Sin

So, what is sin. My friend had an interesting post the other day about how Nephi both lied to Zoram and killed Laban.

It seemed to me like the crux of the issue that he was getting to was: what is sin?

I find this question intriguing. I will give my answer.

For a person to commit sin they must do at least these four things, if I think about more I will add to this list later.

1. Do something that God does not want them to do.
2. Know that God does not want them to do it.
3. Desire to do the forbidden thing
4. Voluntarily choose to commit the act.
5. Commit the act (thoughts alone are tricky. Is it a sin if they are dwelled on, or is it automatically a sin. Remember, we have been told repeatedly that homosexuals are not sinning when they have a homosexual thought enter their mind. When does it become sin though? Jesus said when we lust over a woman we commit sin. There has to be some moment when it crosses the line. Maybe it is when we choose to think about it more, after it entered. This would go along with #4).

So those are my five things that a person must do to commit sin. I think if you do not meet all of these prongs you have not committed sin.

What do you think?

Grade Curves

I hate them.

I think they really only help employers and the few people who are the top of the curve.

A big reason is because they don't mean much (this has already been much discussed, I acknowledge). I have done better than many people, in many classes, who were more gifted than me. I think it has a lot to do with effort.

But a bigger reason that I don't like them is because it makes everyone do more than is necessary. We are all studying for finals at our law school. We should not know these subjects as well as we are learning them, there are more important things we could be doing. But, because we are all graded against each other we all feel the need to learn the material more than we ever should. Each person is trying to get even the tiniest, incremental advantage compared to his classmate. It is somewhat ridiculous.

It does, however, benefit the employers. They know who the people are who are willing to work all day and night; these are the same people who will be living at the law school. While being at the top of the curve does not mean that you are necessarily more intelligent than someone else, it does say who is willing to put in ungodly hours. The employers need to know this. Also, employers don't have much to go on. A one hour interview doesn't really tell you much about an employee. A grade from a curve gives the employer that much more to go off. Despite some people's opinions that they are incredible interviewers, there is only so much you can learn about a person.

So I am not a fan of the curve. Even if I did incredible and was in the top 10% of the class I would still say that it made us all work way too hard. We all just want to go home. I wish we could all make a pact to leave school before 9pm, but then one of us would decide to get the advantage over their classmate and stay later, then we are all back to the grind, all day and all night.

I want to be my own boss. I don't want to ever have to burn the midnight oil like this again.

I just want to hang out with my family.

How I Suck

Yesterday was Kylee's birthday. Kylee is amazing. She deserves all the good she gets. She also was raised in a very different family than I was.

I decided that I would leave school early on Tuesday and go out and get Kylee a present. I went to GAP and got her a sweater and a shirt. The shirt was a steal, it was on the clearance rack, but it was really cute. The sweater was just great, but way too expensive. I decided that although it goes against everything I stand for to spend 50$ on a sweater. But then I thought, maybe it will go really far to get it because then she will know that I will do things that I don't want to do to make her happy. So I bought the sweater and shirt and brought them home. I gave her the presents Tuesday night because I don't think there is much of a point to wait until the birthday. She said she loved them. We spent the rest of the night hanging out and watching movies.

I thought I had done well. I even fulfilled her mom's wishes to have me put toilet paper all over where she was sleeping so she would see it when she woke up (her mom's tradition). I had told her the day before that I had a ton of things to do that day and that was why I came home early the day before.

I don't think she liked this approach very much. I swing and strike out frequently. I think one of the most depressing things in life is when you give your best and it is not good enough. Some people say that it is comforting when they know they did their best. I don't subscribe to that mentality. To me that is the most depressing thing there is; I don't ever want to be just "not good enough."

The biggest part of the problem is that we have been raised with such different approaches to things. In my family it isn't even really noticed if we forget to say Happy Birthday. To the contrary, in her family only a parade will suffice when it is someone's birthday. I don't think either approach is necessarily wrong. It is just hard for me to make myself care about something I don't care about. I guess it is caring about something that matters to me, I do care a great deal about her, and if it makes her happy . . . but the difficulty remains.

I need to just really ask myself what it is she wants me to do. I do this, but I need to do it more. I did go home early and got her a present the day before her birthday. I have to study for finals, however. So because I did it that day I told her I couldn't do it on her birthday. Clearly, this did not fly. My logic is definitely not her logic. I need to ensure I see what she wants, not what I think is right or sufficient.

Anyway, I hate not being sufficient. I would rather think I lacked effort and that I was capable but lazy than think that I just didn't have the capability. I can see both viewpoints, but I hate knowing I have limitations.

Can Testimony Exist While Opposing Prop. 8

I have been reading a discussion board on www.deseretnews.com and I find the conversation worthy of some thought.

Some are saying they have a testimony, yet the First Presidency is advocating something that is wrong. Perhaps more importantly, they are doing it in the name of the faith.

Others are saying these positions are incompatible. What do you think? Can a person have a testimony of the faith and believe the First Presidency is going astray in this aspect?

More to the point, can the First Presidency advocate things that are wrong (as some believe), in the name of the faith, and still be God's mouthpiece on earth, as they are believed to be?

Can a person maintain faith in the First Presidency and believe that they are advocating something God is against? If you really believe that it is wrong to ban same-sex marriage, and that God is against it, can you really believe that the Prophets and Apostles are speaking for God?

Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech

I was greatly moved . . .

He is an incredible orator. If that was all he was he would still be laudable. But I think Barack Obama is more than that. I think, in many ways, Barack Obama embodies all that we have and do hope for as a nation. He is hope! I say this as someone who did not vote for him, but some things must be conceded. It is my humble opinion that Obama is a great man.

Now, there is a part where things get tricky. Barack Obama and I disagree on a good amount of issues. I think he has the best intentions, we must think this of almost all people I believe. The political commercials by both Barack Obama and John McCain really irked me. Many of them said something to this effect, "McCain (or) Obama is advocating ______, therefore he does not care about you, or working class families." That was so clearly, on both sides, bad politics and humanity. It is a tragedy when we take a position that someone holds and extrapolate that to mean things it doesn't necessarily mean. I believe, however, that overall Barack Obama has good intentions, he wishes the best for the country, and he is committed to making the United States of America better. So how do I navigate the next four (probably eight) years?

Here is an excerpt from Barack Obama's acceptance speech:

"I will listen to you, especially when we disagree."

I think he encapsulated one of the most important principles that can be espoused. We do not need to agree on everything. In fact, we can adamantly disagree with others. To bring it even further, it can be beneficial for there to be strong disagreements. What matters is our response to them. What do we do with these disagreements? Do we not listen as they are uttered, all the while formulating in our minds our response? Do we try to concede as little as possible to ensure that our argument still sounds the strongest? What do we do?

I am not sure about the best general approach. But I know what I do, I consider the viewpoints in the most favorable light that I possibly can. I look to accept them. I try to see their validity. But, after I do this (giving it the best chance it can get), I then compare it to the things I value most. After using both methods I then decide what is right. But, all the while, the most important principal is to listen.

This is where Barack Obama has it right, he is willing to listen. Nothing carries more weight than giving another's opinion validity. Henry Eyring once related this experience:

A professor of mine, Ray Bauer, years ago corrected me when I put the label of "irrational" on someone's behavior. He said: "Hal, you'll understand people better if you assume that people's behavior is rational, at least from their point of view. Try to see what they see."


Personally, I have been experiencing a lot of bigotry over my opinions lately. These opinions happen to be religious. I had one classmate tell me that despite the fact that he thinks I am intelligent and a good person, he does not think I should be able to vote. Mostly because my viewpoints are religious. This deeply concerned me.

How great would it be if we considered all viewpoints as rational. How much more unity would we have? How much less contention would exist? What a world it would be.

We could have disagreements without animosity. We would have less war.

Obama is a beacon of hope. He represents our continuing climb out of the dark recesses of racism, inequality and bigotry. He represents liberty, freedom and hope. Maybe even more important, Barack Obama gives hope to countless young people. Seemingly insurmountable obstacles of poverty, racial divides and entrenched mindsets can be overcome.

I disagree with Obama, but loved this quotation he repeated:

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.”

Nothing is more powerful than hope and unity. While I disagree with Barack Obama on many things, I am filled with hope this day.