A very important decision: Dieting Isn't For Me

You all know how I am- fun, happy, terribly attractive *cocky hair flip*. But in all seriousness, I am generally pretty confident in myself. And yet, probably from a combination of being a teenage girl and negative whispers in my ears, I have a tendency to get down on myself. I am very analytical (lots of people think I just judge everyone.. Sorry if I give that impression) but just as much as a judge others, I judge myself tenfold. And guess where I can find the most ammo? You guessed it! My physical appearance.
Now I'm not saying it is unnatural or wrong to be aware of how you look and appear. I find it a useful tool to express yourself and present yourself according to what you are trying to say. What I have a problem with is what I call 'self-dieting' or dieting because you are self conscious of how you look. Let me explain my experience.

I have always been self concious of my appearance. I was very skinny and athletic until about 11 years old, where from the beginning of the summer to the end, I had grown a few pants sizes. now it wasn't because of bad eating habits (though I do NOT claim to have good ones). It was puberty kicking in. All of a sudden- I had hips! I wasn't as flexible, I didn't have as much energy, and I was constantly begging for new clothes because I had grown out of the ones I got the month before. This is a pretty common story. Almost every girl has to deal with something like this- but I didn't know that. I felt very alone and scared with this new adaptation.
Throughout the years I have gotten a handle of things. I now understand the natural process of things like this. And yet.

As you get older, the push to diet and eat strictly healthy is almost deffining. You see the women with perfect 6-day exercise routines, strictly meager meals, and flat bellies. This is who you need to be, they say. Put down that icecream cone- don't you dare pick up those fries! We've got some apples, green paste and a few chia seeds to stuff down your throat instead!

So, I tried my best. I would turn down all treats, drink smoothies and eat carrots, and feel completely miserable. I would spend most days so overwhelmed by how bad my habits were and trying so hard to fix them, that I would end the day with a ball of cookie dough and a bad attitude. This is when I realized that dieting wasn't for me.

I do not criticise those who DO eat strictly healthy. I applaud you, actually. You are doing a great thing for yourself and if you feel that is what you need, don't let me say you're wrong. What I don't like is the constant pressure from society saying you have to be a pro-dieter or you aren't trying hard enough, you aren't healthy, you aren't taking care of yourself and you aren't beautiful. The fact that everyone is built differently doesn't even show up in the equation!

Everyone is different. Some flourish in the diet setting- I am not one of those people.

My solution: Be healthy.

I have decided today. I will enjoy food. It is worth being enjoyed, isn't it? But I will be aware of what I am putting in and make sure I am getting the nutrients I need. I will not exercise- but I WILL do something active that I love. A few of my favorites are dance, ice skate, and swim. I will be more aware of when I eat, so as to avoid storing unnecessary calories.

Basically, I will be happy.

I will be posting good, healthy recipes as much as I can on this blog, to help further the cause of healthy, happy living. Because- well- you are worth it. :)

My soap box of the week: Homosexual Marriage and Duck Dynasty (part 1)

I know this is messy and disorganized, but I will post what I have now (it is already starting to be out of date) and there will be continuing posts.

Alright people, I have some favors to ask.

First: PLEASE comment! With both negative and/or positive ideas, articles, etc.. But please do not be rude or crude, this is a learning experience not a duel. 

Second: Please take this as a grain of salt and do not condemn me for my mistakes. This is my personal journey of discovery and I do not claim all my statements will be correct or completely sourced correctly. If they are incorrect I highly appreciate a comment or private email to help me clarify and make sure all information is legit. 

Third: if you are going to take this journey, please read the articles and prayerfully study the topic for yourself. I want you to form your own opinions if you haven't already. Don't take my word for it! :) (except you don't have to read the articles about the lift on gay marriage.)

Thanks! 

America has been in quite a phase these past few weeks on these two topics: homosexual marriage and Duck Dynasty, the popular A&E TV show. These are very much connected and intertwined.

This also involves the new lift on the ban of Gay marriage in Utah. ( 3 articles on the topic: http://www.examiner.com/article/gay-couples-get-married-salt-lake-city-utah-after-federal-judge-lifts-ban , http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-catches-conservative-utah-off-guard-21299615 , http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/utah-gay-marriage-101431.html )

I have been doing a large amount of research and have found a few interesting things I think you should look at. I am forming my personal opinion on the topic through study of both spiritual and non-spiritual sources. As of now, I personally do not believe in the legalization of homosexual marriage or the promotion of it. I believe it to be equal to any other sin and should be treated as such. 

Would you like to take this journey with me?

Lets get started. Please read this article to put you in the perspective I am coming from- if you agree or not with his point of view.  http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2011/10/18/how-i-wish-the-homosexuality-debate-would-go/

With that in mind, I would like to begin this with the spiritual aspect of this. This side is usually disregarded because it seems more 'mystical' than 'logical'. I am guilty of avoiding it in the search of a 'logical' way to prove my point. But I have now realized that the spiritual aspect of this debate is just as important (even moreso) than the logical statistic side. Let me show you why I believe this.

The fundamentals of the Gospel are Christ and his teachings. This short-but-sweet article on lds.org sums up what the Church believes better than I could. http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/01/to-the-point/what-is-the-churchs-position-on-homosexuality-is-it-ok-to-be-friends-with-people-who-have-homosexual-feelings?lang=eng

It also states in a section on the 10 commandments (law of Moses) About the 7th: 

 7.  “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). In a latter-day revelation, the Lord condemned not only adultery, but “anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). Fornication,homosexuality, and other sexual sins are violations of the seventh commandment.

(http://www.lds.org/topics/ten-commandments?lang=eng&query=homosexuality)
A quote from Israel Israel God is Calling- Elder Holland (BYU Devotional)
"When we face such situations in complex social issues in a democratic society, it can be very challenging and, to some, confusing. Young people may ask about this position taken or that policy made by the Church, saying: “Well, we don’t believe we should live or behave in such and such a way, but why do we have to make other people do the same? Don’t they have their free agency? Aren't we being self-righteous and judgmental, forcing our beliefs on others, demanding that they act in a certain way?” In those situations you are going to have to explain sensitively why some principles are defended and some sins opposed wherever they are found because the issues and the laws involved are not just social or political but eternal in their consequence. And while not wishing to offend those who believe differently from us, we are even more anxious not to offend God, or as the scripture says, “not offend him who is your lawgiver” ¹⁹ —and I am speaking here of serious moral laws."

What does Duck Dynasty have to do with this? Well, let me tell you. 

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson-gay_n_4465564.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clarence-b-jones/duck-dynasty-race_b_4488950.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57299146-78/state-sex-court-marriage.html.csp

The words of a good friend of mine on the topic:

"Okay, here's my two cents on Gay Marriage.

The Family is THE fundamental unit of society -- where virtues are taught and the next generation is raised -- you break that and society breaks with it. Marriage ought to be between a man and a women. When you start trying to define it differently there is no end to what can legally be considered a marriage -- i.e. three men and one woman, three men and two women, a fifty year old man and a six year old girl, a woman and a dog -- because once the claim that you have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to marry whoever you love becomes legally valid you can claim to love anyone you want: I actually read an article recently explaining how some schools of scientific thought are actually considering pedophilia to be a legitimate sexual orientation. (I would link to it, but I can't find it at the moment.)

Personally I don't think the government should have to recognize marriage in the first place, but the fact is it does, largely for income tax purposes which is a whole other debate, and since it does it must choose a definition. Of course the state has absolutely no right to dictate what kind of sex you have in the privacy of your own home -- assuming it's not violating anyone's rights -- that is the realm for religion and persuasion, not force, this is simply about whether or not we give certain "couples" or groups of people claiming to love each other a TITLE. But it's not about love, it's about a title. They can go on loving each other just the same whether or not the government says they can. Some claim it's discriminatory not to allow some groups of people a title as opposed to others, that we're treating them like "second class citizens," forcing them to ride on the back of the metaphoric bus of society, but there is a fundamental difference in the discrimination of the blacks vs. the homosexuals; one was arguing that they were human beings just as much as the next person, the other is claiming to be a group that is exactly the same as the other.

Homo couples and Hetero couples are not the same group, married or not. Yes, as individuals they are just as much people as anyone else, they have been mistreated and that's wrong, that goes without saying -- but the fact is as soon as we say that this union is the same as that simply because they love each other like this one loves that one, there is no end to the changing of the definition, and eventually the government will be codifying tax exemptions for bestiality.

All this to say, I don't think the government should have any say in what a marriage is.

On a moral/religious note, I've heard several LDS people recently talking about how they think homosexual relationships are okay for other people, because the the scriptures don't say anything about it not being okay. That bothered me, so I found a couple scriptures that talk about it, and an official church website.
( Lev. 18:22, Deut. 23:17, http://mormon.org/faq/stand-on-homosexuality)"

One of my favourite things:

LETTERS!!!!

There is something about someone you care about taking the time to hand write you a letter. Something about seeing the time and care put into it, that just means so much to me. Letters are magical. Words are magical.