Date of Christ's birth

[mfbukowski]

I would like to see a specific quote for the reference made by Elder McConkie, (first I have heard of it, perhaps I am not as versed in Elder McConkie's opinions and teachings as I thought.)

I would be very surprised to learn he thought Jesus was born in December.

Very very surprised!

[volgadon]

I spent some time researching the Christmas tradition a few months back and I have to say I think the JW's and others are right - we should not be celebrating Christmas at all. The Old Testament specifically warns Israel not to mark or adhere in any way to the festivals and celebrations of the non-Israelites, even if they (the Israelites) use them to remember the true God.

Personally, I do not feel that Christ would approve of Christmas. After all, he told us quite clearly how we were to remember him, and we do that every sacrament meeting.

So be prepared to say good bye to every single holiday or festival mentioned in the Bible, without exception.

BTW your comment about Christ not approving of Christmas is extremely offensive to all who do worship Christ devoutly on that day.

[volgadon]

As December in Israel is cold, shepherds and their sheep would not be out in their fields. I doubt it was in December.

Early to mid spring is a time of lambing. So it was more probable to be in sometime between April and May.

December is cold, but rarely is it lower than 5 degrees celsius. December actually is, and was, a vital month for shepherds in Israel as that is one of the greenest times of year, due to the rain. By April it starts to go all yellow and when May rolls around it becomes very hot and dry, increasing to the crescendo that is the heat of July-August. From biblical times until the mid-20th century, shepherds would sign a contract which usually lasted a year, and herded a large flock. Shepherds were out with the flock almost year round, in all weather. Needless to say, it was a miserable job. In the early 20th century, several Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire formed an organisation known as ha-Roeh, the Shepherd. They took it upon themselves to reintroduce herding to Jewish life, a conscious return to biblical roots. They apprenticed themselves to some Bedouins for a few months to learn the ropes, then contracted to a Jewish village. The end result was that they ruined their physical and emotional health. A few decades later, a Yeshivah student from Poland by the name of Pesach Bar-Adon joined a Bedouin tribe for a couple of years, working as a shepherd. He left a very vivid memoir of those times, In the Tents of the Desert, which is essential reading on the subject of a shepherd's life in the Middle-East. About the only time a shepherd wasn't out with the flocks was for a few days after the yearly shearing, in which big parties were held. I've personally seen shepherds tending sheep in December, every year in Israel that I can remember.

My brother, BTW, also worked as a shepherd in Israel for a while.

Also, Jacob in his defense of himself to Laban describes himself as being out in all weather.

[volgadon]

I've heard this many times also. But where do you put sheep in December in ancient Jerusalem?

Out in the hills to graze.

[keithb]

Orson Pratt thought it was April 11, 4 BC. Elder Hyrum M. Smith wasn't sure that it was April 6, J. Rueben Clark said it was late 5 BC or early 4 BC, and Bruce R. McConkie thought it was around December 5 BC although he was unsure. So I'm not sure that the brethren are agreed on this issue.

I would disagree with this statement. I have heard it routinely taught in church that April 6 was the date of Christ's birth. Indeed, Elder Nelson has taught recently in the New Era that Christ was born in April. I think the consensus among probably 90+% of the people in any given ward in Utah, were you to take a poll, would be that Christ was born in April.

I really don't think there is nearly as much disagreement on the subject as people on this message board seem to represent. The church believes that Christ was born on April 6.

[selek]

I would disagree with this statement. I have heard it routinely taught in church that April 6 was the date of Christ's birth. Indeed, Elder Nelson has taught recently in the New Era that Christ was born in April. I think the consensus among probably 90+% of the people in any given ward in Utah, were you to take a poll, would be that Christ was born in April.

I really don't think there is nearly as much disagreement on the subject as people on this message board seem to represent. The church believes that Christ was born on April 6.

Call For Reference, please, Keith.

I know that many Mormons believe that Christ's birth occurred at-or-around that date (and coincides with the dates of the Reorganization of the Church and so on)- but I've yet to see an official, authoritative, doctrinal statement to that effect.

You can provide that statement, can you not?

[keithb]

Call For Reference, please, Keith.

I know that many Mormons believe that Christ's birth occurred at-or-around that date (and coincides with the dates of the Reorganization of the Church and so on)- but I've yet to see an official, authoritative, doctrinal statement to that effect.

You can provide that statement, can you not?

If you're looking for me to provide you with an official statement signed in the counsels of heaven, notarized by God the Father with his official notary pen and sealed with Jesus and the archangel Michael as witnesses, I'm not going to be able to provide you with one. However, I think that, for beliefs about topics not central to salvation, a statement by an apostle in the New Era is going to have to suffice.

Look, this is one thing I can't understand about this message board. I really don't understand the line at which something becomes the "official" doctrine of the church, whatever that means. I'm thinking that, especially on a noncontroversial doctrine such as this one, the majority understanding of the church's members combined with statements in official church publications by an apostle would be more than sufficient evidence of the fact that the church accepts this as its doctrinal position. I think that saying anything else is being deliberately dense when it comes to understanding the beliefs of the church.

[selek]

If you're looking for me to provide you with an official statement signed in the counsels of heaven, notarized by God the Father with his official notary pen and sealed with Jesus and the archangel Michael as witnesses, I'm not going to be able to provide you with one.

No need to be so grandiose, Kiethb. I'll be happy with an official statement from the First Presidency a/o the Quorum of the Twelve.

However, I think that, for beliefs about topics not central to salvation, a statement by an apostle in the New Era is going to have to suffice.

The statement in the New Era tells us what that particular apostle believes. It does not tell us the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, which is what your post implied.

You presumed to tell us what THE CHURCH officially believes, but you claim fails on two counts.

First and foremost:

Thus far, you have failed to produce an authoritative statement from Church leadership backing up your claims.

As noted above, doctrine originates through revelation from the Lord with those called to that specific stewardship. They and they alone have the authority to proclaim doctrine to the Church.

Look, this is one thing I can't understand about this message board. I really don't understand the line at which something becomes the "official" doctrine of the church, whatever that means.

Doctrine does not originate with an anonymous poster on an internet message board.

Second, your argument relies on unconfirmed anecdotes, not a solid scientific analysis.

I flatly doubt that you have polled anything approaching a representative sample of Church membership in order to find out "what they believe" about Christ's actual birthday.

Absent such evidence, you really lack any authority to tell us what "the majority of the Church thinks".

Finally, contrary to popular belief neither common consensus nor common folklore equate to doctrine nor to fact.

I'm thinking that, especially on a noncontroversial doctrine such as this one, the majority understanding of the church's members combined with statements in official church publications by an apostle would be more than sufficient evidence of the fact that the church accepts this as its doctrinal position.

And as demonstrated, you would be wrong. But thanks for offering us your OPINION.

I think that saying anything else is being deliberately dense when it comes to understanding the beliefs of the church.

Considering the sheer number of fools, charlatans, apostates, and frauds who enjoy coming here and telling us "what the Mormons REALLY believe", you'll understand that I'm skeptical of taking your word over the official positions and statements (or distinct lack thereof) of the Church itself.

If the leaders of the Church- those authorized to proclaim doctrine- have not, then why should we listen to you?

As demonstrated, the likelihood of you having the authority to proclaim Gospel to this Church is virtually non-existent.

Speaking strictly in terms of numbers:

There are fifteen people currently authorized to proclaim doctrine (and they don't do it anonymously through obscure web boards).

There are literally millions of people with either a vested or passing interst in confusing the issue of Latter-day Saint doctrine. These people range from lonely internet cranks to dedicated anti-Mormons, apostates, and trouble makers out there, as well as people who simply confuse folklore with doctrine.

15 vs. millions.

Without an official statement from the Church to back your position up, the odds are (I'm sorry to say) against you.

Argument ad populum (or however the thing is spelled)- meaning "most people believe it so it must be true" is an error in logic of the most fundamental sort- and is essentially "if the mob says so, it's okay by me".

That is NOT how the Lord's church operates.

Doctrine comes through those appointed to that stewardship by the Lord- not from every and any individual who might have occupied a pew or thumbed through a Church magazine.

Now- casting all the smokescreens and handwaving aside:

Can you- or can you not- produce an authoritative statement from the Church or its authorized representatives stating that an April (or April 6th) birthday for Christ is the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[mapman]

I would be very surprised to learn he thought Jesus was born in December.

Very very surprised!

From the BYU Studies article referenced in the OP:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie was the third General Authority to prepare a systematic study of the life of Christ. Deseret Book Company published the four-volume series The Mortal Messiah beginning in 1979. In a lengthy study note appended to chapter 20 of the first volume (on the Savior's nativity), McConkie discussed several models for dating the birth of Jesus. In contrast to Talmage, McConkie stated: "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge -- including that which is known both in and out of the Church -- to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occured." McConkie then reviewed the positions and reasonings of both Talmage and Clark with regard to Jesus's birth date and stated that he would follow Clark's course. Accordingly, McConkie dated the Annunciation to Mary in March or April of 5 B.C., and the birth of Jesus in December of 5 B.C. (with the caveat that his birth could also have occured from January to April of 4 B.C.). He also opined that the story of the arrival of the wise men could perhaps be construed to point to a birth date earlier that December of 5 B.C., perhaps as early as April of 5 B.C., again repeating that "this is not a settled issue."

However, in Mormon Doctrine he wrote under "Christmas":

Apparently Christ was born on the day corresponding to April 6 (D&C 20:1), but the saints nevertheless join in the wholesome portions of the Christmas celebration.

Mormon Doctrine was published in 1958 and The Mortal Messiah in 1979, so it seems that Elder McConkie changed his view on this.

[selek]

'mapman'

From the BYU Studies article referenced in the OP:

McConkie stated: "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge -- including that which is known both in and out of the Church -- to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred."

Emphasis mine.

McConkie's official position was (and apparently remained): We cannot say with any certainty.

Nothing you quoted afterwards changed that essential position.

McConkie then reviewed the positions and reasonings of both Talmage and Clark with regard to Jesus's birth date and stated that he would follow Clark's course. Accordingly, McConkie dated the Annunciation to Mary in March or April of 5 B.C., and the birth of Jesus in December of 5 B.C. (with the caveat that his birth could also have occured from January to April of 4 B.C.).

This indicates that McConkie personally preferred Clark's model. It does not contradict his earlier statement that we cannot state with any certainty when the birth of Christ took place. This is expressing his personal opinion and preference- NOT declaring an official position on behalf of the Church.

He also opined that the story of the arrival of the wise men could perhaps be construed to point to a birth date earlier that December of 5 B.C., perhaps as early as April of 5 B.C., again repeating that "this is not a settled issue."

Key word there: "opined".

Again, this is his personal interpretation, NOT a declaration on behalf of the Church.

However, in Mormon Doctrine he wrote under "Christmas":

Apparently Christ was born on the day corresponding to April 6 (D&C 20:1), but the saints nevertheless join in the wholesome portions of the Christmas celebration.

Key word? "Apparently"

This does NOT contradict his earlier position that "We cannot say with any certainty."

Mormon Doctrine was published in 1958 and The Mortal Messiah in 1979, so it seems that Elder McConkie changed his view on this.

Nonsense. Elder McConkie's personal opinion might have supported an April birthday for Christ- but that it no way means that this was the official position and doctrine of the Church.

That position was- and absent an official statement to the contrary- remains, "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge -- including that which is known both in and out of the Church -- to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred."

[mapman]

'mapman'

From the BYU Studies article referenced in the OP:

Emphasis mine.

McConkie's official position was (and apparently remained): We cannot say with any certainty.

Nothing you quoted afterwards changed that essential position.

This indicates that McConkie personally preferred Clark's model. It does not contradict his earlier statement that we cannot state with any certainty when the birth of Christ took place. This is expressing his personal opinion and preference- NOT declaring an official position on behalf of the Church.

Key word there: "opined".

Again, this is his personal interpretation, NOT a declaration on behalf of the Church.

However, in Mormon Doctrine he wrote under "Christmas":

Key word? "Apparently"

This does NOT contradict his earlier position that "We cannot say with any certainty."

Nonsense. Elder McConkie's personal opinion might have supported an April birthday for Christ- but that it no way means that this was the official position and doctrine of the Church.

That position was- and absent an official statement to the contrary- remains, "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge -- including that which is known both in and out of the Church -- to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred."

I realize that this, Selek. I haven't been trying to say that what he was saying is the official teachings of the Church or trying to argue for any particular date for Christ's birth. What I was trying to show was that you can't appeal to apostles opinions to say when Christ was born because they didn't all agree and were unsure themselves (although some had preferences). Yes, McConkie always talked about this with caution, but the two quotes do show that his preference seems to have changed over time.

[cinepro]

The less falsifiable something is, the more sure I am about it. So I'm positive Jesus was born on April 6.

[thesometimesaint]

volgadon:

My source http://www.israel-travel-tips.com/en/39/Israel%20Travel/Israel%20Weather

[volgadon]

volgadon:

My source http://www.israel-travel-tips.com/en/39/Israel%20Travel/Israel%20Weather

And you'll note that it is saying pretty much what I did, having spent the bulk of my life there, that winter is like Autumn, and rarely are temperatures lower than 5 degrees celsius. It isn't fun, but definitely not too cold to be tending sheep in December.

[keithb]

No need to be so grandiose, Kiethb. I'll be happy with an official statement from the First Presidency a/o the Quorum of the Twelve.

The statement in the New Era tells us what that particular apostle believes. It does not tell us the OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, which is what your post implied.

You presumed to tell us what THE CHURCH officially believes, but you claim fails on two counts.

First and foremost:

Thus far, you have failed to produce an authoritative statement from Church leadership backing up your claims.

As noted above, doctrine originates through revelation from the Lord with those called to that specific stewardship. They and they alone have the authority to proclaim doctrine to the Church.

Doctrine does not originate with an anonymous poster on an internet message board.

Second, your argument relies on unconfirmed anecdotes, not a solid scientific analysis.

I flatly doubt that you have polled anything approaching a representative sample of Church membership in order to find out "what they believe" about Christ's actual birthday.

Absent such evidence, you really lack any authority to tell us what "the majority of the Church thinks".

Finally, contrary to popular belief neither common consensus nor common folklore equate to doctrine nor to fact.

And as demonstrated, you would be wrong. But thanks for offering us your OPINION.

Considering the sheer number of fools, charlatans, apostates, and frauds who enjoy coming here and telling us "what the Mormons REALLY believe", you'll understand that I'm skeptical of taking your word over the official positions and statements (or distinct lack thereof) of the Church itself.

If the leaders of the Church- those authorized to proclaim doctrine- have not, then why should we listen to you?

As demonstrated, the likelihood of you having the authority to proclaim Gospel to this Church is virtually non-existent.

Speaking strictly in terms of numbers:

There are fifteen people currently authorized to proclaim doctrine (and they don't do it anonymously through obscure web boards).

There are literally millions of people with either a vested or passing interst in confusing the issue of Latter-day Saint doctrine. These people range from lonely internet cranks to dedicated anti-Mormons, apostates, and trouble makers out there, as well as people who simply confuse folklore with doctrine.

15 vs. millions.

Without an official statement from the Church to back your position up, the odds are (I'm sorry to say) against you.

Argument ad populum (or however the thing is spelled)- meaning "most people believe it so it must be true" is an error in logic of the most fundamental sort- and is essentially "if the mob says so, it's okay by me".

That is NOT how the Lord's church operates.

Doctrine comes through those appointed to that stewardship by the Lord- not from every and any individual who might have occupied a pew or thumbed through a Church magazine.

Now- casting all the smokescreens and handwaving aside:

Can you- or can you not- produce an authoritative statement from the Church or its authorized representatives stating that an April (or April 6th) birthday for Christ is the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I raise my hand in support of sustaining the apostles each General Conference as "prophets, seers and revelators". In most instances, I expect them to act as such. On something silly like this (when Christ was born), I don't think you're going to get an "official statement of doctrine" from the church, like you did on the Family Proclamation. However, this doesn't mean that the church doesn't have a well defined stand on this question, as on other questions that aren't central to salvation. You can choose to ignore that position if you wish. You can choose to stick your fingers in your ears when the apostles speak at general conference or to read the New Era and say things like, "But that's only that apostle's OPINION" on the matter. I will choose to accept the word of the Lord's servants, in official church publications, as an indication of church beliefs.

As for the statement that I don't have a scientific survey that says "X percent of the church's members believe that Christ was born on April 6th." I also don't have a church survey that says, "X percent of the members believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem." I don't need one. It's common knowledge. It's something I've heard in sacrament meeting talks and Sunday School lessons my whole life. If you want to take the contrary position, you come up with the survey saying church members don't believe that Jesus was born on April 6th. Until then, I will cite my decades of experience with church teachings as proof.

[selek]

I raise my hand in support of sustaining the apostles each General Conference as "prophets, seers and revelators". In most instances, I expect them to act as such. On something silly like this (when Christ was born), I don't think you're going to get an "official statement of doctrine" from the church, like you did on the Family Proclamation. However, this doesn't mean that the church doesn't have a well defined stand on this question, as on other questions that aren't central to salvation. You can choose to ignore that position if you wish. You can choose to stick your fingers in your ears when the apostles speak at general conference or to read the New Era and say things like, "But that's only that apostle's OPINION" on the matter. I will choose to accept the word of the Lord's servants, in official church publications, as an indication of church beliefs.

As for the statement that I don't have a scientific survey that says "X percent of the church's members believe that Christ was born on April 6th." I also don't have a church survey that says, "X percent of the members believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem." I don't need one. It's common knowledge. It's something I've heard in sacrament meeting talks and Sunday School lessons my whole life. If you want to take the contrary position, you come up with the survey saying church members don't believe that Jesus was born on April 6th. Until then, I will cite my decades of experience with church teachings as proof.

So- in summary- your answer is "No, I can't produce an authoritative statement from the Church to support my claims."

Got it.

Thanks for playing.

[mfbukowski]

Mormon Doctrine was published in 1958 and The Mortal Messiah in 1979, so it seems that Elder McConkie changed his view on this.

Fascinating.

Thanks.

I had no idea!

[Brenda]

I would disagree with this statement. I have heard it routinely taught in church that April 6 was the date of Christ's birth. Indeed, Elder Nelson has taught recently in the New Era that Christ was born in April. I think the consensus among probably 90+% of the people in any given ward in Utah, were you to take a poll, would be that Christ was born in April.

I really don't think there is nearly as much disagreement on the subject as people on this message board seem to represent. The church believes that Christ was born on April 6.

I agree with you except for your last statement, which I would change to say -- the members of the Church believe .... You might note that Elder Nelson's statement was a comment in a talk about Christ's birth, but not focusing on the date as the main subject.

I wonder if with the Joseph Smith Papers Project and what it has brought to light, this may gradually change from an assumed belief, to a cautious possibility, or something thereabouts.

[Joseph Antley]

Two BYU professors (who are NT scholars, unlike Brother Chadwick) have recently finished a response to Brother Chadwick's article arguing essentially that he is wayyyy off the mark on this one and his conclusions and methodology are bunk. Hopefully their response will be published in the next edition of BYU Studies.

[keithb]

So- in summary- your answer is "No, I can't produce an authoritative statement from the Church to support my claims."

Got it.

Thanks for playing.

As I said, ignore the words of the prophets at your own peril.

You shouldn't play -- it's not a game. It's your salvation.

[Joseph Antley]

As I said, ignore the words of the prophets at your own peril.

You shouldn't play -- it's not a game. It's your salvation.

Do you think our opinions on what month Jesus was born is really relevant to our salvation?

[cinepro]

Today I taught the 13/14yo class in Sunday School, and the subject was Jesus' birth. I asked them "what day was Jesus born on?" and almost all of them emphatically said "April 6!" (One joker said "December 25" with a smirk).

I then explained that we didn't actually know, and shared the information from the DN article, noting that the verse in question was actually written by John Whitmer and not Joseph Smith. One girl was a little upset that such a thing could happen, and said "God should have zapped him before he could write that!"

So there are now 8 teenagers in the Church that know we don't know what day Jesus was born on, and D&C 20:1 isn't a good argument for April 6.

[keithb]

Do you think our opinions on what month Jesus was born is really relevant to our salvation?

No, I don't. Do you really think the apostles would get something so trivial as this wrong?

After all, if they have the date of Jesus' birth wrong, how are we supposed to trust them on doctrinal questions that matter much more?

[Joseph Antley]

No, I don't. Do you really think the apostles would get something so trivial as this wrong?

After all, if they have the date of Jesus' birth wrong, how are we supposed to trust them on doctrinal questions that matter much more?

What do you do when apostles disagree over something? When one apostle believes that Jesus was born in December, and another believes that he was born in June, what are we to do?

I think your logic about the triviality of the issue is off a bit. The prophets do not have an uninterrupted internet connection to heaven where they can download every bit of information they want. Whether an issue is seemingly big or small has no bearing on the issue; the only thing that is important is whether or not God has revealed it, and he reveals things to his prophets according to his whim. Apparently the exact birth month of Jesus isn't one of those issues, since as far as I know, none of the prophets have claimed revelation on the issue, and apostles have disagreed with one another on it.

[keithb]

What do you do when apostles disagree over something? When one apostle believes that Jesus was born in December, and another believes that he was born in June, what are we to do?

I think your logic about the triviality of the issue is off a bit. The prophets do not have an uninterrupted internet connection to heaven where they can download every bit of information they want. Whether an issue is seemingly big or small has no bearing on the issue; the only thing that is important is whether or not God has revealed it, and he reveals things to his prophets according to his whim. Apparently the exact birth month of Jesus isn't one of those issues, since as far as I know, none of the prophets have claimed revelation on the issue, and apostles have disagreed with one another on it.

As I said before, we sustain the apostles as prophets, seers and revelators. You say that they don't have an "internet connection to heaven where they can download every bit of information they want". I say that part of being a prophet, seer, and revelator is having something pretty close to this. The apostles may be commanded in certain situations not to reveal everything to the church, but that doesn't mean that they either don't know the information or can't find out in a hurry on any matter great or small. If this wasn't the case, what would be the point of God sending us prophets?

I think that this type of reasoning is a dangerous one to pursue in the church. If people start thinking of the words of the apostles as just opinion or as not coming from God, then they can justify a lot of types of behavior that would be unacceptable before the Lord. The issue of when Jesus was born on earth might seem like a small issue to you, but to me it speaks to the ability of the apostles to receive revelations from God.

Also, I am not aware of any confusion among the apostles regarding this matter (or any other matter), at least not in the modern church. It's possible that some of the statements by the early apostles were recorded wrong or misunderstood at the time and they have been corrected by further revelations. In general, I don't think that it's healthy spiritually to talk about the apostles of the Lord "disagreeing" on matters of doctrine. There is one church, one faith, one baptism -- not two or more.