Karin and Steve's Wedding Video

P90X Works

April 4, 2011

About a year ago, my wife Suzy decided she wanted to purchase the P90X workout program for her birthday. At the time, I thought, of all the things you could get foryour birthday.... why this? After all, I had heard how extreme the program actually was, and I figured she would just be throwing her money awayfor a bunch of DVDs that she would only use for a few w

eeks before giving up. Not that I didn't have faith in her, but I just figured it was a program with constant Saturday morning infomercials showing people experiencing unbelievable results was just what you would predict - too good to be true.

But she bought the DVDs, the pull up bar, the bands, and the dumbbells, and she did the program for about 6 weeks. We took pictures and measurements. The results were actually pretty noticeable for only a month and a half. I was impressed. But for whatever reason, she stopped working out, and nothing happened for awhile. Then, in September, I decided I would try the workout with her. We lasted 3 weeks, and I enjoyed the workouts,

but sickness preempted week 4, and we never got back in the groove.

For the new year, Suzy made a resolution that she wanted to complete the full 90 days before her 30th birthday. At the same time, some members of my extended family suggeste

d we do a "Biggest Loser" contest for 12 weeks for anyone who wanted to compete. These two goals combined helped us to become re-motivated, and this time we weren't going to quit part of the way through.

What can I say about P90X? It is extreme. But I have to think that most people could do it if they just consistently would continue to work at it. Sometimes you don't think you're getting the results that you want, but you just have to be patient. The part that may be even more difficult than actually doing the workouts is showing up to work out. In our

case, we usually had to wake up between 4:30-5 a.m. so we could get in a workout before our kids started getting out of bed. The program is very time consuming. You have to plan on an hour to 1.5 hours a day, six days a week.

One other misconception I had about the program is that I would be sore for a week or two, but then my muscles would be used to the rigor of the routine. However, P90X is based on the principle of "muscle confusion," which means you can plan on being sore probably some if not most of the whole program. After awhile, you start to get used to it, and feeling sore makes you feel like you worked hard enough. The thing I liked best about doing the work

outs is the variety (there are 12 DVDs total), and the fact that I pretty much felt like Superman once I had act

ually finished. Doing it first thing in the morning, I felt like I had finished something significant before my real day had even started.

The best part of the program? It works with minimal investment in equipment (although as I got stronger, I had to sink a little more money into heavier weights), and you can get great results right in your basement. No travel time to and from the gym, and no membership fees.

My results? I did not take all my measurements, but I think the outcome is pretty visible. I dropped 10 pounds, from 176 to 166, which is about what I weighed

way back in

my high school days. My jeans, which used to fit just right on my waist, are now hanging at least two or three inches loose.

I don't think I will be winning the biggest loser event, but I think the accomplishment of finishing such an intense workout regimen speaks for itself. I figure if I can do it, anyone can. Now it's time for Insanity!!

Here's a few pics:

Day 1 - Day 30

Day 60-Day90





















Day 1 - Day 90

Day 1 - Day 90

I Want Nothing but the Truth....but.....

January 5, 2011

A few weeks ago one of the parents of a boy that comes to daycare every day gifted us some different spoils from a recent hunting excursion - jerky, sausage, ground meat, etc. Usually his gifts are savory and mouth-watering. However, this batch of jerky did not impress me, nor did it impress my wife. Before we even consumed half the bag, we threw the rest away.

Flash forward to yesterday, and a scene that is familiar to just about anyone comes into play - this same parent asking my wife and I, "did you eat the jerky? Did you like it?"

I am a person who really hates to be disingenuous, and yet in situations like these, I know what my response is going to be.... "Yeah, it was great!"

Growing up, especially in the LDS church, I was taught very well that lying was wrong, and that there is no gray area between right and wrong. Thus, in my very literalistic, unexperienced way of viewing things, I understood this as meaning "never lie for any reason, ever!" Of course, as I continued to gain experience and knowledge, I realized that this black and white thinking didn't really apply in all circumstances.

However, I would have thought it would apply in God's one and only true church. How could a lie (or the corollary, not telling a lie but just not telling the truth either) ever serve the members of the church? But it seems that even for God, telling the truth can have undesired consequences.

I am reading a biography of Spencer W. Kimball by his son Edward, and while the book can often times be interpreted as potentially faith-promoting, Ed Kimball tries to just tell things the way they are. Thus, you can find quotes like this one from Dallin H. Oaks (p. 190), "Even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it."

To further illustrate this point, Edward points out disagreements various leaders had over the publishing of certain church histories by the LDS Historical Department, such as The Story of the Latter-Day Saints. Apostles Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer, and Delbert L. Stapley objected to including things like how Brigham Young chewed tobacco (to deaden the pain of bad teeth), or how the Word of Wisdom came about at a time in the nineteenth century when other people were also adopting similar health guidelines.

I guess even though I have tried to form a more nuanced view of the world, it is easy for me to hold the church up to what I consider a higher standard. If the church is going to go around saying it is the only place where people can find all the truth, then they had better tell the truth, and/or not cover it up.

I have read all sorts of materials and books that would probably be considered "anti-mormon" by your average member of the church. At first it was a little disconcerting, but I just could not turn away. While my views of the church have changed rather significantly over the past several years, I don't think anything I could read could be as trying to my faith in the hierarchy as knowing they try to cover things up ostensibly to promote faith and protect testimonies. Knowing that this happens throws everything else up into the air.

But maybe the church just sees itself as an extension of myself - not wanting to admit that the jerky stinks, to save face, or to preserve a healthy reputation. But we are not just talking about lying to someone who wants to know if you liked their jerky. These are questions about who will or won't be saved, or whether or not there is even a life after this one. That's why I think the church has to be held to the highest standard possible. But one still has to wonder, is it always better to tell the truth? Are we, as well as the church, ever justified in telling a lie, or not telling the whole truth? I was always good at asking questions that have no definite answers...

P.S. I am not trying to say I think the church is not true (as nebulous as the term 'true' can be for me most of the time). I am only trying to point out that even with questions of belief, there may not always be one right and one wrong answer. I think the leaders recognize this, but don't want to admit it openly, probably for the same reasons they don't admit a lot of things.

Torn

October 5, 2010

This weekend was the Semiannual General Conference of the LDS Church. It was a beautiful weekend in a lot of ways. It was also a very difficult weekend for me personally.

To avoid my long-winded tendencies, I will simply state that I was hurt by comments made by a leader of the LDS church, Elder Boyd K. Packer. I won't repeat the words here. They are all over the Internet by now. Not only do I disagree with this good man, but I felt hurt because I knew that now there will be even more ammunition to use against the gay community and people like me who try to defend their rights. Once again, I can be told by a vast majority of my people that I don't follow the prophet, amongst other less flattering statements.

On the other hand, I have read a lot of the responses to Elder Packer, and it hurts me just as much to see all the hatred and anger directed at the church because of the words of a leader. I know Elder Packer's words are offensive to many, but I have never understood when people choose to fight what they consider hateful with more hate of their own. Just as many have a keen inability to recognize a gay relationship as more than just a question of sex, there are too many people who take an LDS church leader's words and determine that Mormonism is a bunch of garbage. In my opinion, both of these approaches are seriously flawed.

I just want to stand off to the side and weep as I watch people being hurt on both sides. I cannot understand why we have to always find ways to divide ourselves, when as another leader (Dieter Uchtdorf) of the church puts it: "All of God's children wear the same jersey. Our team is the brotherhood of man." I wonder if God is weeping as well when he sees His children divided as we always seem to be.

I regret that some people are angry with me because they disagree with my position on homosexuality. I do not mean to offend, and I realize there are valid grounds on which to disagree with me. I have long maintained that we can learn a lot more about ourselves by seeing HOW we disagree on issues than looking at the issues themselves. And I see a lot of hatred and bitterness on both sides. I wish we could find a better way.

For now I guess the best I can do is make a pledge that personally I will try to be less angry, less defensive, and more sensitive to the feelings and opinions of others. I will try to be less concerned about always being right, and more concerned about respecting and loving people despite our differences. I hope and pray that others will join me.

A Cantankerous Myth

May 31, 2010

Coming from an upbringing that insists constantly to be the custodian of truth, I find it interesting that some in my religious heritage do not even seem to begin understanding the erroneous nature of some of their most basic beliefs.

While my church purports to be politically neutral, it is often difficult to disconnect religion from politics completely. Sometimes the two are one and the same. In this context, one of the ideas that has affected me most negatively is simply this: you can't be Mormon and a democrat.

Just for the record, I am not a part of any political party. But while some might point out the simply benign nature of the above statement, it is obvious that among many of your average mainstream LDS people, this is basically a play off of a statement made by one of Mormon conservatives most beloved disciple, Ezra Taft Benson: "No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction." Today we could just insert the word "democrat" for "socialist."

Many conservatives want to use words like those of Benson to contend that being a so-called liberal means you are not worthy, not faithful, not patriotic. It seems that such individuals are unaware of the history of the church, yet they sometimes take this idea to such an extreme that they cannot tolerate anyone who has a distinct point of view. Progressives/liberals are enemies to the causes of God and country. They are a cancer that undermines the foundation of our constitutional government. I have personally experienced this lack of understanding and tolerance from people, some of them very close to me.

While I am despised by some for just acknowledging that it is okay for people to have different points of view, whatever the religious background, the viewpoint that a Mormon has to be connected with republicanism/conservatism is simply false.

Take this opinion from Hugh B. Brown, at the time a member of the church's First Presidency:

"Every person is entitled to his or her opinion, which will be respected as long as he or she respects the opinions of others. Individual General Authorities have the right and privilege to express their own opinions, which, when expressed, represent their opinions only. There may be different opinions among the General Authorities, but we are united on the basic principles of the gospel. When it comes to expressing an opinion on some other organization or some political or quasi-political question, one hopes that the authorities of the church will have the good grace not to be extreme, to keep near the center of the road. All my life I have advocated that people in and out of the church should think through every proposition presented to them. Positions may be modified as time passes by discussing them with others, but there should be no question that both liberals and conservatives in the church are free to express their opinions."
** from "An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown," p. 131.**

More recently it is well known that the late James E. Faust, also an Apostle and member of the First Presidency, was a Utah democrat.

I was especially miffed to just recently find an article from 1998 of an interview with Marlin K. Jensen, another democrat, and current church historian:

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

How is it that I could be taught for years that being a democrat was akin to being an apostate when this is simply not true? Did most of the individuals from whom I heard this idea even know any democrats personally? Even if they feel strongly about their conservative views, are they justified in ostracizing and rejecting those of different opinions? Is their behavior in any way Christlike? Coming from a tradition of being cruelly persecuted as Mormons, it is jaw-dropping to see Mormons do an about-face and persecute others just because they have differing political views.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. I do not really think that differing opinions are really justification for classifying people as enemies. We should be able to appreciate and respect one another. We should be glad that not everyone has the same point of view. We should expect that even with the most righteous of motivations, different people will see the world in opposing ways. As President Brown said, as long as we are respectful, we deserve others' respect.

I am convinced that the conservatives I know have good intentions. Their reasoning is generally sound for believing the things they do. But there is no justification for judgments of large segments of society because of their politics. Defending the indefensible in this way makes their position appear tenuous and weak, for they refuse to even engage in discussion of anything but that which merely goes along with what they already believe. Such an attitude has the potential to be just as damaging to the country as any supposed progressive cancer.

On a day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives and families for our freedoms, it would be good to remember that those heroes died in defense of the rights we all enjoy to think and believe as we choose, black and white, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, christian and atheist.