Long-time RFM readers might remember back ten years ago, when I first began to post here.

At that time, I was the Gospel Doctrine teacher in my growing branch, as well as the second counselor. Contrary to many of the malicious and untrue online claims made since (always anonymously) by members who claim to have known me, I was, I believe, as devout a Mormon as I was capable of being, and I always had been. Yarns about me living a rock star life were completely untrue; I'd toured the world as a pop star (albeit fairly low level), and never had a sip of alcohol, a drag on a ciggie, or so much as held hands with another girl - nor had I had any desire to. I had an angelic wife and seven (soon eight) children, and I was as certain as I think it is possible to be that Mormonism was God's only true religion.

No sooner did I begin to research my Old Testament Gospel Doctrine lessons, however, than I began to notice anomalies that - despite all the Mormon history and doctrine books I'd read - I had never known of before. First up was Joseph Smith's "Book of Moses"; my research into the original text of the first five books of the Bible showed that there was simply no way that "The Book of Moses" could be what Joseph Smith claimed. Rather than being a "corrected" version of a text written solely by Moses, as Smith claimed, it was clearly a composite put together of various Israelite histories (for more info on this, see the research of Dr. Richard Elliott Friedman).

That led into the Book of Abraham, which I realized was also a smoking gun; and that led to the discovery of more and more problems.

I sought faith-promoting explanations for these devastating problems from the church apologists at the now-defunct FARMS. I even wrote to Dallin Oaks. To my surprise, there were no answers. Oaks batted away my query by telling me to write to the First Presidency, and they responded by sending a copy of my sincere letter to my Branch President (though I had labeled it "personal and confidential"), as well as sending me a non-answer. I felt frustrated, bewildered, horrified, unsure of whether I was coming to my senses for the first time or being misled by Satan himself; and the cognitive dissonance I felt trying to find ways to stay in my pleasing "belief-state", holding on to the rock that my whole life and family relied on, while knowing that some of Joseph Smith's claims just could not be true, was terrible. I felt caught in some panicked state, with no way out, and I had no idea mentally what to do.

Around that time, I had promised my then-wife I'd make her a yard worthy of a "Better Homes and Gardens" feature; and it was while I was out one day laying and tamping down sod I'd ordered that I finally had a moment of clarity.

In that moment, it felt like all the hundreds of swirling concerns and questions stopped, and two questions came to my mind.

The first was:

"If, by some chance, Mormonism were not what it claimed to be, would I *really* want to know?"

And the second was:

"If it weren't, how would I know?"

Those questions, I thought, should be my starting point; and once I began to mull over that first question, everything else started to fall into place in my head.

Why? Because it wasn't a question about any particular Mormon or non-Mormon claim, but rather, a question about who I was, or wanted to be, as a person. Was I the kind of person who would prefer a pleasing fiction over a displeasing truth? If belief in a myth gave me things I valued, would I prefer to keep that going, versus seeing the myth for what it was, and losing everything?

I mulled the question over in my head for the next couple of days. If I remember right, by the third day, I had come - I admit with a lot of reluctance - to feel clear that *yes, I would want to know*, come what may.

That left the second question: "if Mormonism were not true...how would I know?"

This question again bypassed any particular Mormon controversy, and instead, forced me to consider some basic, a priori, ground rules about assessing ANY claim about the world (which would of course include the religion that meant so much to me).

That question again clarified, even stilled, a lot of the stuff running through my head at the time, and led to a few different insights, which to me seemed rock-solid. Now, they seem very common-sense; but in that addled state, when we have been essentially brainwashed so that we cannot think critically about Mormonism, they seemed earthshattering.

One insight was that, regardless of how any claim fared when compared to reality, if a witness asking to be believed contradicted himself in significant ways, he should be regarded as an unreliable source of information. That is, he should not be believed. Since Joseph Smith did contradict himself in many notable instances (for example, in claiming that he only had "one wife" even though he had secretly polygamously married many others, or changing the who, what, where, when, and why of his mutating First Vision story), that eliminated Joseph Smith as a credible witness.

Another insight was that epistemic rules, to be valid, had to remain the same when evaluating different claims. They could not be changed, in ad hoc fashion, so as to lead someone to a predetermined conclusion (this is known as the "Fallacy of Special Pleading"). I had noticed this many times in the writings of the apologists: no series of steps was too illogical for them, as long as they got back to "The church is true!". But this could only be a red flag).

I could go on, but these are just two examples of what I began to come up with, once I had determined that I really would want to know if Mormonism weren't true, and asked myself how I would know, if it weren't.

I described these two questions in many different posts online, most of them on this very board, never imagining that they might be as earthshattering to others, as they were to me.

Then, a couple of years later, I attended an ex-Mormon conference, and heard Mike Norton give a few remarks. During his talk, I was very surprised to hear him mention that an important moment for him had been considering the question, "If Mormonism were not true, would I really want to know?", and he added, "wherever that question came from".

I admit, the vain part of me at that moment wanted to stand up and shout, "HEY! Wow! Ha ha! I made that up! Yay me!". But modesty forbid it (obviously, that's worn off now :p).

And since then, I have heard a number of people - in podcasts, or in posts online - mention these two questions, and I have wondered how far they have floated through the ex-Mormon miasma (thanks to this very site), and how many people my two little questions might have helped gain clarity on what Mormonism is, and what it isn't.

I thought of this today, because I was shocked to see this morning, reading the letter English biship Steve Bloor sent to his ward members, that he also mentioned the "if Mormonism weren't true, would I want to know?" question. And I wondered again if these two little questions had far more power, and far more applicability, than I had ever imagined they would, ten years ago, when I first went through the painful process that so many others have gone through since. Certainly, in the many conversations I've had with members over the past few years, asking them those questions seems to have liberated them from years of brainwashing, sometimes in a matter of minutes. It is almost like, sometimes, they are emerging from a hypnotic state.

In any case, I just want to put out there that, if by chance you find yourself in conversation with a believing or wondering church member, rather than getting into a debate about some question of Mormon history or doctrine, try taking a step back, and asking your member friend these two simple, but powerful, questions:

1.) If, by some chance, Mormonism were not true, would you *really* want to know?;

and

2.) If it were not true...how would you know?

Let them ponder and stew; bring the conversation back to those fundamental questions if they veer back into rote apologetic sloganeering; and you just might see, as I have seen so many times now, their strange hypnotic state begin to dissipate, and them begin to think clearly, for the very first time, about Joseph Smith's invented religion.

Just thought I'd share. Hope this approach helps many more who would value truth over life, authenticity over pretense, and light over darkness.

Best wishes to all,

Tal

Thanks Tal for sharing part of your story and for these two questions.

My approach with sharing my unbelief about mormonism has not had the results I had hoped for. When I realized for me that mormonism met all the requirements of a cult, it turned on the light for me to see why I had become ensnared. This almost led to a true panic and absolute necessity to let my TBM loved ones know that this is what had also ensnared them. I felt very compelled to warn them and rescue them.

Well, I did not rescue them. Rather I felt doors slamming in front of me. Perhaps, by using these two questions if and when the opportunity presents itself, discussion might have a chance.

I hope so.

The questions have become a key piece of advice given to people planning how to tell their family.

I could have used them fifteen years ago when I first dropped the Book of Abraham issue on my TBM mother. Her response was "why couldn't you have left me believing in peace!"

It still amazes me how afraid some people are of truth or facts. You would think the truth would make people free, instead they head for the hills. Or, having an open, honest discussion gives them the willies. Your response could have been, "Mom, how could you have subjected me to lies?"

These simple questions work because they force a TBM to consider if they're really willing to be honest WITH THEMSELVES, without them having to defend a complex 'anti mormon' attack.

They also can't really win. If they wouldn't want to know if TSCC were not what it claims, then there's no further discussion - they've admitted to being close minded. If on the other hand they would honestly wish to know, the second question pins them on the 'how' angle, which gets right to the core of challenging their openness to consider truth beyond an arbitrary and easily manufactured feeling.

I've used these questions on an ardent TBM who worked in CES and they worked. He wanted to debate each intricate point of history and doctrine and I told him that this would be fine, just as long as he could answer the first question in the affirmative. It completely threw him. He admitted that he couldn't and so the discussion ended abruptly.

It's simply a great way to try and get a TBM into a more neutral mindset, but in a seemingly non-threatening manner. You give them the rope and it's their decision whether they use it to escape out of a hole or hang themselves.

Thanks for this post, it has clarified what I have been experiencing in the last few years as I have confided my unbelief to family members. My family is content with what they believe and that is where I have to respect that belief. Trying to convince a TBM of their errors has always proven unproductive, to say the least, for me.

I recently just read "A Manual for Creating Atheists" and he puts the focus on faith. Faith as he defines it is pretending to believe. I personally find the definition of faith as belief without evidence better.

As I have developed some thoughts on the book I'd have to say that it helps to identify that faith is unfalsifiable. Because faith is unfalsifiable they have no method for determining if they have been deceived. If you look across the different beliefs and look at the conclusions people have reached based on faith, it's quite clear they are very confused because they have let go of a logical frame work to reach their conclusions.

The question if God wasn't real how would you know is a very pointed question that they generally can't answer because the real answer is they don't know. Believing something that's unverifiable is not a good way to live your life.

I think that debating specific points of doctrine and history are effective in helping people realize that faith is insufficient way to determine truth. The book just cuts right to the chase for atheist though, go straight to faith and hit it hard.

How many TBMs would answer the first question by saying, "I don't want to know anything else because I have a testimony that is based on the sure witness of the Holy Ghost."

That's where I am with my wife. And I'm not going to mess up our happy marriage of 43 years by trying to beat her over the head with facts that are crystal clear to me. After two very tense conversations this year we agreed to disagree about the truthfulness of the church.

BTW I apologize for not knowing who you are, Tal, but please know that I absolutely love The Guess Who and BTO. I saw The Guess Who a few years ago, and I think they were performing with Joe Cocker, another favorite. I'm just stuck in the classic rock era.

One additional question:

"What three claims MUST be true for TSCC to be what it claims?"

There is so much evidence against the church but it sometimes gets overwhelming.....one problem leads to the next. It helps to focus.

Thanks Tal. The distillation to these two simple questions is so helpful. I'm going to remember them going forward. It's not altogether different than asking some people, "If your spouse is unfaithful, would you want to know?" and "How would you be able to determine if she is?" And the ramifications are just as wide-ranging as an unfaithful spouse. Sometimes more so.

And the FACT that most all of the TBM's in MY life fail to even "dignify" those 2 questions with any kind of response says MORE ABOUT THEM THAN IT DOES ABOUT ME!!!

Many times I've been on the receiving end of the "deer-in-the-headlights" look after asking just the first question.

Or so it seems to me...

When someone replies with "but I felt something".....(which is a genuine thing we should understand and respect), ask them what they think they felt.

That can be explored, then ask them to read this.
http://www.bonneville.com/?nid=32

HeartSell (TM), destroying testimonies one mouse click at a time.

This destroys "but you felt something".

Remember, church owns Bonneville.

I mean they even admit to manipulating your emotions.

Then they admit to delivering a false spiritual experience.

And they now even sell these "tokens"

HeartSell (TM) is an abomination

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1.) If, by some chance, Mormonism were not true,
> would you *really* want to know?;
>
> and
>
> 2.) If it were not true...how would you know?

I remember your "coming out." It was quite entertaining. I had just learned who you were via your song and then here I discovered you were a former Mormon.

To your questions I wanted to add that I have posed the first several times. The answer is a variation of "No, I would not want to know" but couched in a variety of ways.

"I know it is true so what is the point of exploring whether it isn't true."

"All I know is that it is true. Beyond that I don't know and don't want to listen to antis and read things which may or may not be true about the church."

You get the picture.

As to your second question it is epistemologically impossible. There are more facts to support "it" (LDS Inc.) not being true (i.e. lying about and with their foundational claims) as to make the truth test of LDS Inc. a moot point.

It is indefensible logically and so Moroni's Promise has to suffice.

This is a very good point and something it took me a long time to figure out. I guess I assumed that the mormon church made everyone as miserable as it made me. That being said, I truly believed it. I thought it was impossible to ever be sure that it wasn't true and if it was true and I abandoned it, I'd regret it for eternity.

I didn't really stop to think that there are many people who love being peculiar, women who really never did want to have an education and love that they married young and popped out kids in their early 20s. There are people who love that they don't have to think for themselves, that they don't have to guess what they should do, who don't want to pick their own undies and don't find the temple garments hideous. I could go on and on about things that I hated that other people really don't seem to mind.

If someone had said to me, "If the mormon church isn't true, would you want to know?" my answer would have been a resounding YES. But again, I didn't think it was possible to ever know for sure. Fast Forward to my late 40s and I found out that it WAS possible. I am way way way more sure that it's 100% false than I ever was that it was true.

I don't start conversations about the fallacy of Mormonism with Mormons. What I post here, I post to fellow exmos, if someone wants to come looking for what I post, that's their business. I don't go prosyletizing. But if a mormon asks me a question or we get in any kind of conversation about things they are not taught in church, I now make it a practice to ask, "If the church wasn't true or wasn't what it claims to be, would you want to know?" If the answer is "No," or "well, not really," or "I'm not sure," that's where the conversation ends. But if they attack me or start talking to me about things that I know are not correct, I will put my 2 cents worth in.

It's a short life and if someone wants to live in a bubble they should have that opportunity, as long as they don't hurt other people in the process. No, don't get me started about what their bubble living can do to their family, that's a different conversation.

Thanks for this post. I too had a couple of key questions when I finally decided to leave the tscc. The problem was, they never translated very well when I would ask others. I've never been very articulate in writing or even speaking for that matter. But, I have been thinking about this very thing since leaving about 6 1/2 years ago.There has got to be something profound enough to actually make someone stop and think without reacting or answering too quickly!The closest I got to an actually good questions(at least I thought it was, but obviously it wasn't!) was this...

I had just moved to Utah where my very TBM sister and family were living. We were never really that close growing up but close in age. I always accused her of being very self righteous and she thought i was too wild. We were walking on a regular basis and reconnecting and for whatever insane reason I thought I could ask her a very thought provoking question to kind of break the ice about what I was finding out about the church. I said "what would it take for you to leave the church?" I had to kind of reiterate where I was going with this as in doctrine or something she were to learn or have happen to her or her family. But, THAT did not go over well. I tried tweeking this question and approach for future family like asking them what was true about the church but, It always fell short and the questions were never actually answered.

All of this time I have been thinking if I could just ask the right questions or say the right thing then my siblings and parents would just see the light. Basically see that I am right! But, the fact is, they may NOT want to see the light. That never actually occurred to me. I was on the assumption that they would most definitely want to know.

This is why I love RfM! Somebody has "been there, done that". It makes it so much easier for the rest of us. I would love to hear any return and reports on this question! It's a good one!!

Funny how that gets to the heart of the matter.

Ironically I've found that my own TBM wife doesn't want to know. She actually would prefer to not know if it isn't true and live with the fable— and has admitted as much.

My DW has told me the same thing in regards to Question-1. She prefers living in the Matrix. But I still hold out hope that it just takes more time for some people. I'm sure the question must continue to fester in her mind, even at this moment.

I enjoyed this post a lot. Thanks Tal, this is good stuff.

Thanks for sharing that, Tal. I've always wondered what brought you out.

I've often used the question, "If the Church were not true, would you want to know," as a gauge to whether or not someone is ready to hear the truth.

As long as they answer, "No, I wouldn't," then they're not ready and it's no use wasting time trying to get them to see reason.

It was the very moment that my answer was, "Yes," that I was ready to seek out the truth, no matter where that truth led me and no matter how scary that truth might be.

As long as my answer was still, "No," it wouldn't have mattered if the evidence was placed right before my eyes. I wouldn't have seen it.

If one is still in that hypnotic state, they literally can't see what's right in front of them and they'll deny that it's even there in the first place.

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear...

Couldn't agree more. I am eternally grateful for a friend that planted the BOA seed in my TBM mind. I brushed it aside when i first heard it but it never left me totally even in my most strident TBM days. The funny thing is, my friend still active in the church while I have had my named removed...

I think that if TSCC did exit interviews they would eliminate the calling of Gospel Doctrine teacher. They would produce a series of slick videos, heavily laden with emotional triggers, to be used during the second block and they would allow no discussion.

I have read on the boards and heard in person so many testimonies of people who got there first inkling that something was wrong while they were a Gospel Doctrine Teacher. That is where it started for me.

Someone asked, during p class: "Why do you come to church". I responded "because of the social aspect", our friends, family, etc; and that's why it is difficult to address the Truth--it does not alter the price of rice in China. And that's why it's easier to just get by (internally knowing, perhaps, none of it makes much difference, or even having the attitude of "it ain't necessarily so", as in Porgy and Bess, and giving banal platitudes for answers.) My DW asks why do you go? I say "to straighten them out" Just yesterday in D&C/'History' class where the idea of supporting the ruling powers that be is doctrine (AoF 13), I said but remember without defying the king there would be no US, without defying the gov't there would have been no Utah. They thought I was a dangerous revolutionary!

There are two points that, in my limited experience, can result from this kind of question to TBMs.
First, I have asked this very question to TBMs who are close to me, only to be told no. Reasons given were either that they wouldn’t change anything with regard to how they live their lives anyway, or that they like the comfort of the myth and wouldn’t want that taken away. That is what we’re taught to say, but even after we say it, just the echo of that question in the hearer’s head can grow (like a mustard seed?) into a curiosity, and when any tiny bit of objective info is accepted, a step onto that proverbial slippery slope has been taken and - at their own pace - they take a journey into the sun.
Second, if they answer by bearing a testimony that contains the word “true”, asking them to explain what “true” means can actually take them into a discussion with the asker, or maybe later with themselves, about how they would know.
Then just let the seeds grow, moistening with gentle questions as opportunities present themselves. If there is any curiosity in an individual, he will find himself on a journey at some point. It is becoming harder and harder to ignore all the information that challenges the reality people who live in the bubble have always just accepted without question or thought.
IOW, the posing of these great questions doesn’t have to bear obvious fruit immediately. Many people will decide that they are smart enough and/or their testimony is strong enough to withstand a little research. And as many of us on this board know, that is very often how it starts…

"Second, if they answer by bearing a testimony that contains the word “true”, asking them to explain what “true” means can actually take them into a discussion with the asker, or maybe later with themselves, about how they would know."

That's a brutal question to drop on someone: "what do you mean by true?"

I'm thinking about having a conversation with a mormon friend who has sort of opened the door to a few questions. I imagine he would respond with some truth assertion. When I imagine him trying to explain what he means by true, I imagine it as a tortured moment for both of us as he thrashes around incoherently and I look on like a bystander.

Well written Tal.

For me, I asked the same questions in a different manner:

"If Mormonism were true, would I want to know?"

"If Mormonism were true, how would I know?"


I have been out since age 13, 42 years ago. I have asked these questions many, many times.

Because of RfM and other sources, I now know the answers to these questions...

Well done. The first question is the "willful ignorance" question, but your way of saying it is more to the point and less confrontational.

I asked my tbm sister that first question and she said no she woudnt want to know I then said that's like me knowing the winning lottery numbers would she like to know and she said she wouldn't want to know the numbers either. What can you do when their thinking is so flawed?

I asked myself a similar question:
If you were in The Truman Show, would you want to know?

When I asked these two questions of myself while being open to whatever may be was the moment when the pieces all fell together and I recognized reality for what it was. I wanted to first look at things for which prayer would be unnecessary, much like I wouldn't pray about the color of the sky or the flavor of chocolate. I decided to start with, what for me, seemed the most easily quantifiable thing, which was the Book of Abraham. I looked at what the Church had said about the origins and meaning behind it, then the critical view, and then the apologetic view. The answer to its veracity became obvious. What made it more so, was not so much what the apologists and the Church had responded to, but what they carefully avoided responding to. This demonstrated a willful dishonesty in their methodology.

This approach was then applied to other areas. While there are certain areas that may be up for debate, like the exact origins of the BoM text or if Joseph ordered the death of Boggs, there are large areas with very very specific, quantifiable, and obvious answers. Anachronisms in the foundational text, origin stories regarding major revelations, priesthood restorations, visions, major Church history events, financial dealings, and on and on. All these areas have a recorded path that we can follow. Even today, with Jeffrey Holland's odiously dishonest response to the BBC regarding the temple or his apparent ignorance with regards to the BoA, are all there to witness on YouTube, reveal the thin and crumbling foundation of the Church.

The Church does drill into us since we were children that we should be honest in our dealings especially with our Priesthood leaders, but somehow, under that veneer, it does not allow us to honestly look into itself with that same scrutiny, while also claiming that it can and has withstood any and all criticisms. I think these two questions arise independently whenever any person starts to take a more rational and skeptical view or whenever we are willing to question our foundational assumptions.

Tal,
Thank you for posting those two questions back 10 or so years ago. Using them on my Dad, brother and one of my sisters was really the only way to get them to stop trying to "prove" mormonism to me... each separately communicated to me that they could not answer the first question in the affirmative... after I told them that question #1 was a resounding Yes for me... to this day, they have backed off and have not brought up trying to change my mind or "fix" me any more. Tal, your posts were an oasis in a major storm back 10 or so years ago for me... thank you so much. I have sincerely missed hearing as much from you in the recent past.

I also gained a lot from your posts ten years ago Tal, first as the misterious "TB" poster, then as the renown Tal Bachman.
I presented the first question to my wife back then and she said no, she would not want to know. We are still married but the person she needs me to be is a religious hypocrite, so that is what I am. I think hypocrisy is actually empowering in an institution that fosters it's own brand of pious hypocrisy.
Your wit, your clarity of expression and your natural reasoned thought back then were refreshing and challenging. Pretty much saved my sanity.
Thank you.

It's so much more complicated than that. People are part independent thinkers and part bees who do the things human bees are predisposed to do like follow the pack and do the pack's bidding. If the bee part of their brain is the dominant one they are unreachable by logic.