Ballard- Baptismal Challenge

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

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

Reference, please?

[SettingDogStar]

10 minutes 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.

We were told this follow up shouldn’t be any more then a text, phone call, or message, not a visit. I know it says visit but I’ve never really seen a “follow up visit” happen. Either we went over to teach another lesson or, if after we got there, we discovered that they really didn’t know what was going on, we’d retwaxh principles.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

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:

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:

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.

Ok, I will play your game.  I grew up in California.  When I was a pre teen, missionaries had this program where we could invite our friends to come to the church on Saturdays, the kids would be taught a (missionary) lesson and then the missionaries took them all to a public swimming pool where we could swim for the rest of the afternoon.  They would ask the parents of these kids if they could baptism them.  If the parents agreed, then the kid would be baptized.  

Where do you think these missionaries got this idea?  Do you think the mission president had any idea this was going on?  Do you think that this particular mission was the only mission in the church doing these kinds of baptisms?

When I went on my mission, we had the Mr. Brown discussions that we were expected to learn word for word.  As you mentioned, the first discussion included an invitation to be baptized IF prompted by the Spirit.  The second discussion had an invitation to be baptized as part of the script whether prompted or not.  And a date for that baptism was given.  Something like If yes, We are having a baptism on ________date.  If you come to know these things are true, will you be baptized on that date.

Now I am going to quote Elder Ballard

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.”

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.

 

So do you think you could at least give a suggestion to Elder Ballard where this idea to extend an invitation to be baptized came from? Were the missionaries working in a complete vacuum when they were inviting people to be baptized before the person knew much about the gospel or were ready. to make a life long commitment to the Church?

Evidently you didn't like my answer that it just possibly might have come from church leaders.  So I am more than willing to hear where you think this idea came from.  

Edited June 30, 2019 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

We were told this follow up shouldn’t be any more then a text, phone call, or message, not a visit. I know it says visit but I’ve never really seen a “follow up visit” happen.

Interesting. We always had follow-up visits between discussions -- often several if that was what was needed. Who was telling you not to follow what the Missionary Guide clearly taught?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

So I am more than willing to hear where you think this idea came from.  

I have no idea where it came from either. In my mission, we simply followed the Missionary Guide and, as a consequence, everything you've just described is completely alien to me. My mission president arrived three months before I did, and he told us he'd been instructed to cleanse the mission of any locally produced guides. It must have worked because we just used what the Church gave us. And I think I've quoted enough from the Missionary Guide to indicate what Church leaders were trying to get the missionaries to do.

[SettingDogStar]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interesting. We always had follow-up visits between discussions -- often several if that was what was needed. Who was telling you not to follow what the Missionary Guide clearly taught?

Both mission presidents I had. We had iPads and I think their intent was for us to use them to contact and do “follow ups” simultaneously, asking if they kept commitments and encouraging them to do so everyday. We could effectively follow up with 8-10 people a day without leaving the church building or biking miles for a 20min Checkup.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

Both mission presidents I had.

Interesting. One of the things I really valued in my mission president (I only had the one) was his simplicity in just repeating what was already in the Church's guidelines.

Quote

We could effectively follow up with 8-10 people a day without leaving the church building or biking miles for a 20min Checkup.

By 'effectively', did you feel like you had a good sense of whether a person was ready for another discussion and its additional commitments (including baptism) in this way?

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have no idea where it came from either. In my mission, we simply followed the Missionary Guide and, as a consequence, everything you've just described is completely alien to me. My mission president arrived three months before I did, and he told us he'd been instructed to cleanse the mission of any locally produced guides. It must have worked because we just used what the Church gave us. And I think I've quoted enough from the Missionary Guide to indicate what Church leaders were trying to get the missionaries to do.

NO IDEA?  Not even a guess?  "We just don't know?"  We just don't know where the priesthood ban came from?  We just don't know where this idea the Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from the Golden Plates instead of a stone in a hat? We just don't know why members didn't know Joseph Smith was going around marrying 14 year old girls and other men's wives?  And now, we just don't know where missionaries got this idea to invite people to be baptized before they knew much about the gospel?

Give me your best shot.  Where do you possible think these missionaries would dream up such a crazy idea to invite someone to be baptized before they knew very much at all about the gospel.  Before they knew about the Word of Wisdom.  Before they knew about the Atonement.  Before they knew about the Plan of Salvation.  Before they knew about the temple ordinances and covenants.  Before they knew about tithing.  

[SettingDogStar]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Interesting. One of the things I really valued in my mission president (I only had the one) was his simplicity in just repeating what was already in the Church's guidelines.

By 'effectively', did you feel like you had a good sense of whether a person was ready for another discussion and its additional commitments (including baptism) in this way?

Usually. If they we’re keeping commitments then we’d support them and setup a meeting, if they weren’t we’d give them some leeway and eventually setup a visit to better explain why. Sometimes we’d just keep teaching the lessons because we felt they needed to hear more to perk their interest. 

A lot of my mission was in a church building because it was easier to teach over Skype, FaceTime, and messages. We’d teach 6-7 people a day that way for months...made it a lot easier then biking in the Arizona heat back and forth between housesz

Edit: admittedly we’d try to do this in the High council room or another room that was not usually accessed through the week. Many Members weren’t very approving of the way our mission used technology (I didn’t enjoy a lot of it either) and would often get upset when they found us sitting at the church on our devices. Since they couldn’t see what we were doing they assumed we were just goofing off lol 

Edited June 30, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Hamba Tuhan]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

One of the things I really valued in my mission president (I only had the one) was his simplicity in just repeating what was already in the Church's guidelines.

I just did a Google image search and found a comic that the Missionary Department sent my mission president, and which he then reprinted in our mission newsletter. I wish I could remember exactly how the captions had all been altered, but I remember the last one was 'What the First Presidency wanted'.

[Hamba Tuhan]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

And now, we just don't know where missionaries got this idea to invite people to be baptized before they knew much about the gospel?

Do you actually know what the word gospel means?

Quote

 Before they knew about the Atonement.

Did you personally invite people to be baptised before they knew about the Atonement???

Edited June 30, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

A lot of my mission was in a church building because it was easier to teach over Skype, FaceTime, and messages. We’d teach 6-7 people a day that way for months...made it a lot easier then biking in the Arizona heat back and forth between housesz

I don't have any inherent objections to technology, and on more than one occasion, I've had missionaries pull me into a lesson using Facebook. But I'm just not certain I personally would have understood where an investigator was without being present with her or him.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Do you actually know what the word gospel means?

Did you personally invite people to be baptised before they knew about the Atonement???

Since you didn’t respond to any of my questions, I am just going to assume you really can’t answer them.  I can understand why.  

‘I did as the church discussions instructed me to do. I invited investigators to be baptized and set a date on the second discussion. The discussion on the atonement comes after the second discussion.

i was a very successful missionary. One of the top baptizing missionaries both years of my mission. I served in New Zealand North Mission.  I was one of two missionaries that had at least one baptism every month my first year.  I was a district leader 4 month into my mission and a zone leader after being out 9 months.  I kept the mission rules to the letter and expected those missionaries under my stewardship to do the same. We always taught all 6 lessons and investigators had to attend church at least one time before baptism. As zone leader I interviewed each investigator before baptism. If they didn’t believe the church was true, hadn’t completed the discussions or attended church at least once they weren’t baptized. Yes I wanted to be the top baptizing zone every week.  Often we were.  Baptizing is what missionaries did back then. It was their main focus. It was the wards job to fellowship and keep new members active. A missionary may be transferred without much notice. ALL of this is separate to the question of how soon an investigator was invited to be baptized.  That invitation to be baptized was always given by the 2nd discussion.  I was not some rogue missionary flying by the seat of my pants.  If Elder Ballard asked me where I got the idea to invite an investigator before they knew much about the church, I would have opened my discussion book and show him.  

Edited June 30, 2019 by california boy

[Hamba Tuhan]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Since you didn’t respond to any of my questions, I am just going to assume you really can’t answer them. 

I can think of an alternative explanation, but I'm sure you prefer yours. 

Quote

The discussion on the atonement comes after the second discussion.

You didn't teach about Jesus Christ until after the second lesson? What did you teach in those early lessons?

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

In the summer of 2001, Sister Oaks and I were in Manaus, Brazil. I spoke to about 100 missionaries in that great city on the Amazon. As I stood to speak, I was prompted to put aside some notes I usually use on such occasions and substitute some thoughts on the importance of timing—some of the scriptures and principles I have been discussing here.

I reminded the missionaries that some of our most important plans cannot be brought to pass without the agency and actions of others. A missionary cannot baptize five persons this month without the agency and action of five other persons. A missionary can plan and work and do all within his or her power, but the desired result will depend upon the additional agency and action of others.

Consequently, a missionary’s goals ought to be based upon the missionary’s personal agency and action, not upon the agency or action of others.

Then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks (October 2003), "Timing," Ensign, accessed on line at the following address on June 30, 2019: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2003/10/timing?lang=eng.

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

I wrote the following in my missionary journal (I served from November 1988-November 1990.  Got home on Thanksgiving Day.   Pretty cool.)
 

Quote

 

OCEANSIDE, CALIF. – My purpose as a missionary is to bring souls unto Christ, however that may be done.  To touch hearts, minds, souls, and lives, and to bring them [by the Spirit] as close as possible to Christ.

As I lead, some may only desire to come so close to Him; not as close as they could be or should be, but the greatest gift we have been given is the ability to choose.  That is their choice.

Still others will desire to come as close to Him as they can, in which case I will be privileged to teach them His plan, lead them through the gate of baptism into His Church, and give them the gift of His Spirit to guide them along the path to Him.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I can think of an alternative explanation, but I'm sure you prefer yours. 

You didn't teach about Jesus Christ until after the second lesson? What did you teach in those early lessons?

I followed the missionary discussions given to me by the Church.  There was a time in my life where I did exactly what Church leaders asked of me.  I believed they were lead by God and being obedient was what Christ expected of me.  That ended up being a huge mistake for me.  

Edited June 30, 2019 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/28/2019 at 5:58 PM, Avatar4321 said:

I still suck.

Ive been sharing the gospel with people for years. Only had one person get baptized and that was more the elders

Your job is to stand as a witness ... period.  Come what may ... or not.  No one who stands as a witness "sucks."  Moroni stood as a witness.  As a missionary, in terms of sheer numbers, Moroni "sucked."  His efforts to exhort his nearly-totally-apostate nation to faithfulness bore little, if any, fruit.  Yet how many millions of people have been brought unto Christ through his efforts to compile and preserve the Book of Mormon?

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Reference, please?

The discussions and the Missionary Guide.  The only qualifier for when to teach the next discussion is that they’ve kept their commitments. 

[rockpond]

55 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Your job is to stand as a witness ... period.  Come what may ... or not.  No one who stands as a witness "sucks."  Moroni stood as a witness.  As a missionary, in terms of sheer numbers, Moroni "sucked."  His efforts to exhort his nearly-totally-apostate nation to faithfulness bore little, if any, fruit.  Yet how many millions of people have been brought unto Christ through his efforts to compile and preserve the Book of Mormon?

Beautiful answer @Kenngo1969

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

There was a time in my life where I did exactly what Church leaders asked of me.  

More accurately that would be put there was a time in your life where you did exactly what you thought Church leaders asked of you, I believe.

[Rain]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

NO IDEA?  Not even a guess?  "We just don't know?"  We just don't know where the priesthood ban came from?  We just don't know where this idea the Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from the Golden Plates instead of a stone in a hat? We just don't know why members didn't know Joseph Smith was going around marrying 14 year old girls and other men's wives?  And now, we just don't know where missionaries got this idea to invite people to be baptized before they knew much about the gospel?

 

I get what you are saying. I think it was worded poorly, but then like others have said, we really need to see what came before this quote (unless I have missed it). 

There are few that would argue that missionaries often thought we needed to extend that invitation in the first or second discussion because of what they read in the discussions. 

The problem that I see is this discussion is not really about that for most defenders. It is first about whether Elder Ballard is being honest and second about whether the church taught missionaries to commit people before they were ready. 

I am seeing a real pattern in OPs on this board and talked about it on another thread. I've given it a name this morning.

The Negative Conclusion Pattern - "I see this. It means the church/leader is bad."

If Hamba (obviously reputation affects our feelings about OP so I am using someone that most see as "faithful") had  started this thread with "Do you think missionaries got the idea 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" because the invitation was in the 1st/2nd discussions?

If I had been talking with Hamba then I totally would have said yes and then shared with him my experiences and frustrations over missionaries that felt they had to do it that way.

But the OP started out with "I have to wonder how honest he (Ballard) is being...Can someone please help me understand how he could make a statement like this and millions of members not view it as disingenuous?"

Could the conclusion have been that it was poorly worded instead? 

 

 

6 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Give me your best shot.  Where do you possible think these missionaries would dream up such a crazy idea to invite someone to be baptized before they knew very much at all about the gospel.  Before they knew about the Word of Wisdom.  Before they knew about the Atonement.  Before they knew about the Plan of Salvation.  Before they knew about the temple ordinances and covenants.  Before they knew about tithing.  

 

 

 

[SettingDogStar]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

More accurately that would be put there was a time in your life where you did exactly what you thought Church leaders asked of you, I believe.

I mean there was a time where I did that too. I did exactly what was asked of me, especially of on my mission, and disregarded any written instructions because I was told their revelation trumped written word.

[Rain]

Found this thesis. I am finding it enlightening. Have only read to page 9 so far, but would like to quit for awhile this morning so I can pay attention to personal matters. In the meantime I thought some of you like to read it: An historical analysis of how Preach My Gospel came to be.

It is a .pdf so you might find it easier to read on the computer.

[SettingDogStar]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Found this thesis. I am finding it enlightening. Have only read to page 9 so far, but would like to quit for awhile this morning so I can pay attention to personal matters. In the meantime I thought some of you like to read it: An historical analysis of how Preach My Gospel came to be.

It is a .pdf so you might find it easier to read on the computer.

I got to read an original unpublishable copy of it on my mish. Tracy Watson came down and was having a meeting about adding some new chapters to the PMG and brought it with him for reference, it was the first copy he printed for the Church to check. I liked the unpublished version better but it was also covered in his notes, so that made it better.