Are We Like Herod, Or Like the Wise Men?

Photo by Kevin Phillips on Public Domain Pictures

🎶"The wise man built his house upon the rock, the wise man built his house upon the rock!"🎶

Oh wait, wrong wise man.

Though now that I think of it, "The Wise Man and the Foolish Man" does apply pretty well to the story of the wise men who traveled so far to see the newborn babe. In fact, that simple song explains exactly what happened those many years ago.

We get the full story in Matthew 2:

1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

This is where Herod (AKA, not wise man).comes in.

3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he
demanded of them where Christ should be born.

Already, the differences between the wise men and Herod can be seen. The wise men have traveled far to see King Herod, and they have done their research beforehand. They know who they are looking for, as well as why they are looking for him.

Herod, on the other hand, has no idea. He hasn't done his daily scripture study and instead has to rely on what others tell him. Even then, he doesn't bother to ask about why this "King of the Jews" is so important. As soon as he heard "king," his mind jumped to conclusions about who these wise men were looking for.

Later in the story, the differences between the Herod and the wise men are more significant:

7 Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, inquired of them diligently what
time the star appeared.
8 And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child;
and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

These three verses can actually teach us a lot about how we should approach the gospel, and what it takes to come closer to Christ. The first example, that of what not to do, is given by King Herod. When Herod found out about the new King born in Bethlehem, he certainly acted very interested, inquiring "diligently" about him. But what did Herod actually do? Not a thing. Instead, he commanded others to act for him. He, in effect, was relying on others' faith to carry him forward. In other words, he had only "built his house upon the sand."

The wise men, however, show us an exemplary pattern for how to live our own lives. For when they heard the king, they acted for themselves. They went back out into the wilderness with faith that the star would lead them. They built their house upon the Rock of their Redeemer, doing everything in their power to find him and worship him.

Obviously, calling Herod the foolish man is all good and fun, but when I look at his story more closely, I have to admit that I often do the same thing he did. How many times have I gone to church without having prepared beforehand, just expecting to get all of my spiritual enlightenment from someone else's hard work?

Or, how often do I come home from church and say, "Wow, that was really great. I hope next week is just as good!" but then go back to doing nothing to strengthen my own testimony in Christ?

Yeah, I'd say I'm pretty foolish too sometimes. But I still can become like the wise men from that day. I can choose to build my house upon the Rock by doing everything I can to come closer to him.

The Virgin Mary: Despised and Rejected of Men

Image from Nativity--Bible Images on lds.org

Have you ever thought of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a Christ-figure? I hadn't, until this past week in my religion class.

Jesus Christ, our Savior and Redeemer, was prophetically described in Isaiah chapter 53 as a man to be "despised and rejected of men" (verse 3). His life mission was never to gain favor in the sight of man, but instead to fulfill God's purpose. He was and is still rejected by many. I've come to accept this verse as not only a lament for the Savior's sufferings, but also as praise for a Savior who never failed to follow the Father's will.

Only recently did I start to connect this verse to Jesus's mother as well. Mary too was a woman who received ill-favor from those around her for the work that she was called to do. She, a pure and righteous virgin, was asked to give birth to the Son of God in a manner that looked illegitimate to everyone who knew her. And still, knowing the hardships that would come, she replied, "Behold, the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word" (Luke 1:38). This closely resembles the attitude of Christ's reply to the Lord's call when he agreed to the role God had planned for him: "Here am I, send me" (Abraham 3: 27).

What Mary had ahead of her was likely a life full of hatred, her peers no longer having respect for her nor her family. Perhaps her family disowned her. We really don't know. I like to think that they accepted her and believed her story, but with the amount of negative feelings that existed toward adultery then, it's possible they didn't. No wonder Mary went to Elizabeth's home "with haste," as it describes in Luke 1:39. She certainly would have been the object of spite in her own hometown, looked down on as an adulteress—even worthy of death

Looking at her story, can you see resemblances of Christ's? I can only wonder, if Jesus Christ is our Savior, what role did Mary play in helping him become so? We will never really know how she taught him or what she said, but as a mother, she would have been able to empathizes with her son during all of his suffering. From her own experience, Mary must have known a portion of what Christ was going through, both in preparation for and then during his ministry.

In some ways, I can now understand why the Catholic church puts so much emphasis on the Virgin Mary. Truly, she was a miraculous woman, and though never crucified herself, her experiences and trials resembled those of Christ.

And above all, even through the loss of honor in her family's eyes and the pain from judgmental looks, she knew she was a woman highly favored of the Lord:

And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28)

I can just imagine how Mary must have looked into the eyes of the little baby in her arms, knowing that he was the cause for so much of her pain—and yet her eyes must have been so full of love and gratitude.

In the same way, I imagine Christ looking at me, his arms outstretched to me—even after I have added to his pain. Just as Mary never lost her love for Christ, Christ will always be reaching to me with a full and happy heart, waiting for me to take his hand.

Church v. Gospel: A House and Its Foundation

Photo by Peter Boccia on Unsplash

Consider the terms "church" and "gospel." They are very obviously distinct from each other. No one could ever get the two confused, right? At least, that's what I was thinking when my professor asked us how they differ.

And I was right, Christ's gospel is not the same as his church. The gospel refers to the principles, the doctrine, the teachings that he has asked us to live by, and his church is an organization that has gathered to help each other live those principles. Put simply, Christ's church houses his gospel.

But maybe "house" isn't the right word for it after all. A house can still stand without any occupants, but the church would collapse into a pile of dust without the gospel. In fact, I think a better analogy can be made based on the Book of Mormon scripture, 3 Nephi 27:8.

And how be it my church save it be called in my name? . . . If it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. (Italics mine.)

So, let me revise my statement a little. Put simply, Christ's gospel founds his church. Phrased this way, the church is no longer the focus, because really, the gospel is the most important thing. Which brings me to my next point: "Christ's church" is not referring to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This may seem like I'm deserting, but let me explain. Let's go to 1 Nephi 14, verse 10.

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to he church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

For most of my life, I always thought that this verse was talking about (1) my church as the good guy, and (2) everyone else as the abominables. It's the whole concept of saying, "I belong to the one and only true church."

This, however, was a false way of thinking that I'm glad to be rid of.

Now, don't get me wrong. I have a strong testimony that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's restored church on the earth, with the fullness of his gospel. But that's just it. We have the fullness of the gospel. That doesn't mean that no one else has the gospel at all. Other churches do have it, at least in parts, and the people who live the best they can with what they have—I have full confidence that Christ would welcome them with open arms into his church.

So once again, when you look at the gospel and the church together, the focus should not be on the church itself. The church is just the vehicle that helps get us to our ultimate destination; it's the package that the gift of the gospel comes in. For it's the gospel that holds everything together, and it's the gospel that will help us connect with all members of "the church of the Lamb of God," no matter what denomination.

The Garden of Eden Part 2: The Tree of Knowledge

Photo by Aman Aman on Unsplash

Have you ever wished that you could live in the Garden of Eden and enjoy a happy, carefree life? I have once or twice.

Fortunately, having everyone live happily ever after in a beautiful garden wasn't part of God's plan for us. In fact, it wasn't even possible. Adam and Eve could not have lived in bliss forever and still become the parents of all mankind.

It just couldn't work that way. Thanks to the Book of Mormon, we have a pretty clear idea of why. In 2 Nephi 2, it says, 

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 

23 Any they would have had no children. . . .

From this, we know that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, they would have never been able to raise children. Instead, they would have remained as children themselves—forever.

I've always understood that point. But there is one thing that continued to confuse me. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we teach that both Adam and Eve are heroic exemplars, because they chose to bring life into the world even though it required disobeying God. Eve is praised for her foresight and courage; Adam is praised for his loyalty and reasoning.

But neither Adam nor Eve had knowledge of good and evil until after they ate the fruit. They were children, knowing the what of the commandments but not the why.

If Adam and Eve were truly like children, innocent and unlearned, how could they have understood the magnitude of their decision to partake of the fruit? There's no way that Eve would have been reaching for that fruit with the full realization of what that action meant for her future.

That's what I never understood. Why did we praise Adam and Eve so much for their foresight and reasoning, when they really couldn't have known the significance of their partaking of the fruit?

But then I got to thinking about it as I read in Moses chapter 4, when the serpent is tempting Eve.

10 And the serpent said unto the woman: Ye shall not surely die; 

11 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 

12 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it became pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make her wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and also gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

We don't know how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, but I wonder how many months must Eve have been walking through the Garden, pondering the two commandments that God had given her and realizing that she did not have the knowledge to keep the first commandment? How long had she already been gazing at the tree of knowledge, wanting to be fruitful and multiply but not knowing how?

I imagine that Eve would have already worked out for herself that she needed to have more knowledge if she and Adam were going to keep the first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). So when Satan did come in, promising knowledge like unto the gods, partaking of the fruit might not have been so foreign an idea to her.

I don't know whether or not Eve fully understood before she ate the fruit that she had to fall in order to bring salvation to her offspring. Perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't. Either way, her act was valiant and praiseworthy.

I will say, however, that I don't believe that Adam or Eve fully understood their role in God's plan until after they partook of the fruit. Indeed, in both scriptural accounts of the creation, Adam is not said to have given Eve her name until their eyes have already been opened. Only after their reprimand from God do they say that Adam called her Eve, the mother of all living (Genesis 3:20; Moses 4:26).

I love to think of the moment when Adam must have turned to "the woman" with such love in his eyes and tenderly called her "Eve" for the very first time. Having just been told that the earth would be cursed for their sake and that they were destined to return to the dust, I can imagine him saying, "Eve... My wife and my companion, we will make it. We can and will bring life into this world, together."

And they did. They brought you and me into this world to make decisions of our own, and they showed us that even with a minuscule understanding of God's plan, we can still make the right decision. Sometimes, if not always, our knowledge of the why behind God's commandments will only come after we take the step of faith. We are all like Adam and Eve, for aren't we all little children when compared to God? And like in the Garden of Eden, God will always allow us to make mistakes so that we may learn and grow closer to Him. 

The Garden of Eden Part 1: The Fruit as Salvation

Photo by Vadim L on Unsplash

Eve. What was her role in the Garden of Eden? A good portion of Christians might answer that Eve is to blame for all sin and sorrow that exists in this world. But there are many others who would argue that Eve was the hero that brought freedom to humanity—agency for the human race.

I have never doubted that Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eden was meant to be. I've been taught to praise Eve for her decision that day, based on the additional details given by the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 2:22–25) and the Pearl of Great Price (Moses 5:10–11), both showing that humanity could not have existed without the Fall. Eve could only be the mother of all living by partaking of the fruit. I know that.

However, I never thought too deeply about why Heavenly Father gave those two commandments: to multiply and replenish the earth, and to not partake of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Thinking about these commandments with the mindset that Adam and Eve could only multiply after they had partaken of the fruit, the two edicts seem contradictory. Why would Heavenly Father have given conflicting commandments, neither of which could be kept with the other?

While I couldn't have said an answer to that just three days ago, I learned some valuable information from my religion teacher, Professor Tyler Griffin, that led me to my own answer.

In the Book of Moses, there is one distinct difference in the account of the Garden of Eden that adds a new perspective to these contradictory commandments. In chapter 3, it says the following (the bolded text is additional information not found in Genesis):

16 And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

 This bolded text contains a key word: "nevertheless." As my professor put it, anytime that the word "nevertheless" is used, it adds emphasis to the last part of the sentence, rather than the first. In simple terms, never-the-less means always-the-more.

AKA, what comes after "nevertheless" matters a lot more to God than what comes before. So what exactly is He emphasizing in the second part of the commandment? Incredibly, Heavenly Father is giving Adam and Eve agency. He is saying that while He is giving this commandment for them to follow, in the very act of giving them such a commandment, He also gives His greater gift: the freedom to choose. By giving them the tree of knowledge, He is also giving them the option to eat it—even against His will.

Now, when I read the verses in 2 Nephi, they add even more light to this question of conflicting commandments.

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen . . . 

23 . . . Wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. 

The verses in Moses establish that Heavenly Father purposely created the tree of knowledge for Adam and Eve so that they could choose whether or not to partake. The verses in 2 Nephi further establish that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit (or had not been given opportunity to disobey God's command), they would have remained innocent of sin. And without sin, there could be no righteousness.

There must be an opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:11). We wouldn't know to call something good unless we have seen something evil. Thus, for there to be righteousness, sin had to be committed. And for there to be sin, there had to be a commandment given by God.

If Adam and Eve had not partaken of the fruit, they would have kept living forever in perfection but never had the benefits of keeping the commandments. They would have been in an eternal state of neutrality, unable to experience joy because they had not yet experienced misery. It's the paradox of life, that we can't appreciate the good unless we see the effects of the bad.

Truly, in our mortal minds, it's hard to comprehend the wisdom of God. But I finally think I understand this point. Heavenly Father gave such a conflicting commandment, specifically paired with the right to choose, because Adam and Eve had to transgress in order to give the world agency--and all consequences that come with it. Sin had to be introduced into the world in order for repentance (and thus growth) to take effect.

If Heavenly Father had never provided the forbidden fruit of knowledge, He would have been giving the very thing that Satan had proposed in the pre-earth life: a world without agency, where "all"—but in reality, none—would be saved (Moses 4:1).

So when Eve partook of the fruit, was she damning mankind, or saving them? The answer is that she was, in fact, saving us. In her decision to choose for herself, she put into effect Heavenly Father's plan for us, including the gift of a Savior. By transgressing in the Garden of Eden, she allowed all of us to be able to choose our own salvation.

The Role of a Canon in Later-day Revelation

When I think of a canon, the first one that comes to mind is that of great literature, with books like A Tale of Two Cities, The Odyssey, Little Women, or Macbeth--books that have stood the test of time and made it into a list of "classics." I've always known that there are similar canons for most types of art, like movies, paintings, or music.

What I didn't realize about the word "canon" is that it also refers to an authoritative list of scriptures. But the thing is, not every religion has the same canon, even among Christians! I guess I had never thought about it, but with so many translations of the Bible and other ancient texts not included in the Bible, it's no wonder that there is a disagreement about what the scriptural canon should include.

It's the same with any canon, really. The books listed in a literary canon have been studied by scholars because of their timelessness and depth, but how does a text gets into the canon? When is it finally timeless, and who gets to decide how deep a text is? That's a question that causes debates like crazy.

How cool would it be if there was a way to know exactly which books were supposed to be on that list? No debate, just . . . divine guidance? Maybe there's nothing like that with classical literature, but after reading on the scriptural canon in the Bible Dictionary, I realized that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have to debate about what is scripture. We have more than just scholarly knowledge to tell us; we have latter-day revelation, which is exactly what has given us the four main texts we consider authoritative scripture: the Bible (Old and New Testament), the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

That's awesome. The LDS scriptural canon is built on revelation! And what's more, the part of the Bible Dictionary entry that caught my attention most was this:

"Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture."

This, I think, is a foundational concept. Basically, what this passage is saying is that (1) the Bible is not and should not be the only sacred text in a canon (and thus the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants have every right to be a part of it, as long as they are revealed as authoritative), and (2) what books we have now are not the only scriptures that can be part of the canon. More can be added! God still isn't done, and neither should we be.

Learning about the canon in this way taught me that we need to continue with open minds and search for those texts that truly are lasting and authoritative, and cause us to come closer to the Lord.

Just like how a literary, cinematic, or artistic canon will continue to add new works to their list, so too can our scriptural canon continue to grow.

FOOD del Yucatan--my favorites

Hola amigos! So here are a couple of my favorite dishes that I've had here in Mexico (only a couple, because there were soo many good things that I couldn't remember the names of). This may be a very long post, as I plan on putting anything and everything I discovered about food for the last six weeks in here. Bear with me, and hopefully you'll find some gems that you can search for if you ever go to the Yucatan yourself. :)


First, I got a few recipes from my mama, Elisa, of food that I've only ever seen in our house. I don't have exact measurements, so it's all to taste.

Elisa’s Tortilla Lasagna

This definitely ranks as one of my favorite meals that Elisa made for us, aside from her many different kinds of fajitas. I don't really know how to describe it except as so dang delicious. It's like a lasagna, in that it has layers, but it uses tortillas instead of lasagna noodles.

•  Make layers with totillas harinas--flour tortillas, carne picadillo (carne molida), salsa verde, and crema
• For the top layer, you only need the tortillas, salsa, and queso (more is always better!)
• Salsa Verde
•  Green tomatoes (or tomatillos), cilantro, ajo--garlic, salt, limón , and chile if desired
• What's in the Picadillo
• Carne (pollo, puerco, o como quieres), pimiento--pepper, chile, cebolla--onion, ajo, papas, y limón  

Lemonada Pitaya--Dragon Fruit Lemonade

Talk about a divine drink. Wow I love this. If you have heard how much I love Aloe juice--which is muchisimo--then you must know that this drink ALMOST BUMPED ALOE OFF from the top of my favorite drinks. Aloe still ranks first, but only just by a string. Here's how Elisa makes it:

• For about 1 lb of wáter: azúcar--sugar (cuanto quieres), limones (3 o 4 de los grandes), y pitaya
• With the pitaya, just peel it, cut it up a little, then you can seperate it with your hands to as small of pieces as you want. It's okay if the seeds are in the juice. The seeds taste fine, and if you don't like them they are pretty easy to avoid, as they sink to the bottom.

Fruity Flan Dessert  

This was the treat that Elisa made for Rebecca's birthday. It's an interesting combination of textures. I liked the icecream and fruit part, but was a little thrown off by the flan, as could be expected. But Rebecca enjoyed it a lot! 

Here's a picture of it; it's layered with flan, icecream, fruit (Elisa used canned cocktail fruit), and topped with chocolate sauce

The following are foods that I liked, but didn't get their recipe:

The links take you on a tour of some delicious-looking pictures of each food :D

Frijol con puerco

   Black beans with pork, in a soup that you could die for. I'm not usually a fan of soup, but anytime this was served, I was most pleased--even on the hot days. The rice that is served with it has SO much flavor. Our mama was describing what they put in it, but I can't remember exactly. You put the rice in the soup, along with roasted or grilled tomatoes, cilantro, onions, lime juice, and anything else you want in there.

   Also, for normal rice, I do know that putting ajo in it makes it very flavorful. We thought for sure the rice had salt but when we asked, Elisa surprised us by saying it only had garlic.

Tacos al pastor

   I got this almost every time we went to a taco place, which we did a lot. One of our groups favorite things to do was eat tocos together. In fact, one night we even went on a taco tour, trying tacos from three different places in a row.
   Taco al pastor is on a small corn tortilla (or flour if you choose) with pork cooked on a roaster. See picture to the right. The meat is fantastic, and the staple is to serve the tacos with pineapple. You put your sauces on, like green salsa, tomato salsa, salsa picante, habanero, or whatever the restaurant has, add some lime juice, and let your mouth water over it. 
   It really is important to try a lot of dirrenent restaurants, and find the one that serves it the way you like best. Los Taquitos was one of our favorites. :)

Tres Leches postre

   Tres Leches is a cake that literally seems to dissolve in your mouth. It is full to the brim with sweet moisture, making any cake you have afterward seem sadly dry in comparison. Definitely one of the best, although you can't have much of it if you have any sense of a "too sweet" stop sign for your body.

Cochinita pibil 

   This is another pork dish (Mexicans eat pork most often--it's the cheapest meat). I had no idea how it was prepared until I looked on Wikipedia, but after seeing how it's made, it makes it look even better! Meat cooked in citrus juices? Come on, don't tell me that doesn't sound good.

Mole

   I've already talked about this in another post (Sweet Sunday) so I won't say much about it. But yeah, it's a meat dish with chocolate sauce. Need I say more?

Burritas

   These are actually just quesadillas, but with cheese AND meat. It sounds good, and when it has real meat in it, it IS. But oftentimes it was a kind of lunch meat which I wasn't a fan of. These were a simple dinner that we would have all the time: a little tortilla harina, cheese, lunchmeat, green salsa, and crema. 

Sadly, I didn't keep track of the food that I ate very well. I'm more the type that just says "oh this looks good" and then eats it--no question as to what it's called or how it's made. 

However, I DID pay attention to the icecream. And we ate icecream--almost every other day! It was one of the best things. The icecream in Mexico isn't the same as what United Staters think of as rich. While they do have the more creamy kinds in Mexico, it's more common to see REAL fruit icecream.





So, to explain more about this, I will devote a chunk of time to the Ice-cream

First of all, they have some GOOD flavors there. I'm all about the fruity kinds; I tend to gravitate toward the Sherbet in the States. And you'll find all sorts of fruit In Mex. that you can't find over in the Utah/Idaho area. My favorites? Let's just say all of them. I did take a picture of a bunch side-by side:

Here you've got (starting top left) Guanabana, Dragon Fruit, Caramel w/Sea Salt, Mamey, Mango, and Lime. 

For those of you who don't know how these taste.... I'm sorry for you. Really, I am. Because there's no way I could describe them in words anyone would understand. I will say this: Guanabana is a very sweet and rich fruit. Pitaya is sweet, but a little more subdued. Caramel Sea Salt was an interesting one--the first time I had it I though it was heavenly, but the second time it was way too bitter for my taste (I think it had a lot to do with the campanion flavor I combined with it. Pitaya was a perfect compliment; Guanabana made it bitter). Mamey reminded me of persimmon, but slightly more earthy and much more grainy. Mango and Lime, I assume you know those fruits well enough to imagine. 

One other flavor that I never got the courage to try, but wish I had was Corn. That's right, they have corn-flavored icecream. Our professor tried it and said it wasn't his favorite, which is probably why I never had it. But we saw it everywhere. <----- One place even did a great job of showing it off, don't you think?









As for the best places to get ice-cream, we had some regulars: 

1. El Colon, a chain place that you can find just about anywhere. This place is pretty cheap, charging only around 15 pesos for the perfect amount of icecream, and they have the BEST postres around. There is this cone-shaped pastry (only 10 pesos) that is like Tres Leches. It is sooo sweet, and filled with so much moisture that it melts in your mouth. Ohhh so good. Though it is too sweet to have more than a couple bites at a time. 
2. Janitzio Home Made Icecream. This shop is right next to Dairy Queen in el centro, and it is SO worth going to. Everything is homemade, and they've got a lot of great flavors there. I liked their popsicles, especially the strawberry kiwi one.  I also had the sweetest mango icecream at a place like this by El Progresso beach, though I'm not sure it was the same store or not. But man, that icecream was made from some of the ripest mangoes you could ever find. 
3. Pola, also found close to el centro. This is a great place, though a little more expensive than the other ones. It's smaller and less visited though, and where I took the picture of the flavors featured above. This was the only icecream shop that had the Caramel flavor, so if you want to try it, look for the sign in the picture to the right. :)

I also focused a bit more on the drinks (I'm a thirsty person, and appreciate a good juice) so I'll tell what I found. 

I had this amazing Pineapple Kiwi drink
at who knows where, that I want to find again.
If you ever see this drink on the menu, try it!

Indeed, it's Guanabana juice! Remember how
sweet I said this fruit is? The juice is delicious.

Surprisingly, I liked this juice even MORE
than the Guanabana one!
Guava for the win!

And lastly, we are enjoying a Pina Colada SIN alcohol at Los Taquitos!
I wish I had ordered another one.

That's all folks! The only thing left is to state a few more interesting facts that didn't find a place to fit in with all the other things. 

• It's true what they say about Coke in Mexico. It's everywhere, everyone drinks it, there's often only Coke as a beverage option (or Pepsi). It's just a thing. I even took a picture of an aisle in a store, because it struck me how much of the aisle was just full of Coke. I never noticed a difference between the taste, because I'm not an avid Coke drinker, but all of my classmates said that there definitely is a difference in taste between the Coke they have in United States and the Coke they have in Mexico. Apparently, if you buy it in Mexico, it's a lot better. 
• They have Flan in stores, in little pudding-like containers. Man, if I could just go to the store and buy Flan pudding, I would be so happy. And may they do have it in the US, but I've never seen anything like this before. That's all flan.