The few in the second coming

We read the following in D&C 138:26:

Notwithstanding his mighty works, and miracles, and proclamation of the truth, in great power and authority, there were but few who hearkened to his voice, and rejoiced in his presence, and received salvation at his hands.

I find this interesting. Despite all the miracles he performed and the powerful sermons he gave, few people were converted. It makes me wonder. There must be more to becoming converted to the gospel that simply seeing miracles or hear a good sermon by an amazing speaker.

And if the Jewish people really were looking for the coming of their king, maybe it wasn’t surprising they didn’t accept Jesus.

I wonder though. Do we sometimes act like the Jews of Jesus’s day? Have we assigned the same qualities to his second coming as the Jewish people did to his first coming? Are we expecting him to come as a deliverer? To free us of the corruption and tyranny of earthly governments?To usher in a life of blissful peace?

Will he come in meekness and quiet, and only those with ears to hear will accept his teachings?

Prophesying Calamities

I was contemplating something while sitting in church today. I have hear people say that you can tell we are in the last days because God is send all the calamities. You know, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, drought, disease, and the like. One only need look at Wikipedia to see that people believe God sends/causes natural disasters.

What I was contemplating, however, was whether God specifically causes all the calamities prophesied of in the Bible.

On the one hand, one could say that the prophets foretold of the calamities and God is sending them forth now to fulfil the promises of the prophets.

On the other hand, perhaps our day is an unusual time in the history of humankind (call it global warming if you must), in which we see an abundance of calamities. In that case, maybe the prophets saw the frequency of calamities and prophesied regarding them. Maybe God isn’t sending any of them. Maybe the prophets saw when the second coming of Christ was and noticed it coincided with this unusual amount of calamities, and simply used this period as a benchmark.

And maybe then God isn’t behind any of these calamities. Maybe it’s just the earth responding to whatever environmental changes there are.

It seems odd to me anyhow that God would send calamities just so the prophets wouldn’t be wrong.

Rethinking the age of consent

William Saleton, over at Slate, proposes changing sex consent laws.

First comes the age at which your brain wants sex and your body signals to others that you’re ready for it. Then comes the age of cognitive competence. Then comes the age of emotional competence. Each of these thresholds should affect our expectations, and the expectations should apply to the older party in a relationship as well as to the younger one. The older you get, the higher the standard to which you should be held responsible.

Can sex laws ever follow a formula that sticks to these milestones? Isn’t just easier to call the age of consent 14, and leave it at that?

Getting it right

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who?Ǭ†drink of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

We were treated to this twice yesterday before our bishopric’s first counselor got up and pointed out the error to the frustrated, young priest.

?Ǭ†Then, we heard the following:

“O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat it in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

At which point the first counselor nodded his approval, not wanting to drag out the scene any more. (The bishop and?Ǭ†second counselor were away, so “Number One” was flying solo.)

After the sacrament was done and the Aaronic priesthood were dismissed, “Number One” felt inspired to give us a short, five minute talk about how valiant, and worthy, and diligent the young men were in performing their sacramental duty.?Ǭ† I think this was meant to somehow help the young priest save face, although it was just out of place and awkward to listen to.

But why go through all the effort of correcting him the first time, and why give the little speech at the end if you are?Ǭ†ultimately going to let the prayer be said incorrectly??Ǭ† What harm would there be to having him do it a fourth time, to hopefully get it right??Ǭ† Why was he more concerned about hurting the young fella’s feelings than getting the ordinance done correctly?

Which makes me wonder… does it really matter if the prayer was said correctly??Ǭ† If three wrong attempts are good enough, then surly two would have done the trick.?Ǭ† Did all 200 of us yesterday actually renew our covenants or did we just have a snack?