In Nichiren Buddhism the most important of Buddha’s teachings is found in the Lotus Sutra.
The twelfth century Japanese Buddhist priest, Nichiren, taught that one can attain Buddhahood in this lifetime by chanting what is essentially the title of the Lotus Sutra, “Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.”
The Japanese title of the Lotus Sutra (daimoku) depicted in a stone inscription.
The qualifier Nichiren gives that activates the power of Nam-myoho-renge-kyo is “deep faith.”:
“If you chant Myoho-renge-kyo with deep faith in this principle, you are certain to attain Buddhahood in this lifetime.”
To answer this question, and to avoid imposing ideas from my own culture and background, I sought to understand faith from the Buddhist point of view by turning to the Lotus Sutra. From my research I was able to identify this following definition based on a study of “faith” as found in the Lotus Sutra:
Faith is something that needs to be developed and cultivated1. It causes one to change direction.2 It is a principle of power.3 Failure to have faith is destructive,4 meaning that faith is a constructive force. The overbearing and arrogant ones lacked it.5 Doubt and perplexity are its opposite.6 It was through “faith alone”7 that Shariputra was able to gain entrance. Being able to comply with the sutra was because of faith in the Buddha’s words, not because of “any wisdom of their own”.8
“Persons will be able to develop minds of faith, abruptly changing their direction.” (The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, p.27. Hereafter abbreviated “LSOC, page number.”) ↩︎
“Among the other kinds of living beings there are none who can comprehend it, except the many bodhisattvas who are firm in the power of faith. (LSOC, 58) “These people will possess the power of great faith, the power of aspiration, the power of good roots.” (LSOC, 204) “If the thus come one knows that the time has come to enter nirvana, and knows that the members of the assembly are pure and clean, firm in faith and understanding…” (LSOC, 173) “Shariputra, you should know that the words of the various buddhas never differ. Toward the Law preached by the buddhas you must cultivate a great power of faith.” (LSOC, 59) From these above passages we learn that faith is a principle of power. It requires firmness and is associated with understanding. ↩︎
“If a person fails to have faith but instead slanders this sutra, immediately he will destroy all the seeds for becoming a buddha in any world.” (LSOC, 110) ↩︎
“There are monks and nuns who behave with overbearing arrogance, laymen full of self-esteem, laywomen who are lacking in faith.” (LSOC, 67) ↩︎
“When the buddha preached this sutra, the sixteen bodhisattva shramaneras all took faith in it and accepted it, and among the multitude of voice-hearers there were also those who believed in it and understood it. But the other thousand ten thousand million types of living beings all gave way to doubt and perplexity.” (LSOC, 171) ↩︎
From the Simile and Parable (chapter three) we learn from the Buddha’s words to Shariputra: “Even you, Shariputra, in the case of this sutra were able to gain entrance through faith alone. How much more so, then, the other voice-hearers. Those other voice-hearers—it is because they have faith in the Buddha’s words that they can comply with this sutra, not because of any wisdom of their own.” (LSOC, 109-10) Nichiren explains this passage: “This passage is saying that even Shāriputra, who was known for his great wisdom, was, with respect to the Lotus Sutra, able to gain entrance through faith and not through the power of his wisdom. How much more so, therefore, does this hold true with the other voice-hearers!” (WND-1, 132) ↩︎
My prayer is that no matter where our political beliefs tend to draw us, individually we can still choose kindness and tolerance.
Some months ago someone shared with me a video. I couldn’t decide if I agreed with the idea being presented:
“Feminism has been one of the loudest advocates for the transgender minority. Miss magazine which is a U.S.-based feminist publication, has a yearly list of top feminists. Multiple women on this list were added simply for being transgender. As an ideology feminists aim to break the patriarchy and reinforce equality between men and women often citing things like the gender pay gap or tearing down stereotypes. But trans people fight for the exact opposite. They want the stereotype. They want the heels the long styled hair and the dresses. These are two groups that couldn’t be fighting for more opposite goals, but yet feminist groups continue to celebrate trans victories. [It] seems very strange that feminist organizations like Miss magazine, which fought for the eradication of female stereotypes like staying at home, or their place is the kitchen, would accept these stereotypes when it comes to transgender. Feminist movements can’t both support and not support female stereotypes at the same time. Now I will say that unlike the 2021 list of top feminists which had several trans women on it, the Miss magazine 2022 list of top feminists has none. So it appears that the wokeness is starting to wake up to some of its logic fallacies.” (5 Woke Contradictions, The Think Report, Jan 14, 2023)
I paused to reconsider the presenter’s conclusion about female stereotypes. There are harmful stereotypes and less harmful stereotypes. The example of a toddler that I relate below, seems to be a less harmful stereotype. Stereotypes of women, like staying at home, or their place is the kitchen, can be more harmful stereotypes. On the other hand, the stereotype that women are feminine and beautiful could be argued is a less harmful stereotype (acknowledging, of course, that any of these ideas are subject to abuse and can be more or less harmful in given circumstances).
“When I think of, say, a toddler, I think of a toddler as throwing tantrums, not eating what you give them to eat, being demanding and irrational. Those are all stereotypes about toddlers. Individual toddlers may behave differently.
A stereotype is a commonly held mental image, as our definition puts it, that represents an over-simplified opinion, a prejudiced attitude, or an unconsidered judgment about someone or something.” (A Totally Original History of ‘Stereotype’, emphasis mine.)
I can’t say that “an over-simplified opinion” is necessarily a bad thing, but “a prejudiced attitude or unconsidered judgment about someone” seems to approach something more clearly harmful or dangerous.
I wonder if the focus on stereotypes misses the more important point in this discussion.
Consider Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s work. She wrote a book titled Well Behaved Women Don’t Make History, which has since been turned into a slogan. The title was taken from an earlier article she wrote about funerals in the Puritan era and the behavior of women. The article makes this sobering observation:
“In ministerial literature, as in public records, women became legitimately visible in only three ways: they married, they gave birth, they died.”
As demeaning as that sentence sounds, I think we should not be too quick to dismiss the significance of what is sandwiched between ‘they married’ and ‘they died’. Women alone carry within them the power to create life.
The Always ad campaign #LikeAGirl, focused on the female stereotype of ‘running like a girl‘. But the point extends beyond simply a message about the stereotype.
“What advice do you have to young girls who are told they run like a girl, kick like a girl, hit like a girl, swing like a girl?
Keep doing it cuz it’s working. If somebody else says that running like a girl or kicking like a girl or shooting like a girl is something that you shouldn’t be doing, that’s their problem. Because if you’re still scoring and you’re still getting to the ball on time, and you’re still being first, you’re doing it right. Doesn’t matter what they say. I mean yes I kick like a girl and I swim like a girl and I walk like a girl and I wake up in the morning like a girl, because I AM a girl.”
Being aquatinted with some friends and family who describe their experience with being transgender as a struggle, has drawn me to wonder. Whatever words you may use to describe femininity, it must include the kind of things that, if you are a male engaged in this struggle, you feel trapped in a body that is opposite of those traits and attributes. I can’t imagine the contradiction of living inside a body, complete with all the physical paraphernalia that makes up the male, feeling sexually confused and uncomfortable inside my own skin. It would stand to reason how the experience of depression and self loathing (words that have been used by those I know struggling with their transgenderism) would accompany living such a contradiction.
In their book A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, Brett and Heather make a distinction between ‘hotness’ and ‘beauty’ and the roles these play in the evolutionary process. “Hotness fades fast with reproductive potential. Beauty fades far more slowly.” (See Heying, Heather; Weinstein, Bret. A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century (p. 119). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.) For some, there is little that can be done to create what could be considered attractive ‘hotness’, given the package within which they have to work. Depending on how much physical appearance is a factor in how one identifies and feels, this could additionally contribute to the challenges of depression and self-contempt.
This exemplifies the valid concern I raised recently at work when I posed the following question (directed to the women’s ally resource group):
“I’m honestly confused. How do women feel at the possibility of being taken advantage of by some man capitalizing on a system where he can claim to be a woman for the purpose of exploiting a situation? This is not asked from a perspective with any specific person or situation in mind, but I’m genuinely curious how women may feel at the potentiality of those who might be inclined to take advantage of and manipulate or abuse women in any environment that facilitates such exploitation.”
For those legitimately trying to navigate the complexity of their own trans identity, I believe it only adds tension to the situation they find themselves in when these issues get abused by those with selfish intentions or politically motivated agendas.
Rarely have I encountered someone where it was not evident the person was male or female. In these cases, if they don’t have their pronoun broadcast clearly on a T-shirt they may be wearing, or I have not seen their email signature that identifies it, then, should I choose to engage a conversation where I don’t want to offend, I may find myself in the awkward position of having to carefully navigating the social situation. Perhaps I will listen in on conversations and wait to see how others who know the person address them.
I imagine that if I were a female with enough masculine features that could confuse people as to my gender, and I would prefer not to be identified as a boy, then what I would do is choose more feminine style clothing and accentuate my more feminine characteristics in some way, or do other things that would make it more evident who I am. With this idea in mind, if I’m a transgender woman and I don’t have all the characteristics of a beautiful or ‘hot’ female, then I could understand dressing up to indicate to the outside world and make it evident how I choose to identify. When I encounter someone who appears to be clearly male, dressed in a way so as to broadcast femininity, which is the better approach? Should I assume 1), they are choosing to be a human billboard promoting a woke agenda, or rather should I take the position that 2), the statement they are publishing has no other agenda than their sincere best effort to reflect their own authentic self in the best way they know how? For me, my own personal truth is that to the best that I am able to judge impartially, I choose to take others at their word. I acknowledge that this takes practice, and I don’t always get it right. To the extent that the statement being broadcast by the way someone chooses to present themselves to the world is in essence, their “word,” how is the best way for me to judge? Can I take them at their word without compromising my belief that there are those with harmful agendas that undermine a very real struggle being experienced by those who are simply trying to circumnavigate this otherwise difficult terrain they find themselves in?
My prayer is that no matter where our political beliefs tend to draw us, individually we can still choose kindness and tolerance as we strive for unity in a world that otherwise seems to increasingly be pushing toward polarizing us into camps of “us” vs “them”.
As a peacemaker at heart, I have some questions in reference to the idea of those with politically motivated agendas.
In their book Three Laws of Performance, the authors layout three laws that I find quite profound. They are worthy of reflection:
First – How people perform correlates to how situations occur to them.
Second – How a situation occurs arises in language.
Third – Future based language transforms how situations occur to people.
(See Zaffron, Steve; Logan, Dave. The Three Laws of Performance (J-B Warren Bennis Series), Wiley, 2009.)
As a peacemaker at heart, I have some questions in reference to the idea of those with politically motivated agendas.
The resourcefulness of the language we use serves us. It is important to understand the role language serves in shaping how things occur to people, and thereby transforming how people perform as a result. The constructive application of the three laws benefits us.
Can these laws be used destructively as well? Movements that seek to re-define the language we use should be carefully examined. Does the agenda and motive behind such causes serve the best interest of humanity? Does the result of such attempts serve to unite or polarize the culture into which the endeavor is being introduced?
Jay’s Experience with Buddhism – Jay’s 5-minute sharing at Wasatch chapter meeting on 28 Jan 2024
One of the most significant things that I have learned in my experience since encountering Nichiren Buddhism, is how it has enriched my identity – a deeper sense of who I am.
“In the Lotus Sutra’s eighth and ninth chapters, the “Prophecy of Enlightenment for Five Hundred Disciples” and “Prophecies Conferred on Learners and Adepts,” the voice-hearer disciples awaken to their true identities.”1 (Living Buddhism, Jan 2024, p.40)
In April of last year, along with Clete in the panel of presenters was a student from India (Tanu?). I was impressed with her comments. She talked about how anyone who chants and shares Buddhism with others will attain enlightenment. Those who attain it in this life will be given a choice to stay in the happy land after they die, or to go to the impure land – world of endurance (that would be this world) and endure suffering again. Why would anyone want to? Because we voluntarily came to earth to help others attain the same. We are Buddhas in past life and have chosen to come here. We are “supremely noble” she said.2 (See JJournal 23 Apr 2023)
Her comment left an impression on me. I did not expect to find the things that I’ve discovered in my study of Buddhism. It is, as it were, (in the words of the Lotus Sutra), like a cluster of jewels that have come to me unexpectedly, it’s come to me, unsought. (See The Lotus Sutra and Its Opening and Closing Sutras, 2009, translated by Burton Watson, Soka Gakkai. Translation from Kumarajiva (Chinese), abbreviated as “LSOC,” p.124) Nichiren writes:
“It is rare to be born a human being. The number of those endowed with human life is as small as the amount of earth one can place on a fingernail. Life as a human being is hard to sustain—as hard as it is for the dew to remain on the grass.” (Writings of Nichiren Daishonin, Volume 1, abbreviated as “WND-1,” p.851)
As rare as it is to be born a human being, the Lotus Sutra tells us that rarer still, is as a human, to hear the Mystic Law3. Rarest of all, as a human who has been fortunate enough to hear the Mystic Law, is to encounter a Buddha.4
It is an incredible experience to recognize that my true identity ties me back to something so ancient that it not only predates my life in this sahā world, but extends back many kulpas.5
Nichiren taught that you must never think that Shakyamuni’s teachings are outside yourself. If you seek enlightenment outside yourself then even performing ten thousand practices and good deeds will be in vain.6 This is true because we are connected with and part of a greater cosmic truth within which we live and move and have our being.7
In his presentation at the Unity in Humanityconference (14 Oct 2023), Danny Hall (Director of Public Affairs for SGI) described our identity as waves on an ocean. Though a wave may have a distinct form, size, shape, height, etc., it is part of a greater thing. That thing is the ocean itself. You can’t separate them. They are connected. And so when I talk about Buddhism is connecting me with something greater than what I am, what fascinates me is not just the wave, which is who I am, but the ocean itself to which I am connected is also who I am. By myself I am nothing.8 Put another way, I could say that I know more than all the world put together. The universal intelligence that connects all things together does anyhow, and I will associate myself with it.9
Thank you.
The article continued with, “They realize that they have always been bodhisattvas striving alongside their mentor.” My thought is that they have always been bodhisattvas in the same sense that the father recognized his son in the parable of the wealthy man and his poor son from the “Belief and Understanding” (fourth) chapter of the Lotus Sutra. To the father, the son had always been his son, even though the son did not awaken to this realization until the very end. The question is, was the son his son before he even existed? The question of “existence” I have started to address in JJournal 22 Jan 2024. ↩︎
Compare Abraham 3:22: “Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was, and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones. And God saw these souls, that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them and he said, These I will make my rulers. For he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good. And he said unto me, Abraham, you are one of them; you were chosen before you were born.” ↩︎
“The times when the buddhas appear in the world are far apart and difficult to encounter. And even when they appear in the world it is difficult for them to preach this Law. Throughout incalculable, innumerable kalpas it is rare that one may hear this Law, and a person capable of listening to this Law, such a person is likewise rare. It is like the udumbara flower, which all the world loves and delights in, which heavenly and human beings look on as something rare, but which appears only once in many many ages. If a person hears this Law, delights in and praises it, even if he utters just one word, then he has made offerings to all the buddhas of the three existences.” (LSOC p. 79-80) ↩︎
“It is very difficult to encounter a buddha — you meet one once in a million kalpas.” (LSOC, 52) “Because encountering the buddha is as difficult as encountering the udumbara flower. Or as difficult as it is for a one-eyed turtle to encounter a floating log with a hole in it. We have been blessed with great good fortune from past existences and so have been born in an age where we can encounter the buddha’s Law.” (LSOC, 356) ↩︎
“And this is the manner after which they were ordained: being called and prepared from the foundation of the world, according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works in the first place, being left to choose good or evil; therefore they, having chosen good, and exercising exceeding great faith, are called with a holy calling — yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.” (Alma 13:3. See also Jeremiah 1:5) ↩︎
“You must never think that any of the eighty thousand sacred teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha’s lifetime or any of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the ten directions and three existences are outside yourself. Your practice of the Buddhist teachings will not relieve you of the sufferings of birth and death in the least unless you perceive the true nature of your life. If you seek enlightenment outside yourself, then your performing even ten thousand practices and ten thousand good deeds will be in vain.” (WND-1, 3) ↩︎
What do I mean by that? It is described in the Lotus Sutra in “Peaceful Practices” chapter (14, p.237), but that takes me outside the scope and time limit of today’s topic. See JJournal entries for 21 and 22 Jan 2024. (See also John 5:30, “I can of mine own self do nothing.”) ↩︎
Borrowing language from Joseph Smith, “But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and He is within me, and comprehends more than all the world: and I will associate myself with Him.” (TPJS, p. 350) ↩︎
How do we reconcile the idea that there is no strong scientific evidence that supports that we have free will, yet scripture confirms we do?
Atheist American philosopher and podcast host, Sam Harris explains the idea of determinism in his book titled “Free Will“. The key principal of Sam Harris’ argument against free will can be found on page 34:
“Decisions, intentions, efforts, goals, willpower, etc., are causal states of the brain, leading to specific behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes in the world. Human choice, therefore, is as important as fanciers of free will believe. But the next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being… From the perspective of your conscious awareness, you are no more responsible for the next thing you think (and therefore do) than you are for the fact that you were born into this world.” (Sam Harris, Free Will, pg 34-35)
What intrigues me about the idea of determinism is the studies that seem to confirm its validity:
“The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move… More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict with 80 percent accuracy a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it. These findings are difficult to reconcile with the sense that we are the conscious authors of our actions. One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next—a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please—your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this ‘decision’ and believe that you are in the process of making it.” (Ibid. pg 7-8)
An example from EST training (from the 1970s) demonstrated the idea that we are not as free to choose as we like to think we are. The participant in the exercise was asked, at the count of three, to either raise or lower his hand that had been raised to the level in front of his face. After repeating the exercise the instructor asked the participant:
“’What happened the second time?’ ‘The second time was really strange. I decided before you said “three” that I was going to raise my hand because the first time I’d lowered it. You said “one two three” and for about a second nothing happened. Then I said to myself, “I don’t feel like raising it.” Another couple of seconds went by with nothing and then I thought I’m going to raise it anyway. Two more seconds passed and the damn hand went down!’ (Laughter) ‘Okay, Robert, you asked about our having control over our thoughts and decisions we make. Is your question answered?’ Robert stares at Michael and shakes his head slowly. ‘I guess I didn’t have much control then, but… but I must be free to choose … something.’ ‘Oh yeah,’ says Michael [somewhat sarcastically]. ‘At the end of the day we go into choice and it’ll be quite clear what you’re free to choose.’” (Luke Rhinehart, The Book of EST, pg. 182)
Evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein (who, incidentally, also does not believe in god), has debated Sam Harris over this subject. Brett argues that the idea of determinism is completely inconsistent with evolution. Commenting on this debate later, Brett elaborated:
“So, my point is, look, I can’t say for sure that we don’t live in a deterministic universe, but I can say that a deterministic universe would be a very bizarre one. … And one of the manifestations of this is free will. In which we are actually able to choose. However, the fact that there, to me, appears to be free will, actual free will at our disposal, does not say that there’s nearly as much of it as people think. We are not very free. So I think Sam Harris has a point. Which is that we are highly, highly constrained. And I agree with him in that. But we are not totally constrained. And that’s the question. Is the amount of free will not very much, or zero? And my answer would be that a universe where its zero would be a very strange place indeed. It would make a mockery of subjective experience. There would be no point in having it. But, that doesn’t nail it down, that just says that, the argument that we have no free will, is a philosophical loser because it makes a more complicated universe, rather than a less complicated universe. It’s an Occam’s razor failure.” (I lost the argument with Sam Harris and still have free will, from Livestream #136)
How much truth is there in the proverb, “As a man thinketh, in his heart, so is he.” (Prov 23:7)? How do we reconcile the idea that there is no strong scientific evidence that supports that we have free will, yet scripture confirms we do? (See for example John 5:30, 2 Ne 2:27; 10:23, Mosiah 2:21, Alma 12:31, Helaman 14:30). Is there some validity to Brett Weinstein’s assessment, there appears to be “actual free will at our disposal,” but that there’s not “nearly as much of it as people think… that we are highly, highly constrained.”?
According to NeuroTray.com:
“The human brain can process up to 11 million bits of information per second. This is the natural processing capacity of the brain, including the conscious, subconscious, and unconscious mind. However, the conscious mind has a very limited capacity and it can handle anything from 40 to 120 bits of information in a second.” (https://neurotray.com/how-many-bits-of-information-can-the-brain-process/)
If free will (or free agency) is a true principal, as scriptures confirm, then there must lie something within the 40 to 120 bits of information in a second that our conscious mind is able to process and yet science is unable to measure, where our free will is exerted. The “80 percent accuracy of a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it” that science is able to confirm, still leaves a certain unmeasured percent where free will, if it exists, would have to be being exercised.
Years ago I remember being impressed while listening to an audio recording of Deepak Chopra relating how the human brain is able to digest food, monitor the location of stars, play the piano, and make a baby, all at the same time. While the brain is processing millions of bits of information in any given moment, we remain only conscious of (by some estimates) only seven to nine. And yet in the pride of our hearts we have the audacity to believe in something like, “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.” (Invictus, William E. Henley)?
Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, we are taught that:
“…the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.” (2 Ne 2:16)
Somewhere in the recesses of our unconscious, the seemingly pre-determined choices that bubble up before we become conscious of them, have their origins in habits formed previously that serve to determine beforehand much of what we find ourselves doing in the present moment. Of course, Sam Harris argues that “there is no way I can influence my desires— for what tools of influence would I use?” (Free Will, pg. 20)
The only way I can explain the conundrum is to accept that what the scriptures teach about agency is true, and therefore, there are hidden instances (Sam Harris actually uses the word “hidden” to describe this behavior on pg 44), outside of moments that science has been able to measure, where we can and do exercise free agency in ways that influence future unconscious intentions that bubble up into present decisions and actions.
I liken it to the process of exercising your heart. You can work on most muscles in your body by working out with them directly, but when it comes to the heart, you can only affect it indirectly through cardiovascular exercise.
Joseph Smith describes the process this way:
“Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom, and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence unless you did believe that you could obtain them?… Turn your thoughts on your own minds, and see if faith is not the moving cause of all action in yourselves” Lectures on Faith, Lecture 1:11.
Examine the root word for determinism: de·ter·mine verb [with object] 1 cause (something) to occur in a particular way; be the decisive factor in: 2 [no object] firmly decide:
And the suffix -ism 1 forming nouns denoting an action or its result: 2 forming nouns denoting a system, principle, or ideological movement:
The only dictionary definition for the word “determinism” is “the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.” However, when we apply the rule of language for the suffix “-ism” to “determine” there’s no reason the word could not as easily mean “the action of determining or firmly deciding”, which implies the exercise of free will. It’s worth reflecting on the juxtaposition of these two conflicting definitions.
Consider the story of the “Fifty-Cent Lesson” from Napoleon Hill’s book Think and Grow Rich:
“Shortly after Mr. Darby received his degree from the ‘University of Hard Knocks,’ and had decided to profit by his experience in the gold mining business, he had the good fortune to be present on an occasion that proved to him that ‘No’ does not necessarily mean no.
One afternoon he was helping his uncle grind wheat in an old fashioned mill. The uncle operated a large farm on which a number of colored sharecrop farmers lived. Quietly, the door was opened, and a small colored child, the daughter of a tenant, walked in and took her place near the door.
The uncle looked up, saw the child, and barked at her roughly, ‘what do you want?’ Meekly, the child replied, ‘My mammy say send her fifty cents.’ ‘I’ll not do it,’ the uncle retorted, ‘Now you run on home.’ ‘Yas sah,’ the child replied. But she did not move. The uncle went ahead with his work, so busily engaged that he did not pay enough attention to the child to observe that she did not leave. When he looked up and saw her still standing there, he yelled at her, ‘I told you to go on home! Now go, or I’ll take a switch to you.’ The little girl said ‘yas sah,’ but she did not budge an inch. The uncle dropped a sack of grain he was about to pour into the mill hopper, picked up a barrel stave, and started toward the child with an expression on his face that indicated trouble.
Darby held his breath. He was certain he was about to witness a murder. He knew his uncle had a fierce temper. He knew that colored children were not supposed to defy white people in that part of the country.
When the uncle reached the spot where the child was standing, she quickly stepped forward one step, looked up into his eyes, and screamed at the top of her shrill voice, ‘MY MAMMY’S GOTTA HAVE THAT FIFTY CENTS!’
The uncle stopped, looked at her for a minute, then slowly laid the barrel stave on the floor, put his hand in his pocket, took out half a dollar, and gave it to her. The child took the money and slowly backed toward the door, never taking her eyes off the man whom she had just conquered.
After she had gone, the uncle sat down on a box and looked out the window into space for more than ten minutes. He was pondering, with awe, over the whipping he had just taken. Mr. Darby, too, was doing some thinking. That was the first time in all his experience that he had seen a colored child deliberately master an adult white person. How did she do it? What happened to his uncle that caused him to lose his fierceness and become as docile as a lamb? What strange power did this child use that made her master over her superior?” (Think and Grow Rich, pg 12-14)
This story exemplifies the second definition I have applied to the word “determinism,” or perhaps better, “determination” (firmness of purpose; resoluteness). If you could have measured using EEG what was going on in the mind of the child during this confrontation, would you have been able “to predict with 80 percent accuracy” her “decision to move 700 milliseconds” before she became aware of it? Are there moments where we bypass the conditions of what science has been able to measure? Are there moments where we determine “to serve [God] at all hazards” (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 150), that set in motion future actions in ways we are completely unaware?
I firmly believe that at this very moment we are in contact with God through His Spirit. He is giving us life. He is not a distant God. He is an immediate and an intimate God. He knows our thoughts because He gives us the ability and freedom to think. He knows how to judge us because everything we do uses His power. He lends us life and light (see Mosiah 2:21). We have only the illusion of privacy. We have the freedom to act and choose, but our freedom operates inside His creation. Everything is dependent on His power.
I was impressed by something that was shared with me over a year ago on what it means to be “added upon”. If you’ve ever engaged in an internal debate in which you were tempted to do something and you held yourself back from doing so, you have (every one of us has) been added upon. The more we do that over the course of a lifetime and the more we connect to the Record of Heaven, the more we are able to understand and see and comprehend the truth of all things. It’s what we are here to experience. It’s what we are here to do. And every time we make a move in that direction, we are “added upon.” (see Abraham 3:26)
