Help declining a sacrament meeting talk

[sparky]

I've been cordially invited to give a sacrament meeting talk, er, I mean regurgitate conference talks in an upcoming sacrament meeting. Now, there may be a (very) few topics that I might be willing to speak about. The assigned topic is not one of them, so I will decline.

This is the first time I've turned down a talk despite being PIMO for years, so I'm asking for advice on how to do so tactfully. Yes, I know "No" is a complete sentence, but DW is still fully in, so I want to maintain respectful relationships with the leaders and really just stay under the radar as much as possible. But at the same time I want to convey that I'm not just declining this one time; I'm not interested in giving talks at all for the foreseeable future.

So here's a rough draft of what I want to say:

Hi So-and-so,
Thanks for the invitation. I'm working through some personal things lately, and I'm not in a place right now or in the near future where I feel able to accept speaking invitations, so I'm afraid I must decline. I'm sure there are other wonderful members of the ward who would benefit from the opportunity.

Cheers,
Sparky

Any thoughts or suggestions? Too much TMI? Too non-assertive? Am I over thinking this?

[nibbler]

That looks respectful to me.

I'm working through some personal things lately

That might open you up to being subject to someone trying to resolve your concerns. If you do end up using that language be prepared for someone trying to figure out why you're declining the invite so they can fix whatever it is. That said, it's been my experience that they'll come back with an, "Ok, thanks for letting me know." and completely forget about you until six months later when they ask you to give a talk again.

[sparky]

That looks respectful to me.

I'm working through some personal things lately

That might open you up to being subject to someone trying to resolve your concerns. If you do end up using that language be prepared for someone trying to figure out why you're declining the invite so they can fix whatever it is. That said, it's been my experience that they'll come back with an, "Ok, thanks for letting me know." and completely forget about you until six months later when they ask you to give a talk again.

Good point. My reason for that was to convey something like, "it's not you, it's me." But if I just remove that phrase and state directly "I'm not in a place right now where I feel able to accept..." it feels a bit more confident and less interpretable as a cry/invitation for help.

[alas]

Often when they ask a couple to give a talk, the wife being asked to talk is conditional on her husband talking also. You didn’t say if she was asked to speak also, but if she was, it might help to clarify that she is willing to give a talk and please don’t dis-invite her because the holy priesthood declined. Remember she is considered an auxiliary of you, not an individual in her own right. So, remind them she is a full human being completely separate to you, because being men, then shrink of her as just an extension of you. And that she might WANT to talk, even if you don’t. Otherwise when they withdraw the invitation to talk, they will withdraw it from her also and find another couple to talk. I have seen it happen.

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

I'm actually with Nibbler. The problem with giving them the "it's not you, it's me vibe" is that they they want to try to "fix" you.

What about something along the lines of:

"Dear so-and-so

I am honored that you thought of me to give a talk in sacrament meeting. I am going to respectfully decline to do so at the present time. In the future if I change my mind about speaking in public I will be sure to return and report, and we can discuss an assignment at that time. For now, I ask that you please respect this boundary that I have set. My spouse, being her own person, may still be willing to speak and she will respond independently.

Sincerely your brother in Christ,
xxxx"

**Edited to include Alas' comments which, as always, are on point!

[sparky]

Often when they ask a couple to give a talk, the wife being asked to talk is conditional on her husband talking also. You didn’t say if she was asked to speak also, but if she was, it might help to clarify that she is willing to give a talk and please don’t dis-invite her because the holy priesthood declined. Remember she is considered an auxiliary of you, not an individual in her own right. So, remind them she is a full human being completely separate to you, because being men, then shrink of her as just an extension of you. And that she might WANT to talk, even if you don’t. Otherwise when they withdraw the invitation to talk, they will withdraw it from her also and find another couple to talk. I have seen it happen.

Great comment, alas. They only asked me this time, which I'm sure DW will be perfectly happy about as she hates giving talks for her own different reasons. I'm actually a bit afraid that they'll ask her if I decline, and I would feel bad about that, but I guess she can deal in her own way if that happens.

I'm actually with Nibbler. The problem with giving them the "it's not you, it's me vibe" is that they they want to try to "fix" you.

What about something along the lines of:

"Dear so-and-so

I am honored that you thought of me to give a talk in sacrament meeting. I am going to respectfully decline to do so at the present time. In the future if I change my mind about speaking in public I will be sure to return and report, and we can discuss an assignment at that time. For now, I ask that you please respect this boundary that I have set. My spouse, being her own person, may still be willing to speak and she will respond independently.

Sincerely your brother in Christ,
xxxx"

This is really good, I may just make some minor edits and use this. I still have this vague urge to include some kind of "acceptable" excuse; it's something I'm working on in therapy and I'm getting better but sometimes it feels kind of blunt not to. But your response feels like confidently taking control of the situation and keeping the ball in my court (even if I am unlikely to ever take a shot again)

[Not Buying It]

I think you are overthinking it. You don't owe them an explanation. Anything you give them after "no" is just you being nice.

[Jeffret]

I would keep it simple and short.

"I'm not able to accept that invitation now or in the near future."

Yeah, they may come back in future, but it's easy to repeat that phrase when they do. And you get marked as one of those who won't give it their all so they tend not to ask again.

[Just This Guy]

I would keep it simple and short.

"I'm not able to accept that invitation now or in the near future."

Yeah, they may come back in future, but it's easy to repeat that phrase when they do. And you get marked as one of those who won't give it their all so they tend not to ask again.

Since this is all done in e-mail, you could setup a automatic reply that anytime you get a message with "talk" and "sacrament meeting" in the subject line, it automatically sends that reply to the sender and then deletes the original message. That way you don't have to deal with it at all.

An explanation may bring more attention to you than you want at the moment. Jeffret's line is all that is needed.

[Jeffret]

An explanation may bring more attention to you than you want at the moment. Jeffret's line is all that is needed.

Don't explain yourself to people who (incorrectly) claim to have god telling them what you need to do. Don't explain yourself to people that think they have the need, power, and authority to fix you.

You may think that further explaining yourself will lead to less questions and interaction. The opposite is true. The more you try to explain yourself, the more they think they need to resolve your concerns and fix you.

If they come back again and ask you to give another talk or do something different, just repeat with the same message.

(It's basically a sales technique. Sales people will sometimes attempt this sort of thing, also, trying to elicit your objections to the sale so they can overcome them. Same principle applies there. Don't explain yourself.)

[Just This Guy]

(It's basically a sales technique. Sales people will sometimes attempt this sort of thing, also, trying to elicit your objections to the sale so they can overcome them. Same principle applies there. Don't explain yourself.)

Remember that anyone who served a mission is a trained salesman. I remember there was a lot of training on "Identifying and resolving concerns" , both in the MTC and in the field. So when they hear something like "I'm working through some personal things lately" their first thing will be to start digging into that so they can eventually get you to give the response they want.

Just declining politely can short circuit their mission trained response.

[dogbite]

IMHO it's a mistake to say more than no. Any explanation or excuse you offer is just something for the mormon to overcome. If you offer nothing, they have nothing to comeback with. We want to justify it, but it's a mistake.

[Red Ryder]

I haven’t spoke in church for over 10 years.

My go to excuse is:

I’m out of town.

Then to ensure I’m not lying, we take the Sunday off and do something else.

Gets you out of speaking and a week off from church!

[Hagoth]

"Thank you so much! The spirit has been telling me I need to speak out publicly against LDS clergy sexual abuse and obfuscation but I didn't know how to begin. You must have been inspired to offer me a platform!"

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

"Thank you so much! The spirit has been telling me I need to speak out publicly against LDS clergy sexual abuse and obfuscation but I didn't know how to begin. You must have been inspired to offer me a platform!"

oh please do this!

[sparky]

Thanks everyone! I was definitely overthinking it as I often do. I ended up just going with a simple, "At this time I'm not able to accept the invitation, but I will let you know if that changes in the future." Thanks for the heads up about over explaining leading to MORE questions, not less.

Also I just have to vent about the way the "invite" was extended. Subject line was "Speaking Assignment." He asked if I'd be willing to speak, but then proceeded to describe the topic and links to the conference talks (which I forced myself to read and confirmed my aversion to the topic), then ended with something like "Please confirm that you accept the assignment." Since when are sacrament talks "assignments"? Ugh. Anyway.

"Thank you so much! The spirit has been telling me I need to speak out publicly against LDS clergy sexual abuse and obfuscation but I didn't know how to begin. You must have been inspired to offer me a platform!"

Thanks for the laugh Hagoth. I might consider doing this if not for the whole mixed faith marriage thing haha

[Hagoth]

Seriously, my typical response to any request these days has been, "Thanks for thinking about me, but I no longer do X." It works like a charm, especially on a phone call. Here's a real life example:

Him: "Hi Brother Hagoth, this is Brother X. We're having PPEs with the High Priest Group Leader this week (yeah, this wasn't recent). He can see you either Tuesday at 7:00 or Wednesday at 8:00."

Me: "Thanks for thinking about me, but I no longer participate in PPEs."

Dead silence.

More silence as he waits for further explanation but gets none.

More silence while he processes.

"OK, thanks, I'll pass that information along. Goodbye."

[Linked]

Also I just have to vent about the way the "invite" was extended. Subject line was "Speaking Assignment." He asked if I'd be willing to speak, but then proceeded to describe the topic and links to the conference talks (which I forced myself to read and confirmed my aversion to the topic), then ended with something like "Please confirm that you accept the assignment." Since when are sacrament talks "assignments"? Ugh. Anyway.

It's soooo annoying when people do that!

I'm sure it is born out of desperation because they keep getting told "no", so they do whatever they can to reduce the no's. But it is high pressure, objectifying, and patronizing. They don't know what works for you, and the way they sent this "assignment" shows that they clearly don't care.

[sparky]

But it is high pressure, objectifying, and patronizing. They don't know what works for you, and the way they sent this "assignment" shows that they clearly don't care.

Exactly! I know we're all supposed to be good cookie cutter robot Mormons who think and believe the same things, so it doesn't matter who speaks on what generic conference talk of the week. But it seems a speaking invitation should be in collaboration with the speaker. What does that person care about? What unique experiences and perspectives can they bring? Or even, is this general topic something you wound be interested in speaking on at all?

But that takes effort, and god knows bishoprics with their own full time jobs and families can't be expected to do that. Honestly I don't blame him at all, he's just another victim of the Mormon churn.

[blazerb]

Dead silence.

More silence as he waits for further explanation but gets none.

More silence while he processes.

"OK, thanks, I'll pass that information along. Goodbye."

The silence is so important. Reporters are trained when interviewing people to let the silence build tension so that the interviewee will start to talk in order to release it. I have found that letting the person make the request deal with the silence makes a huge difference.