The current requirements for adult baptism in the LDS church are very minimal compared to some other religions. In the Catholic church they go through an almost year long process called Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). To convert to Judaism requires months and sometimes years of study. But the LDS church is much like most Protestant religions, making it easy to get baptized and get the name on the membership roles. What if the LDS church changed the requirement for baptism, so the person getting baptized had full informed consent into what that were getting into?
What if the rules looked like this?
Must attended church for 6 months
Must receive 30 hours of formal lessons spread out over that 6 months with topics covering:
1. New Testament and Book of Mormon, emphasizing Atonement and Christ’s teachings.
2. Church History (Polygamy, first vision, priesthood)
3. Book of Mormon; Translation, seer Stone
4. Temple Endowment. What it is, why they will be expected to go after one year. (Review TR questions)
5. Callings in the church, what they are and the church’s expectation in accepting them
6. Tithing, Fast offerings: What is expected of them when they are baptized.
7. Doctrine and Policy of the church
What would be the results of these new requirements? Obviously the number of baptisms would drop dramatically. But I would predict that the percent of new baptisms that are still active after one year would be close to 100%.
This takes us to the reasons for our current (almost) anything goes baptismal requirements. If the reasons are for high numbers to make the church look good each April Conference, then the church should keep the status quo. But if the real reason is to bring people closer to Christ, and keep members active in the church, and to create truly converted members, then something need to change.
In the past twenty years in my ward, there has only been one Husband/Wife/kid family that were baptized. The kid is inactive now as an adult, but the husband and wife still go. We had a medical doctor get baptized after he married an LDS nurse at his hospital. He lasted about six months then left. All the other “convert” baptisms have been single people, and I would say maybe 20% are active. Most just disappear. I think most TBMs in the ward just think they moved away or something, so they don’t have to deal with the high rate of inactivity of new members.
So what would you add to the requirements of LDS baptism so they the new member is truly converted? Do you think current investigators that choose baptism are making an informed decision? Can they give consent without knowing all they are getting into?
Wheat & Tares 
Missionaries are good at teaching the Gospel. But they are not good at teaching about the Church. They emphasize the personal covenant, and what baptism means on individual level. In addition, they should talk more about what does it mean to be a member of the Church and what is expected of a member.
I think this is a core problem for the LDS church. IMO the basic idea of baptism should be simple. It basically should come down to,, *do you want to follow Christ?”. “Do you want to do good in the world?” “Do you want to serve others?”
As missionaries, we almost bragged about how we wait until our kids are 8 and know better, unlike the Catholic infants. The JW are on the other extreme, with months of required meetings, hundreds of hours of required proselytizing was just too much. JW even have to answer 104 questions in their baptismal interview. As missionaries we were indoctrinated that our approach was the Lord’s approach. But as Bill notes, then why so few stay with the church? I saw that early on my mission and over the ensuing decades and tried to find “real converts”, but found the church only wants numbers. They throw in *worthiness”. But, are not really committed to it, because if it were a real concern, people would have to wait more than a single week; many are still chemically addicted to substances. They require church attendance. Really, 1x, to only a single 1 hour of sacrament meeting, and then surprised when they do not return? Packer tried to fix that by having people baptized on Saturday, and not be confirmed until the following Sunday. So, how many times did someone not return to church on Sunday. What if they sinned during the week without the Holy Ghost. Are they a church member or not a member?
If someone is getting baptized to follow Christ, why do we not talk about Christ more and his ministry. The missionary lesson tangents have little to do with Christ.
Then ward councils are chewed out for not retaining members.
Just like the temple ceremony, it is not disclosed what you are committing to entirely. Yes, missionaries explain WOW, tithing, LOC, etc, but that is just brushed over quickly. The thinking is to get them immediately baptized while they feel the spirit and before Satan tempts them. Unless you grow up in the church, you really do not understand the real commitments and those were given to you obligatory as a young child. Now, with the internet and historical issues, this complicates it more. How much is disclosed? We are told to learn from the best books, to learn of the world and history. But do not Google anything that may criticize the church.
I would also like to state the same with weddings. The Catholics and many churches require young couples to take premarital classes. Let the couple have some conversations and light counseling before the marriage journey. But the LDS church is so worried about premarital sex we rush kids off to get married, just like LDS baptism. Rush, rush, push, push. But do not learn more about what you are doing or the journey to which you are committing to. Why, because you might change your mind. The LDS covenant system is broken.
The best system is each individual’s own personal relationship with Christ. The church role should be minimal in that relationship, not the focal point.
I have yet to find justification in the Bible for being baptized into any particular denomination. Rather, baptism in the early apostolic era was baptism into Christ and the timing of such varied.
It does makes sense that prior to joining a particular denomination there should be enough time dedicated to ensuring the investigator knows what they are getting into. And that should include not only articles of faith but the multiple tribal knowledge factors that go along with membership.
I actually believe such a method would result in retention rates far exceeding the miserable numbers we see today.
If we were talking about a man-made club or society, then the original poster’s idea might have merit. But we’re not talking about a man-made club or society.
God Himself has already established a beautiful plan. The requirement for baptism is in D&C 20:37 — I recommend that everyone here read it to understand God’s view of the matter. I oppose the original poster’s idea, but I sustain God’s idea. But please, don’t downvote yet — please actually read D&C 20:37 for yourself.
Then, please read D&C 20:68 — there, you will see that God has already thought this through. If we simply do what God wants us to do, things will work well. Under God’s plan, a baptism only sticks if there is a later confirmation — under church procedure, a baptism will be erased if confirmation doesn’t occur — I don’t recall the period, but I think it might be a year.
So rather than the original poster’s idea of changing God’s idea, I recommend following the pattern for providing baptism explained in D&C 20:37 — oh, you haven’t read it yet? Please do — it is essential for an informed discussion on this topic. Then, also read D&C 20:68 to learn God’s plan for confirmation. You see, confirmation is intended by God to be a wholly independent and separate matter and ordinance. The original poster is wrong in his proposed solution (see D&C 20:37) — but to the degree there is any correctness in his proposition, a reading of D&C 20:68 will show that God has already provided a solution to the proposition.
I recommend God’s approach instead of the original poster’s recommendation. To whatever degree the original poster’s proposition is correct, the solution is already right in the scripture. I would oppose the original poster’s idea to change the baptism requirement beyond what is written in D&C 20:37. However, I could support an idea to put a little substance into God’s instruction at D&C 20:68 — I hope the original poster will read the scripture and re-think his idea — in this, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt that he is honestly trying to do something good, to build up, to strengthen, to edify, to sustain.
Ji
I wish you well. I hope that you personally have all positive experiences with the church and its system. But when one sees different and experiences different then that what is taught (after many decades)..your eyes are opened and you realize the cookie cutter approach does not work for all. If it is presently working for you….i am happy for you. Have charity and emphaty for those whom it does not.
On this very subject, I found the book “The Law of the Harvest” to be a very interresting ressource. Among other things it touches on the history of missionary work and how the “quick baptism programs” appeared. it seems that it was started against the will of the Brethren, and ever since has had a long life. It was interresting to see in Preach My Gospel that there are many hints to deeper preparation on the prospective members part. Though, in my experience, they were largely ignored in favor of a more “baptise ’em all, God will recognize His” approach.
I wouldn’t add more requirements on the investigators part, rather I’d look into the missionaries attitude towards the people they teach and their baptism. Anyone can find loopholes to get more numbers in, it takes wise and selfless missionaries to let the Spirit guide and focus on the conversion of the people around them.
Also, Preach My Gospel underwent a massive update about a year or so ago, I’m not sure if anyone here covered it, Some changes are subtle but they seem to move in a positive direction (instructions on tactfully adressing difficult commandments, mention of the Gospel Topic essays, removing the term “investigator” and so forth)
I don’t know and I have mixed feelings about it. Jesus seemed to be more of the mindset that if you repent and have faith then you should be baptized. On the other hand adopting the entire Mormon Culture and Lifestyle is an entirely different animal. The time commitment to be “all in” is incomprehensible to most people.
The highly centralized model the LDS church is good from a consistency standpoint but I’m not certain it’s what Jesus set up or expects.
Although I’d love to see huge improvements in retention, I think some amount of faith needs to be placed in the investigator as well. I served in one of the lowest baptizing missions in the world. A huge portion of the investigators basically already did as the OP outlines on their own, often weeding themselves out, or becoming stronger and more dedicated because of it. On the other hand, faith also needs to be placed in the experiences of faith others experience early on. Some get such a powerful spiritual experience that there is little to nothing that would prevent them from being baptized and staying fully active. Both are deserving of attention until the temple and beyond. It’s difficult to be sure.
Faith, without wishing to derail too much, I’ll admit I’m as sympathetic toward ji as I am others here. I generally come here to get different perspectives and develop sympathy and empathy (I’d imagine that’s at least a small part of ji’s motivation as well), but as hard as I try to understand what other people are experiencing and seeing, I’m often forced to honestly ask if others are doing the same. The charity and empathy goes both ways. Although there will always be things that we mortals who make up the Church will need to improve on, I’ve increasingly felt that W&T takes an overly pessimistic attitude on things. I often find myself asking if I’m attending the same religious organization as each OP is. The reality is there have been and are probably some more things that I will admit can be done better. But another reality is that many here are ignoring or failing to see a lot of good going on. Although the Spirit can often whisper to us areas we need to improve on, I think He ultimately brings a spirit of optimism. I’d love to see more of that optimism here, even where improvements are needed.
All it takes is ONE endless droning repetitive kindergarten-level SS class and adios to that new “convert.” Looking down the barrel of a lifetime of that is just not do-able. Then on the way out he notices all the TRUMP bumper stickers and that seals the deal.
we claim to have the same organization that existed in Christ’s time. Question: did the early “Church” engage in baptism? And did they baptize kids at age 8? I think I know the answers.
Plainly, LDS policy is geared toward maximizing the quantity of baptisms, not the quality of baptisms. Another way to look at this is to say the LDS policy is geared towards producing a lot of inactive members. Which makes one wonder why LDS leaders are always griping about all the inactives and always getting after the active members to go “activate” the inactives. This doesn’t make much sense.
For a doctor, informed consent is straightforward: explain the benefits, risks, and chances of success of a given procedure or course of treatment. For joining the LDS Church, the depth of the relevant information is much broader and deeper. Here’s the problem: By any meaningful definition of what it would mean to be properly informed about LDS history and doctrine before choosing to be baptized, 99% of active Mormons are not properly informed! The membership is so ill-informed that they read the Gospel Topics Essays and think it is anti-Mormon material! The whole Church program is built on the membership being only partially informed about various things. Just two examples: The leadership has spent lots of time and effort over the last generation or two to keep the members from knowing about the $100 Billion excess tithing investment fund and to rather successfully keep polygamy out of the standard LDS curriculum. They are very good at partially informing the membership about things. So “informed consent” is not a modification of the baptismal requirement, it would entail a complete revamping of the whole LDS system.
faith,
Certainly, I am not recommending a cookie-cutter approach. Anyone who will read D&C 20;37 and 20:68 will see how personal and individualized the conversion process should be, and what the Lord intended. If we did what the scripture says, we wouldn’t have the problem posited by the original poster. To me, actually doing what the scripture says is a better solution than the original poster’s solution.
IMHO, convert retention has a lot more to do with what happens *after* a person gets baptized than with what precedes baptism. That is, the modern Church suffers primarily from a back-end problem, not a front-end problem.
My parents’ generation (joined as a young family in 1992) stayed at much higher rates, but not because the pre-baptism missionary effort was any better back then (actually, it was worse). They stayed because the Church was a community that they valued. Life-changing doctrines and commandments contributed to this (my dad quit smoking). But so did the “little” things that showed how people really cared about each other: ward dinners and roadshows, community service projects, vibrant and well-staffed youth programs, church ball, church universities. There was also a sense that the Church (in the so-called “mission field”) was growing in both numbers and reputation, with wards, stakes, and temples being created at an ever-faster pace, and members finding pride in the Church’s engagement in civic affairs (Remember GBH’s frequent interviews with the press?). Many stakes had PR reps who actually did stuff!
In a generation, much of this has gone by the board. Or perhaps my parents’ naivete is no longer achievable in the internet age. However you define it, the average American member now feels conflict, doubt, and embarrassment about the Church, where once there was comfort and belonging. The Q15, having recognized this, is now hacking at the wreckage in a blind rage, as if abolishing old youth programs, scouting, pageants, roadshows, and even our nickname would somehow right the ship. It hasn’t. I am more excited than anyone to jettison, for example, the scouting program, but what have we replaced it with? Pablum! When a new convert joins the Good Ship Zion, only to be offered a Higher and Holier Life Raft as a suitable substitute for the time being, the reasonable reaction is to book passage on another vessel.
Are we really surprised that converts (or potential converts) would rather stay home and do yoga than do all the work, suffer all the judgment inherent in Church membership, when the Church doesn’t feel exciting, or even rewarding? More to the OP’s point, do we really think waiting longer to baptize them is going to change that calculus? I would prefer that the Church appoint it’s talent to fixing the leaks, instead of fiddling with the ticket box.
Any members who grew up on the U.S. east coast circa the 90s have a similar sense of things?
Add to rule 4 in the OP – what do they know about the Freemasons?
Add to rule 2 – have the missionaries show them the org chart from any recent Conference Ensign and gauge the reaction.
Ji
You are correct !!
However the Lds church does not practice the doctrine and covenants scriptures within their own missionary system. Is that the member’s fault or the instuition’s?
Does the church need to repent for not following the scriptures ? Is the church in its own apostacy?
You can not have it both ways.
When you learn about baseball baptisms and the Alvin Dyer and Moyle appraoch and then lived and practiced it under the instuition and its leaders…and implored to God why the church is not what it professes to be…..you may have a different outlook.
I happen to be quite pragmatic about the church. The history really doesn’t matter if the church works for you. So, I tend to think that more attention should be paid to what the church is now than anything that went on before. And I think retaining converts is the exact same problem as retaining our youth and retaining everybody except the *old white men* that the church still seems to work for. Now, I have nothing against old white men, I happen to be married to one and the church still works for him. But the church doesn’t work as well for many women, people of color, LGBT, single people, and really any marginalized group. The church quit working for me and my children/children in law for various reasons. They are feminist, or even just female, they are gay, they don’t feel accepted, it lacks the sense of community they found elsewhere, it failed to meet spiritual needs.
So, I agree with Billy Possum above that the problem isn’t so much how quickly we rush people into baptism, but what long term membership means. There are several things that go into the church “working” for a person. From my perspective those things are, (1) Does the church work spiritually to bring people closer to Christ? Does it meet our needs? Does it help us love God? (2) does the church work to give the person a sense of belonging to the body of Christ? For everyone, not just people who fit a certain mold. Does it meet our social needs? Does it help us love our fellow man? (3) does the church work to do the things Christ would have us do, such as feed the hungry, visit the lonely, clothe the naked?
Putting a lot of emphasis on the words “Jesus Christ” in the name of the church is meaningless unless we spend sermon and lesson time actually teaching about who Jesus was and what he taught. I found that really lacking. We spend the majority of church time talking about how special our church is with prophets, temples, and forever families and really very little actually teaching what Jesus taught.
Billy covered the social and community aspects pretty well, so I will just say I agree with him that the church used to do a pretty good job with community, but it seems to be failing and doesn’t seem to realize that taking all the fun out of church killed the sense of belonging, of being part of the body of Christ.
And any church that stockpiles billions of dollars of tithing money, while people in the world are starving, don’t have clean drinking water, do not have the kind of sanitation needed to protect themselves from a pandemic, well, I would say the church is not using its resources to do the things Jesus would do.
I served in the Detroit mission. The average baptisms per missionary for their two years was three. I had three. One died an active member, another is still active. A third one never did become active. She was Black and this was in 1979. It proved to be unworkable for her to be the only Black person in the ward. She once told me that she would get ready for church, drive over and park at the curb. When I asked why she didn’t come in she said, “I just sat there feeling so Black”.
My heart breaks for those that, perhaps figuratively, sit at the curb feeling so brown, so gay, so single, so depressed, so unworthy, so female, so mentally ill, so lonely, so broken – that they can’t walk in. I feel bad for the times when I haven’t “seen” them and reached out and tried to help them find a home inside those doors.
And I mourn for them, when coming inside, they find that their fears were warranted.
I don’t know how many new converts’ hearts were stony places where the seed of the gospel could not find purchase. But when a seed is planted in our midst in the form of a child of God (convert, 8-year old, or life-long member), it’s up to us to be a fertile place for it to grow.
Faith – When I read your comment about “get them immediately baptized while they feel the spirit and before Satan tempts them”, I agree that this is the logic I have heard. But it sure makes God seem weak when compared to Satan – almost like we have to trick Satan while he is distracted for a day or two or there is no way God is going to win in this situation long-term.
JI – When I read D&C 20:68 as you suggested, it sounds like one should be baptized, then a lengthy period of learning before they are confirmed and can take the sacrament. “Expound all things concerning the church of Christ to their understanding” does not even sound like the Gospel Essentials class meets that criteria.
Billy Possum – I think I can agree about the ward feeling less of a community. I too remember growing up as a teen in the 70’s and 80’s in the southwest and there were always road shows, talent shoes, tons of athletic events, and just good fun with the ward. When Packer started insisting that every activity, “have a priesthood purpose”, it stamped out most of the group fun. The case could be made that some people were not fully converted and just in the ward because it was a fun group of good people. But I think that worked great and over time some of these individuals were converted over time. I think the opposite is happening now. Myself as a lifetime member of more than a half of a century, I was finding church boring, stressful with the kids and the callings, and not much fun. When I hit some of the problematic history and especially the cover-up of that, the waning social (and spiritual) benefits made it easier for me to just say, “I am out of here.” You may not get it in the Mormon Corridor, but over the last years I have twice let it be known that I was Mormon and someone would enquire, “So tell me about the Mormons a bit. Why do you hate gays so much?” The second time I was just blunt and said that most members are coming around, but our old out of touch leaders just don’t get it and they are stuck in their 1950 mindset. This did surprise a fellow member that overheard my response. But I am sticking with that as it seems to be the truth from what I can see.
The bar for entry into the Church is very, very low. One needs not much more than a pulse and a willingness to get dunked to become a member. As long as missionaries measure their success by baptisms, this will always be so.
The bar for leaving the Church is very, very high. To leave voluntarily one must submit multiple certified notarized letters, and in some cases get an attorney to process the request. Either that, or commit an egregious sin and confess it to priesthood leaders.
I think we could make vast improvements across the whole Church if we moderate both bars. Make it a little harder to join, a little less hard to leave. To do either would require us to completely rethink how we approach missionary work and retention/quality of life, but will be well worth the effort.
I recently returned from my mission to Latin America due to Covid. The goal for my mission was to baptize 2 converts per companionship per month, and we were pretty close to that. However, I have found that you get what you measure, and in my mission that was baptisms. I’d guess around 10% stayed at least partially active a year after baptism.
Obviously, the retention rates are horrendous, and something has to change. However,I believe the scriptures are clear on the requirements of baptism, and they don’t include hours of lessons or months of church attendance. Also, the purpose of baptism isn’t to increase church attendance or membership numbers, but rather to make a personal covenant with god.
I agree with that one guest that instead of adding requirements for baptism, we should change our missionary program’s focus. I remember too many missionaries doing anything it took to get some people under water. I spent too much time worried about numbers myself, and that’s my biggest regret. Missionaries need to be less focused on baptismal numbers and more focused on actually building up our wards, branches and communities. Activity rates have a lot less to do with testimony/knowledge than people think, and a lot more to do with friends, activities, community and feeling God’s love at church.
One other thing I noticed on the mission is that I could never guess who would stay active. I did a lot of baptismal interviews, and sometimes the punk kid that came to church to flirt with girls would stay active much longer than the adult who sought us out, kept every commitment and asked us to be baptized before we even asked him. Only God can judge people.
ji, having read both D&C sections, I think you may be correct. It is, after all, right there in black and white. But I think Bishop Bill’s original post was oriented around the efficacy of baptism / confirmation as a way of bringing people into the church and keeping most of them. Maybe, and I’m assuming this is your point, more people would stay if the church followed the program outlined broadly in D&C 20. Maybe they would. But since the church doesn’t follow that approach, it’s difficult not to infer that the priority is numbers, not retention, especially when you consider that the church tightly controls membership numbers and generally counts everyone who ever joined. If they only counted those who attend regularly, they’d have to reduce membership numbers by at least two-thirds. So, the question is, are you calling out the church for not following it’s own scriptures? That would open up a whole other can of worms related to the legitimacy of a supposedly Christ-focused religion that ignores previous revelations to look good for the world. That’s problematic.
Baptism is a gateway and truly I think that converts see it as that. In their excitement of experiencing a new faith and a change of repentance they get baptised.
The proof is then in the pudding for them as to whether that journey continues to bring them to spiritual growth, or whether it becomes just another of life’s experiences.
I find that I don’t have this view as a born in the church member. It feels as though once baptised I am signed up for life. But I imagine many of the converts that are on a search for the spiritual things of life have probably experienced joining and leaving faith traditions, and it is really no biggy. Just a new and different experience.
It would probably help if members that stay don’t treat members that leave as lost sheep, but rather fellow travellers.
jaredsbrother – your comment of “If they only counted those who attend regularly” did make me think of a common saying in management – behavior will follow what you measure. And following a “once dunked, we count them until the are over a 100” does push the behavior of more of “It is our job to dunk them all and let God figure it out in the end” mentality. I do know of organizations that want people to join, but they want committed people to join so they make it hard. The result would be that you only get the most determined members of that organization as anybody that isn’t really committed drops out. I guess the actions for many decades now by the top church leaders tells us where the priorities are.
ji – I reread the scriptures you cite. The problem with your “follow the scriptures” MO is that the scriptures and subsequent words of church prophets, including the person who received that scripture, do not always tell a consistent story. For example, in 1843 Joseph Smith said:
I further believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, [as evidenced] by Peter’s preaching on the day of Pentecost, Acts 2:38. You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. (History of the Church, 5:499 – taken from https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-7?lang=eng)
So what do we follow? What JS received as revelation in 1829-30 or something he said 13 years later? The scriptures have so many diverse viewpoints that it can be fairly easy to find support for an argument in the scriptures (say, slavery, racism, misogyny, etc). Recognizing that there is no one voice or one doctrine, even in “modern” scripture, leads one to realize that a simple appeal to scripture will almost never be decisive. What the OP is asking is, “what is the goal of convert baptisms? Actual converts? Or just numbers?” Because we aren’t getting the former much at all and the latter is dropping precipitously as well. And we spend a lot of time, money, energy, and effort on “re-activating” people who hardly had any idea of what the church is in the first place. Or are made to feel bad for not spending the time. What is the point of that?
We do a very poor job of teaching those subjects to the members; it’s going to be that much tougher teaching those subjects to people seeking to join the church.
1. New Testament and Book of Mormon, emphasizing Atonement and Christ’s teachings.
– We’ve all but abandoned every book of scripture not called the Book of Mormon. When was the last time the church had a goal of reading the NT? How often are we asked to set a goal to read the BoM?
When the SS curriculum was recently changed mid-year to align with seminary curriculum the once every four years study of the NT was cut short so everyone could return to studying the BoM. Any time we’re studying other books of scripture a good portion of the lesson is spent covering similar scriptures found in the BoM. We simply don’t do other scripture, other than to proof text things that are unique about the LDS church. The BoM is our gospel hobby.
2. Church History (Polygamy, first vision, priesthood)
3. Book of Mormon; Translation, seer Stone
– We have been doing a better job of not outright hiding these topics but it is annoying how we still only tiptoe lightly around those subjects. If we end up talking about an essay it’s usually only a minute or two and the discussion is always front-loaded with the acceptable conclusions. We don’t discuss the issues, we’re told what to think about the issues.
4. Temple Endowment. What it is, why they will be expected to go after one year. (Review TR questions)
– Ever take the temple prep course? Temples are good and you gotta be good to go inside. There, you’ve taken the course.
5. Callings in the church, what they are and the church’s expectation in accepting them
– I’ve been a member for decades and I’m not sure I can answer this question. What exactly does the church expect of me? We like to preach that church takes a lower priority than other things in life but in practice church callings are boundaryless, motivated by guilt and shame, and the byproduct of the work is more relevant to the church organization than to people’s everyday life.
6. Tithing, Fast offerings: What is expected of them when they are baptized.
– Do members know what tithing is? Most every lesson on tithing that I’ve sat in on has preached that tithing is 10% on gross. In the spirit of, “Be the change…” I’ve often corrected this teaching with the actual policy (FP letter from 1970) only to be vociferously corrected time and time again, tithing is on gross.
7. Doctrine and Policy of the church
– Doctrines and policies of the church are like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed but wrapped in an illusion of safety derived from permanence.
Baptism is an interesting ordinance for me. I like the symbolism of complete immersion. But I question whether 8-yr-old youngsters understand what they are actually doing. I would prefer a much older age. It doesn’t make sense to baptize at 8, and then have them give up their membership as young adults. As for premature baptisms, we know they are happening in droves. Number of baptisms (and total membership growth) has in the past been a legacy item. Not so much recently because baptisms haven fallen off. (Now temple construction has taken on an important role in Presidential/Prophet legacies.) The mission field is littered with “inactives” that were never really converted in the first place.
The missionaries are frequently blamed for poor retention. But it is mostly the pressure to baptize that makes for premature and/or unprepared “converts.” Hubby is right, invent a success stat, and it will take on an unwarranted priority. Number of baptisms was one such measurement. The Church used to pride itself in being a high growth religion as measured by baptisms and total membership. Not so much any more. Plus future prospects don’t look rosy.
Yes I believe they can give consent without being informed. If you join a religion, it’s your own responsibility to educate yourself.
“If the reasons are for high numbers to make the church look good each April Conference, then the church should keep the status quo. But if the real reason is to bring people closer to Christ, and keep members active in the church, and to create truly converted members, then something need to change.”
False dichotomy. Why can it not be both? Different “tracks” so to speak. The patriarch of each stake ought to be a man that can hear God (or designated member of the invisible church) and convey some words of wisdom to the beneficiaries of patrarchal blessings. That’s really all he needs and it may be better to NOT clutter his mind with the things you seem to think ought to clutter the mind of everyone seeking baptism. Obviously a “temporal” leader, such as bishop or pretty much everyone else, ought to be familiary with church history, scriptures, and the various ways the enemy of God uses to confuse people.
Baptism is the front door. Why should anyone have 6 months and 30 hours of training just to go through the front door? Sure, many people go through the front door, turn around and leave; or go out a side door or whatever. But you can get that 6 months WHILE baptised. Or you can choose to study the church for 6 months and THEN decide to get baptized; but really, that’s an emotion decision that takes only minutes. If you feel the power of the holy ghost, do it; if not, then not. Doesn’t need six months.
I’m a convert. Sat in on one or two of my sister receiving the discussions. I didn’t need the discussions. I felt it. Do it, done!
“However you define it, the average American member now feels conflict, doubt, and embarrassment about the Church”
How is this to be judged? Blog rolls? Choose a different blog, get a different result. To be sure, the internet makes this easy; the danger is starting to think the whole world is this way or that way.
THERE IS NO CHURCH! Only people. Some who, as at the waters of Mormon, decided to bear one another’s burdens, to mourn with those that mourn; strange to notice that much negativity but they had to meet in secret. Too many people want their burdens lifted and are not the one’s doing the lifting. I’m an introvert and don’t want other people lifting my burdens and I’ll help others where I can; but that’s sort of a deficiency; it is better if I were to be more engaged with others even when not really necessary. We can also share joy and happiness.