Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[Hamba Tuhan]

I simply cannot follow all the toing-and-froing on this thread, but I did serve a mission in the pre-Preach My Gospel days, and we used the MIssionary Guide, first published in 1988. We dutifully studied from this manual seven mornings each week, and it was the source for what the Church wanted me to understand about my calling as a missionary.

This manual is actually archived online.

P. 53 includes a couple of situations the effectiveness of which the missionaries are asked to evaluate. The first situation is quoted below:

Quote

The missionaries are teaching Hal Loomis. He was somewhat receptive to the message presented in the first discussion. He accepted the commitment to read the Book of Mormon and pray. When the missionaries arrive to teach the second discussion, they learn that he has not yet read or prayed. They proceed to teach the second discussion, however. When they invite him to be baptized, he politely declines. The missionaries then ask for a return appointment.

The Guide's assessment of this situation is as follows:

Quote

Less effective. The missionaries should have continued to prepare Hal by reading the Book of Mormon and praying with him.

This seems to be illustrative of everything else I have just reviewed in the Missionary Guide, and it certainly matches exactly my memory of what this book taught me as a missionary.

For example, on p. 12:

Quote

What is important is for you to see conversion from an eternal perspective. Realize that as you help people feel the Spirit, develop faith, repent, become converted, and be baptized, you are helping them return to live with our Heavenly Father.

And this, from p. 145:

Quote

Extend invitations that show love and respect for investigators. Remember that you are not trying to get them to do something for you. You are trying to help bring into their lives the blessings that can only come as they obey God's commandments. Respect others' free agency when you ask them to make commitments. You cannot force or try to push someone into making a commitment. Extend invitations in a spirit of love ... less effective invitations are pushy, manipulative, and disrespectful.

The concept that people must be prepared to feel the Spirit before they can be invited to make a commitment -- any commitment -- is repeated many dozens of times, including at the beginning of every subsection.

I'm actually starting to wonder if part of the problem is that other missionaries maybe didn't study the Missionary Guide daily as instructed. It's pretty clear ...

Edited June 29, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Stargazer]

On 6/27/2019 at 6:13 PM, The Nehor said:

The numbers reporting was always funny and I get why it was done but I just developed a sense of humor about it. Our mission president wanted 14 discussions a week but you could count each person you taught (designed to encourage teaching families I suppose) and if we were short we would head out to the lamp post at the end of the streets where the high school kids would hang out and chat with them and teach them something about the gospel (usually with subtlety) while they asked questions about where we were from.

I think my favorite satire of numbers was one evening we came home at the end of a P-Day after being out as a group to visit less actives in the evening. There were four elders at the house and the District Leader told his junior companion to “hold me accountable” (basically just a report) for what my companionship had gotten done. He was a hilarious Spanish guy who was still learning English and had a beautiful Spanish accent. Anyways he grabbed two chairs and put them in the middle of the living room with mock gravity:

“Elder, please sit down......Now, how many people did you date for baptism today?”

He got out his blue planner as if to record the number.

”None”

With deep sarcasm he responded: “None?” He then leapt to his feet and threw the chair out from under him and got in my face yelling,

“What the HELL are you doing out there? You are supposed to be working!”

I tried to keep a straight face and played along: “Elder, you were with me all evening and we were only out for a few hours to fulfill some requests from the bishop to visit people”

”Ohhhhhhh! Essssscuses, escuses! Tired of your escuses!”

At this point we both broke down laughing.

I also had a Zone Leader that seemed to think we all needed long alternately haranguing or flattering sermons for motivation every night. I would pick up the phone, do the start of the conversation, and let him get started and then put down the receiver on the table next to the bed where I could not hear it and let him do his thing while I read the scriptures or planned while he droned on. I suspect he is probably an MLM Guy now or maybe he got better.

This reminds me of something Victor Suvorov (pseudonym of a Soviet defector) wrote about when he arrived in Vienna in his first (and last) assignment as a GRU agent overseas.  He had just got off Aeroflot, was driven to the Soviet embassy, and the first thing that happened to him was that the second-in-command GRU agent asked him how many agents he had recruited (in the brief time since getting off the plane and being driven to the embassy). He said "None" of course, and got reamed out about how he had better shape up or they'd ship him out in disgrace on the next plane!  

I say "and last" assignment because after a year of being a military intelligence agent he defected to the British.

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

The 'discussions' that I used -- actually called the Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, if I remember correctly -- had an invitation to be baptised at the end of the second lesson. But as I noted above, the Missionary Guide clearly taught that we weren't supposed to even teach that lesson unless an investigator was already keeping earlier commitments and thus beginning to experience conversion.

[Amulek]

5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The 'discussions' that I used -- actually called the Uniform System for Teaching the Gospel, if I remember correctly -- had an invitation to be baptised at the end of the second lesson. But as I noted above, the Missionary Guide clearly taught that we weren't supposed to even teach that lesson unless an investigator was already keeping earlier commitments and thus beginning to experience conversion.

Exactly. The problem isn't that there was an invitation to baptism at the end of the second discussion; the problem was that missionaries just plowed through the lessons to get to that point and then asked the question, regardless of whether the investigator was ready or not; regardless of whether they had been keeping commitments or not; regardless of whether they had a religious experience or not.

 

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Yes, and no.  The rainbow set was something that came in during the last six months or so of my mission.  Until then we used the classic Uniform System with its six discussions.  Transitioning to the rainbow set completely torpedoed our productivity as a mission for a couple of months.  It might have been easy in English, but we had a tough row to hoe in German.  

As for visual aids, the Uniform System came with flannel board figures.  And that was how I was taught, in 1965-66.  But in the German missions we were encouraged to not use the flannel board figures because they came across to the Germans very negatively.  Like really dumb and insulting of intelligence.

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Yes, that's how I remember it with the rainbow.  The Uniform System had specific baptismal "challenges", except that they were rather soft, as I recall.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I simply cannot follow all the toing-and-froing on this thread, but I did serve a mission in the pre-Preach My Gospel days, and we used the MIssionary Guide, first published in 1988. We dutifully studied from this manual seven mornings each week, and it was the source for what the Church wanted me to understand about my calling as a missionary.

This manual is actually archived online.

P. 53 includes a couple of situations the effectiveness of which the missionaries are asked to evaluate. The first situation is quoted below:

The Guide's assessment of this situation is as follows:

This seems to be illustrative of everything else I have just reviewed in the Missionary Guide, and it certainly matches exactly my memory of what this book taught me as a missionary.

For example, on p. 12:

And this, from p. 145:

The concept that people must be prepared to feel the Spirit before they can be invited to make a commitment -- any commitment -- is repeated many dozens of times, including at the beginning of every subsection.

I'm actually starting to wonder if part of the problem is that other missionaries maybe didn't study the Missionary Guide daily as instructed. It's pretty clear ...

Honestly, this is what is so infuriating about the Church.  You are about 20 years late.  The original discussions had no qualifiers about the Spirit.  It was just part of the dialogue you were suppose to present.  And even if that was not the case.  Elder Ballards question of where did this early commitment to be baptized come from question?  IT CAME FROM THE MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS. It didn't come from the Seventh Day Adventists or some anti Mormon group or some wayward mission president.  The IDEA came from the missionary department.  To pretend that it just materialized out of thin air is so disingenuous. Seriously.  It is like asking where Church members got the idea that Joseph Smith used the Golden Plates to translate the Book of Mormon instead  of some stone in a hat.  Where oh where did members get the idea that the Golden Plates were actually used????  Where oh where did the missionaries get the idea to commit people to baptism before they finished the second discussion?  Oh I have no idea.  It must have happened out of thin air.  

And church leaders wonder why they are loosing credibility.

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

This thread has already documented the instruction to invite to baptism in the first or second discussion from the discussions that were in use in the 80’s and 90’s. 

President Ballard was called into the Quorum of the 12 in 1985. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

We aren’t discussing how the instructions may or may not have been applied/misapplied.  The instructions in the discussions contradict President Ballard’s claim. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I think he’s done outstanding work with developing missionary materials (to whatever extent he was involved with those).  I loved the discussions I used during my mission and the missionary guide (which I dutifully studied daily).  And I love PMG — even though I didn’t have that as a missionary, I’ve spent much time studying from it in my callings with the young me.

All I’m focused on is that we DO know where the early invite practices came from. 

What he could have said:

We regret that our previously published discussions encouraged missionaries to invite investigators to be baptized before they had learned of the gospel and were ready for such a lifelong commitment.  This is something we’ve sought to improve with PMG and I can tell you now that it is not our intent to invite to baptism before...

 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Honestly, this is what is so infuriating about the Church.  You are about 20 years late.  The original discussions had no qualifiers about the Spirit.  It was just part of the dialogue you were suppose to present.  And even if that was not the case.  Elder Ballards question of where did this early commitment to be baptized come from question?  IT CAME FROM THE MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS. It didn't come from the Seventh Day Adventists or some anti Mormon group or some wayward mission president.  The IDEA came from the missionary department.  To pretend that it just materialized out of thin air is so disingenuous. Seriously.  It is like asking where Church members got the idea that Joseph Smith used the Golden Plates to translate the Book of Mormon instead  of some stone in a hat.  Where oh where did members get the idea that the Golden Plates were actually used????  Where oh where did the missionaries get the idea to commit people to baptism before they finished the second discussion?  Oh I have no idea.  It must have happened out of thin air.  

And church leaders wonder why they are loosing credibility.

Exactly. Even if the “by the spirit” qualifier had always been there the idea for inviting on the first lesson came from the discussions. Whether this was taught incorrectly by MPs or other missionaries doesn’t matter much, the concept developed from the discussions.

People have a tenedency to take plain instructions and “check list”. It’s what cursed the Israelites and the Mormons do it too. When we see the invitation to baptism in the first lesson eventually we start putting in the checklist as an essential part of the lesson.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

This thread has already documented the instruction to invite to baptism in the first or second discussion from the discussions that were in use in the 80’s and 90’s. 

President Ballard was called into the Quorum of the 12 in 1985. 

OK, I looked back at the documentation. I’m seeing things like this:

QUOTE: “As you are prompted by the Spirit, this may be an appropriate time to invite the investigators to be baptized.”

This does not say what you are claiming. The invitation is only to be given <as promoted by the Spirit>. That is, when the Spirit tells you the investigator is ready, presumably having learned sufficiently, felt spiritual experiences, etc. and it says it “may be an appropriate time,” not that it has to happen right then and there. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

Exactly. Even if the “by the spirit” qualifier had always been there the idea for inviting on the first lesson came from the discussions. Whether this was taught incorrectly by MPs or other missionaries doesn’t matter much, the concept developed from the discussions.

People have a tenedency to take plain instructions and “check list”. It’s what cursed the Israelites and the Mormons do it too. When we see the invitation to baptism in the first lesson eventually we start putting in the checklist as an essential part of the lesson.

I think it matters a great deal that some people in the past did not follow instructions properly and are now getting mad at President Ballard, impugning his honesty, etc. for trying to do a course correction. 

[SettingDogStar]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it matters a great deal that some people in the past did not follow instructions properly and are now getting mad at President Ballard, impugning his honesty, etc. for trying to do a course correction. 

You're right. It does matter a lot that people didn't follow instructions, it caused many people to be baptized that maybe shouldn't have been. I agree strongly with Elder Ballards correction and I think it's so important! However we are noting that it's obvious where it started, it started with the instructions in the discussions. While he might confused as to why people ignored the "by the spirit" qualifier it should not be confusing as to where they maybe got the idea, an incorrect application of the instructions right there in the lessons.

The Lord said to the Israelites to do certain things to remember Him. They saw the instructions, they understood at first how important it was to remember the Savior, but they eventually forgot. Eventually doing the rituals became more important then remembering why they were doing them. However God would never say "where did you get the idea that the rituals were more important then me?", He knew where they got the idea even if it was a wrong interpretation. It wasn't Gods fault that they misinterpreted the law however, and its not Ballards fault that many ignored the instructions. 

[Calm]

Not going to check thread so this may be repeat...

Updated version online, title page says version is 3/19

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

[CV75]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

We aren’t discussing how the instructions may or may not have been applied/misapplied.  The instructions in the discussions contradict President Ballard’s claim. 

President Ballard is commenting on the misapplication of the instructions per the given examples, truthfully saying we don't know where those misapplications of the instructions came from. And yes, of course you are discussing a complete misconstruction of that. And the instructions don not say that we do know where misapplication comes from.

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think he’s done outstanding work with developing missionary materials (to whatever extent he was involved with those).  I loved the discussions I used during my mission and the missionary guide (which I dutifully studied daily).  And I love PMG — even though I didn’t have that as a missionary, I’ve spent much time studying from it in my callings with the young me.

All I’m focused on is that we DO know where the early invite practices came from. 

What he could have said:

We regret that our previously published discussions encouraged missionaries to invite investigators to be baptized before they had learned of the gospel and were ready for such a lifelong commitment.  This is something we’ve sought to improve with PMG and I can tell you now that it is not our intent to invite to baptism before...

Your suggestion would result in his telling an untruth to conform with to your misconstruction.

Edited June 30, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Not going to check thread so this may be repeat...

Updated version online, title page says version is 3/19

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/lesson-1-the-message-of-the-restoration-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

Invitation to Be Baptized

As directed by the Spirit, during this or any other lesson, do not hesitate to invite people to be baptized and confirmed.

To prepare people for an invitation to be baptized and confirmed, teach the doctrine of baptism and testify often of the importance of all people being baptized by authority, of receiving a remission of sins, and of the wonderful gift of the Holy Ghost. You might say, “As the Lord answers your prayers and you feel that this message is true, will you follow the example of Jesus Christ by being baptized?”

The invitation to be baptized and confirmed should be specific and direct: “Will you follow the example of Jesus Christ by being baptized by someone holding the priesthood authority of God? We will be holding a baptismal service on (date). Will you prepare yourself to be baptized on that date?”

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let's see how many ways this will be misapplied -- but hopefully with continued training and learning, there will be less of that!

 

[mrmarklin]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it matters a great deal that some people in the past did not follow instructions properly and are now getting mad at President Ballard, impugning his honesty, etc. for trying to do a course correction. 

No one is impugning his honesty. But it is a fact that in the sixties there was a challenge to baptism midway through the first discussion. He has obviously forgotten this.  But it was surely generally known.  He served as a mission president from 1974  

 

He he was a mature adult during this time, albeit not called as an apostle. And he’s been a GA since the seventies. 

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

You're right. It does matter a lot that people didn't follow instructions, it caused many people to be baptized that maybe shouldn't have been. I agree strongly with Elder Ballards correction and I think it's so important! However we are noting that it's obvious where it started, it started with the instructions in the discussions. While he might confused as to why people ignored the "by the spirit" qualifier it should not be confusing as to where they maybe got the idea, an incorrect application of the instructions right there in the lessons.

The Lord said to the Israelites to do certain things to remember Him. They saw the instructions, they understood at first how important it was to remember the Savior, but they eventually forgot. Eventually doing the rituals became more important then remembering why they were doing them. However God would never say "where did you get the idea that the rituals were more important then me?", He knew where they got the idea even if it was a wrong interpretation. It wasn't Gods fault that they misinterpreted the law however, and its not Ballards fault that many ignored the instructions. 

No, it started with the Restoration. No wait, it started with "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 

Which of the following should President Ballard have committed himself as actually knowing, and providing a discourse in this setting "where they maybe got the idea": evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils? (D&C 46:7).  Especially knowing that "...I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may [misconstrue apostolic instruction]; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." (Mosiah 4: 29).

[SettingDogStar]

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, it started with the Restoration. No wait, it started with "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 

Which of the following should President Ballard have committed himself as actually knowing, and providing a discourse in this setting "where they maybe got the idea": evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils? (D&C 46:7).  Especially knowing that "...I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may [misconstrue apostolic instruction]; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them." (Mosiah 4: 29).

I meant the practice of inviting people to be baptized before they’ve felt the spirit. That practice is a bad practice, it’s not what God wants. You should know these things are true before you commit to God.

This bad practice started because of misapplication of invitations written in the discussions given to missionaries. That’s all.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

No one is impugning his honesty

Sure doesn’t seem that way to me:

”have to wonder how honest he is being....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?”

”Honestly, this is what is so infuriating about the Church.... Elder Ballards question of where did this early commitment to be baptized come from question?  IT CAME FROM THE MISSIONARY DISCUSSIONS.... The IDEA came from the missionary department.  To pretend that it just materialized out of thin air is so disingenuous....

And church leaders wonder why they are loosing credibility.”

”Ballard is old enough to know this.  Hence, I think he is being disingenuous.“

——

“Use the adjective disingenuous to describe behavior that's not totally honest or sincere.”

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/disingenuous

Edited June 30, 2019 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Where oh where did the missionaries get the idea to commit people to baptism before they finished the second discussion?  Oh I have no idea.

You are conflating two things. As I've pointed out, the standard place to issue a baptismal invitation when I was serving was at the very end of the second discussion. Is anyone contesting this? But that's not what Elder Ballard was criticising. Quoting from the article:

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.”

Inviting people to be baptised at the end of the second discussion does not in any way equal inviting 'people to be baptized during the first lesson or even the first contact'. It is specifically these practices regarding which the article states in the very next sentence:

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. 

This means that before people should be invited to be baptised, they should have learnt 'something about the gospel' -- note that he did not say 'everything' -- had experiences with the Holy Ghost (revelation), and were willing to accept a lifelong commitment to follow the Saviour.

Now, I fully expect you and others to argue that inviting people to be baptised at the end of the second discussion didn't meet these criteria, either, but that was not my experience. The first discussion taught people about God and Christ, about revelation to prophets, about prayer and personal revelation, and about the Book of Mormon. People were then invited to read the Book of Mormon for themselves and to pray about both it and what else they had been taught, i.e., to begin to receive personal revelation.

I've already quoted the MIssionary Guide above where missionaries were instructed not to even proceed to the second discussion if an investigator wasn't already engaging in this process. And that's exactly what my companions and I would do. We didn't even try to teach a second discussion until investigators were earnestly reading the Book of Mormon, praying, and beginning to receive answers. This instruction is right there in the Guide.

We should not ignore that when investigators read from the Book of Mormon and engage in sincere prayer, the learning shifts from the missionaries to personal revelation anyway. I used to love watching this happen! I remember going back to teach C------- S---- a second discussion. We had been reading the Book of Mormon with her, and she had been reading it on her own over several days as well. We asked her what she'd been learning as she'd read and prayed.

She told us that she'd been reading in Alma 40 and had come to verse 11 and these words: 'Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life'.

'It seems to me', she said tentatively, 'that we can't be "taken home" to somewhere we've never been before. So I prayed about this verse, and now I'm wondering if what I'm feeling deeply is true, that we lived with God before we were born'. Once we'd confirmed that impression for her, she was excited that she was indeed receiving revelation, and we knew she was ready to be taught more.

And then there was E---- B---, who every single lesson would teach us the doctrine, and we'd just nod along and let her know that she was right. But I digress.

My point is that, as instructed in the Missionary Guide, we only taught second discussions to people who were learning something about the gospel and having personal experiences with the Holy Ghost. Then, during that lesson, we would teach further about faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and enduring to the end by making a lifelong commitment to follow the Saviour. It was only at that point that we invited people to be baptised.

In other words, by following what was written in the Missionary Guide, we did exactly what Elder Ballard said should be happening.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK, I looked back at the documentation. I’m seeing things like this:

QUOTE: “As you are prompted by the Spirit, this may be an appropriate time to invite the investigators to be baptized.”

This does not say what you are claiming. The invitation is only to be given <as promoted by the Spirit>. That is, when the Spirit tells you the investigator is ready, presumably having learned sufficiently, felt spiritual experiences, etc. and it says it “may be an appropriate time,” not that it has to happen right then and there. 

That’s the first discussion (“as you are prompted by the Spirit”).  The second discussion (late 80’s version) page 2-20 states “Unless otherwise prompted by the Spirit, you should at this point invite the investigators to be baptized on a specific date.”

For those serving in the same timeframe I did, using these discussions, this would be where the practice of early baptismal invites originated.  At this point in the discussions it could have been the second time we had ever met the investigator and they might not have attended church yet.  President Ballard was a member of the Quorum of the 12 at the time these were published. 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

President Ballard is commenting on the misapplication of the instructions per the given examples, truthfully saying we don't know where those misapplications of the instructions came from. And yes, of course you are discussing a complete misconstruction of that. And the instructions don not say that we do know where misapplication comes from.

Your suggestion would result in his telling an untruth to conform with to your misconstruction.

See my response to Scott above.  I have quoted where the second discussion instructs missionaries to invite the investigators to be baptized unless the Spirit prompts otherwise. 

Again, any misapplication is irrelevant. We do know where these practices began - they began based on the instructions in the discussions that did not put the qualifiers that he now wants (listed in his quote in the OP) on the baptismal invite. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

At this point in the discussions it could have been the second time we had ever met the investigator ...

Not if you were following the instructions in the Missionary Guide, which were to hold follow-up visits between discussions:

'Follow up with investigators between discussion appointments. After telling them that you want to follow up, make specific plans for a follow-up visit. Set a specific day and time when you can meet again' (p. 155). 

Coupled with the instruction, quoted above, that one shouldn't progress to the next discussion until an investigator is keeping commitments, this means that, at a minimum, the second discussion would have been the third time that you had ever met the investigator, and you would already know what has been happening as the person has read the Book of Mormon and sought personal revelation through prayer.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Not if you were following the instructions in the MIssionary Guide, which were to hold follow-up visits between discussions:

'Follow up with investigators between discussion appointments. After telling them that you want to follow up, make specific plans for a follow-up visit. Set a specific day and time when you can meet again' (p. 155). 

Coupled with the instruction, quoted above, that one shouldn't progress to the next discussion until an investigator is keeping commitments, this means that, at a minimum, the second discussion would have been the third time that you had ever met the investigator, and you would already know what has been happening as the person has read the Book of Mormon and sought personal revelation through prayer.

If they have kept their commitments, you can teach the second discussion at that follow up visit.