I’m not going to lie, I like the break, the slow down in pace.

We live in a time where life is moving at a break neck pace, instant gratification is the name of the game, if it isn’t faster, we don’t want it. So it’s nice when we can slow down, life is about so much more than work, than BYU-Utah (though that’s a tough one to swallow), than bills (Carolyn would say otherwise), life can be so much more.

One of the reasons, I believe, many companies slow down this time of year is so we CAN take time to stop and smell the roses. Thanksgiving is the first of the big holidays and appropriately gives us an opportunity to think of all we have — or, at the very least, to say thank you to someone for something.

So, here’re some things I’m thankful for this year:

• My family
• My wife
• My job
• My car
• My health
• My computer (the Mac, not the PC — okay, I’m thankful for the PC)
• Technology
• A heater
• My friends
• The fact that I am where I’m at, at the right time, doing the things I’m doing, with the people I interact with
• Food
• A comfortable office chair
• The gospel
• My calling
• Facebook, Twitter, blogs, email and all the apps and networks where I can meet new people and keep in touch with dear friends
• Good tennis shoes
• A comfy bed
• Good ideas
• The opportunity to live in this great country of ours (regardless of what some say, it is a GREAT country)
• And many, many more things

So, between turkey bowls, parades, food and whatever other traditions you may have, find a moment to say “thank you.” Whether it’s to your family, friends or Heavenly Father, do it and you’ll be thankful you did.

While my wife and I endured the endless sales tactics & pitches, we made it out with a $50 Home Depot card, $40 Red Lobster gift card, and of course the trip. As we thought about it, it donned on us that Anaheim was home the “The Happiest Place On Earth,” Disneyland.

The plan was laid, November would be our “relief” trip. Why “relief” you ask? Relief from life’s headaches, relief from Salt Lake, and so on and so forth.

We arrived bright and early yesterday morning, Tuesday, November 4, 2008, a memorable day — not just because Barack Obama won the election. We left the cold, soon-to-be snow covered streets of Salt Lake City and arrived at the complete opposite, sunny, warm, peaceful California.

After picking up our rental car, we told the GPS to take us to downtown Hollywood, Grauman’s Chinese Theater. (Let me take this moment to plug consumer GPS units, if not for our Garmin Nuvi, we may never have made it to Hollywood — or Anaheim, for that matter.)

While I have no idea of the history of Grauman’s Chinese Theater, I did recognize many of the famous names, Cary Grant, Tom Hanks, Bob Hope, Adam Sandler, Harrison Ford, Frank Sinatra, and many, many more.

From there we headed to the Pacific Coast Highway for a very peaceful, scenic trip down to Huntington Beach and Anaheim. It was really nice to get away, we even took an unexpected detour down to the Long Beach docks to see the mammoth shipping cranes in the Los Angeles Port.

When we finally arrived at Huntington Beach, the sun was close to setting, and as we walked along the beach, it wasn’t hard to look at the horizon and see how people the likes of Christopher Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan and others had the incling to discover what was beyond the furthest point on the ocean. It was also very easy to see why some people retire and move to the beach and Southern California to live out their days as beach bums.

All in all, it was a great day. Very friendly people, terrific weather, good company — like I said, it was a very memorable day, not just because Barack Obama won the election.

Well, Friday night the little guy and I took a whack at creating our own superheroes on Marvel’s kids Web site. I think we did pretty good, check them out:

[Show as slideshow]

Want to have some fun? Go to the Marvel kid’s Web site, create your superhero, download it and send us a copy, we’ll add it to the gallery of pictures. Be sure to give me the name and any additional info you want me to list.

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).

On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”

Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” ^[1] Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” ^[2]

In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” ^[3]

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. ^[4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” ^[5]

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. ^[6] This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. ^[7]

Popenoe explained that:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. ^[8]

Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. ^[9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.

Challenges to Marriage and Family

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). ^[10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. ^[11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.

In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.

The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. ^[12]

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. ^[13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” ^[14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. ^[15]

The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.

Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” ^[16]

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. ^[17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. ^[18]

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. ^[19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations.  These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.

My mind is somewhat at ease because I know she is free from any pains she might have had while in her last days. And I know that she is with the love of her life, the man she missed for nearly 15 years until the day she died, my Grandpa.

Death is a silly thing sometimes, it evokes emotions in us, often sadness and confusion, regret and a reminiscing of times past. But what is death, really? It’s simply a passing from this life to the next. The more I learn about life, its divine purpose and the life and opportunities that await us after we pass on cause me to wonder why we react so.

Truth is, I understand it. I have said good-bye many times in my life, as the son of an Air Force officer, my family moved around quite a bit and I can remember lying in bed at night crying because I knew there was a good chance I’d never again see my friends. So the idea of a long good-bye is nothing new, but death just has this thing about it, I think the scriptures put it aptly when they refer to the “sting” of death. Whether that was intended for the deceased or those still alive, I think it applies.

I am happy for Grandma, no longer does she have to deal with doctor visits, lonliness and the hot Las Vegas weather ;o) She is now with her family and friends that passed on before and ultimately with her Maker.

In the end, death should be a happy time. A time to remember days gone by and look forward to a time when there will be a wonderful reunion with all those we’ve known. As a person who believes in a loving God with purpose, I think all things have their purpose — even death.

So here’s to Grandma, thanks for the PB&J sandwiches, and when you told me to “hold my horses” when I grew impatient. Thanks to letting me stay with you for that week in Utah, and for driving me down to Provo for EFY and then to pick me and my friend up so we could go home again. Thanks for keeping me on my toes and reminding me when I was “sassing” you and that if I didn’t stop I was gonna get hit. Thanks for reminding me that you have the uncanny ability to start a conversation on Monday and then finish it on Thursday! In short, thanks for all the memories, thanks for being you and putting up with me being me. I love you, and miss you and hope you and Grandpa are happy and I’ll see you in a while.

Your loving grandson,

Kris

[Show as slideshow]

In school these last two weeks we have been learning about colors. Each day we have worn a different color and then done activities with that color. Dad asked me last night what my favorite color was and I told him that I liked all the colors.

I also asked Dad and Mom what their favorite colors were and they told me. But, my question to the whole family is:

What is your favorite color? (Put your answer in the comments and I’ll read them later)

I have two wonderful kids and although the little one runs away from the camera, or worse, runs toward the camera whenever we break it out, they are photogenic.

If they could sit still long enough, maybe we could get them jobs as kid models — ha! Won’t ever happen.

Enjoy!

[Show as slideshow]

Sad, but true. Like I said, humor is always based on some portion of the truth.

Fast forward two weeks, while driving home from work, I decided to take side streets home, and as I drove by Sandy City Hall, low and behold, I saw the elusive unicorn, the Dodge Challenger, my Eleanor!

So I did what any want-one-but-can’t-have-one, car lover would do, I pulled over, got my camera out and did my best not to drool on the car. This is sweet, not only is it one of the new Challengers, one in a series of cars designed to bring back the era of muscle cars, but it was top of the line, the Hemi V-8, SRT model. Although I don’t want to know what this guy’s gas mileage is like, I’d sure take him up on an offer to “test drive” the car.

Here are the pictures I shot of the car, I tried to get some good angles, but this is really a cool car, ’nuff said! (Enjoy the pictures, just don’t drool on your keyboard.)

[Show as slideshow]

]]> http://krisbeldin.com/2008/09/04/cool-car-sighting/feed/ 0 http://krisbeldin.com/2008/07/01/blog-drought/ http://krisbeldin.com/2008/07/01/blog-drought/#comments Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:07:40 +0000 Kris http://krisbeldin.com/?p=355 Okay, it’s been too long since I last posted here, but it’s nigh time! I find that sometimes I just don’t know what to put here sometimes, when I do have thoughts, they are fleeting. But I’ve got a good idea and will post later today.