katzpur in post #24 said : "I can agree with a lot of what you have said, but I don't think that most of these people ever "knew" the Church was true. They were raised in the Church but probably never had firm testimonies."
I am not one that has any definitive answers as to how testimonies work. I can't even say they are always given to someone who is deserving (since I obtained one and was not "deserving").
I have views on testimonies and have viewed modeled them as a living thing which is changing constantly. A living thing is “alive” and imbues that characteristic of ‘changability” onto all aspects of it’s existence; it’s knowledge; it’s emotions; it’s thought’s process, etc. In the same way that all characteristics that make up living things form a part of the changeable living thing itself, I have wondered if emotions and thoughts and experiences and all other principles which contribute to a “testimony” is not similarly “alive” and capable of endless variety and change whether for progression or for regresssion (.." my spirit shall not always strive with man").
Perhaps it is because of my background that I tend to model moral states, including a testimony, as an integral principle within individuals, like an organ of our body, not only capable of a healthy existence, but also capable of disease and capable of causing detriment to the whole. If, a testimony can be viewed as a muscle, and thus either “strong” through development or “weak” through non- development or non-usage, can one view it as an organ, capable of responding to foul and toxic actions and thoughts which to the detriment of the soul?
In the same way that food poisoning can cause temporary but significant illness though contaminated food; I think a strong testimony can be temporarily weakened by contaminated data or illogic or a poorly handled frustration. Given a bit of time, I do not think many such experiences themselves, do lasting damage to testimonies.
However, the attempt to justify that which is morally wrong, seems, in my estimation, to do a lot of damage to “used to be” christians (be they LDS or not). If one is doing a moral wrong, then knowledge that they are doing a thing they believe is morally wrong causes a moral dissonance, a strong disharmony within their soul, which is uncomfortable. The light within us tells us that something is amiss. If such a condition continues, the unrelenting, underlying self-blame and guilt becomes so very uncomfortable that one seeks to rid one’s self of the cumbersome guilt that prevents unimpeded joy or the constant reminder and intrusions into our consciousness that our lives contain important moral inconsistencies.
To attempt to rectify this moral disharmony and uncomfortable dissonance, one may either attempt to re-conform their discomforting moral actions to their moral beliefs or they may attempt to re-conform their moral beliefs to their moral actions. It is an attempt to Justify (or “make just”
what they are doing. This does not always mean that they are choosing to do what they think is wrong, there may be unusual situations. For example, a new Converts’ spouse may threaten to “leave and take the kids with me if you don’t leave the Mormon church” you just joined. Either choice that is made in this instance may cause moral discomfort.
I could be wrong, but the specific discomfort associated with the making of either choice is similar to the situation I see the LDS poster Dallas1125 describing. There may be some testimony, but it is not strong enough to support the commitment of a mission that others desire he make. If he goes without desire, this will cause discomfort to him. It he stays, this will cause discomfort to him. Either decision has different discomforts.
I believe that the moral discomfort experienced by many “prior mormons” (“new age mormon”, “was a mormon but not now”, “almost stayed mormon”, “am having difficulty leaving mormon”
forms a large part of their motive to justify leaving the gospel to a “non-gospel”. Those having a comfortable “exit” from mormonism to another religion they believe in, do not seem to have the same moral discomfort and are able to simply “leave mormonism alone”. They don’t feel the same moral tension and need to justify the change since the new faith itself justifies the change.
BUT, those who desire to simply abandon faith without sufficient moral justification have need to FIND some way to FEEL adequate moral justification to no longer believe in a prior testimony. This is difficult. One may initially flirt with an attempt to convince themselves that they never really HAD a testimony; or their testimony is faulty; or that the gospel itself is faulty is some important way.
The difficulty is that, unless they can find a real and authentic fault with a core salvational doctrine, they will be left to find fault with petty issues that do not form sufficient reason to then reject the core doctrines. For example, the core doctrines remain intact even if I find hypocrisies in some of the LDS. Thus, a relative amount of “hypocrisy” doesn’t really help one justify rejection of the restoration of a “profound salvific doctrine” (which is what they want to be ABLE to do). They can find petty potential defects such as early members wanting God to “avenge” a prophets martyrdom (“good people” shouldn’t want “bad things”...), but this also, doesn’t satisfy the justification of rejection of any other profound doctrine.
It is a very, very difficult position to be in; wanting to leave; and trying to find justification; REAL justification; to do so. Thus, they still “congregate” with the saints and try to chip at the paint of the gospel without accomplishing their goal. This is not a new phenomenon, Enoch speaks of those who try to “
deny the name of the Lord of the Spirits. Yet they like to congregate in his houses and (with) the faithful ones who cling to the Lord of the Spirits”. The nature of the gospel does not allow us a “soft choice” when it comes to rejecting moral truths. Once we have experienced and understood moral knowledge, one cannot return to prior ignorance in any simple and easy and morally comfortable fashion. It was partly this discomfort which caused individuals attempting to “exit the gospel” to continue “
carrying about the name while doing other things unworthy of God” (Ign to Ephes). I think this is true today and is reflected by those wanting to representing themselves as some sort of “LDS”, but who are trying to find and convince themselves of sufficient fault in the restoration so as to allow them adequate justification to finally let go of the Gospel and be free of guilt in doing so.
Clear