Date of Christ's birth

[ERayR]

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?

Then you have a distorted view of what a prophet is. A prophet reveals what God wants them to reveal not everything they might want.

[keithb]

Then you have a distorted view of what a prophet is. A prophet reveals what God wants them to reveal not everything they might want.

I think one of us has a distorted view. The Lord reveals only truth to his prophets, not confusion.

[ERayR]

I think one of us has a distorted view. The Lord reveals only truth to his prophets, not confusion.

So if I understand you a calling as a prophet would go like this?

You have been called to be a prophet. You will now plug in to the collective. From now on you will be told what to say and will never again make an error.

[keithb]

So if I understand you a calling as a prophet would go like this?

You have been called to be a prophet. You will now plug in to the collective. From now on you will be told what to say and will never again make an error.

That's a highly irreverent way of putting it, but yeah something like that. Why would the prophet of God make mistakes?

[selek]

Then you have a distorted view of what a prophet is. A prophet reveals what God wants them to reveal not everything they might want.

I think one of us has a distorted view. The Lord reveals only truth to his prophets, not confusion.

That's a highly irreverent way of putting it, but yeah something like that. Why would the prophet of God make mistakes?

ERay, you're wasting your time.

As suspected, keithb is trolling, rather than discussing.

Given his remarkably short tenure here, radical distortions of how doctrine originates, and his rather charming idea that becoming a prophet, seer, and revelator removes human frailty, error, and weakness, I strongly suspect that he's in deliberate violation of several of the board guidelines, including:

* Judging others

* Personal attacks. You may dispute a member

[3DOP]

There is a story in Evelyn Waugh's masterpiece Brideshead Revisited where a successful Canadian businessman wants to marry the daughter of a wealthy Catholic family in England. He is very intelligent about politics and money, but a little slow about spiritual matters. One sunny day, he is taking instruction from a priest for the purpose of being received into the Catholic Church so he can marry this young lady. The priest asked him what it would mean if the pope should say it is raining outside. He seemed bewildered, and thinking that Catholics believed that the pope is never wrong, he thought himself very clever when it came to him to reply that the answer must be that it was raining "spiritually" outside. So silly. Of course the answer the priest wanted is that the doctrine of papal infallibility is very restrictive and is reserved only for important doctrinal proclamations.

It seems like there is a parallel here for keith b who seems earnest enough in his contention that the prophets, if they cannot be trusted in the lesser things, can't be trusted in the more important matters. Our Lord certainly emphasized that such a principal is in play in the Gospel where he is talking about our duty to be ghood stewards of our worldly goods and money, trelling us that if we cannot even handle worldly treasure, that might explain why we don't have more gifts of a priritual nature from heaven (or something to that effect). It doesn't seem to me like this rule would apply with regards to the information that is given by God as prophetic revelation. If that were the case, all the Mormon prophets would be able to put all their funds into the most profitable business ventures and infallibly succeed. I am sure every Mormon will concede that the prophets don't have that kind of knowledge. So it is already established that there is knowledge of less importance that remains unrevealed to the prophets. Anyway, just as we Catholics don't think the pope has a special way of knowing the weather, or who will win the Super Bowl, so it seems that a Latter Day Saint should be comfortable knowing that among the prophets, the less important truths, such as the date of Christ's birth, might not the subject of prophetic revelation.

3DOP

[nicolasconnault]

There is a story in Evelyn Waugh's masterpiece Brideshead Revisited where a successful Canadian businessman wants to marry the daughter of a wealthy Catholic family in England. He is very intelligent about politics and money, but a little slow about spiritual matters. One sunny day, he is taking instruction from a priest for the purpose of being received into the Catholic Church so he can marry this young lady. The priest asked him what it would mean if the pope should say it is raining outside. He seemed bewildered, and thinking that Catholics believed that the pope is never wrong, he thought himself very clever when it came to him to reply that the answer must be that it was raining "spiritually" outside. So silly. Of course the answer the priest wanted is that the doctrine of papal infallibility is very restrictive and is reserved only for important doctrinal proclamations.

It seems like there is a parallel here for keith b who seems earnest enough in his contention that the prophets, if they cannot be trusted in the lesser things, can't be trusted in the more important matters. Our Lord certainly emphasized that such a principal is in play in the Gospel where he is talking about our duty to be ghood stewards of our worldly goods and money, trelling us that if we cannot even handle worldly treasure, that might explain why we don't have more gifts of a priritual nature from heaven (or something to that effect). It doesn't seem to me like this rule would apply with regards to the information that is given by God as prophetic revelation. If that were the case, all the Mormon prophets would be able to put all their funds into the most profitable business ventures and infallibly succeed. I am sure every Mormon will concede that the prophets don't have that kind of knowledge. So it is already established that there is knowledge of less importance that remains unrevealed to the prophets. Anyway, just as we Catholics don't think the pope has a special way of knowing the weather, or who will win the Super Bowl, so it seems that a Latter Day Saint should be comfortable knowing that among the prophets, the less important truths, such as the date of Christ's birth, might not the subject of prophetic revelation.

3DOP

Good reasoning. I was explaining this to a missionary last Sunday, specifically about the date of Christ's birth. He seemed interested, then he said:

- But if apostles and prophets have taught that Christ was born on the 6th of April, then it's doctrine, it must be true!

I asked him:

- Do you think that the prophets and apostles are never wrong, about anything? That every single word they speak in general conference is 100% true, without a single hint of inaccuracy?

- Well, yes, they're prophets, aren't they?

- So you believe that the Lord will never permit them to say anything inaccurate, on any topic whatsoever, even if it is not directly related to our salvation?

He then tried to explain how the date of Christ's birth was a matter of salvation, but I knew I got him thinking.

My point was that God allows even his prophets to be human. As normal humans, they have interests, strengths and weaknesses, areas of knowledge and of ignorance, preconceptions and misconceptions, stereotypes and scripts. It's not realistic to expect even the oracles of God to be absolutely right about everything. When the Lord promised us that He would not let his prophet lead us astray, He wasn't talking about being misled regarding the exact date of the Saviour's birth.

I also think that our prophets, like us, take many of the teachings of previous prophets at face value, especially if these teachings are in harmony with contemporary cultural norms and beliefs. They also grew up in particular environments and families, were taught certain man-made doctrines as if they were absolute truths, and have to some degree constructed their view of the world and their reality on these foundations. Prophets are not tabula rasa the day they come into office, suddenly free from all traditions and beliefs. They have their favourite doctrines, their quirks and foibles, and their areas of expertise, and the Lord works with that because He can, and because these men have kept themselves pure and have dedicated their lives to the Saviour.

[nicolasconnault]

I think one of us has a distorted view. The Lord reveals only truth to his prophets, not confusion.

Keith, take a deep breath and just think for a moment about the logic of this.

First, have you considered that, perhaps, the Lord has NEVER revealed the actual birth date of Jesus Christ to his prophets in the latter days? If apostles and prophets since Joseph Smith have taught that it was on the 6th of April, they may very well have been taking the apparent revelation in D&C 20 at face value. Why would they need to receive fresh revelation about something that has apparently already been revealed?

Second, it's not what the apostles and prophets SAY that is revelation, but what they say when prompted by the Holy Spirit. If they say something based on the "best available knowledge at the time", that does not come from the Spirit. It may or may not be true, therefore it shouldn't be accepted blindly as doctrine. As usual, this doesn't really happen with matters of salvation.

Third, do you think that the Lord reveals every little item of trivia to his prophets and apostles?

Fourth, do you believe that the only items of revelation that our apostles and prophets receive are the talks they give in general conference and other official meetings?

Now, let's imagine a priority list of things that the apostles and prophets must frequently receive revelation about. The order is entirely contrived, but it serves to illustrate a point:

1. Review and take action on the list of submitted applications for rebaptism, for excommunicated endowed members
2. Review and take action on the list of submitted applications for temple divorce
3. Review and take action on the list of full-time missionaries whose president thinks they may be unsuitable for labour in the field
4. Decide on releases and callings of seventies, stake presidents and presidencies of general boards
5. Review missionary work and decide on opening/closing missions and calling of mission presidents
6. Review temple report from presiding bishopric and decide on actions for new temples and refurbishments
7. Take action in the calling and release of temple presidents and temple sealers
8. Review matters of Church policy and take action
9. Review matters of Public Relations
10. ....
11. ...

1645. Reveal to the Church the actual date of Christ's birth, so that people can stop wasting their time arguing about it.

Do you see what I mean? Truth is not all of equal importance, the vast majority of it is trivial and unimportant, and the Lord certain knows that better than we do. If his prophets and apostles say something inaccurate about a trivial matter, why should the Lord intervene? Do you realise how often He would have to do this if He really cared about such small matters? What a burden it would be for our prophets if every word that came out of their mouth had to be directly revealed by the Holy Ghost.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Am I the only one who didn't know the Church takes no stand on the date?

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html

Would not have Christ (who is representative of the deliverance of Israel from bondage) have cone during the Passover which is always during march or April). But then again who really knows? I don

[ERayR]

Would not have Christ (who is representative of the deliverance of Israel from bondage) have cone during the Passover which is always during march or April). But then again who really knows? I don

[Deborah]

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.

No it is not. Joseph Smith received revelation only as he asked questions, and even then the Lord gave him very limited information in many instances and expected him to use his own brain to figure the rest out.

[ERayR]

That's a highly irreverent way of putting it, but yeah something like that. Why would the prophet of God make mistakes?

I can think of a couple of reasons. 1) Incomplete information. 2) cultural misconceptions. I am sure if we put our heads together we could think of more but this is enough to make the point.

[cinepro]

I'm willing to be proven wrong here, but kiethb's posts- and distortions of Mormon belief- bear a striking resemblance to those found at the Shady Rest and certain other places.

Best to not feed the troll.

While you may be right, I'm putting my money on keithb being the real deal. He's definitely a little naive to the ways of internet mormonism, but give him some time to acclimate to the dynamics of MODIS, and he'll be up and running in no time.

[cinepro]

And for the record, keithb:

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.

Around these parts, if someone doesn't want to believe something about LDS Doctrine, then there's not much you can cite to convince them that it is. We've even had discussions in the past where LDS have doubted whether the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be taken literally! So when it comes to "Official Doctrine" and what you think "all" LDS believe, forget all that you think you know.

[SilverKnight]

And for the record, keithb:

Around these parts, if someone doesn't want to believe something about LDS Doctrine, then there's not much you can cite to convince them that it is. We've even had discussions in the past where LDS have doubted whether the story of Adam and Eve is meant to be taken literally! So when it comes to "Official Doctrine" and what you think "all" LDS believe, forget all that you think you know.

Behold, the first great commandment:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.

And the second:

Some doctrines are more important than others.

http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[Lachoneus]

Speaking of D&C 20:1, the 24 December 2010 Deseret News article says that

[Thunderfire]

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 do not believe that prophets have an ability to recieve any and all information THEY desire. Rather, they too must have faith in many of the revelations they receive. The way it was revealed to me is that God may give A and C to the prophet, but he leaves out the "B". The prophets will be shown where we are and where we are going, but not necessarily how we are going to get there. This in my opinion, is also where many fail...they fill in the blanks between the "A and C". When the "B" unfolds in a different way than they though, some lose faith in the "C". Even the prophets must exhibit faith in the message!

Then too, not all prophets are shown the same thing. Some "see" things that pertain to a church, a nation, a city, or even the spiritual things regarding the coming kingdom. But I have yet to find a prophet who "see's" things regarding all the great and marvelous works of God.

We are told that God does nothing until first revealing it to his servants the prophets. This is why we have prophets! But God is not bound to reveal all the things he is doing which doesn't effect those the prophet is sent to speak too. Anyway, just some thoughts to consider.

[Lightbearer]

Given a choice between the opinions of Brothers Harper and Chadwick and the opinions of Harold B. Lee and Spencer W. Kimball, I will side with the prophets. If they and I are wrong, I will be in good company on a trivial issue. I also look forward to reading the responsive article mentioned in post #44.

I agree 100% thank you Lachoneus!