Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[rockpond]

On 6/27/2019 at 5:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Or they meant what they said and they should listen to the Spirit. It is hard to be more clear then outright saying you should do so if the prompts. I understand why people do it without the prompt (cultural pressure, spiritual bravado, thinking it is the pathway to spirituality) but I have a hard time with how they can complain that they did not understand that the prompting is needed.

The first discussion includes the qualifier. Second discussion we were told to invite to baptism.  Either way it is absolutely clear where missionaries got the idea to invite baptism early unlike Elder Ballard’s claim that it was “never [their] intention”.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. I don't believe he'd say anything like that and I have no desire to search for something like that.

I mentioned his involvement with Preach My Gospel to illustrate that he has substantial experience working with the missionary program, lessons, and training. So to me, it seems very unlikely that he would be unaware of the expectations outlined in the discussions.

He didn’t say he was unaware of such an expectation on the part of some. That’s precisely what he was decrying.

But I’m not sure (I’ll read it again) he conceded it was outlined in the missionary discussions. 

I served my mission at the time of the last version of scripted discussions (some called them “the rainbow discussions” because they were printed on colored paper).  There was a section in there called “the baptismal challenge,” and we were given leeway as to if and when to present the challenge. With the vast majority of those I taught I never presented the challenge because they never reached the level of commitment and determination to be ready for it. 

[SettingDogStar]

I think the main issue we're facing is we were all taught differently on our missions and MTC experiences. Some mission presidents and teachers were more intense on the baptismal invitation challenges while others better heeded the "by the spirit" qualifier. 19-21 year old's who have no real teaching experience often latch on to what their teachers and leaders teach them even if it isn't printed that exact way in whatever manual. I loved my mission presidents and looking back I just did what they said, even if I didn't understand it, because I was convinced they knew vastly more then I did about missionary work. Sometimes they're inspired and sometimes they're not, that's just how it works. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I think the main issue we're facing is we were all taught differently on our missions and MTC experiences. Some mission presidents and teachers were more intense on the baptismal invitation challenges while others better heeded the "by the spirit" qualifier. 19-21 year old's who have no real teaching experience often latch on to what their teachers and leaders teach them even if it isn't printed that exact way in whatever manual. I loved my mission presidents and looking back I just did what they said, even if I didn't understand it, because I was convinced they knew vastly more then I did about missionary work. Sometimes they're inspired and sometimes they're not, that's just how it works. 

I think all this is true. 

I also believe a rather naive missionary  might give such credence to other leaders in the mission, such as zone or district leaders or assistants to the president or even to trainers, who may themselves be subject to excessive zeal or off the beam somehow. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[SettingDogStar]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think all this is true. 

I also believe they might give such credence to other leaders in the mission, such as zone or district leaders or assistants to the president or even to trainers, who may themselves be subject to excessive zeal or off the beam somehow. 

It's like a really fun game of telephone. Each person likes a certain way of doing things and filters the messages the way they want to, from Apostles all the way down to district leaders and companions.

Edit: which means if the majority of mission presidents believed that extending the baptismal invitation on the first lesson was the right thing to do no matter what, then that would be what was taught.

Edited June 29, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The first discussion includes the qualifier. Second discussion we were told to invite to baptism.  Either way it is absolutely clear where missionaries got the idea to invite baptism early unlike Elder Ballard’s claim that it was “never [their] intention”.

Quoting from the OP link:

"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.”

"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.”

It was “never [their] intention” to do the bolded part, and more specifically "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."

Missionaries and their presidents, etc. can take inspired instruction wrong, just like you can!

Edited June 29, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think all this is true. 

I also believe they might give such credence to other leaders in the mission, such as zone or district leaders or assistants to the president or even to trainers, who may themselves be subject to excessive zeal or off the beam somehow. 

Yet everyone has the chance to grow up, eventually.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Quoting from the OP link:

"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.”

"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.”

It was “never [their] intention” to do the bolded part, and more specifically "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."

Missionaries and their presidents, etc. can take inspired instruction wrong, just like you can!

The instruction to invite to baptism is documented in the first and second discussions.  Those discussions were the inspired direction we received as missionaries from church headquarters?  Is it your assertion that the Brethren (including Elder Ballard who was an apostle when those discussions were in use) were unaware and/or unsupportive to the instructions in those discussion pamphlets?

But it is amusing to watch so many here place blame on everyone else rather than admit that one of the Brethren (who we claim to be fallible) had made an incorrect statement. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The instruction to invite to baptism is documented in the first and second discussions.  Those discussions were the inspired direction we received as missionaries from church headquarters?  Is it your assertion that the Brethren (including Elder Ballard who was an apostle when those discussions were in use) were unaware and/or unsupportive to the instructions in those discussion pamphlets?

But it is amusing to watch so many here place blame on everyone else rather than admit that one of the Brethren (who we claim to be fallible) had made an incorrect statement. 

Were you mandated in those discussions to present the challenge whether or not you thought the investigator was ready? That’s not how I remember things (see my prior post). 

But go ahead and accuse me of gaslighting because my experience and recollection differ from yours. 

[Anijen]

On 6/27/2019 at 11:42 AM, SettingDogStar said:

Thankfully my two baptisms are active and married in the temple but it’s only because we worked with them for MONTHS. 

I'm sure the Holy Ghost had some credit too.

[SettingDogStar]

14 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I'm sure the Holy Ghost had some credit too.

You caught me haha Yes, the Holy Ghost was essential but they took forever to let Him work on them, which is why it took months. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

The instruction to invite to baptism is documented in the first and second discussions.  Those discussions were the inspired direction we received as missionaries from church headquarters?  Is it your assertion that the Brethren (including Elder Ballard who was an apostle when those discussions were in use) were unaware and/or unsupportive to the instructions in those discussion pamphlets?

But it is amusing to watch so many here place blame on everyone else rather than admit that one of the Brethren (who we claim to be fallible) had made an incorrect statement. 

Odd, I was not assigning blame. The critics are....at Elder Ballard and some tried to tie it to a supposed ongoing campaign of deception and rewriting history. Based on one quote with no context and packing the quote with their own assumptions. It is amusing to watch critics pretend they are the reasonable ones for verbally tarring and feathering an apostle on such incomplete information. Meanwhile anyone who points out the absurdity of acting like these accusations are proof of deception is painted as an aggressive weirdo with an ax to grind......for defending someone we like from unsubstantiated slander. Then when I throw out much less pointed insults these same people cry about how mean I am.

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Were you mandated in those discussions to present the challenge whether or not you thought the investigator was ready? That’s not how I remember things (see my prior post). 

But go ahead and accuse me of gaslighting because my experience and recollection differ from yours. 

No, I was not “mandated” nor is that the issue.  I am not accusing you of gaslighting not denying your recollection   I have focused on the actual content of the discussion pamphlets.

President Ballard’s statement is that it was never their intention to have investigators invited to be baptized before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ. He said that Church leaders don’t know where “these practices” began.  Yet the missionary discussions provided by the Brethren prior to PMG instructed that the baptismal invite should happen during the first or second discussion. So is the assertion here that investigators are ready for that lifelong commitment by the second time you meet with them?  If not, then we do know where these practices began:  the Church provided discussions.

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Odd, I was not assigning blame. The critics are....at Elder Ballard and some tried to tie it to a supposed ongoing campaign of deception and rewriting history. Based on one quote with no context and packing the quote with their own assumptions. It is amusing to watch critics pretend they are the reasonable ones for verbally tarring and feathering an apostle on such incomplete information. Meanwhile anyone who points out the absurdity of acting like these accusations are proof of deception is painted as an aggressive weirdo with an ax to grind......for defending someone we like from unsubstantiated slander. Then when I throw out much less pointed insults these same people cry about how mean I am.

No crying here. 

Simply pointing out an error that ought to be corrected. 

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I was not “mandated” nor is that the issue.  I am not accusing you of gaslighting not denying your recollection   I have focused on the actual content of the discussion pamphlets.

President Ballard’s statement is that it was never their intention to have investigators invited to be baptized before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ. He said that Church leaders don’t know where “these practices” began.  Yet the missionary discussions provided by the Brethren prior to PMG instructed that the baptismal invite should happen during the first or second discussion. So is the assertion here that investigators are ready for that lifelong commitment by the second time you meet with them?  If not, then we do know where these practices began:  the Church provided discussions.

Just like how they gloss over on why the blacks were denied the PH, not really explaining whether it was doctrine or not, or why either way, IMO.

[SettingDogStar]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, I was not “mandated” nor is that the issue.  I am not accusing you of gaslighting not denying your recollection   I have focused on the actual content of the discussion pamphlets.

President Ballard’s statement is that it was never their intention to have investigators invited to be baptized before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ. He said that Church leaders don’t know where “these practices” began.  Yet the missionary discussions provided by the Brethren prior to PMG instructed that the baptismal invite should happen during the first or second discussion. So is the assertion here that investigators are ready for that lifelong commitment by the second time you meet with them?  If not, then we do know where these practices began:  the Church provided discussions.

Exactly. While each invitation is usually prefaced by a “invite by the spirit” instruction it’s still  there in the lesson. Obviously it wasn’t the intention to have people baptized before they were prepared but having it right there in the first lesson explains where it started.

While not all missions or missionaries get pressured to baptize or invite to baptize early, those who did know where it came from. The interpretation of these invitations and instructions created this culture, even if the application of the instructions is incorrect.

Edited June 29, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, I was not “mandated” nor is that the issue.  I am not accusing you of gaslighting not denying your recollection   I have focused on the actual content of the discussion pamphlets.

President Ballard’s statement is that it was never their intention to have investigators invited to be baptized before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ. He said that Church leaders don’t know where “these practices” began.  Yet the missionary discussions provided by the Brethren prior to PMG instructed that the baptismal invite should happen during the first or second discussion. So is the assertion here that investigators are ready for that lifelong commitment by the second time you meet with them?  If not, then we do know where these practices began:  the Church provided discussions.

That assertion is not true in my case. The scripted discussions I used (mid 1970s) did not require the baptismal challenge to be given at a specified sequence in the discussions. And my understanding is that the discussion outlines that were used by missionaries thereafter were even more open ended than the ones I used. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That assertion is not true in my case. The scripted discussions I used (mid 1970s) did not require the baptismal challenge to be given at a specified sequence in the discussions. And my understanding is that the discussion outlines that Were used by missionaries thereafter were even more open ended than that. 

I didn’t say the invitation was required.  But the recommendation to invite to baptism was there. 

President Ballard claims that they don’t know where the practices of early baptism invites came from — there’s the answer:  they came from the suggestion that was in the discussions. 

President Ballard claims that such early invitations were never their intention and yet they published those discussions. 

[Scott Lloyd]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I didn’t say the invitation was required.  But the recommendation to invite to baptism was there. 

President Ballard claims that they don’t know where the practices of early baptism invites came from — there’s the answer:  they came from the suggestion that was in the discussions. 

President Ballard claims that such early invitations were never their intention and yet they published those discussions. 

I can only speak to the discussions that were in use when I served my mission (mid-1970s).

But as I have indicated here, the “Baptsmal Challenge” was included in the binder with the scripted discussions but not with the “suggestion,” “recommendation,” expectation or implication that the challenge be given at any specified place in the sequence of the lessons as presented to the investigator. The instruction, as far as it originated from Church headquarters, was always that the missionaries, as guided by the Spirit, would give the challenge when they felt the investigator was ready to receive it.

So unless you can document the contrary, I’ll have to go with my own experience and recollection on this question. And that experience and that recollection are consistent with what is in this article quoting President Ballard. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

On 6/27/2019 at 4:50 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

On my mission we were required to report numbers. Lots and lots of numbers: number of discussions, number of golden questions, number of baptismal challenges, number of investigators at church, how many baptisms etc. etc. It was most definitely a highly regimented program full of reporting on behaviors. It's a good way to hold people accountable to doing the things the leadership wants done.

These things all started with the Mission President, and then funneled down through the AP's, Zone leaders, district leaders.  Sometimes we reported weekly, sometimes daily. It was clearly an expectation that by the 2nd discussion every investigator should be invited to be baptized. The thinking at the time was that a challenge from a representative of Christ would help the investigator feel the spirit and choose to join the church. I recall vividly that by the end of the 2nd discussion we would challenge each person to be baptized. We would pray with them. "How do you feel?" They might say something like "Good." or "relaxed" and we would respond with something like "That's the spirit testifying to you that God wants you to be baptized. Will you follow Jesus and be baptized?"  Or they might respond with something like "I don't really feel anything" and we would respond with "Do you think God would tell you if it was wrong? If you don't feel God telling you it is wrong, then it is right. That's the spirit."

It was a bit of a hard push sales approach. No question about it. It was definitely part of my mission culture, but also the mission culture of virtually all of my friends as well. After my mission I've served as ward mission leader, EQP, HPGL, Bishop, YMP, High Council and in all of these positions I had regular interaction with the missionaries. Except for the past 10 years where I've seen an easing away from this hard sales method, I remember many discussions with missionaries privately or in council meetings and they also had the expectation placed on them that they were to challenge for baptism by the end of the 2nd discussion UNLESS the spirit prompted them not to.

So when Elder Ballard says this...

...I have to wonder how honest he is being. He's been a part of the missionary committee. He was involved in the creation of Preach My Gospel. But he doesn't know where these practices began? I'm incredulous.

Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous? Yes, there's the caveat about feeling the spirit, but missionaries are trained and directed how to "help investigators recognize the spirit" and "overcome objections" which can become a manipulation of the investigator.

IF they really want to dramatically increase retention rates then there is a lot of work to do. Getting away from an almost blanket requirement of challenging people for baptism by lesson 2 is a very good start. But that good effort is overshadowed by a claim that "church leaders don't know where these practices began". Leaders have got to be better than that IMO.

I'm an old guy and served my mission in the mid-70s, back in the days of the 6 Discussions.  I recall that the first or second discussion contained a Mr. Brown question that didn't exactly challenge for baptism, but certainly raised the question of willingness to be baptized if and when the investigator gained a testimony.  The idea of actually challenging for baptism seemed to have been left to a later stage.  We only rarely got all the way to the 6th discussion, in Germany anyway, so I don't remember when that might have occurred.  It might also have been a "floating" option, for when it was appropriate.

My mission president wanted weekly reports, but nowhere near what yours asked for.

[Stargazer]

On 6/27/2019 at 5:42 PM, SettingDogStar said:

Yeah as much as I loved my mission a good portion of it was very much a numbers game. “Alright everyone if you set a baptismal goal for 2 this week and do it we’ll be a highest baptizing mission in the states!” “Set number goals and the lord will let you achieve those numbers.”

I always felt that was weird. I know the Lord can help us, but who cares about reaching a numbers goal? Does the lord really want you to say “I want two baptisms this week, give them to me, I have faith you can”? I feel like He just wants CONVERTED souls, even if it took you all two years to get someone a testimony. There was Such rush to baptize that while the convert wanted to be baptized i knew they didn’t really have a testimony, he/she was just happy with the missionaries and liked church BUT that isn’t enough. I felt very pressured.

I remember right before my new mission president came. My old one wanted us to have a really high baptism rate two transfers before so we looked really good for the new one coming it. I had a hard time because who cares how we look? Are we trying to impress someone else other then God?

Thankfully my two baptisms are active and married in the temple but it’s only because we worked with them for MONTHS. 

I had two baptisms, a family and a single older sister.  The sister had a testimony, but the ward she was baptized into had serious clique problems, and she got frozen out and went inactive.  The family stayed active, and the husband (who died two years ago) was serving in the branch presidency a few months after his baptism (as a priest, in fact), and just after I went home he was in the stake presidency. Later he was head of CES for southern Germany.  His last calling was bishop, which he was released from just a few months before he died.  And we had to work with them for a few MONTHS as well.  The Zone Leaders were after my companion and I to either dunk them or dump them -- but we told the ZLs to get bent.  Politely, of course!

[CV75]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

The instruction to invite to baptism is documented in the first and second discussions.  Those discussions were the inspired direction we received as missionaries from church headquarters?  Is it your assertion that the Brethren (including Elder Ballard who was an apostle when those discussions were in use) were unaware and/or unsupportive to the instructions in those discussion pamphlets?

But it is amusing to watch so many here place blame on everyone else rather than admit that one of the Brethren (who we claim to be fallible) had made an incorrect statement. 

Not at all, and I don’t see how get this from my posts. Please explain.

Your position actually illustrates and supports Elder Ballard’s take on things. As fallible as he is, his awareness and support of the instructions, and his awareness and disapproval of the misapplication, and not knowing or getting into the weeds over where those misapplications came from (which would irrelevant to his training message, evidently to your amusement), do not have a cause and effect relationship to each other.

You are saying that because he developed the instructions, he knows where the misapplication comes from. False! It’s like saying child baptism comes from the instructions in the New Testament, or killing your son comes from the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Nooooo… That is simply not how things work.

Insistent amusement by one’s own biased misconceptions of others, as evidenced in your post here, is something you should seriously reevaluate.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

No, I was not “mandated” nor is that the issue.  I am not accusing you of gaslighting not denying your recollection   I have focused on the actual content of the discussion pamphlets.

President Ballard’s statement is that it was never their intention to have investigators invited to be baptized before they were ready to make a lifelong commitment to follow Jesus Christ. He said that Church leaders don’t know where “these practices” began.  Yet the missionary discussions provided by the Brethren prior to PMG instructed that the baptismal invite should happen during the first or second discussion. So is the assertion here that investigators are ready for that lifelong commitment by the second time you meet with them?  If not, then we do know where these practices began:  the Church provided discussions.

It is certainly an allowance. I was converted and sought baptism before knowing the Church even had missionaries. So there! Also, many, many people have made this commitment in other religions prior to conversion to the Restored Church. Obviously President Ballard has a much deeper appreciation for others' faith journeys and capacity to commit to Christ than you do, so I think you owe it to yourself and to him to reevaluate your false understanding and accusations of his teachings and involvement with developing missionary materials.

Edited June 29, 2019 by CV75

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm an old guy and served my mission in the mid-70s, back in the days of the 6 Discussions.  I recall that the first or second discussion contained a Mr. Brown question that didn't exactly challenge for baptism, but certainly raised the question of willingness to be baptized if and when the investigator gained a testimony.  The idea of actually challenging for baptism seemed to have been left to a later stage.  We only rarely got all the way to the 6th discussion, in Germany anyway, so I don't remember when that might have occurred.  It might also have been a "floating" option, for when it was appropriate.

My mission president wanted weekly reports, but nowhere near what yours asked for.

It sounds like you served at roughly the same period I did and thus would have used the same set of discussions. Some have called them the “rainbow discussions” because each one was printed on a different color of paper for convenience in turning to them in the binder. There was a set of “ flip charts” to be used in association with them as visual aids in presenting them to investigators.

They contained a section of scripted dialogue called “the Baptismal Challenge.” It was, as you say, “floating,” meaning that the missionaries were to use it whenever they thought the investigator was ready for it. There was no implication or presumption that the missionaries would use it at any hard-and-fast, preset point in the sequence of discussions. 

Edited June 29, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[CV75]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I didn’t say the invitation was required.  But the recommendation to invite to baptism was there. 

President Ballard claims that they don’t know where the practices of early baptism invites came from — there’s the answer:  they came from the suggestion that was in the discussions. 

President Ballard claims that such early invitations were never their intention and yet they published those discussions. 

The improper practices concern pressuring others (leaders to missionaries, missionaries to investigators, etc.) and worldly motives (sifting, numbers strategies, etc.), not when to invite to baptism (especially in the way it is taught to be done), which should never be delayed.