the first lesson?

Because once in awhile you teach Robert. Robert who had learned about the church 20 years ago and gave up smoking then. Then 5 years later he talked with members of the church and gave up alcohol. Then 3 years later....and so on. Till one day the missionaries knocked on his door and he tells them the timing was right - he had just given up coffee last week so it made sense that the missionaries were knocking on his door.

So we invited him to be baptized.

He was the only one I ever invited on our first lesson and it was because he was clearly ready (in ways more than just the Word of Wisdom). 

It was not his 1st discussion, but it was our first one with him and his only one in recent years. His actions and the Spirit prompted us to invite him.