Returned Missionaries Weigh in On President Ballard’s Recent Comments on the Baptismal Invitation


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You still see it. Why I remember just a bit back (which may mean within a year or two) someone using an appeal to authority argument with said authority being having acquired the position of AP on their mission!

Everyone knows APs are and always will be infallible 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

MOE, you were there. You experienced such ideas. Do you know where the practices began? I don't. They obviously began some time ago, but I (and obviously the apostles) don't know when or where. The point being, we can't point to Elder So-and-So of the Twelve in 1968 who first instructed the missionaries at the LTM to invite on the first discussion or something of the sort. It's one of those practices that had some nebulous beginning and just sort of picked up steam, without being quashed (or perhaps even fully recognized) by Church leadership. Now it's being quashed. Instead of the incessant fault-finding, let's just be glad.

I even said as much earlier: 

 

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I can believe that no one knows or remembers where the early invitation started. 

I was not trying to express my own feeling in that particular post, but speculating on where a lot of the angst is coming from.  Sorry to not be clear.

 

But I will stand by my statements so far.  Taken all together, 

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,”

comes off to me as "we don't know where it started. But we condoned it. But we didn't really mean it."  ('it' being early invitations)

 

But I will concede that the statement is so vague that it's incredibly easy to insert whatever biases and interpretations you want into it.  Which is a problem for the present discussion and could easily turn into a problem for implementation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Vort said:

I disagree. Having been taught about God, Christ, atonement, repentance, restoration, and baptism is not a "very low bar". Not at all. It is enough to allow people to discern the Spirit and decide whether they want to pursue baptism. That is the perfect time to extend a baptismal invitation.

Before the actual baptism, those other things need to be presented. And they may indeed make people change their minds about being baptized, especially tithing. But your characterization of the fundamental elements as a "very low bar" for a baptismal invitation is untrue, in my estimation.

 

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

These things aren't "something"?

Car salesman: You've had test drive, and didn't that car feel GREAT! And since you didn't have any bad feelings, why don't you commit to buying this car. We'll talk about down payments, financing, and interest rates later. But first, since it felt so great, you should commit yourself to buying it.

Yeah, sure, you can back out of buying the car. But making that early commitment before learning about the harder commitments causes cognitive dissonance when backing out. Which is the point of high-pressure sales tactics. "But you agreed to buy it!"

Then again, I wasn't in the field a year before I stopped carrying the discussion pamphlets. By the time I had hit a year, I'd mostly abandoned the hard commitment. I've always been antagonistic toward that approach, so it shouldn't be any surprise that I would continue to be now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

You've had test drive, and didn't that car feel GREAT!

I expect when comparing feeling great about driving a car and feeling the Spirit testify of the truth that we're going to end up with a failure before the end of the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya So I’ve been pondering this for a while now. This was how we were taught to give the commitment to be baptized.

Missionary: *1st lesson over, went over Moroni 10:1-5* Will you read the Book of Mormon, pray and ask God if this book is true?

Gator: Yes

Missionary: And when you come to notice things are true, will you follow the example of Jesus Christ and be baptized by someone holding a proper authority of God?

Gator: Yes

Missionary: Perfect, we are holding a baptismal service on “x-date”, will you prepare yourself to be baptized that day?

Gator: Yes

The last part sound redundant, it’s been years since I did this so I could be off on it. But that was the just of how we were taught to set the date. I did it almost word for word every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Then again, I wasn't in the field a year before I stopped carrying the discussion pamphlets. By the time I had hit a year, I'd mostly abandoned the hard commitment. I've always been antagonistic toward that approach, so it shouldn't be any surprise that I would continue to be now.

Believe it or not, many of us feel the same way. I have never liked the salesman approach to missionary work, "commitment pattern" and all. I do think some aspects of those things might have place in missionary work—after all, sales is basically a practice of human relationship development and persuasion, which are obviously missionary tools as well—but the phoniness aspect often carried by those things is a turn-off for many of us, not just you.

I guess what I'm really objecting to is the "yeah, right" eye-rolling feel I get from some of the responses to Elder Ballard's words. I sense some of that coming from your writing, which is probably what I'm reacting to. And I admit I may be wrong in sensing that. Maybe you mean no such thing. If so, I apologize.

But when an apostle STOPS a practice we all dislike, and then some people (and here I am speaking generally, not specifically about MoE) hyperparse his words to find fault with him FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE FREAKIN' WANT HIM TO DO, I find that to be counterproductive and to work against what we're trying to accomplish. At the least, it's a disloyal thing to do to a man we have covenanted to sustain in his holy work.

Here's where I'm coming from, MoE:

If I wanted to, I could go on a tear about Elder [name redacted] of the Seventy who supervised most of Europe during my mission and who said we should blah blah blah which I thought wasn't honest and I complained about it and my mission president told me blah blah blah. But that's the thing. I don't want to. Elder Name Redacted will answer (probably already has answered, since he died some years ago) to his Creator regarding the things he taught and tried to implement among the European missionaries. Europe is a hard missionary row to hoe, and perhaps Elder Name Redacted wasn't up to the challenge. He did his best, or maybe not. But that is not my problem. The work goes on, and the men who lead the work, imperfect though they may be, are trying to be obedient to God's commandments and lead his kingdom as he would do. I am more concerned about learning how to sustain them properly than I am about complaining that Elder Name Redacted said things that made me mad. I want to be faithful to my covenants, and I hope to see others be faithful to the leaders who are literally devoting their lives to furthering the work. Fault-finding President Ballard's words doesn't further the work, as far as I can see. So my complaint isn't against you personally, but against what I perceive as a useless and distasteful reaction to a sincere man of God who is trying to put things right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I served my mission from 2005 - 2007, near the beginning of the Preach My Gospel era. Personally, I never asked anyone about baptism until "lesson 3", when baptism as a gospel principle is actually taught. Lesson 3 above is in quotations because Preach My Gospel allows for lesson deviation in favor of spiritual promptings. However, regardless of the lesson order, I never asked anyone to be baptized in a first or second lesson, but I did hear about others doing it. I often let those I was teaching know that that is what we were ultimately working towards, but I never popped the question earlier than a 3rd meeting with the person or family, and I never asked someone to be baptized unless I knew they first had faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and were actively trying to repent of their sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I guess what I'm really objecting to is the "yeah, right" eye-rolling feel I get from some of the responses to Elder Ballard's words. I sense some of that coming from your writing, which is probably what I'm reacting to. And I admit I may be wrong in sensing that. Maybe you mean no such thing. If so, I apologize.

Oh, I'm definitely rolling my eyes.  Church leaders and I have a long history of mismatched communication patterns. And I'm often irritated with how things are conveyed (or not conveyed at times).

In this particular instance, I'm baffled by the "it wasn't our intention," when, as far as I can tell, it very clearly was their intention. If the statement had been something like "we tried early invitations and it didn't produce the results we desired." or "we tried that approach and have found that it is has become off putting in today's society" or something like that, I'd have celebrated it as a remarkable message.

I believe that the words we use matter. And the words that were used here--"it wasn't our intention"--do come off a little like @Fether described, like the blame for the lack of success falls on over zealous missionaries and mission presidents. It's the difference between saying "we're going to correct our course" and "we're going to correct your course". It doesn't sit well with me, and I'm willing to call people on it when they do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
55 minutes ago, Fether said:

ya So I’ve been pondering this for a while now. This was how we were taught to give the commitment to be baptized.

Missionary: *1st lesson over, went over Moroni 10:1-5* Will you read the Book of Mormon, pray and ask God if this book is true?

Gator: Yes

Missionary: And when you come to notice things are true, will you follow the example of Jesus Christ and be baptized by someone holding a proper authority of God?

Gator: Yes

Missionary: Perfect, we are holding a baptismal service on “x-date”, will you prepare yourself to be baptized that day?

Gator: Yes

The last part sound redundant, it’s been years since I did this so I could be off on it. But that was the just of how we were taught to set the date. I did it almost word for word every time.

That's probably how it works, and I think you were just using me as an example because I'm a convert-that's fine, of course I have no problem with it whatsoever. 

For the record though, my experience was different. I walked into a church without meeting a set of missionaries beforehand. I met an older one at the Joesph Smith building in Sharon. At the time I didn't even know there were older missionaries, I thought only young people were missionaries. Not an insult, statement of fact.   A few days later I attended church and after sacrament they asked me fairly soon if I wanted to be baptized. Maybe within the first fifteen minutes or so of us meeting. 

*note-I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure what the debate/discussion is even about. I just wanted to be clear about what actually happened to me in real life. 

 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

In this particular instance, I'm baffled by the "it wasn't our intention," when, as far as I can tell, it very clearly was their intention.

What specific actions make you think that the brethren intended to get missionaries to ask people to be baptized before those people had ever even been introduced to the most basic aspects of the gospel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That's probably how it works, and I think you were just using me as an example because I'm a convert-that's fine, of course I have no problem with it whatsoever. 

For the record though, my experience was different. I walked into a church without meeting a set of missionaries beforehand. I met an older one at the Joesph Smith building in Sharon. At the time I didn't even know there were older missionaries, I thought only young people were missionaries. Not an insult, statement of fact.   A few days later I attended church and after sacrament they asked me fairly soon if I wanted to be baptized. Maybe within the first fifteen minutes or so of us meeting. 

*note-I didn't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure what the debate/discussion is even about. I just wanted to be clear about what actually happened to me in real life. 

 

Lol x) you may know this already and were just joking around , but gator is short for investigator ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, Fether said:

Lol x) you may know this already and were just joking around , but gator is short for investigator ;) 

I honestly had no idea, but given the capitalization of the word "Gator" and my massive ego, I did think it was about me! 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

What specific actions make you think that the brethren intended to get missionaries to ask people to be baptized before those people had ever even been introduced to the most basic aspects of the gospel?

Because it was taught and stressed in most missions that we invite people to be baptized in the first lesson.

I admittedly used it as a sifting tool. Not that I would drop investigators if they didn’t accept, but HOW they responded let us know how serious someone was about finding the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Fether said:
1 hour ago, Vort said:

What specific actions make you think that the brethren intended to get missionaries to ask people to be baptized before those people had ever even been introduced to the most basic aspects of the gospel?

Because it was taught and stressed in most missions that we invite people to be baptized in the first lesson.

I don't believe that came from "the top".

Why not? Because President Ballard said that was never their intention, and I believe him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't believe that came from "the top".

Why not? Because President Ballard said that was never their intention, and I believe him.

Rather, it was their intention that the invitation be made in the second lesson (and maybe the first). Source: the Missionary Discussion pamphlets. And I believe them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

I think it's entirely possible that they (Q12) were not fully aware of the problem, or at least of its widespread nature, and I completely believe that the leading quorums never mandated or even suggested that missionaries should baptize people who didn't know what they were getting themselves into, at least to some reasonable degree.

Baptism is sacred. It is a public declaration of faith--in this case--faith, not only in Jesus, but in what the church deems the Restored Gospel. I've seen baptismal services that made me cringe. At one, after the candidates had finished, one of the leaders of the church went to the microphone and said, "Anybody else wanna git baptized...come on, now--the water's warm!" Sometimes, when I conduct baptisms in the jail candidates will try to get the friends to get baptized with them--friends who do not attend church, and may not even know what Christianity is. I usually say something like, "There's no need to be baptized at this moment. Join us for a few Sundays, and if you feel so prompted I can always schedule another baptism." I hate it when folks say, "Well, I was baptized a few years back, but I really didn't understand it...it didn't mean much to me." So, whatever the backstory and motivation for this pronouncement, to my outsider ears it sounds like a positive development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I don't believe that came from "the top".

Why not? Because President Ballard said that was never their intention, and I believe him.

I believe him too. But you were asking:

 

2 hours ago, Vort said:

What specific actions make you think that the brethren intended to get missionaries to ask people to be baptized before those people had ever even been introduced to the most basic aspects of the gospel?

Teachers in the MTC and the mission presidents and many of the 70s they they called all taught that we should strive to invite investigators to be baptized on the first visit. I completely agree that the 12 didn’t intend for this to happen, but to answer your question directly...the actions of the leaders they called made it seem that it was what they intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought to give my opinion on the matter.  As @The Folk Prophetnoted I am an old guy (guy being a different reference than TFP)  I was called in 1965 (having served 2 years in the army) and was released in 1967.  It does not surprise me that the restored church has gone through different stages of missionary work.  My grandfather was called to serve a mission in 1907 and from his missionary journals and personal conversations his mission was very different than mine - in many ways.  My father did not serve a mission because of WWII.  He served two missions as a senior couple with my mother later.  The mission I was called to created the initial discussions that were memorized word for word.  Our mission was focused on the single purpose of baptism.  If someone was not interested in being baptized we were instructed to move on and teach others that were previously prepared.  

The record in my mission for a set of elders was 80 baptisms in a single month.  It was not set by me but I know well the two elders.  It may be interesting but the largest single factor that produced the most baptisms for me was answering the phone during lunch at our apartment.   I do not understand why I was so successful and honestly believed that I was blessed and that anyone following the guidelines I was given would have done as good or better in bringing individuals to baptism.   I have hundreds of stories that were recorded in my missionary journal that was stolen from my apt near the end of my mission - so I only remember the few I remember.

The scriptures tell us that there is a season for all things.  A season to plant and a season to harvest.  I do not believe that all missionaries should expect that we all serve in the same season - or that every "missionary field" will experience the exact same season at the exact same time.  I had 3 best friends that served at the same time as I did and in my first week I experienced more baptisms than they all did all together for their whole missions.  This does not mean that my mission was greater than theirs (though in my youth I did tease them but have repented of such foolishness).  

My mission is not the best two years of my life.  It was not the time of my greatest challenges or learning experiences.  My mission was not hard (especially having been in the army).  In fact I believe it was just about the easiest and less worrisome of my life.  I got along with most of my companions - but not all.  There was one that was most difficult, perhaps even impossible - but now looking back I believe I was more difficult for him than he was for me - but for me I have faced so much more harder and difficult things.  Some may think things were hard - my companion and I were arrested by the FBI and it was his first night as a missionary in the mission.  But it was a mistake and we were later cleared (Thanks in some part to the brouthern in SLC - certainly not our district leader that was too dense to recognize us by our actual names.)

I would not trade my mission experience for anything and knowing what I know now I would certainly do it again.  I do not have a single regret even thought I was young and prone to mistakes.  I am more than glad I served at the time and place I did.  

I am not surprised, even a little that missionary work now in in a different season.   I do not believe at all that previous missionary seasons were a mistake - not for my great great grandfather, my great grandfather, my grandfather, my father, myself or not my grandson currently serving in London.  Or any other missionary that has served - I do not believe any served or followed what was expected of missionaries in whatever time and place.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fether said:
2 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't believe that came from "the top".

Why not? Because President Ballard said that was never their intention, and I believe him.

I believe him too. But you were asking:

 

3 hours ago, Vort said:

What specific actions make you think that the brethren intended to get missionaries to ask people to be baptized before those people had ever even been introduced to the most basic aspects of the gospel?

Teachers in the MTC and the mission presidents and many of the 70s they they called all taught that we should strive to invite investigators to be baptized on the first visit. I completely agree that the 12 didn’t intend for this to happen, but to answer your question directly...the actions of the leaders they called made it seem that it was what they intended.

Wait a minute. So those actions are what made you think it is what the Brethren intended, or those actions are what made it look like it is what the Brethren intended? I asked the first, but you seem to be answering the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share