Adam's Blog

U2 ROCKS!!!!!!!

2009-08-28T16:45:00.002-06:00

As I sit hear and listen to 'No Line On The Horizon' I just had to pay my regards to Bono and the boys. Well Done! Another great album.

I don't know how they continue to blow everyone else out of the water. This album and 'How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb' are just phenomenal. Both albums I did not like at first but after you really listen to the albums they grow on you and you start to realize just how talented these guys really are. Tell me what other 80's band is still producing top selling albums that continue to rock and win awards without being crude or over the top. The step from 'The Joshua Tree' and 'Rattle Hum' to 'Achtung Baby' pretty much told me and everyone else that was this band was here to stay. Other such bands like INXS could just not make the jump from the 80's to the 90's.

Mother Teresa

2009-08-22T20:21:00.002-06:00

One morning while I was up at 5 AM with Claire I turned on the TV. It was Elder Faust giving a devotional. One of the best I have heard. He spoke of Mother Teresa's thoughts concerning abortion.

Here is a snippet of his talk.

"Abortion is one evil practice that has become socially accepted in our country and, indeed, in the world. Many of today's politicians claim not to favor abortion, but oppose government intervention in a woman's right to choose an abortion.
During a national prayer breakfast in Washington on February third of this year, Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject I have ever heard. She is the eighty-three-year-old Yugoslavian nun who has cared for the poorest of the poor in India for years. She is now aged and physically frail, but courageous, with immense spiritual strength. Mother Teresa delivered a message that cut to the very heart and soul of the social ills afflicting America, which traditionally has given generously to the peoples of the earth but now has become selfish. She stated that the greatest proof of that selfishness is abortion. Cal Thomas of the Los Angeles Times Syndicate reported on her speech. He said that Mother Teresa had tied abortion to growing violence and murder in the streets by saying,
If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? . . . Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.["Mother Teresa Has Anti-Abortion Answer," Salt Lake Tribune, February 15, 1994, p. A11]
Then she alluded to the concern that has been shown for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world, for which she expressed gratitude. But she continued,
These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today--abortion, which brings people to such blindness. [Ibid.]
Cal Thomas, commenting on this powerful message, said:
Why should people or nations regard human life as noble or dignified if abortion flourishes? Why agonize about indiscriminate death in Bosnia when babies are being killed far more efficiently and out of the sight of television cameras? [Ibid.]
In conclusion, Mother Teresa pled for pregnant women who don't want their children to give them to her. She said, "I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child" (ibid.). What consummate spiritual courage this remarkable old woman demonstrated. How the devil must have been offended! Her remarkable declaration, however, was not generally picked up by the press or the editorial writers. Perhaps they felt more comfortable being politically or socially correct. After all, they can justify their stance by asserting that everyone does it, or it is legal. Fortunately the scriptures and the message of the prophets cannot be so revised".

What made the talk even more powerful was that fact that I was listening while holding my brand new baby girl.

Santaquin Peak, Utah County, Utah

2009-08-15T12:47:00.005-06:00

Getting ready to set up camp. Good thing neither one of us sleep walk.

Half way up the trail looking back on Fairview Canyon.

This is the high point on the Peak looking down on Utah Valley.

This is the high point looking east.

Mountain goat heard. They left when we arrived but I woke to the clip clop of them hiking on the rock cliffs.

Santaquin Peak elevation 10,685'

My friend Aaron talked me into hiking the Santaquin Peak with him so he could 'spot' for deer. It was an amazing hike that I have never done before. At the corral I always took my bike down the Benny Creek trail and never down the Loafer trail. We went last month in July and started the hike at 3:30 pm when it was 95-degrees. It was way to hot but we made it. It took us 4 hours to get to the saddle where we campled at 10,000' with the mountain goats. It was pristine and beaultiful. I highly recomend the hike.

I did it in my old running shoes, bad idea. I am still nursing blisters and purple toe nail.

Strange Saturday

2009-06-04T21:42:00.002-06:00

One Saturday after a nice morning run I got back to the house and found Luke drawing at the kitchen table. Luke is constantly drawing Pokemon characters battling each other. So I was pumped from a good run and decided to turn on a little Guns-n-Roses to stretch out. So as I was listening to 'Sweet Child of Mine' cranked loud I heard Luke say Dad turn that down I can't concentrate with all that noise. It totally caught me off guard and I stared at him for a minute and then said the only thing that came to my mind "If its too loud then you are too old". So here I am the 35 year old and my 7 year old is telling me to turn down my music. Very strange.

understanding the issues surrounding Gay Marriage

2009-03-13T09:27:00.002-06:00

For those of you who might be wondering why I continue to post about Gay Marriage it is because I continue to have conversations with people who can not articulate the issues surrounding gay marriage and make statements such as 'Whats the harm if two people love each other?' or 'Gay marriage is a civil right.' I think this lack of understanding comes from very loud liberal media voices. We are continually attacked by these sound bites that at their core do not make sense but certainly do a good job of blurring the issues.

So what I am trying to do is present logical arguments against Gay Marriage in an effort to level the playing field. I understand that it is a very personal and sensitive issue but it also a very complicated issue with many ramifications. I think it is only one of the many issues that is striking at the core of family and marriage.

So here is another one ......

Gay marriage would have long-term societal impacts
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret News

PROVO, Utah -- Legalizing same-sex marriage would have significant, long-term societal, fiscal and legal consequences just as smoking and divorce do, even among those who don't personally participate.That's the assessment from Lynn Wardle, a professor of law at Brigham Young University, who encouraged an audience of attorneys at the school's annual Campus Education Week on Thursday to speak out in opposition to same-sex marriage, rather than being silenced by fear.
"Legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions endangers not only marriage as an institution but will endanger the civil rights" of those who don't approve of it, Wardle said. "It's about the right to express opposition, and those who do so already suffer harassment and hostility."As one of very few law professors who speak publicly against it, Wardle said he's been screamed at during the proceedings of large and respected organizations. "I've been called homophobic by a state senator.""Hate-filled, homophobic, narrow-minded and bigoted -- those are the labels you'll get. Those of you who live in California, put on your armor," he said, referring to an upcoming ballot measure that would strike down a recent Supreme Court ruling there legalizing gay marriage."Those attacks are purely an effort to silence, harass and drive out of the public square those who oppose them," he said."That's the greatest concern I have, the effort to intimidate and silence those who have different views. I've had professors I greatly respect come up to me in dark hallways and tell me they agree with me, but they won't stand up in a meeting and say so. They're afraid of the criticism they'll endure."Changing the core definition of marriage will lead to clashes between those who have religious views about marriage and those who don't. "Those who want to promote conjugal marriage will be targeted," and many already have been, he said.Most people who hear much from same-sex marriage proponents but little from the opposition wonder what the harm is, Wardle said. "It's not like a bone sticking out of a limb or blood spurting out of a wound. ... It will be at least a full generation before all the consequences are known. Like smoking, it will take years and decades to see the result."He likened the consequences to the effect of divorce on children, recalling debates on the subject when he was a law school student. The notion of harm to children "was resoundingly rejected ... everybody said it's tough initially but it will be OK and there will be no lasting effects."Yet, within a decade social scientists began documenting very distinct harm to children, he said. "There is now a large body of irrefutable evidence of the serious, harmful effects for children of divorce that have been documented."While the impact is "temporary for two-thirds, it is lifelong for about one-third," he said. Making same-sex marriage legal "will harm you and your family the same way polygamous marriage to 14-year-olds will harm you. ... It will transform the meaning, expectations and practices of marriage as a social institution and affects everyone who has a stake in marriage."Legalizing such relationships would affect the functioning of the entire legal system, he said, "from taxes to torts, from wills to medical treatment. The laws will change, and we'll reconceptualize our understanding that the union of two men or two women is equally important."In doing so, taxpayers will incur "huge social costs," just as they do now when marriages fail. He cited a recent study by a business professor at the Institute of American Values putting taxpayer cost of marital breakdown and non-marital childbearing at $112 billion per year."That's $70 billion in federal costs, $42 billion in state costs, and it amounts to over $1 trillion per decade. If you think fighting the war in Iraq is expensive, we've been paying those costs in this country for the past 30 years."Estimates show those figures translate into about $4,500 per year, per family, in taxpayer dollars. "If your tax burden is high now, wait until those (same-sex) marriages fall apart and the state has to care for" divorced spouses and children of those broken unions, he said.Traditional marriage "contributes much more to society than any other form of adult intimate relationship," and is the bedrock of "society's cultural infrastructure." It is the "instrument of the most important moral transformation of individuals," who enjoy the "most healthy, satisfying and socially beneficial sexual relations.""Gay sex differs in critical ways," from that between husband and wife, he said, beyond the lack of offspring. "The major transmission method for the AIDS virus is through sex between men in every area of the world other than sub-Saharan Africa."Wardle blasted the California Supreme Court's decision earlier this year legalizing gay marriage as "judicial legislation" that "weakened the most basic institution of society." The ruling was "based on assumptions that same-sex marriage contributes as much to society as traditional marriage," and that notion is "not without consequences. They simply assumed the absence of harm and closed their eyes to contrary evidence. In fact, they refused to even examine it."The ruling was a "bold and bad political act that lacked judicial care and caution, but rather opted to exercise political influence." It was an "act of arrogance seldom matched in American legal history" that virtually "guaranteed litigation will occur in other states."He said the only real solution to continued legal wrangling over how individual states will interpret and adapt to same-sex marriage is amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage nationwide. While advocates for same-sex marriage have made swift headway in the past 15 years, there has been measurable "push-back," he said."Those of you who are summer soldiers or weekend warriors" in speaking out on public policy, "please re-adjust your thinking. These issues are generational and we'll have to work at it for a generation or two. If we do, our grandchildren will reap the benefits of what we're trying to do."

Check out Home | DOMA Defense Fund

2009-01-23T20:35:00.001-07:00

I want you to take a look at: Home | DOMA Defense Fund

Books

2009-01-07T20:44:00.004-07:00

I was just noticing my Goodreads books. I realized I need to update it and I feel like I need to explain that I am still working through the New Testament. One chapter at a time; I am in Romans chapter 16. My mission president always said that Romans was a book that could give you brain damage. There are certainly a lot of concepts that can get confusing.

As far as Mormon Question by Sarah Gordon the book is very academic (not surprising with a subtitle like 'Polygamy and Constitutional conflict in Nineteenth Century America') and I have not returned to it. I got side tracked by the biography of Neal A. Maxwell, which is a great book. I am determined to finish Gordon's book but I am also working on Good to Great by Jim Collins.

The other book that keeps staring at me is the biography of Heber C. Kimball by Orson F. Whitney, which I have had for years and have never read. He always fascinated me as he and Brigham Young were the only apostles of the original Quorum of the Twelve that stayed true to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Poo-Cordelious Rocks!!!

2009-01-07T20:14:00.002-07:00

At the last minute we decided to have a Poo-Cordelious Holiday party here at our house. It was great to see everyone again. It has been awhile. There are still some people I have not seen for years. You know who you are. It was great to sit around and laugh with everyone.

After almost 7 years on hiatus due to family, school, etc., a new
Poo-Cordelious Family Reunion has been planned. You heard it right. It is time to Rock! I can just hear Freedom with the megaphone now. Bring out the dancing deer legs.

Matt you better save our camping spot.

The date is July 31st at the same place and same time and yes we are spending the night.

I am working on T-shirts for the 2009 reunion and Matt is working on the CD.

I can't believe the first Poo Reunion was held back in 1991. That was the year I graduated from High School. Crazy!!

Poo-Cordelious is open to anyone, but once you enter you can never go back.

Lemonade out of lemons

2008-12-25T09:36:00.002-07:00

Every year as Christmas time approaches I make good use of the threat to the kids that they had better be nice or they won't get any presents from Santa. The whole 'He knows if you have been naughty or nice' bit or even worse they might only get a lump of coal for Christmas.

So Grace was being naughty and so I told her if she did not start acting better that Santa would bring her a lump of coal for Christmas. Her response was 'that's OK Dad because it could be the first rock in my rock collection'.

She is too smart for me.

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin

2008-12-02T21:31:00.002-07:00

Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin of the Quorum of the Twelve apostles died last night at the age of 91. Elder Wirthlin was a very kind and unassuming man. One of my favorite quotes is from Elder Wirthlin

"The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of transformation. It takes us as men and women of the earth and refines us into men and women for the eternities".
Ensign, November 2007

Thank you for your service. We will miss you.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

2008-11-15T11:37:00.002-07:00

Adam Kolasinski
The Tech - On line edition
Volume 124, Issue 5
MIT's oldest and largest newspaper

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.
Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.
Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.
Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.
Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.
Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

Tolerance newly defined

2008-10-30T20:12:00.001-06:00

Many who shout 'intolerance' embrace tyranny
By Matthew Sanders
For the Deseret News
Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008

A recent news story described how administrators at Yeshiva University, a private Orthodox Jewish institution in New York City, who despite a clearly held moral code, are being forced to retain a poetry professor who disclosed his intent to become transgendered only after being hired (New York Post, Sept. 8, 2008).This professor and supporters pursue a strategy aimed at forcing acceptance of unconventional behavior. Their tactic? Shout down, censor or label "intolerant" any whose convictions require opposition to their unconventional behavior. The result? The tyranny of tolerance.Note the online comments that followed the article. One wrote, "This is AMERICA. We have tolerence (sic). If you do not like it, move to another country. Sorry Rabbi's (sic), fortunately in this country we don't allow your prejudices to be covered under the ideaology (sic) of your religion. You have to join the rest of us. Ha ha! I love it."I might have overlooked this ditty as the rant of a loon. But then I scrolled down to another defaming the Yeshiva administrators as "people who have no room in their hearts for change." Others lambasted the leadership as being out of touch, domineering religionists and not progressive. Some proffered that truth and sin are only relative.
document.writeln(AAMB3);
These aren't just untethered opinions or tactics to be conveniently ignored. No, there is purpose behind them. By craftily attacking standard-bearing institutions with cries of "intolerance," proponents of indulgence seek to brand faith-based principles as "discriminatory," and thereby degrade constitutional due process and the freedom of religion.New players, same argumentsLet us be clear, arguments for permissiveness aren't new, neither are they progressive. Book of Mormon religious and civic leader Alma once encountered a man named Korihor professing that neither God nor sin exist, and that "whatsoever a man did was no crime."This ancient relativist went further, contending that the morals of the day were baseless and the result of a "frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers ... "He, like his modern counterparts, spoke in "great swelling words" claiming that faith enslaves people and that all behaviors should be acceptable (Alma 30:12-30). Such philosophies swayed (and continue to sway) many into embracing confused lifestyles, purportedly without consequence.Today, strident advocates of this relativist dogma similarly mock believers in natural and scriptural law. These same "tolerance" dogmatists hypocritically use authoritarian lawsuits and manipulative media to try and force all institutions to retreat from any teaching or attitude advocates proclaim "intolerant."Reframing toleranceProperly framed civic tolerance stems from ideas core to our national identity: that all must respect the exercise of inalienable rights and ensure their fundamental protection in the constitution. But respect does not imply relativism -- indifference to or acceptance of all behavior -- nor does it negate the right of society to determine standards. Quite the opposite is true.Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that "unbounded relativism as a civic philosophy soon becomes passivity and indifference: No judgments can be made, for it is impossible to place one set of values over another. This is a far cry from toleration derived from a belief in universal rights. If, in the civic sphere, relativism swallows tolerance whole, belief in universal rights turns into no belief at all" (American Bar Association, August 2003, italics added).LDS Church leader Elder Russell M. Nelson adds, "Gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed" (Ensign, May 1994). We make no pretention of perfection, nor do we withhold compassion and understanding, but we do maintain our privilege to act on principle.In our constitutional democracy, we are duty-bound to respect the rights of others. But one's personal lifestyle choice or belief cannot obligate another to accept it morally or justify it legally.Domineering dogmaAdvocates use this corrupted concept of tolerance to forcefully erode standards and constitutional rights. For instance, a same-sex couple in New Jersey used this notion in a suit against the Methodist Church for refusing them access to its place of worship for their civil-union ceremony. Due to a recently enacted, sweeping anti-discrimination law, the judge ruled against the church and removed the tax-exempt status of its property, costing the church a reported $20,000 per year. The state's penalization of this church signals a simultaneous dismantling of societal boundaries and religious protection.These dogmatists must not be allowed to constrain the free exercise of religion, nor overrule the will of the majority by simply invoking "intolerance!" They have gone too far. It is not tolerance, it is tyranny.
Matthew Sanders writes on U.S. and international economic and social policy issues.

General Conference

2008-10-08T20:43:00.002-06:00

Twice a year the leaders of the Church speak to the members throughout the world via satelite and TV. So as we prepared for the Saturday and Sunday sessions of Conference we knew it would be tough with the kids. Anna and I try to listen to the speakers on TV while keeping the kids busy with games and treats. It did not go as well as planned. Somewhere between Liam playing his drum with the maracas and Grace being a cling-on I knew it was going to be tough. President Monson's words were perfect when he suggested that we take time to enjoy the journey of life. Life moves quickly. Soon all the finger prints on the windows, walls and just about everywhere will be gone and the kids will be busy with their own lives. So heres to enjoying the journey, maracas, drums and all.

Deseret Peak

2008-09-24T20:30:00.003-06:00

This last Saturday my friend Brandon and I decided to hike Deseret Peak, the highest peak in Tooele County at 11,031 feet. The elevation gain is 3600 feet. Brandon is in better shape than me so we went up and down pretty quick. It was absolutely amazing. I had never heard of the Stansbury Range before. It is just west of Grantsville which is west of Tooele which is west of Salt Lake.

I have not been this sore in a long time; Sunday was brutal. It was so steep it was like do a stairmaster workout for 6 hours. The map said 6 miles but it seemed more like 8. The top was very cold and windy but the view was amazing. On a good day you can see the Wellsvilles to the north and Mt. Nebo to the south.

If you look closely at the picture of me and Brandon you can see how cold we were. We were the only ones on the top with shorts on.

Fort Pink??

2008-05-18T19:46:00.004-06:00

I am finally done building the fort. I still have to apply the finish to the wood but that will come in later months. I am tired and need a break. The other final item to finish is the name. I want to put the name of the fort, right on the front. I want to name it Fort Lankford or Fort Grande (with an emphasis on the 'r' with the hands up high) but Grace wants to name it Fort Pink or Fort Kitty Cat and Luke wants to name it Fort Awesome.

I don't know if we will ever come to a consensus. Maybe I should have just named it myself without input from the kids.

Please see the family website for pictures of the fort.

Fort Lankford

2008-04-26T19:53:00.003-06:00

Please visit the family Blog to see pictures of the fort. Anna has done a great job of documenting the building process with pictures. It has taken longer than expected but alot of that has been the weather. It has been very windy with rain and snow. So far the kids have really enjoyed it. It has been a lot of fun watching them play on the fort.

Thanks to Brad for letting me borrow his tools and my dad for the table saw.

We are getting 2 new neighbors to the east of us. I can't image they are spec homes with the market the way it is. I am excited to see who moves in.

Baby Grace

2008-04-01T20:38:00.002-06:00

We watched home videos of the kids on Sunday. They loved it. Is is just me or was Gracie not the cutest little girl in the entire world. She was so chubby and cute with her blonde curly hair and blue eyes.

I am not looking forward to the teenage years with her. I am going to have to fight off the boys with a stick. In the LDS church we are encouraged not to have our kids date until they are 16. This is something that Anna and I believe in so atleast I know I have until 2020 until I have to start looking for a stick.

Fort Lankford

2008-04-01T20:27:00.002-06:00

I have never built anything in my life.

So instead of buying a premade fort from the store I thought I would design it and build it myself. So I have the plans and I even went and bought the wood. That was quite the experience. I ended up loading wood 3 different times because I kept changing my mind. Poor Grace was almost asleep on the cart by time I was done. Grace insisted that we both wear our flip flops which was a bad idea because I ended up smashing my toe.

I have a feeling this will be interesting for me because I like things to be the way I see them in my head. But because I am not a craftsman it might not turn out that way.

It is a simple fort design. The bottom will be a sand box and then you can climb a ladder or a climbing wall to get to the 6' x 6' platform. I tried to think of all the things that I wanted in a fort when I was a little boy. So I am adding pullies and secret openings. I will have to apologize to Grace because this will not be a princess fort. No pink allowed, but I think she will enjoy it.

I can visualize this great fort in my head. We will see if it comes out that way.

I am going to start this weekend in between watching General Conference on TV. I will actually start putting it in the ground on the 19th.

Wish me luck. I will post some pictures when I get it done.

Rat Race

2008-04-01T20:21:00.003-06:00

I have been officially working for corporate America for about 2 weeks now. I guess I really don't think of it as corporate because it is privately held. It is a great company and I really enjoy what I do.

But I think my perspective on life is changing. I am not so consumed with making a lot of money. I think now I am most interested in spending time with my family and enjoying life. My favorite part of the day is coming home to my wife and children.

I still would'nt mind making millions and having lots of free time to vacation with my family though.

They Grow Up So Fast!

2008-03-10T13:49:00.001-06:00

Landed

2008-03-08T20:04:00.003-07:00

I have finally landed! After spending the last month doing consulting I have accepted a position with Wasatch Advantage Group in downtown SLC. They are a real estate development company focusing on office and 'for rent' development projects. I will be helping them entitle and develop their existing inventory and find new projects.

I am excited to start with this new company but am still working on a park master plan in Salem and will need to finish that up while I start this new job. So I will be very busy.

Anna is happy to have the office back. We actually divided the office in half today and created one work space for Anna and one for me.

This experience has been a good reminder of the importance to live below your means, stay out of debt and have a good chunk of cash accessible for emergencies.

Go Utes

2008-02-20T11:19:00.002-07:00

If you notice on the Lankford Family Blog that Grace is wearing her University of Utah sweatshirt at the Bean Museum on BYU campus. She honestly picked the shirt out herself. Anna and I did not persuade her to wear it. I thought it was pretty funny. We did get a few strange looks but that was about it.

Valentines Breakfast ... maybe

2008-02-20T11:08:00.002-07:00

On Valentives morning I hear Anna call from the Kitchen for me to come downstairs for a Valentines breakfast. I thought this will be a nice treat. So I got out of bed and headed downstairs excited to see what was waiting for me. I got down stairs and noticed whole wheat pancakes shaped as hearts on the table. They looked delicious. I load them on my plate and then Anna said what are you doing those pancakes are for the kids. I said well if they are for the kids than what is for me. She said you will have to have cold cereal. So my Valentives breakfast turned out to be very similar to every other breakfast I eat. I am still not sure why Anna asked me to come down for a Valentines breakfast. Maybe she ment for me to come down stairs and watch the kids eat their Valentines breakfast.

I guess I am still learning that it is all about the kids.

U2 White Out

2008-02-20T11:04:00.002-07:00

So I was all excited to go to the U2 3D movie. I had purchased the tickets that afternoon for me and a friend to go. Then about 5 pm that night the 10 year storm event happened, 70 mph winds and a total white out including a rescue trip to get my parents from their car that was stuck in the snow.

Long story short I never made it to the movie. I am a little paranoid to buy tickets again for fear of what might keep me from the movie. Plus I am out 23 bucks.

U2 3D link

2008-02-11T20:36:00.001-07:00

President Gordon B. Hinckley

2008-02-09T20:20:00.003-07:00

President Gordon B. Hinckley died on Sunday January 27,2008. I wanted to officically say goodbye to President Hinckley. We will miss you.
He was called as President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1995, 3 years before Anna and I were married. He is the only prophet we have known our married life and Anna's time as a member. He played an important part in our married life. He was a great example of a husband, father and desciple of Jesus Christ. His humour, his optimism and his work ethic were remarkable. Most important for me was his ability to love everyone from all walks of life and make them feel respected and important. As President Hinckley encouraged so many times, may we all go forward with faith.

Have we not reason to rejoice?

2008-02-09T20:16:00.001-07:00

Anna and I were asked to speak in church this Sunday (Jan. 27th). The topic of course is "Have we not reason to rejoice?", which was a talk by Elder Uchtdorf at the last General Conference of the church.

Let me quote a paragraph that summarizes his talk "My dear brothers and sisters, there will be days and nights when you feel overwhelmed, when your hearts are heavy and your heads hang down. Then, please remember, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer, is the Head of this Church. It is His gospel. He wants you to suceed. He gave His life for just this purpose. He is the Son of the living God."

What makes this so ironic is that I have known for the past three weeks that my division was going to get cut from Trophy Homes. This finally happened on Jan. 25th and now 2 days later Anna and I are speaking in church on rejoicing even in hard times.

So for the past week I have been studying this topic and the scriptures to prepare for this talk but because the message is so applicable to me right now it has really been a blessing. It is amazing how the Lord is aware of our needs and through little experiences like speaking in church we see that he is aware of us and what is going on in our lives.

2008-02-08T13:58:00.001-07:00

This is Adam's blog. He wants his own so he doesn't have to share my "scrapbooking blog" as he calls it, with me.