It was October 2002. I had been married to Kimberly for 6 months, and been off my LDS mission (Australia Sydney South) for nearly a year and a half when in the priesthood session of the LDS General Conference, Elder M. Russell Ballard spoke his everlasting sermon about "raising the bar" for missionaries - in essence, raising the minimum standard, that not any kid who committed wrongful acts could go on a mission. I hadn't committed any grievous acts prior to my mission and this isn't a coming out confession regarding my worthiness pre-mish...rather, perhaps, a confession looking back that I fell trap to the most heinous "crime" a missionary can commit - baptizing people who hadn't been adequately prepared for the long haul.
Why am I thinking about this now, more than 7 years since my "return[ing] with honour"? I finally tracked down a Chinese lady my companion and I taught and baptised in the Hurstville Ward back in 2000. How? Google. (I know, why'd it take so long!) She's now a concert violinist who's been painted by a Nobel Peace prize winner and International Olympic Committee artist. I just got off the phone with her about 5 minutes ago after having had no communication for ages. At the end of the conversation I asked about her church attendance. In broken English (too bad I couldn't have conversed in her native Mandarin like I should have been able to, having dropped out of Chinese after 3 semesters at BYU), she mentioned her music keeps her too busy and she hasn't attended in a very long time, but if they [the Ward] would like her to perform in Church, that she would oblige for a small donation.
How is it the dogma of mission zone conferences (at least in my mission, and from what I've heard, every mission any of my friends have served in) has ended up so focused on the numbers? "How many people are you going to baptize this month, Elder/Sister?" Looking back at my mission, if I were to have done it right, I don't think I would have had any baptisms from my own finding. They would (should) have been baptised long after I had left. Why? For that very reason seen exemplified by this sweet Chinese lady. She wasn't ready at the time, but she showed signs of progress, met the minimum requirements for baptism, and sadly, you feel a sense of relief knowing that your next accountability, or interview with president, wouldn't be so harsh.
If I could redo it all over again (or if for some random reason someone is reading this who is planning on serving a mission), I would raise the bar so the minimum requirements for baptism were the following (after the already minimum requirements of showing some signs of a testimony and committing to live covenants - that they probably don't understand anyway):
- Individuals must be better friends with at least one (preferably two or more) "permanent" families (meaning, they own their home or aren't going anywhere anytime soon), than they are with the missionaries teaching them
- After the initial discussion, no lessons are taught without a ward member present (if at all possible), and preferably in one of their homes (this is of course recommended, but I think it should be a rule)
- Read at least 1 Nephi through Alma in the Book of Mormon, showing signs they plan on finishing the entire book in a reasonable time frame
- Fully understand the law of tithing and live it for a month (or two)
- attend Church for at least two months
- participate in fasting for two fast Sundays
- If at all possible, taken to tour the closest temple grounds or visitors center with a family (not the missionaries)
- attend family home evenings with a couple different families
That really doesn't seem like very much, now does it? Its apparent that the majority of those include befriending by other members, because the missionaries come and go. Thats the key! (oh wait, I that we already knew that?) I'm not in any position to institute this (certainly), but I can sure do my part as a family or "ward member" as noted above.
I really think if people who were investigating the Church were to accomplish the above, they would prove to be in it for the long haul, and not just passively accepting and being baptised within a week of meeting the missionaries (which, I hate to say, honestly seems like a complete joke, unless they were SERIOUSLY converted from the start).
I would love to hear what you think, or your experience on this matter. Please sound off in the comments! (please...please?)
1 comments:
I don't think you should be so hard on yourself. When you're a missionary, there is that mindset of "hurry up and get 'em baptized" and you want them to, because you want them to be as happy as you are. But then after wards, I think we all come home and realize the futility of our actions. This happened to me, when on my last day in the field, I learned that all but one of my investigators that had been baptized were already inactive, and sometimes quite anti. But then in some church lesson, someone pointed out that despite the fact that these people were baptized, received the gift of the Holy Ghost and are now inactive, they still have the gift of the Holy Ghost. At some point in time, the Spirit will work with those people and touch their hearts, and they'll come back. Their names are on the records of the church so that some member, some missionary, will see their name and search after them. In that I found peace with the fact that I felt my mission (baptism-wise) had been futile. But I do agree that there does need to be a greater amount of involvement with the members. We need to be more willing to be involved, and get out of our bubbles and reach out and help those people searching for the truth.
Post a Comment