Fellowcitizens

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19)

Last night I accompanied the youth on a temple trip to do baptisms for the dead. The temple president spoke with them briefly before we got started. He compared baptism with a naturalization ceremony for those who desire to become U.S. citizens. I immediately thought of the scripture above from Ephesians. I think it's a good analogy. He talked about how the naturalization ceremony requires that we know certain things and commit to certain things, and that we are then accepted as members of the community -- the celestial community, for baptism. (And, of course, there is the implication of necessary authority.)

As I look at the Ephesians verse, I note also that it includes both "fellowcitizens with the saints" and "of the household of God". I believe "of the household" means "part of the family". I think these are both similar and distinct concepts. We become "the seed of Christ" at baptism, but we are not sealed into the family until we have received the temple covenants, and had them sealed upon us by the Holy Spirit of promise. This is a process of progression indicated in the scriptures by various relational terms describing us as slaves or servants to God, or children, or friends.

Grace to grace

11And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us. 12And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace. 13And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; 14And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. 15And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. 16And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father

(D&C 93:11-16)

What did Jesus know about himself and his mission, and when did he know it? Did it take time for the realization of his role to sink in? I had always assumed that by the time of Jesus' baptism, he had a full understanding of his mission and role and his relation to the Father. But recently, as I have been reading the New Testament in German, I wonder if that is really the case.

We have the account of the Holy Ghost descending upon Jesus in all four gospels, with some slight differences that may be a little more pronounced in German. In Matthew, we read that when Jesus came up out of the water, he saw the Holy Ghost descending upon himself, with a voice declaring, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” In Mark, we read that the heavens were open to Jesus, who saw the Holy Ghost descending upon himself, and the voice spoke directly to him: “Thou art my beloved Son, and I am well pleased with thee.” In Luke, “the Holy Ghost descended visibly in the form of a dove,” implying that this was visible to everyone, not just Jesus, but the voice spoke directly to him, as in Mark. In John, Jesus' baptism is not mentioned, and John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Holy Ghost descend like a dove upon Jesus and remain upon him. He doesn't mention a voice, but he states that the one who sent him to baptize with water (God) had already told him how to recognize the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost.

So, to summarize, we have these features of the accounts:

	Baptism	Who saw the sign of the Holy Ghost	Who heard the voice
Matthew	Yes	Jesus only	Everyone present (ambiguous)
Mark	Yes	Jesus only	Jesus only
Luke	Yes	Everyone present (implied)	Jesus only
John	No	John only	No one

Why should these differences be interesting? It seems to me they may give some insight into what the various gospel authors thought Jesus' understanding of himself was at the time of his baptism, as well as the kind of witness that was given to the people around.

For example, only in the account of Luke do we have the implication that the sign of the Holy Ghost was public. The voice from heaven may have been more public, but is not mentioned in John (instead, John had a private prior revelation) and was directed to Jesus in two of the other three accounts.

This makes me think that the sign of the Holy Ghost and the voice from heaven were signs intended primarily for Jesus, giving him a greater understanding of his role and mission. It was followed immediately (according to the synoptic gospels) by his forty days in the wilderness, in which he is tempted with “if thou art the Son of God...” -- perhaps especially targeted at a Jesus just coming to terms with a fuller understanding of his role and mission.

And even then, I wonder if it took some time for it to sink in. In Matthew, John preaches, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” After his forty days in the wilderness, Jesus heard that John had been imprisoned, and he returned to Galilee, perhaps fearing that the same might happen to him. He began preaching the same message as John: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It seems that early on, he is in a similar role as John was. Luke has him, shortly thereafter, reading in the synagogue in Nazareth: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me... this day is this scripture fulfilled.” It seems that he may have been coming to realize the full import of what God had revealed to him since his baptism.

I think there are good reasons why modern revelation includes the teaching that Jesus “received not of the fulness at first.” Primarily, it is to allow us to identify more fully with him, as he states further in D&C 93:19-20:

19I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness. 20For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.

We should not be discouraged that we do not receive full understanding in short order. Jesus himself also needed to proceed bit by bit until he had a full understanding.

Jacques Derrida dead at 74

This isn't exactly a Mormon-specific topic, but since Derrida comes up frequently in conversations on LDS-PHIL, I thought it would be interesting to many in the Bloggernacle. He died today, at age 74, of pancreatic cancer.

Blog updates

After some prodding, I've installed Ebenezer Orthodoxy's Blogger Comment Hack and Recent Comments Hack. I've also updated the template a little bit to tighten up the sidebar. The Blog Club seems to have gone the way of the dodo, so I've removed it. I plan to update my Bloggernacle links any day now... really...

New blog: By Study and Also By Faith

A shout-out to new Bloggernacker Tyro, who has started up By Study and Also By Faith. Tyro has been an active participant on the Nauvoo.com forums for some time. Welcome to the Bloggernacle, Tyro!

New book on the JST

Scott Faulring, Kent Jackson, and Robert Matthews have edited a new book on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts. From the description on the site I linked to:

This volume – the work of a lifetime – brings together all the Joseph Smith Translation manuscripts in a remarkable and useful way. Now, for the first time, readers can take a careful look at the complete text, along with photos of several actual manuscript pages. The book contains a typographic transcription of all the original manuscripts, unedited and preserved exactly as dictated by the prophet Joseph and recorded by his scribes. In addition, this volume features essays on the background, doctrinal contributions, and editorial procedures involved in the Joseph Smith Translation, as well as the history of the manuscripts since Joseph Smith’s day.

The page I linked to above also includes a transcript of an interview with two of the editors, who describe the process of getting access to, and preserving, the original manuscripts, which belong to the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church).

It sounds like an excellent project, and they reportedly plan to release a CD next year with digital images of the original manuscripts.

UPDATE: The book, which was originally estimated to be available toward the end of the year, is now available.

Bottom-up, again

No, this is not a post about drinking games.

Back in April, I asked about whether a bottom-up approach to things in the Church fits with our model of revelation. My recent reading has led me to consider this topic again.

I'm reading The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis, and enjoying it quite a bit. One of the principles discussed is Budgeting for Outcomes, or, in other words, determining what the desired results are (and what their priorities are), what the available budget is, and then allocating budget toward achieving those results. The authors emphasize that the desired results are not those desired by the governor or political parties, but by the public at large.

So I started to wonder to what extent we can and should take this kind of approach in the context of Church government. I asked my wife, who is on the ward activities committee, if the committee has a good sense of what the ward members want from ward activities. She answered, “No, but we have a good idea of what the bishopric wants.” Apparently, the bishopric has given fairly specific direction about what ward activities should accomplish and how they should do so (as well as what not to do).

Given our model of revelatory stewardship, I think we have to have room for this kind of top-down direction to some extent. But if the ward members aren't getting what they want from ward activities, they simply won't come. Then, no matter how inspired the bishopric's counsel is, very few people will benefit from it. So I thought perhaps the activities committee could come up with a survey of ward members, asking them what they wanted out of ward activities. The question is, even given decent feedback, how is this best meshed with the bishopric's stewardship?

It seems to me that this approach is modeled at the highest levels of the Church, who have done surveys for many years. In fact, the Church has an official online survey website at www.ldsfeedback.org (apparently an invitation “coupon” is required to register for the site). The Welfare Plan was developed after the Church conducted a survey of members. The changes to the temple ceremony in 1990 may have been influenced by the results of a 1988 survey that included questions about the temple. More recently, in May, 2001, the Church surveyed women members about their experience in the Church.

The Church seems to be setting an example of “studying it out in your mind” as an essential part of the revelatory process. Can we effectively do the same at the local level?

And, of course, this applies to far more than the activities committee. One of the biggest struggles we had in our “Perfect the Saints” priesthood committee was figuring out what we were supposed to do. While I thought we came up with some pretty decent ideas, and had some direction from the bishopric, I think we could have been much more effective if we had been able to know from ward members how they felt we could best help them. And the same goes for Relief Society (imagine Enrichment nights based on a survey of what sisters want Enrichment nights to be like!), youth organizations, and so forth.

So don't delay; find out how you can be more effective by getting your organization to do a survey of your ward (or stake) members. Oh, and let me know how it goes...

As far as it is translated

Adam Greenwood started an interesting discussion over at Times & Seasons about how different approaches to “close reading” of the scriptures affect the conclusions we may reach from our reading. This brought up the question whether close reading is helpful, especially given the limitations of language to express revelation.

On that thread, I commented:

Perhaps the great value in close reading is not so much what we conclude, but the process of questioning, exploring, learning, pondering, and asking God for further light and knowledge. In the meantime, we can make tentative conclusions, as long as we recognize that we may be wrong.

Last night, I did some reading in the scriptures in German. I had to concentrate more than I do when reading in English (which I think is a value in itself). I found that as I read with concentration and focus, certain points of the text struck me differently than they do in English, and I learned some new things. I'm sure those of you who know multiple languages have had similar experiences. I think this is an excellent illustration of the principle I outlined above.

We don't claim that the Church's translation of the Doctrine & Covenants into German is divinely inspired. Yet a close reading of the German text may influence me to understand the scriptures differently than the English text does. I don't think this is because one is necessarily more “correct” than the other; I think it's just the natural consequence of different languages, with all the associated history, connotations, linguistic connections, and so forth.

We can ask whether the German text is faithful to the English, but that breaks down at a certain point. As Clark noted in his post on Umberto Eco on translation, being overly “faithful” to the source text may be a negative thing. Inevitably, what is said in German, no matter how much effort is made to express the same ideas as the English text, will be different. And I think this is a very positive thing, not a negative one.

The idea of an open canon applies as much on the level of a verse as it does on the level of an entire book. There are a couple of quotes on this subject that I like very much, from Dallin H. Oaks' article, Scripture Reading and Revelation:

Our belief in an open canon also includes private revelations to individual seekers of the meaning of existing scriptures. Such revelations are necessary because, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve observed, “Each pronouncement in the holy scriptures ... is so written as to reveal little or much, depending on the spiritual capacity of the student” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985, p. 71)...

The Lord promised Nephi: “Unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have” (2 Ne. 28:30; see also Matt. 13:12). That verse capsulizes the Latter-day Saint belief in the importance of continuing revelation as we read and interpret the scriptures. Even if there were no additional revelations to be added to the published canon, an open canon would still be an essential part of our belief and practice in scripture reading...

The idea that scripture reading can lead to inspiration and revelation opens the door to the truth that a scripture is not limited to what it meant when it was written but may also include what that scripture means to a reader today. Even more, scripture reading may also lead to current revelation on whatever else the Lord wishes to communicate to the reader at that time. We do not overstate the point when we say that the scriptures can be a Urim and Thummim to assist each of us to receive personal revelation.

The problem with not valuing close reading is that we close off a great avenue for further revelation and understanding. When we read closely, we recognize that we don't have all the answers, and we begin to ask questions of the scriptures, and to allow them to raise questions for us. Different translations (such as the JST, modern Bible translations into English or any other language, etc.) can encourage this process, not necessarily because they necessarily bring us to more correct conclusions of themselves, but because they get us asking questions.

Model of prophetic authority

What good are prophets if they're not infallible? This is a question I have been asked many times, and a variant of this question has come up on Times & Seasons.

Nate has challenged John H.: “The trick is to come up with some theory that doesn’t reduce the prophets to well meaning old men; some theory that still concedes to them some meaningful special access to the divine.” And his definition of “meaningful special access” of prophetic authority has these three points: “(1) we are given substantive counsel; (2) that we should follow; (3) that differs from our own substantive views.”

It seems to me that such a model is actually quite simple, though I'm not sure “special access to the divine” is quite the right phrase. I'd like to lay out some groundwork underlying my model, then propose my model of prophetic authority.

The prophets are the only ones who can receive revelation for the whole Church. While (as in an example given in the comments on the T&S thread) Church members can receive exactly the same revelations, their revelations are not for the Church as a whole. Perhaps we can call this “revelatory scope.” This is strongly emphasized by the Brethren, and, as far as I can tell, it is the only difference between revelations of prophets, seers, and revelators and the general membership of the Church. Many prophets (especially President Hinckley) have taught that they receive revelation in the same way the rest of us do, and that even the rarer, more unusual manifestations are available to every one of us as we are prepared to receive them.

This brings up the question of preparation. It seems to me that we tend to describe the men called as prophets, seers, and revelators as especially righteous. While it is likely generally the case that these men are very righteous, I'm not sure that we can say that they are necessarily the most prepared of anyone in the Church to receive revelation. There may very well be many other people in the Church who are better prepared to receive revelation, but may not have the other qualities that led to the calling of the Brethren to their positions. But it does seem that, for the most part, the Brethren must have a minimum of preparation to receive divine guidance for their duties. Someone unprepared to receive revelation is not a likely candidate for such a high position of responsibility. (That said, it seems probable that some of them may struggle with this more than others. For example, see some of the accounts of Heber J. Grant's call to become a stake president and, later, an apostle.)

From the foregoing, then, it seems that we have a couple of items: 1. The revelatory scope of prophets, seers, and revelators is greater than that of the general membership. 2. Prophets, seers, and revelators are generally very righteous men, who qualify to receive revelation. This does not make them infallible, however. In fact, they have specifically denied any claim of infallibility.

A third item (in connection with revelatory scope) is that the pronouncements of unified prophets, seers, and revelators can be binding on the Church. Whether something is binding on the Church is not the same thing as whether it is correct, however. A binding pronouncement is one that, if violated, results in consequences such as loss of a temple recommend or excommunication from the Church. For example: the Word of Wisdom (including a prohibition on wine) is binding on the Church, even though the Lord drank wine and has stated his intention to do so again with his prophets. The rule is binding on the Church, even if it may not be correct in all its particulars.

I recognize that my example above is one of practice, rather than doctrine. However, the decanonization of the Lectures on Faith seems to indicate that the same principle applies to doctrinally binding statements. The Lectures on Faith, as part of the Doctrine & Covenants, were doctrinally binding on the Church, as are all the standard works. And our acknowledgment of possible errors in the Bible and the Book of Mormon does not prevent those from being doctrinally binding on the Church.

Given this groundwork, I would propose the following model of prophetic authority:

Sometimes the prophets receive true revelation that I should follow that differs from my substantive views: I am not infallible. And sometimes I receive true revelation that leads me to differ with the substantive views of the prophets: they are not infallible.

Messy, huh? Yes, but the order comes in the authority: in what is applicable to and binding on the Church as a whole. What this means, unfortunately, is that sometimes we have to make hard decisions: are we confident enough in our own revelation (and is it substantive enough) to continue to differ with the prophets, seers, and revelators, or do we defer to their authority because we value order? We are just as fallible as they are.

What good are prophets if they're not infallible? I would reply with similar questions: What good are teachers if they're not infallible? What good is peer review in the academic world if it is not infallible? What good are the scriptures if they're not infallible? Here's the good: They challenge us; they teach us; they remind us; they prompt us to seek further, not to be satisfied with where we are; they prod us Godward.

And they do this for the community as a whole, which is a value in itself. Mormonism is strongly focused on community. We are not, despite the high value we place on agency, a religion that is all about our individual relationship with God. Mormonism is a religion that is all about our communal relationship with God and each other. That is why questions are raised about the "Mormonness" of someone who questions the prophets -- because we place a very high emphasis on community.

The trick, as Nate might put it, is in finding the balance between the community and the individual, between prophetic authority and personal revelation, between continuity of doctrine and continuing revelation.

Oath and covenant

D&C 84:33-42 is often called “the oath and covenant of the priesthood.” But I don't think it is. It makes reference to the oath and covenant, and gives a description of the blessings associated with them, but I do not think they are contained in this section. Rather, I think they are administered in the temple. I think this section points us in that direction. Let's take a close look at portions of the section:

4Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. 6And the sons of Moses, according to the Holy Priesthood which he received under the hand of his father-in-law, Jethro;

This is followed by Moses' line of authority (which itself is interesting enough for another post). But the key here is the “And the sons of Moses” beginning verse 6. The whole discussion that follows about the descent of the priesthood and the different orders of the priesthood are all parenthetical, up to verse 31, where we pick up again:

31Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses—for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed— 32And the sons of Moses and of Aaron shall be filled with the glory of the Lord, upon Mount Zion in the Lord's house, whose sons are ye; and also many whom I have called and sent forth to build up my church.

Note again that this is talking about the temple. The temple is where the keys of the priesthood are administered, and where the fulness of the priesthood may be obtained. The next verses parallel aspects of the temple endowment. While I will not go into great detail, I hope that my allusions to the endowment ceremony will be familiar to those who have been through the temple.

33For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

Two things to note about verse 33: obtaining the “two priesthoods:” the endowment ceremony is divided into Aaronic and Melchizedek portions. Brigham Young considered splitting up the temple ceremony so that one could receive the Aaronic portion first, and then, after a time of proving, prepare to receive the Melchizedek portion:

The reason of this is that when we give the brethren their endowments, we are obliged to confer upon them the Melchizedek Priesthood; but I expect to see the day when we shall be so situated that we can say to a company of brethren you can go and receive the ordinances pertaining to the Aaronic order of Priesthood, and then you can go into the world and preach the Gospel, or do something that will prove whether you will honor that Priesthood before you receive more. Now we pass them through the ordinances of both Priesthoods in one day, but this is not as it should be and would if we had a Temple wherein to administer these ordinances. But this is all right at present; we should not be satisfied in any other way, and consequently we do according to the circumstances we are placed in.

(Journal of Discourses, 10:309)

The second thing to note is that those who receive these priesthoods are “sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.” This may have reference to the resurrection of the just, which is figured in the veil ceremony in the temple. Continuing with D&C 84:

34They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

This deals with the progressions of priesthood: Aaron (Aaronic priesthood), Moses (Melchizedek priesthood), and Abraham (Patriarchal priesthood). Becoming the seed of these men occurs through the Abrahamic covenant administered in the temple, and the sealing into the Patriarchal Order.

35And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; 36For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; 37And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; 38And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father's kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

This also follows the pattern of the endowment in two ways: first, the way the gospel and the keys are administered from Father to Son to servants to us; second, the progression of names and references through the endowment. Receiving the Father's kingdom is symbolized by entrance into the celestial room.

39And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

Where are oaths and covenants belonging to the priesthood administered? In the temple. There are many references in the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets to this effect. The fulness of the priesthood can only be obtained by oath in the temple.

40Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved. 41But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

All covenants we make with God are conditional, and we can repent if we break those covenants -- except for the “unconditional” covenant that is the culminating ordinance of the temple: the sealing up unto eternal life. This is not the same as eternal marriage, though eternal marriage is a prerequisite. This is the sealing up that we are informed early in the endowment may be ours if we are faithful to our covenants. It is the sealing up that accompanies the receipt of the fulness of the priesthood as husband and wife: the second anointings. With reference to this, D&C 132 further explains (emphasis mine):

27The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

After we have received the fulness of the new and everlasting covenant of the priesthood, if we turn from it altogether, we have committed the unpardonable sin.

So, to sum up: I have tried to show that the oath and covenant of the priesthood is not contained in Doctrine & Covenants 84; rather, it is referred to there, and administered in the temple. It is there that the keys of the priesthood are administered; it is there that we become the seed of Aaron, Moses, and Abraham; it is there that we take upon ourselves the names of the Son and the Father; it is there that we enter into the Patriarchal Order and the fulness of the priesthood.

The gospel of risk

I like to preach the gospel of risk. Not foolish risk, mind you, but simply the recognition of the adage, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” I believe the teachings of the scriptures and the Church advocate thoughtful risk-taking, and condemn an attitude of fear that drives the “better safe than sorry” approach. For example:

• We hear that, in the pre-mortal world, we were offered a sort of “risk-free” plan by Lucifer, in contrast to the plan put forth by Father, which involved real risk. But we recognized that, without taking the risk, we could not develop to become like our Parents.
• We honor Eve for her wisdom in choosing to partake of the forbidden fruit. She understood that it was better to pass through sorrow, to risk pain from wrong choices, than to stagnate in eternal Paradise.
• We commend those who convert to the Church despite the resistance of family and friends, who are disowned or whose lives are even threatened. We admire their willingness to risk for the gospel.
• We have Jesus' parable of the talents, in which the servant who feared hid his talent, unwilling to risk. He was condemned for this unwillingness, and his talent given to the one who had risked, and gained, the most.

I could go on listing numerous examples from the scriptures and from Church teachings to support this point. But these examples include foundational teachings that underlie so much of Mormonism that I don't think it's necessary. It seems abundantly clear to me that we are supposed to have the faith to take risks. Indeed, it seems that risk is an inherent aspect of faith. And God has provided us with a means to overcome the evils and pains that may result from this risk: atonement. His desire for us to grow, even when it means that we risk being wrong and foolish and wicked, is so great that he was willing to suffer more than we can describe. By being unwilling to take thoughtful risks, we spurn his gift.

Dutiful happiness

We've all heard the stories of people who approach a member of the Church saying something like, “You're always so happy. Why is that? I want to have what you have.” -- a golden opportunity to share the gospel.

Well, that's never happened to me. I consider myself a pretty happy person; my life is going fairly well, I generally enjoy my ward and my job and love my family. I am excited by many aspects of the gospel and love to study and ponder it. I'm relatively outgoing. And I think much of that has roots in the Church and the gospel.

But I'm not sure I'm significantly happier than many of my (non-Mormon) neighbors seem to be. Should I be? After all, the scriptures instruct us to “be of good cheer” and to “lift up your hearts and rejoice.” Is this intended to be an inward rejoicing and cheer, or something the world is to see and desire? Do I have a duty to be happier?

On a related note, to what extent is the gospel intended to make us happier in this life? Does it have a more significant effect on our happiness than, say, sufficient food, a roof over our heads, adequate transportation, a family who loves us, a fulfilling job, enjoyable hobbies, etc.? Do you think that you are happier than your neighbors because of the gospel?