Do you have to believe 100% that the BoM is true to be baptized?

[AngelMarvel]

My husband and I have worked with a family for over a year now to get baptized. The children got baptized last year, but their mom didn't want to take the discussions. She did come to some of the discussion when the Missionaries were giving them to her children at our home.

 

About 4 months ago, the mom decided that she does want to know more about the Church... she wants to know for herself and because she wants to go with her children to Church and be a part of what they are learning.

 

So... my husband and I had the Missionaries coming to our house so they could teach her. After a few lessons, we had to move back to Utah as my husband's job was over...so the Missionaries taught her at different places. (She doesn't allow other into her home for her own reasons)

 

Things were rough going for about 3 of the months. She questioned everything every step of the way. But, at some point things started to make more sense to her and a baptism date was set two weeks ago for March 14th. My husband and I were going to travel down south because she wants him to baptize her.

 

BUT... tonight I got a phone call from her and she told me the baptism wasn't going to happen because the one Missionary was transferred out and a new more aggressive Missionary took his place.

 

The transfer wasn't the problem. The problem was, when the new Missionary asked her if she believe the BoM was 100% true, she told him she didn't know because, although she read the whole thing, there are so many things she does not understand that she cannot say that she believes in it 100%.

 

So... he told her she is not ready to be baptized. She explained to him that not only has she read the whole BoM and the Bible ... but, she is also on the last chapter of Gospel Principles. That she feels that she is ready. She believes enough to know she wants to be baptized.

 

NO ... she does not understand everything that she has read...but, she feels things will come to her in time. She is very discouraged at the moment as she has worked very hard over these last couple of months and was very excited about the upcoming baptism.

 

My question is.... Do you think the Missionary is correct in saying she cannot be baptized because she doesn't believe 100% of something she has yet to fully understand? I know Missionaries go by the spirit, but do you think he could be missing the boat on this?

 

Should she take this to the Bishop? Or the Ward Missionary President ...or who should she talk to? She did try to talk with this new Missionary about it...but, he still says she needs to believe 100%.

 

She meets with the Missionaries twice a week and has done so for about 4 months or more now. Only missed 2 visits when she and the children got the flu.

 

My own observation of things over my years as LDS.

 

.... I know lots and lots of members who have NEVER read the BoM... how did they get baptized?

 

.... Do you 100% believe in every word of the BoM? Or even understand 100% of it?

 

.... Why so you think they allowed her children who were 9 and 10 years old at the time... and definitely didn't read the whole BoM or understand even what they read, get baptized?

 

It doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

I am not looking for her and me to get beat up over these questions... only to get some info as to what you all think. My husband said to take it to the Bishop or Ward Mission President. I think so too...but, like your opinion on the whole situation.

[mrmarklin]

If she believes the church is true and will follow the prophet she should be baptized. There is an interview system to determine this. I think the missionary is out of line.

[Jane_Doe]

 

The transfer wasn't the problem. The problem was, when the new Missionary asked her if she believe the BoM was 100% true, she told him she didn't know because, although she read the whole thing, there are so many things she does not understand that she cannot say that she believes in it 100%.

 

 

Faith is not a perfect knowledge of all things.  Perfect also means "complete".

 

Therefore, my advice to your friend would be not to stress about not understanding everything in the book, because that is not what faith is.  Faith is a hope in for things which are not seen (i.e. completely understood) that are true.  If she believes she has faith (even if not 100%), then she does have faith.  The Lord nourishes those whom have a desire to believe.  

 

She should totally be baptized!!!!  Yeah for her!!!!!!

 

 

As to the missionary... missionaries are pupils in the Gospel too.  My "Christ-like" side would suggest that he does not fully understand the scriptures himself and should study what faith is.  My not-so-Christ-like side wants to call him an idiot and hit him with a pillow.  

 

How to handle this situation: assure your friend.  And rather than going through a middle-man, I would chat with the missionary directly.  It isn't "over stepping your bounds" because your the friend, and her Gospel contact.  

Edited February 26, 2015 by Jane_Doe

[askandanswer]

Its a mission problem, not a ward problem, so I think the best person to resolve it would be the Mission President, and not the bishop or ward mission leader. I think the missionary is in error and I suspect the President would be somewhat concerned about this. I believe if the investigator was to contact the Mission President directly and explain the situation, that the President would quickly and correctly resolve the issue and then use it as a teaching opportunity for the missionary, and maybe for the whole mission, thereby benefitting the investigator, the missionary and the mission. I think it would be a little awkward for you to make the approach to the Mission President, but with some coaching and advice, I'm sure you could adequately prepare your friend to make the approach. I'd be interested in knowing how things turn out. I hope your friend is not put off by this experience. 

 

I note that every now and then a speaker in General Conference will say something along the lines of "every time I read the scriptures, I learn something new," thereby suggesting that although they believe 100%, even they don't understand 100%. 

[AngelMarvel]

Thank you all. I will contact her tomorrow and see what I can do to help. I will let you know how things go... praying a baptism will still be done on March 14th as planned.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Askandanswer is right.

Bishops have virtually nothing to do with convert baptisms. A bishop could provide some counsel but that's about it. Talk to the missionary and if that doesn't work call the mission president.

[Palerider]

I am thinking since she is new , at least she has a testimony to start with ...we are encouraged to always keep praying and reading so our testimony can continue to grow. Did not know percentages played a part.

[sxfritz]

That is sad. Some people are just extreme and no amount of training is going to get it out of them. I see extremist in forums such as this and there doesn't appear to be any way to persuade them to moderation - to do so would only prove you to be unworthy, or some such thing. 

 

As stated above, the bishop wouldn't get involved. He may be able to "teach" and help her spiritually, but he has no matter in the decision to baptize. She should request an interview with the mission president. It is not uncommon to have that interview. It is common when an investigator is overcoming a condition of baptism such as smoking and the mission president can make a decision as to how long to wait until baptism. 

 

Good luck. 

[pam]

I've been a member all of my life and there are still things that I am learning and new understandings.

 

I've read the Book of Mormon numerous times and each time I find something new that I didn't see or understand from my previous readings.

[Just_A_Guy]

You know what?  Lots of missionaries would happily speed your mother along to baptism, prepared or not--particularly in US missions where baptisms are relatively infrequent.  Kudos to this missionary for his sincere desire to not have your mother make a covenant he's not sure she's ready for.  His theory is absolutely correct, even if his application is a bit skewed.

 

That said:  As per page 206 of Preach My Gospel (which contains the list of baptismal questions), acceptance of the Book of Mormon--to any degree--is not part of the baptismal interview.  The closest applicable question is whether the investigator accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet.  I do think, as a practical matter, that it's a problem to baptize someone who believes the Book of Mormon is bogus.  But where someone accepts the veracity of the Book of Mormon on principle, admits to harboring a couple of specific nagging doubts/questions but maintains that (s)he is affirmatively working to resolve them--no, I don't think it's necessary or desirable to delay baptism.

 

I'd give the Mission President a call.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[omegaseamaster75]

Just A Guy answered the question for us, part of the interview is not if the investigator believes that the BOM is 100% true, many investigators never read it cover to cover before they are baptized that is an unfair question and the missionary is out of line.

 

The question is as Just A Guy pointed out: Do you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

 

If the answer is yes, then everything else falls into place.....He can't be a prophet and the BOM be false....

[AngelMarvel]

You know what?  Lots of missionaries would happily speed your mother along to baptism, prepared or not--particularly in US missions where baptisms are relatively infrequent.  Kudos to this missionary for his sincere desire to not have your mother make a covenant he's not sure she's ready for.  His theory is absolutely correct, even if his application is a bit skewed.

Although I do understand what you are saying... I still believe he is completely out of line. He transferred in and from what she is saying he is very aggressive and actually seemed to over power the other Missionary whom she had already built a connection with. I am not sure if this has anything to do with it...but, he is from Africa... so maybe they are more aggressive in their teachings. I am not trying to make any type of racial comments toward him...but, you mentioned US missions which made me think that other countries are different in their teachings.

 

BTW... this is not my mother. This is a woman that Marco and I met when he was working in California. We became very close to her and her children. They were baptized last year. 

 

That said:  As per page 206 of Preach My Gospel (which contains the list of baptismal questions), acceptance of the Book of Mormon--to any degree--is not part of the baptismal interview.  The closest applicable question is whether the investigator accepts Joseph Smith as a prophet.  I do think, as a practical matter, that it's a problem to baptize someone who believes the Book of Mormon is bogus.  But where someone accepts the veracity of the Book of Mormon on principle, admits to harboring a couple of specific nagging doubts/questions but maintains that (s)he is affirmatively working to resolve them--no, I don't think it's necessary or desirable to delay baptism.

 

I'd give the Mission President a call.

I will talk with her again to be sure I am fully understand what went on last night in her discussion. Then let her know that she can speak with the Mission President and I will find out who that is so she doesn't have that on her to find out.

 

Thank you for your response..

[Blackmarch]

My husband and I have worked with a family for over a year now to get baptized. The children got baptized last year, but their mom didn't want to take the discussions. She did come to some of the discussion when the Missionaries were giving them to her children at our home.

 

About 4 months ago, the mom decided that she does want to know more about the Church... she wants to know for herself and because she wants to go with her children to Church and be a part of what they are learning.

 

So... my husband and I had the Missionaries coming to our house so they could teach her. After a few lessons, we had to move back to Utah as my husband's job was over...so the Missionaries taught her at different places. (She doesn't allow other into her home for her own reasons)

 

Things were rough going for about 3 of the months. She questioned everything every step of the way. But, at some point things started to make more sense to her and a baptism date was set two weeks ago for March 14th. My husband and I were going to travel down south because she wants him to baptize her.

 

BUT... tonight I got a phone call from her and she told me the baptism wasn't going to happen because the one Missionary was transferred out and a new more aggressive Missionary took his place.

 

The transfer wasn't the problem. The problem was, when the new Missionary asked her if she believe the BoM was 100% true, she told him she didn't know because, although she read the whole thing, there are so many things she does not understand that she cannot say that she believes in it 100%.

 

So... he told her she is not ready to be baptized. She explained to him that not only has she read the whole BoM and the Bible ... but, she is also on the last chapter of Gospel Principles. That she feels that she is ready. She believes enough to know she wants to be baptized.

 

NO ... she does not understand everything that she has read...but, she feels things will come to her in time. She is very discouraged at the moment as she has worked very hard over these last couple of months and was very excited about the upcoming baptism.

 

My question is.... Do you think the Missionary is correct in saying she cannot be baptized because she doesn't believe 100% of something she has yet to fully understand? I know Missionaries go by the spirit, but do you think he could be missing the boat on this?

 

Should she take this to the Bishop? Or the Ward Missionary President ...or who should she talk to? She did try to talk with this new Missionary about it...but, he still says she needs to believe 100%.

 

She meets with the Missionaries twice a week and has done so for about 4 months or more now. Only missed 2 visits when she and the children got the flu.

 

My own observation of things over my years as LDS.

 

.... I know lots and lots of members who have NEVER read the BoM... how did they get baptized?

 

.... Do you 100% believe in every word of the BoM? Or even understand 100% of it?

 

.... Why so you think they allowed her children who were 9 and 10 years old at the time... and definitely didn't read the whole BoM or understand even what they read, get baptized?

 

It doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

I am not looking for her and me to get beat up over these questions... only to get some info as to what you all think. My husband said to take it to the Bishop or Ward Mission President. I think so too...but, like your opinion on the whole situation.

not necessarily per se, - the requirements are for believing christ and being obedient to him and supporting his prophets. However if you disbelieve the book of mormon that becomes much harder to do (of which Joseph Smith was one of the prophets, and was commanded to bring forth the book of mormon by way of translating it, which is why if someone disbelieves the book of mormon it is a pretty big hurdle in joining the church).

The main reason you should join any church is because God let you know that you need to join, in some manner or another.

Generally for most of us the Book of Mormon has been the best physical instrument that helps us achieve that, but like the bible there's always something new to be gleaned from it the next time you read it again that you missed before.

that being said, Disbelieving and Not Knowing are two different ball games.

All I really know well is that God and Christ exist, that they chose Jospeh Smith to be a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon was brought forth by them through Joseph Smith.

now if some of or all of the book of mormon is allegorical or literal it doesn't matter to me. I'm open to both (however i've had a lot of experiences that indicate to me that it is exactly what JS says it is.)

Whether it is true or not, you will get closer to God abiding the principles it teaches than contained any other book, and i've found that to be true.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Blackmarch

[NightSG]

many investigators never read it cover to cover before they are baptized 

 

I guess that's why the missionaries got that funny look when they went to point something out during the fourth discussion and realized I had highlights, underlines and margin notes through the whole thing.

 

I'd still love to find a Quad done like one of great grandma's Bibles; imagine printing it in the regular font, but centered up on 8.5x11" paper, so you have huge margins to take notes in.  She still ran out of room in a few places, even with tiny handwriting.

[Bini]

You don't even have to read the BOM to be baptised. My whole family was baptised, and I'm pretty sure my father and only a couple siblings actually read the BOM, but myself and my mum did not. So if you haven't read it, I suppose, it's debatable in whether you can accept it as being truth. Though my mum certainly believes it is.

[Vort]

Certainly you can accept the Book of Mormon as true without reading it. But that belief will be inherently weak. If you want to have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, then you have to read the Book of Mormon. There are no magical shortcuts. If you want a sandwich, you have to make a sandwich.

[NightSG]

If you want a sandwich, you have to make a sandwich.

 

Then what are the women for? 

[Vort]

Then what are the women for? 

Avatars.

[Crypto]

Avatars.

I now get to see your avatar that someone awhile ago mentioned you using.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

It's an interesting question. Possibility 1: The missionary is overly aggressive and overstepping. Possibility 2: The missionary is making sure that someone is legitimately prepared for the covenants they are going to make and is being led by the Spirit.

 

I suppose there are other possibilities, of course, but my point is, really, that it is beyond this forum to determine which of these or any other possibilities is the truth.

 

In theory, I can see both sides of the matter. There is no reason to expect someone to have a full understanding of everything prior to baptism. Conversely, there is a great danger in how many are baptized without actually understanding the key important things they are committing to.

 

It could be that this missionary understands that acceptance of the Book of Mormon being 100% true is a matter of faith and not of understanding -- that, as omega pointed out, if one accepts that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God then one cannot, legitimately, hold out that the BOM is false. Or, in other words, if one is not certain, by faith, that the Book of Mormon is true, then one clearly also does not fully accept Joseph Smith to be what he claimed to be.

 

So, like I said, an interesting idea, but entirely beyond any of us to accurately advise upon.

[yoyoteacher]

Then what are the women for? 

 

Ohhhhh, I could probably answer that question. But it wouldn't be very nice of me. 

[askandanswer]

Question

Then what are the women for? 

 

Answer

 

 

So, like I said, an interesting idea, but entirely beyond any of us to accurately advise upon.

[MarginOfError]

Even if you accept the Book of Mormon at face value, you have to acknowledge that it was written entirely with historical bias. There are, in my mind, enormous questions about how 'true' it really is.

But all of that is pretty irrelevant. At the very least, it is a work of inspired writing by prophets doing their level best to build up the kingdom of God. That should be sufficient.

Also, there is nothing wrong with a bishop contacting the mission president on the behalf of a potential member of his ward. He is the most likely person to have the contact information anyway. And it isn't like mission presidents are unfamiliar with the concept of over zealous missionaries (but, then again, it isn't like bishops are unfamiliar with the concept of over zealous mission presidents).

[The Folk Prophet]

...you have to acknowledge that it was written entirely with historical bias.

 

Why does one "have to" acknowledge this?

[MarginOfError]

Why does one "have to" acknowledge this?

 

Because, objectively speaking, it is.  It was written almost entirely by two people (Nephi and Mormon) who had deep motivation to frame the actions of themselves and their people in terms of God's involvement.  Nephi's record frames the acquisition of the brass plates and the murder of Laban as commands from God, but never really addresses the fact that these were legitimate crimes.  Thus, there is historical bias in the record* 

 

Again, with Nephi, there's never any mention of the fact that Laman was literally robbed of property that, according to the customs of the time, probably should have belonged to him (namely, the brass plates, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, etc).  Nephi stole these (wisely, sure) in the midst of his departure.  But a critical reading of the Nephi's records leaves the impression that Laman and Lemuel and legitimate complaints with Nephi that never really get presented.

 

For Mormon's part, with very few exceptions, the Lamanites are nearly always the unprovoked aggressors of any conflict.  The nature of humanity indicates this is very unlikely, and so it seems the history is probably whitewashed.  The only times the Lamanites are not the aggressors is when they are "righteous," or a part of the Church of God.

 

So yes, the Book of Mormon has a clear historical bias.  But that's okay, because it isn't a document that purports to be a complete history.  It's a religious history, and I'm not aware of any place in the record where anyone claims it is intended to be an unbiased record.  

 

So back to the point, it seems silly to me to expect that a person should have to accept the Book of Mormon as 100% truth when it almost certainly is not.

 

To put it in statistical terms: "All models are wrong.  Some models are useful."  I would classify the Book or Mormon as useful.

 

 

 

* Note: I'm not saying he shouldn't have done those things, just pointing out that the record is in fact biased.