Favorite Neglected Scriptures

May 19, 2006 | 30 comments
By

There are a few passages of scripture that, it seems to me, get surprisingly little play in Mormon discourse, despite the fact that they speak clearly and forcefully about issues of interest. Here are three that I like (which, for some reason, all happen to come from the Doctrine and Covenants).

1. D&C 101:77-78

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

The extent to which Mormonism requires political liberalism is a difficult question. In practice, while Mormons profusely praise liberal democracy, we often tend towards anti-liberal positions on so called “moral issues” (gambling, abortion, alcohol and drug prohibition). These verses provide the most striking and direct argument for liberalism that I know of in the scriptures: liberty is necessary so that every man may be accountable for his own sins, and political violations of liberty would seem to violate moral agency.

2. D&C 124: 49

Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

This verse is interesting because it seems diametrically opposed to the much more famous and oft-quoted 1 Nephi 3:7. Perhaps the youthful Nephi was a lot more idealistic than the more mature and experienced Joseph Smith. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone quote this scripture.

3. D&C 46:13-14

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

This passage is more well known and oft-quoted than the others (I myself quoted it in a previous post). But once again, it offers a complicating counterpoint to the more well-known and idealized take, as represented in Moroni 10:4. In fact, I believe the temple recommend interview questions were changed in the last few years, from asking if one “believes” in God and Jesus, to asking if one has “a testimony” of those things. There are probably many in the church who could benefit by considering the message of these verses.

Each of these scriptures seems offer a point of view that goes somewhat against the grain of popular Mormon thought. Yet each appeals to me in the way it addresses some difficult issues.

Tags: , ,

30 Responses to Favorite Neglected Scriptures

  1. Aaron Brown on May 19, 2006 at 7:24 pm

    Some great thoughts.

    With respect to D&C 46:13-14, I myself was wondering recently why those who haven’t had much luck with Moroni’s promise at 10:4 don’t trot out D&C 46 more often to explain their plight. Or at least why they don’t take comfort from this D&C passage. Of course, maybe nobody wants to think of themselves as being one of the “others” rather than the “some.” At what point does one decide that Moroni’s promise just isn’t going to work for them — no matter how much effort they put into approaching the Lord — and they had better resign themselves to joining the ranks of those to whom it is merely “given to believe on [others’] words”? Nevertheless, it seems like it would be spiritually healthier than beating oneself up, or concluding that Moroni was blowing smoke.

    Then again, when one realizes that so many of those who claim to “know” that Jesus is the Son of God are harboring 101 other nutty ideas, it may become difficult to “believe on the words” of such folks. Just a thought.

    With respect to D&C 129:49, my initial thoughts turn to polygamy. Maybe one could usefully employ this scripture in thinking about what to make of the LDS Church’s renouncing of polygamy in 1890 (in light of the widely held and authoritative position of the time that the Lord would not ask his people to abandon the principle). For apologetic purposes, I guess I’m surpised I don’t see this scripture pulled out to provide a rationale for God instructing the Church to drop the practice in light of the U.S. Government’s campaign to crush it. Instead, we have debates about whether the Manifesto was of God, or just an expedient measure.

    As to D&C 101:77-78, I think I like where you’re going, but that’s a big topic I don’t want to touch right now.

    Aaron B

  2. Seth R. on May 19, 2006 at 9:32 pm

    One might be inclined to roll one’s eyes at all this.

    Come on! Use your common sense and what the D&C scriptures are saying is obvious!

    But the fact is that Nephi and Moroni’s statements are the ONLY ones being emphasized in the current church curriculum. The correlated materials encourage rigid, absolutely literal readings of the scriptures.

    When Nephi said “the Lord will provide a way” we MUST take that to mean that every commandment will be fulfilled if you’re doing things right. There will be no failures. If there are, it’s because your faith or effort is weak.

    When Moroni said to ask and receive, that means every last one of us is going to say the prayer and get the absolute answer. The burning in the bosom you always hear about in testimony meeting from those fortunate enough to get it. If you haven’t had it … again, it’s because you stink spiritually.

    The idealistic scriptures are quoted almost exclusively in the curriculum, and a literal reading is highly encouraged. Contradictory scriptures are ignored.

    This is a sure-fire recipe for a high maintenance membership, with apostasy being the likely result for those whose lives don’t match the ideal.

    I don’t mind the idealized versions being taught in Seminary, Primary, and Gospel Essentials (and even Sacrament Meeting). But we are supposed to be getting a bit of nuance in Gospel Doctrine at least. And we don’t get it. Instead, we get the same childish idealizations, “through a glass darkly.”

    The LDS faith has had plenty of time to mature. But dogmatic literalism and one-sided idealizations have stunted its growth and prevented Mormonism and its members from really “growing up.” Time to “put away childish things.” Even if they are “scripture mastery” scriptures.

  3. grego on May 19, 2006 at 10:53 pm

    “…liberty is necessary so that every man may be accountable for his own sins, and political violations of liberty would seem to violate moral agency.”

    Interesting, because that’s the same thing King Mosiah said, yet he laid down strict laws against im(-)morality.

  4. El Jefe on May 19, 2006 at 11:25 pm

    So hard when the Church takes illiberal positions, like against murder and stealing and adultery and even lying. Let everyone exercise their free agency, and face up to it in the world to come.

  5. Mark Butler on May 20, 2006 at 3:00 am

    A law against abortion is the very epitome of classical liberalism. Questions of alcohol, gambling, and drug regulation are harder, but it is hard to take seriously any liberalism that reduces to nothing but licence – the classical rationale for laws in these areas is not the harm that engaging in these vices causes to oneself, but the harm that it causes to others. Ultimately, as usual, the questions of liberty under law are a question of proper balance, rather than a stark choice between despotism and anarchy (cf. D&C 134).

  6. Tigersue on May 20, 2006 at 12:38 pm

    according to just and holy principles;

    Did you just skip over this line to think that abortion, gambling, alcohol and drug use?

    Freedom doesn’t mean that we have the right to do everything and anything. IT is the responsibility to make and do correct choices. There are many ideas that were liberal in its day, freeing of slaves, womens sufferage, civil liberties. The problems that come with todays views of liberalism is that “God” should have nothing to do with anything, that there is no good and evil. We have become increasingly more a society of self gratification rather than looking out for one another. We have become more apt to blame others for our stupid mistakes than taking responsibilty for our actions. How is that freedom?

    What ever contradictions you see, I’m not sure they are there. God wanted Nephi to get the plates, when every path and avenue was blocked and his brothers even lost their faith, (if they ever had any), then God led Nephi to the answer. Other times it just maybe a complete test to see how far we will go to do God’s will. When all roads are blocked then the task or commandment maybe removed. That doesn’t mean God couldn’t make something happen. What he is testing is our willingness to obey no matter the cost.

    I also take the Gifts of the Spirit as teaching and learning tools. Before one can have that testimony of Christ, there must be some kind of believing what is taught. It is all baby steps.
    I was never a missionary but I have gathered that many converts work in that fashion. They have to have some kind of faith that what they are being taught is true, to even ask in faith to know for sure. I don’t think it has to be a one or the other Gift.

  7. cadams on May 20, 2006 at 4:35 pm

    Aaron,
    In fact, D&C 124:49 was used as a justification in abandoning polygamy (see http://content.lib.utah.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=15581).

    Grego,
    Thanks for reminding us that King Mosiah taught that free agency still entails strict morality. Legislating ‘do your own thing’ because it doesn’t hurt anybody has to be counterbalanced by the needs of spirit children yet to come to earth. That may be one reason why D&C 101:77-78 says we should act according to things “pertaining to futurity.” That’s why all the hot button items like abortion and marriage redifinition need to consider the needs of the future unborn. If it wasn’t for them I’d say ‘do your own thing’ legislation would be easily just fine.

  8. Bookslinger on May 20, 2006 at 9:20 pm

    Re your quote #1: Those are big jumps to go from liberty to (modern) liberalism to libertinism. I don’t see how your take on that passage is justified.

  9. Timothy A. Griffy on May 20, 2006 at 10:25 pm

    “D&C 46:13-14

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

    “This passage is more well known and oft-quoted than the others (I myself quoted it in a previous post). But once again, it offers a complicating counterpoint to the more well-known and idealized take, as represented in Moroni 10:4. In fact, I believe the temple recommend interview questions were changed in the last few years, from asking if one “believesâ€? in God and Jesus, to asking if one has “a testimonyâ€? of those things. There are probably many in the church who could benefit by considering the message of these verses.”

    If we want to complicate things a little further, we might point out that ONLY Moroni 10:4 is the oft-quoted verse. Read in context, the idealization of read, pray, gain testimony is heavily qualified, more akin to (the also well-known and oft-quoted) D&C 9:7-9. See Moroni 10:3. Fully grasping the implications of these passages would go a long way towards helping the members to “grow up,” IMHO.

    Seth makes the good points in that preaching only the idealized versions of Mormon Scripture has a deleterious effect and that the official curriculum must take its share of the blame for it. However, I have encountered way too many members who don’t want to be confused by the facts to put too much stress on the curriculum. Like it or not, most members like having things neat and simple, and the passages that receive the most emphasis keep things that way. The official curriculum and the attitude of the membership is actually a mutually reinforced, vicious cycle. I’m afraid that even if the official curriculum were to encourage more maturity, it would be the members who would refuse to put away the childish things.

  10. Nathaniel Givens on May 21, 2006 at 12:02 am

    It astounds me that there are Mormons alive today who still view the old “free agency” as even the remotest argument in favor of legalized abortion. I’m not saying it amazes me that there is divergent opinion on the issue of abortion and the law. There is room for debate, for competing points of view, and for honest disagreement.

    But on one issue I would think there can be absolutely no rational contention: that free agency entails a lack of legal censure for immoral activities. If this were the case it is not abortion alone that should be legal, but every immoral act. If laws against abortion should be opposed because those laws restrict free agency, then how can we not similarly oppose laws against theft, murder, etc? One of the aims of law, from a practical standpoint, is to restrict agency. If not by preventing crime before the fact, than certainly by preventing (some) crime after the fact via incarceration.

    Aside from the fact that I see far more strains of genuine political liberalism in modern conservatives than liberals (especially via “small government”) the simple fact is that abortion-on-demand (which is the current state of affairs) is not only not entailed by this (or any) Mormon doctrine or scipture – it is in fact the absolute antithesis of moral liberty.

    God allowed his only Begotten to bleed and die for men and women, he allows injustice and cruelty, he permits a fallen world for one reason: respect for our moral agency. This means that he allows us to make choices that are inextricably tied to matching consequences. We may choose to sin, and sin is real, because God does not constrain us. He doesn’t let us will to commit murder, but then swoop in with angels at the last moment and prevent the murder. Murder happens. Rape happens. Torture happens. Considering all the pain and suffering that is the result of evil decisions in this world one can begin to fathom the inexpressible importance of human moral agency. It is, quite literally, worth all the suffering in the world. Either that or God is not worthy of the devotion we give Him.

    And yet the very essence of abortion is not to enact moral agency but to escape from it. When I speak of abortion I speak of abortion as birth control (as well over 90% of American abortions are). In this case the decision – to have sex (protected or otherwise) has already been made. The consequence is a risk of conceiving a child (not to mention STDs, etc.) To then allow the destruction of that human life is to enact the plan of Lucifer in symbol and in intent: it is to sever the consequence from the choice. Putting aside post-abortion syndrom, the resultant oppression of women, and the unpleasent origin of the modern abortion-rights movement as a direct offshoot of racist and bigotted eugenics programs, the simple fact is that abortion-on-demand (the typical “pro-choice” stance) is the most perfect legal antithesis to Mormon doctrine that I can imagine.

    I’m sure not everyone here believes that, but let’s please at least set aside the childish notion that “free agency” is a solid basis of a pro-choice political stance.

  11. Ed Johnson on May 21, 2006 at 12:18 am

    To clarify, I’m not saying that the typical mormon positions on gambling, etc. are wrong. And in the case of abortion, there is clearly a libertarian case for prohibiting it, if you believe the fetus has status as a person.

    Nevertheless, I think the verse in D&C 101 does say that having the legal freedom to choose sin is important for our moral agency. That’s something we should consider before we decide to take those freedoms away.

    So for all those who take issue with what I wrote: what do you think the passage means?

  12. Aaron Brown on May 21, 2006 at 1:20 am

    “It astounds me that there are Mormons alive today who still view the old “free agencyâ€? as even the remotest argument in favor of legalized abortion.”

    Nathaniel, maybe you and I just hang in different circles, but I’ve never met a pro-choice Mormon who would defend legalized abortion via the “free agency” argument. So I’ve never had occasion to be “astounded.” There are other arguments that are sometimes made, to be sure, but I’ve never seen an explicitly LDS argument put forth that has these specific contours. So who are you arguing against?

    Aaron B

  13. Timothy A. Griffy on May 21, 2006 at 1:56 am

    “So for all those who take issue with what I wrote: what do you think the passage means?”

    I’m not sure why the discussion got so side-tracked into the abortion issue. I assumed that the point you were making was that the passage should make us think twice about our positions on the moral issues. I think you are on the right track about D&C 101:77-78. Moral agency is predicated on the freedom to choose our own actions, whether for works of righteousness or sin. To the extent that no harm (a term I’ll deliberately leave open for this purpose) to others result, legal freedom to sin does support our moral agency and places judgment where it rightfully belongs–on God.

    Note that the natural consequences of sin will still result without any intervention of the law. The law rightfully can and should act to restrain sin when it results in harm to others. I seriously doubt that the passage was intended to mean that we need to legalize murder or stealing, contra the ad absurdum arguments offered in some of the responses. What these verses should do is put the burden on the law to justify the restrictions it imposes, even if the actions it seeks to restrict are immoral.

  14. mullingandmusing (m&m) on May 21, 2006 at 2:49 am

    Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

    I think part of the reason we hear more about 1 Ne. 3:7 is because there are very, very few situations where this situation as presented in the D&C ever comes about. I think it’s important to remember the context of this scripture. The Saints had been forced to leave Missouri, had not been able to build Zion and build a temple as commanded. Imagine the sense of failure and maybe even doom that they felt. I think most of the time, living the commandments we are given isn’t going to be hindered by enemies in such a drastic way, therefore, why focus on such a scripture? 1 Ne. 3:7 still gets my vote. We should expect that the Lord will help us live the commandments.

  15. Seth R. on May 21, 2006 at 9:03 am

    Well Timothy,

    I TRIED to address the overall topic of the ENTIRE post.

    But it seems people would rather talk about “them durn librals.” Oh well.

  16. Wacky Hermit on May 21, 2006 at 9:06 am

    The problem we often encounter with the Lord’s commandments is that we’re just not clever enough to think of how to obey them. (See 1 Cor 10:13.) We’re too hung up on trying to do them our way that we fail to see other ways they could be done. This was the case with Nephi. He couldn’t see how, but he knew the Lord would help him.

    Most of the commandment-obeying decisions we have to make in our lives fall into this category of commandments that we can simply choose to obey or not, letting the Lord guide our feet on the path of righteousness. Occasionally, though, there will be times when others use their agency to block ours, removing our ability to choose the right. This is a natural consequence of letting everyone have their agency, not just those who are trying to choose the right. It is in this context that D&C 124:49 comes into play. This was the case when polygamy was blocked by the well-known series of events. The choice no longer was between living the law of polygamy or facing some fines or social disapprobation; thanks to the agency of others, the choice was now between living the law of polygamy and disobeying other commandments to take care of one’s family, or giving up polygamy but being able to take care of one’s family. When the agency of others interferes to force a situation where we have to choose between commandments and there is no clever way to get around this because the contradiction is inherent, the Lord will remove one or more of the conflicting commandments.

    I should point out that this is a very rare case, where the Lord (being a God of logic as well as a God of love) would have to remove a commandment. And that, in my eyes, justifies the Church promulgating the 1 Ne scripture and not the one in D&C 124. Why should they make sure everyone knows about a rare exception, when it would take time and effort away from them making sure everyone knows the basic principle?

  17. Mark Butler on May 21, 2006 at 9:44 am

    I understand the general argument, but the way the original post describes abortion (not to mention gambling, alcohol, and drug prohibition as a “so called ‘moral issue”” is a uniquely inflammatory statement for several reasons.

    First of all, it strongly implies that there is no moral aspect to any of those four issues, an assertion which is out-right ridiculous.

    Second, given the long history of official Church positions regarding legal proscriptions most if not all of these, it contradicts the long held Church position about the proper scope of Church commentary on political issues, and the actual content of that commentary.

    Third, it doesn’t raise any suggestion of balancing considerations about when or why or to what degree there should be laws governing behavior without unduly constraining liberty. In fact the long tradition of classical liberal thought, has always been that law, properly implemented, is pro-liberty, not anti-liberty. D&C 134 echoes this sentiment comprehensively.

    So while this question is interesting, I don’t think we can reduce the objection to a spurious complaint about “those durn liberals”. The idea of liberty without law is radically anti-liberal, in the classical sense. A complaint about “those durn anarchists” would be more accurate.

  18. Seth R. on May 21, 2006 at 10:30 am

    Problem is,

    I didn’t know too many “durn anarchists” while I lived in Utah.

    Unless you count my Priests Quorum …

  19. Mark Butler on May 21, 2006 at 11:05 am

    Making the position apparently being advocated even more anomalous….

  20. Mark Butler on May 21, 2006 at 11:21 am

    Consider the sentiments of Katherine Lee Bates in the second verse of America the Beautiful:

    “O beautiful for pilgrim feet
    Whose stern, impassioned stress
    A thoroughfare for freedom beat
    Across the wilderness!
    America! America!
    God mend thine every flaw,
    Confirm thy soul in self-control,
    Thy liberty in law!”

    Note the balance between “self-control” and “liberty in law” – not liberty *from* law, but liberty *in* law.

    D&C 134 states:

    “We believe … that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker”

  21. Timothy A. Griffy on May 21, 2006 at 11:23 am

    Seth: I know you tried to address the general topic. Note my first comment (#9) addressed the point you made.

    Wacky Hermit and others: I am not so sure that the circumstances of D&C 124:49 are really all that rare. If we may move to the sensus plenior of the passage, it seems to me that the “enemies” that may come upon us don’t have to be limited to specific persons blocking our way to fulfilling the commandments. The daily scramble of trying to make a living in the world while trying not to be of it is conflict enough. I would therefore disagree that the near-total ignorance of this scripture in favor of 1 Ne. 3:7 is justified. I think that both should be held up in juxtaposition with the other so that the resulting tension will remind us that even the life of faith is full of complexity.

  22. Mark Butler on May 21, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    I will nominate Proverbs 11:14, and 24:6:

    “in a multitude of counsellors there is safety”

    This is a fundamental reason for conciliarism in the Church, including Ward, Stake, and General councils, quorums, and presidencies. When a leader chooses to disregard the feelings of his council or counsellors, he is taking an unnecessarily risky road.

    We might call this the Central Limit Theorem of Church Administration – a rule documented in modern scripture in D&C 107 and implied in D&C 88:122:

    “Appoint among yourselves a teacher, and let not all be spokesmen at once; but let one speak at a time and let all listen unto his sayings, that when all have spoken that all may be edified of all, and that every man may have an equal privilege.”

    It is also the very basis of the principle of Correlation in the Church – a rule of safety if there ever was one.

  23. Ed Johnson on May 21, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    Mark, the reason I used the phrase “so-called moral issues” was not meant to imply that these issues do not involve morality. It was because I recognize that there are many other things involved in morality, including not killing, or stealing, or being mean to your kids. Limiting the concept of “morality” only to such things as I listed has always seemed strange to me.

    Perhaps I should have been more clear. On the other hand, perhaps in trying to understand what I wrote you could adopt a more charitable interpretation, rather than the interpretation that gets you the most riled up.

  24. Mark Butler on May 21, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    Ed, I agree with you – I was simply trying to explain the reaction in terms of principles rather more serious than a knee-jerk anti-liberalism – my first comment was much more muted. My real point is that we need to talk about principles like these in terms of proper balance of just claims, and not as a dichotomy of extremes. I consider the general issue extremely interesting and the scripture you quoted is particularly relevant to the proper scope and extent of civil government.

  25. Lynnette on May 21, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    I like that counterpoint to 1 Nephi 3:7, which I think too often gets used as a club to beat people over the head with if they’re having difficulties. (“The only possible reason you haven’t yet managed to have children, transform your sexual orientation, convert everyone you know to the Church, etc., is your lack of faith and/or willpower; God wouldn’t have told you to do it if it weren’t possible!”)

  26. Ed Johnson on May 21, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    “that we need to talk about principles like these in terms of proper balance of just claims, and not as a dichotomy of extremes.”

    Agreed, nicely said.

  27. S Hardy on May 22, 2006 at 10:10 am

    I can’t resist adding another “not quoted enough” scripture for those on the Democratic end of the spectrum:

    D&C 104:14-17

    “14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.

    15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

    16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

    17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.”

    Parts of this passage are quoted frequently, such as verse 17, which I have heard used to justify the exploitation of our enviornment. However, I am most interested in verse 16 which seems to be a strong encouragment for a program of economic redistribution. There is some irony, for me, that our church resouce booklet for our Welfare System uses part of the scripture “The Lords Way” as its title, while the program itself stresses individual rather than societal responsiblities towards the poor. (I am not against individual responsibility, but I believe that we can and should do much more as a society as well.)

  28. D-Train on May 22, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    I think Ed may have been talking about liberalism much more in the John Locke sense than the Teddy Kennedy sense.

  29. Mark Butler on May 25, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    The key difference between the Lord’s way and the Left’s way is that the Lord’s plan is to persuade people to voluntarily consecrate their surplus time, energy, and temporal resources to the benefit of all mankind, where the contemporary Left’s way boils down to coercion at the point of a gun.

    Take away sheriffs and IRS collection agents and make welfare more a matter of private charity the way it was about a century ago than a vast mostly middle class ponzi scheme, and any religious person would be obligated to contribute and cheer it on.

    I do not mind the safety net aspect of government welfare, it is expensive middle class entitlements, plus long term subsidies of various social pathologies that I have a problem with.

    There is one more thing – there is no Santa Claus – even if every member of the Church consecrated their surplus over and above a minimal lower middle class lifestyle, we would run out of funds running a generous welfare subsidy program overnight. At some point, the welfare of the Saints is a function of work – hence the focus on training and education.

    I am sure if people contributed more fast offerings we could do much more than we are doing, but there would never be enough to make the believers in Santa Claus happy.

  30. J.A.T. on June 8, 2006 at 8:27 pm

    I nominate M.E. Edmond(?s) quote about the frequent misunderstanding of the hymn-scripture \”Because I Have Been Given Much\”. Singing it, sometimes we get stuck on the \”I have been given much\” and continue in our minds and heart \”I have a-lot\” instead of \”I TOO MUST GIVE\”. I goes along with S. Hardy\’s comment.