Sacrament talks blows up in my face

you can’t share what you really think on core issues at church. Otherwise, you get labeled the way you have been perceived. I’m glad you shared this because it confirms what we have all learned after years of people posting here — that if you openly share divergent beliefs (on core issues), you lose privileges in this organization. You can’t share them with individuals in your local Ward or stake either — it can only happen anonymously online or other contexts where it really is safe.

I think your focus should be on how to mitigate the effects of the situation. You need to decide what your objectives are with the church for you and anyone else who is important in your life.

Church0333, I wish I could of heard the whole talk.

There are some members who can’t accept or consider ideas or concepts that don’t fit the official doctrine.

I would never give a talk that spouts doctrine alone.

At least they weren’t sleeping.

It will be interesting to see if there is any fall out.

Couple of techniques that have been helpful to me come to my mind.

1) Know the audience and the format. I can say more 1 on 1 then I can in a group. I may be able to say more as a commenter in EQ than as an EQ teacher (If I am commenting then it is more accepted for me to share my opinions and accept moderation from the teacher, but if I am the teacher then I am in an authoritative position to teach doctrine. If people disagree with my teaching they are more likely to resent it.) Speaking in SM is perhaps the hardest because there is no opportunity for feedback and clarification also the audience is the most diverse. As a hypothetical TBM, I might not have a problem with you not loving every GC talk but I’m not sure that I want you telling my 9 year old that.

2) I avoid declaring my own beliefs to not get cornered. I might say that a “friend of mine” came to me with concerns about not believing that the world is 6000 years old, or that there was no death before adam, or that polygamy was needed for exaltation, or for believing that the priesthood ban was a wrong for which the church later repented. I might say that I assured “my friend” that there is a place for him in the church and that he is wanted and needed – even if he never changes his opinion on these points. I might even say that we need not agree on everything in order to be “one” in the Zion sense.

I also loved Elder Holland’s talk and found in it hidden messages for middle wayers. But these messages where well camouflaged from non-middle wayers. His talk seems to be saying different things depending on your perspective and I believe that he left those interpretations open deliberately. One great example was when he said that JS wasn’t perfect (and that God deals with it and so should we). This to me was an acknowledgement that JS (and the current church leadership by extension) was capable of making serious and far reaching mistakes – yet to say the latter in a church setting wouldn’t go over very well. A TBM might hear that JS wasn’t perfect and just think “nobody on earth was ever perfect except Jesus.”

I feel that I have much to learn from this masterful talk.

I am positive there were multiple people who appreciated your talk.

The only fall out that matters is from the person you represent – the Stake President. Explain what happened and give him your talk. Let him make the call. DON’T ask to be released just because some people got their panties in a wad.

Seriously, don’t over-react. If the SP isn’t comfortable with you serving, you will know it; if he is, he understands the need for your message.

Today I gave a HC talk about Elder Holland’s talk entitled, Lord I believe. I thought it was a great talk and used it extensvessly in my remarks. I talked how I was very inspired by the talk but that there were other talks that I just couldn’t listen to so I went out to weed my garden. That part got me accused of not supporting the brethren. In Elder Holland’s talk he said that we don’t have to pretend to faith that we don’t have and I said very respectfully that I don’t believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and that there was no death before Adam. I also said the there was no righteous justification for the priesthood ban but if others disagreed that was fine with me. I was accused of teaching false doctrine. My talk was on loving and accepting others even if their believes were different. The branch president where I spoke said some of his branch was really upset. I was very kind in my talk but now this. I wonder why I bother some times. I spent a least 10 hours on that talk. I knew that it might get the members thinking but they did not get the message at all of love and kindness and tolerance and reaching out to those that struggle. I have been stewing over this all evening. I can see why people just throw in the towel some times. Maybe it’s time to tell th SP I am done.

Did the stake president assign the conference talk? Depending on the answer, I think there are two different conversations to be had about the whole incident.

Hope it goes well!

Hang in there. This moment is doubly hard because you already feel like a fringe member, and we tend to struggle for a while trying to decide what we want to be our truth. (Not that we are lying, but which sincerity comes first).

If it helps at all I have seen talks by standard TBM’s hit the fan. They too studied and worked, but somehow the message they meant to send and the one that crept out were not the same.

I support the advice given, take your completed talk to the Stake President have faith in your intent. I am sending my prayers your direction. I think you did a service that is not yet known.

…Today I gave a HC talk about Elder Holland’s talk entitled, Lord I believe. I thought it was a great talk and used it extensvessly in my remarks…In Elder Holland’s talk he said that we don’t have to pretend to faith that we don’t have and I said very respectfully that I don’t believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and that there was no death before Adam. I also said the there was no righteous justification for the priesthood ban but if others disagreed that was fine with me. I was accused of teaching false doctrine. My talk was on loving and accepting others even if their believes were different. The branch president where I spoke said some of his branch was really upset. I was very kind in my talk but now this. I wonder why I bother some times. I spent a least 10 hours on that talk. I knew that it might get the members thinking but they did not get the message at all of love and kindness and tolerance and reaching out to those that struggle. I have been stewing over this all evening. I can see why people just throw in the towel some times. Maybe it’s time to tell th SP I am done.

About the only members I can imagine getting offended by this enough to complain to local leaders are a few hardcore literalists that believe just because Bruce R. McConkie said something as if he knew what he was talking about then that makes it official LDS doctrine. It’s not like the Church is asking members if they have a testimony of “no death before the fall” and young earth creationism in temple recommend interviews; in fact, they stopped publishing Mormon Doctrine and removed this “no death before the fall” idea that McConkie had put in the Bible dictionary so I think that shows how little confidence the Church really has in these ideas anymore. You haven’t done anything wrong and there is no reason you should have to apologize just because some people didn’t like to hear something different than the same old stuff they are already used to hearing over and over again.