From Mormonism to Secular Buddhism!

 

I came across the above video, which is an interview with Noah Rasheta, describing his faith journey from Mormonism to Buddhism, which I thought was interesting. I will be briefly commenting on a short segment of it. But before quoting him and expressing my views, I would like to begin by saying that I have nothing against Buddhism (or any other faith tradition for that matter). If that is what he feels comfortable with, then I am okay with that. But his views are interesting, and worth commenting on. At around 26:27 minutes into the video, in answer to the question of what it is about Buddhism that attracted him, and which he found helpful in his faith journey, he gives the following answer:

“Yeah you know, it is very interesting, isn’t it? I can speak to what it was for me, what really resonated for me, and still does. I think growing up with a system that feels quite rigid, rigid in the sense that: ‘Here is the truth, every other path is not true, right? This is the true path.’ There is no flexibility in that. It is, ‘This is how it is, and that is just how it is.’ And that worked for me because as long as you don’t question anything, it feels very comforting to have a rigid system that just, ‘It is all here for you’. It is like, I mean imagine this, like a solid ground to stand on, I have a very firm ground that I stand on, and a deep sense of security in how firm my ground is. Then when people experience a crisis of faith, the ground gets shaky; and that is really terrifying for someone whose worldview is founded on the fact that this cannot be shaky ground; this is the firm ground to stand on. Then we are left in free fall. You know, most of us who go through this, we have that moment of free fall where there is nothing to stand on. It becomes very scary, very uncomfortable; and what we are looking for is something else firm to stand on. But we as Mormons—and I would argue this is probably the case with a lot of fundamental approach to religion, meaning fundamental in the sense of rigidity, right: ‘This is the right way’. We have already been programmed that these other ways are not the right way. So what we are left is, we are trying to find something firm to stand on; but we are doubting how firm that ground is over there, or that ground over there.”

The point that he has missed there is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unlike other Christian churches, is unique in that it claims to be a new dispensation of the gospel, a restoration of the original and true Church of Jesus Christ, by means of a modern day revelation from God. It is not a human endeavor, a “reformation” of some kind, of the religion that God had established 2,000 years ago. That is what makes the restored Church of Jesus Christ unique among the Christian churches. That claim is either true or false. It can’t be somewhere in between. Either Joseph Smith was a true prophet, or he wasn’t. Either he truly saw the Father and the Son in a vision, as he claimed, or he didn’t. Either he translated the Book of Mormon by revelation, by the gift and power of God, as he claimed, or he didn’t. Either it is true scripture, a genuine word of God, or it isn’t. Either he established God’s true Church on earth by revelation, and by the ministration of angels, as he claimed, or he didn’t. It can’t be half and half, or somewhere in between. Nobody in his right mind should want to join such a Church, unless he is convinced in his own mind that those claims are true. Now that “conviction” can take two possible forms: it can either be a conviction by faith, and genuine “belief,” that it is so; or it can be an assured witness, a divine testimony, providing certain knowledge, obtained by a direct revelation from God. Either of those types of convictions are sufficient for accepting the restored gospel, and joining the Church. To some is given the gift of knowledge, and to some is given the gift of faith:

Doctrine and Covenants 46:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Either of those kinds of convictions are sufficient for accepting the restored gospel, and joining or remaining a member of the Church. But there has to be a conviction of some kind to warrant that. The impression I am getting from his conversation is that he still has some kind of conviction, although not an assured witness, a divine testimony. If so, he still qualifies for salvation and eternal life, if he remains faithful and true to the covenants he has made. The only other thing that he needs to be informed about is that it is indeed possible to have an assured witness, a sure testimony, a certain knowledge, that the Church is true, and that a restoration of the gospel by revelation has indeed taken place. It is possible to know that with absolute certainty, by a direct revelation from God—and the chief means of obtaining that witness is through the Book of Mormon. Then he continues as follows:

“And then you encounter a school of thought like Buddhism that says, ‘Hey, the firmness of the foundation; in other words, the security of having something firm to stand on; what if you can gain that sense of security by having nothing to stand on?’ And that is like really, it is a radical way of thought for us, because we want to stand on something. And then what it provides us is a sense of security, by not having something secure to stand on; and then we feel comforted again, like, well, that is the feeling I wanted again. I wanted to feel comfortable with where I am in life; and where I am is somewhere that I have nowhere to stand on; but now I don’t need anywhere to stand on. That is what it did for me. It gave me that deep sense of security, without having it to stand on anything again. And I think this is interesting, because if you think about it, to me this is the the notion of faith, that I think had been maybe unintentionally hijacked at some point in my life—this thought that I had equated faith to certainty, or knowledge, is I guess the word that we use most in the Mormon circles, right? We don’t go around saying, ‘I believe;’ We say, ‘I know;’ because believing is not enough, you have to know—and not just know; I need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that is where my sense of security comes in is, I know so firmly that I know that I don’t doubt.”

Like I said, absolute certainty (by a personal revelation from God) is definitely possible; but it is not necessary to have “faith,” or a conviction that the Church is true, and justify joining or remaining a member of the Church. If Buddhism helps him in that direction, that is okay with me! He continues:

“And then Buddhism comes along, and presents faith in this alternate perspective, where faith is synonymous with uncertainty; and the opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty. So the more certain I am in something, the less faith that would be.”

Now he has got that bit quite wrong. Faith is not “synonymous with uncertainty”. You need to be convinced, somehow or other, that the Church is true, to warrant joining, or remaining a member of it. That conviction can exist either in the form of faith, belief, trust; or else by a certain knowledge gained by a revelation from God. But there has to be a conviction. An illustration will be helpful: I need to have faith, trust, confidence in my doctor that he is honest, knowledgeable, and sincere; and wants to provide me with the best possible medical care. If I had any doubts in my mind about that, I wouldn’t want to trust myself with his care. But still, I can’t say that I know for sure! Nevertheless, I have to be convinced in my mind. That is faith. He continues:

“And that to me was very comforting, to approach these ideas from this new perspective where, it felt like for the first time this, maybe I actually am a much more faithful Christian, now that I am not a Christian, because all I could ever have is maybe the hope. You know, I talk about this with my wife, because she will sometimes ask things like, well, if you don’t believe, does that mean you don’t want us to exist in the afterlife as a family? And I am like, No, that would be amazing! That would be incredible! But all I have is hope that maybe that is what it is. I certainly don’t have knowledge that that is what it is. I don’t know what happens when I die. Do I hope that there is something like that? Well that would be pretty darn cool! Would it surprise me? Yeah, it would. But to me that is faith now. It is the hope of something, but not the certainty of it. And I find a deep sense of comfort in knowing I don’t need the certainty. I thought the certainty was what brought me comfort, but it is not, it was the certainty of what was actually bringing me suffering; because to have that certainty called into question, feels horrible, right? It is like, No, it has to be this. But now I am left with, it doesn’t have to be that; it would be great if it is that, but it doesn’t have to be certain. Maybe that is why a lot of us gravitate to something like Buddhism, because it helps take away the rigidity that we thought we needed in our life to find peace. It is like, maybe the thing you thought you needed for peace, you actually don’t need, but you can still gain that peace. And ironically this time it is going to happen by not knowing, not by knowing. That is what it has done for me.”

Like I said, he has confused his terms, vocabulary, and theology quite a bit. There is a difference between “knowing with certainty,” and being “convinced by faith”. I am convinced by faith and trust, based on my knowledge of his character, personality, and friendship; as well as his training and education; that my doctor is sincere, committed, and capable of providing me with the best possible medical care—without “knowing for sure” that such is the case! That is the difference between faith and knowledge. If I had any doubts in my mind whatever that my doctor was not sufficiently competent, or sincere and genuine in wanting to provide me with the best possible medical care, I would change him immediately. So it is possible to be “convinced” of something by faith and trust, without having “certain knowledge”. But it is also possible to have certain knowledge, to know for sure, by a direct personal revelation from God, as in the case of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, that it is God’s true Church.