When Was Jesus Born?

[David T]

as well as to events in Jerusalem (appearance of Gabriel to the high priest Zacharias, the birth of his son John to Mary's cousin six months before the birth of Jesus

I'm not convinced that the familial relationship of John to Jesus, and the fetal John giving praise to Jesus (and related stories) isn't a Lukan construct designed to illustrate the overall (and always intended) lower importance of John compared to his later disciple Jesus, who certainly became greater.

[cinepro]

I'm not convinced that the familial relationship of John to Jesus, and the fetal John giving praise to Jesus (and related stories) isn't a Lukan construct designed to illustrate the overall (and always intended) lower importance of John compared to his later disciple Jesus, who certainly became greater.

In English: "Luke made it up"

[cinepro]

The Church website makes it very clear that the only source of doctrine is the scriptures and the official proclamation. The opinions of individual church leaders is not to be considered doctrine. If you accept this as scripture, you will be in for a lot of doctrinal contradictions as you read through the general conference addresses of the apostles for the past 100 years. Not even the prophet can proclaim doctrine without it first being vetted and approved by the 1st presidency, the quorum of the 12 and then presented to the membership of the church for a sustaining vote.

Hate to make your life more complicated than it is, but Elder Scott says:

It is April 6th. Modern scripture records that Jesus Christ was born on this day.

So that would seem to fill the requirement presented in the first sentence of your post.

Granted, there may be many good reasons to doubt the veracity of the date in D&C 20:1 (see the articles linked in my earlier post), but you can't say the "source" of Elder Soctt's "doctrine" isn't the "scriptures".

Edited December 7, 2011 by cinepro

[Freedom]

Hate to make your life more complicated than it is, but Elder Scott says:

So that would seem to fill the requirement presented in the first sentence of your post.

Granted, there may be many good reasons to doubt the veracity of the date in D&C 20:1 (see the articles linked in my earlier post), but you can't say the "source" of Elder Soctt's "doctrine" isn't the "scriptures".

I do not quite understand your point. Scott assumes that the passage is a literal proclamation of when the Savior was born, however this verse is more likely to be interpreted figuratively. He could quote a verse about Gods oneness and declare that the Trinity is true. Just because he quotes a verse does not mean his opinion is correct; it simply means that he has an interpretation of this verse that is not in harmony with others of the brethren.

[cinepro]

I do not quite understand your point. Scott assumes that the passage is a literal proclamation of when the Savior was born, however this verse is more likely to be interpreted figuratively. He could quote a verse about Gods oneness and declare that the Trinity is true. Just because he quotes a verse does not mean his opinion is correct; it simply means that he has an interpretation of this verse that is not in harmony with others of the brethren.

An apostle standing in conference and saying something based on what is found in the scriptures is not the same as an apostle standing in conference and saying something that isn't found in the scriptures.

In the former case, it doesn't argue against the point to say that doctrine is "only found in the scriptures and the official proclamation", because this idea is found in the scriptures.

And CFR that his interpretation "is not in harmony with others of the brethren".

[orion88]

Thanks for that reference, that is a direct statement in General Conference by an Apostle of Jesus Christ, one who is sustained as a prophet seer and revelator every conference, there is no spectulation there, so for me April 6th is the revealed day ... Everyone knows that if it is not canonized scripture we are not bound to accept it, even if the Church published manuals declare it as such.

Would you elaborate on those things spoken of at a General Conference or written in the church's published

manuals that are lies instead of true "gospel principles?"

[Freedom]

An apostle standing in conference and saying something based on what is found in the scriptures is not the same as an apostle standing in conference and saying something that isn't found in the scriptures.

In the former case, it doesn't argue against the point to say that doctrine is "only found in the scriptures and the official proclamation", because this idea is found in the scriptures.

And CFR that his interpretation "is not in harmony with others of the brethren".

Well I, and the official church opinion disagrees with you.

[cinepro]

Well I, and the official church opinion disagrees with you.

Please cite "the official church opinion" that says maybe Jesus wasn't born on April 6.

Edited December 8, 2011 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Thanks for that reference, that is a direct statement in General Conference by an Apostle of Jesus Christ, one who is sustained as a prophet seer and revelator every conference, there is no spectulation there, so for me April 6th is the revealed day in spite of what the world and the wisdom thereof may tell us. Of course around here the words of an apostle spoken in Conference is meaningless. It does not matter if an apostle says it, if it disagrees with the wisdom of men then it obviously is "just his opinion" and General Conference is not to be accepted as "scripture" according to the learned and the wise so-called intellectuals, that is their personal opinions which one can accept or reject at one's own pleasure. Everyone knows that if it is not canonized scripture we are not bound to accept it, even if the Church published manuals declare it as such. Instead we are supposed to put our trust in scholars and the learned for our understanding of sacred history. But I stand with the apostles and prophets myself, that is why I do not frequent this board as much as I have in times past.

Not only that, but here's The Prophet also saying the same thing in conference!

This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6, 1973, is a particularly significant date because it commemorates not only the anniversary of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.

-President Harold B. Lee, April 1973 General Conference

Two or three witnesses indeed...

Edited December 8, 2011 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not convinced that the familial relationship of John to Jesus, and the fetal John giving praise to Jesus (and related stories) isn't a Lukan construct designed to illustrate the overall (and always intended) lower importance of John compared to his later disciple Jesus, who certainly became greater.

It is true that most scholars see the Gospels as late and expressive of a Sitz im Leben der Kirche. However, stripping the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth from the story still leaves us with a systematic chronology in the Book of Mormon, which is central to our discussion.

[Freedom]

Please cite "the official church opinion" that says maybe Jesus wasn't born on April 6.

Do I have to quote this again? Here it goes:

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and thePearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

The church has made no public pronouncement as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, a publication that was vetted and approved by the first presidency and the quorum of the 12, states that there is no official position. All 12 apostles could stand up in general conference and express the opinion that Jesus was born on April 6th and it would not be doctrine until such proclamations were made official and approved by the members of the church. kapish?

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

[cinepro]

Do I have to quote this again? Here it goes:

I wasn't referring to what is and isn't doctrine.

We are discussing different ideas about the date of Christ's birth, including those ideas taught by Apostles and Prophets in General Conference, and what is taught in the scriptures.

In reference to Elder Scott's statement in General Conference saying that, based on the scriptures, Christ was born on April 6, you said:

Just because he quotes a verse does not mean his opinion is correct; it simply means that he has an interpretation of this verse that is not in harmony with others of the brethren.

You seemed to be claiming that Elder Scott's citing of that verse and his conclusion that Christ was thus born on April 6 is "not in harmony with others of the brethren".

So I'm curious which others of the brethren he is not in harmony with on the matter.

[Freedom]

I wasn't referring to what is and isn't doctrine.

We are discussing different ideas about the date of Christ's birth, including those ideas taught by Apostles and Prophets in General Conference, and what is taught in the scriptures.

In reference to Elder Scott's statement in General Conference saying that, based on the scriptures, Christ was born on April 6, you said:

You seemed to be claiming that Elder Scott's citing of that verse and his conclusion that Christ was thus born on April 6 is "not in harmony with others of the brethren".

So I'm curious which others of the brethren he is not in harmony with on the matter.

You seem to be claiming that because he stated it then it is doctrine. Bruce R McConkie made a statement on the matter, and the First Presidency and the 12 apostles who approved the encyclopedia of mormonism also sanctioned the point that it is unknown. Orson Pratt is an early apostle who did not feel it was on the 6th. My point is that it is not doctrine. The church has not made a pronouncement either way. You wanted a citation where the church says He wasn't born on April 6th. I have demonstrated that the church has not made any pronouncement and that the only document that was vetted by the church which discusses the matter states that we do not know when it was.

[Senator]

I have demonstrated that the church has not made any pronouncement and that the only document that was vetted by the church which discusses the matter states that we do not know when it was.

General conference talks are not vetted by the church?

[Freedom]

General conference talks are not vetted by the church?

No they are not. Everybody writes their own talk and no topics are given. You will find differences between the talks given in conference and the ones printed in the ensign. They are corrected for doctrine or syntax but they do not go through the scrutiny of a major publication. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but the bottom line is that the only source of doctrine is as I stated above.

[Cobalt-70]

I feel your pain . . .

However, the relevant fact about the widely varying views of the Brethren on this matter is that they do not declare their views on the date of Christ's birth as doctrine, and do not attribute to it any salvific value. They are as free to speculate as anyone else.

What is of interest in the speculative realm is the actual substantive content of the Book of Mormon on this matter: The Book of Mormon is part of the official canon of the LDS Church and should carry considerable weight in our discussion. Thus far it has been ignored in favor of quotations of opinions from secondary sources (as Brother Brigham said: "No man's opinion is worth a straw").

The Book of Mormon contains a set of annals in which dating is of supreme importance, from the systematic countdown to the birth of Christ, to the exact length of his life (to the very day of his death!), and to the very year in which the Nephites cease to exist as a people. We have nothing like that in the Bible, although we can combine the two documents to reach meaningful chronological conclusions.

Based on Neo-Babylonian annals, we can date the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah to 587 B.C. (no earlier), and can thus calculate the precise range of dates within which Christ must have been born 600 "years" later. Only one system of dating works, and that is the dominant Long Count Calendar of the Mesoamericans generally (although best known from the Maya): That was the 360-day year count, 600 of which bring us to the 6 - 5 B.C. range. We also know the exact length of Jesus' life (33 years and 3 days). Since we know for certain that Jesus was crucified at Passover, we can easily establish via the Long Count that he had to have been born in the Fall, most likely on 1 Tishri, the Jewish New Year. This is because in that length of time, the Long Count year loses 6 months in relation to the Solar year. The Book of Mormon chronology is right on target and does not contain the anachronisms evident in the NT.

I understand that the consensus of scholars now is that Zedekiah was installed as king in 597 B.C.--considered a firm date--and that Jerusalem was captured in either 587 or 586 B.C. Either way, it causes problems for the chronology listed in the LDS edition of the Book of Mormon, which says that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BC, and that Jesus was born in 1 BC.

Also, I don't buy the use of the Mesoamerican calendar. The idea that Jesus would be born exactly 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem is given in 1 Nephi 19:8, by the words of an angel. Why would the angel speaking to Nephi, a Jew, have used a Mesoamerican calendar, rather than the Jewish calendar?

Edited December 9, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Senator]

They are corrected for doctrine or syntax......

So they are vetted.

[ERayR]

He was born on his birthday, everybody knows that.

[Stargazer]

Knowing I am a heretic for suggesting it (and I have in previous years):

Almost all attempts at dating the birth of Christ hinge off of the death of Herod based on the Matthew account. I really struggle with the account of the Nativity in Matthew, mainly because there is absolutely no corroborating accounts of the "Massacre of Innocents" that Matthew recorded, thus requiring Herod the Great to be alive at the time of the Nativity.

[snip/]

As far as the massacre of the innocents is concerned, Bethlehem was not a large town around the time in question, and the number of troops sent to perform the deed and the number of children actually involved may have been rather low, comparatively speaking, and thus not perhaps something that would have been well documented, if documented at all. Herod was killing all kinds of people for years and years, and this was perhaps not noteworthy enough.

[cinepro]

The church has not made a pronouncement either way. You wanted a citation where the church says He wasn't born on April 6th. I have demonstrated that the church has not made any pronouncement and that the only document that was vetted by the church which discusses the matter states that we do not know when it was.

Now I'm confused. We have the scriptures (D&C 20:1), and a Prophet (President Harold B. Lee) and an Apostle (Elder Richard G. Scott) all saying the same thing about Jesus being born on April 6.

But you say there is a "document" that was "vetted by the Church" that expresses official ambiguity; is the "document" you're referring to the same Encyclopedia of Mormonism that specifically says this:

Those who have written and edited [the Encyclopedia of Mormonism] have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

...or are you referring to a different Encyclopedia of Mormonism that does represent the official position of the Church on such matters?

[Freedom]

Now I'm confused. We have the scriptures (D&C 20:1), and a Prophet (President Harold B. Lee) and an Apostle (Elder Richard G. Scott) all saying the same thing about Jesus being born on April 6.

But you say there is a "document" that was "vetted by the Church" that expresses official ambiguity; is the "document" you're referring to the same Encyclopedia of Mormonism that specifically says this:

...or are you referring to a different Encyclopedia of Mormonism that does represent the official position of the Church on such matters?

The book does not represent doctrine, natural. But it was vetted and the brethren did not have a problem with what was contained in it. You seem to believe that if the brethren say it or approve of it it must be official doctrine. You must do more research on this matter. Regardless, my point stands. The church has never officially declared when he was born. I am not sure why you are having such a difficult time with this simple concept. Unless it is an official declaration or in the scriptures, it is opinion. Why don't you speak to the statement on the church website instead of splitting hairs?

[Robert F. Smith]

I understand that the consensus of scholars now is that Zedekiah was installed as king in 597 B.C.--considered a firm date--and that Jerusalem was captured in either 587 or 586 B.C. Either way, it causes problems for the chronology listed in the LDS edition of the Book of Mormon, which says that Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BC, and that Jesus was born in 1 BC.

Also, I don't buy the use of the Mesoamerican calendar. The idea that Jesus would be born exactly 600 years after Lehi left Jerusalem is given in 1 Nephi 19:8, by the words of an angel. Why would the angel speaking to Nephi, a Jew, have used a Mesoamerican calendar, rather than the Jewish calendar?

Sorry, Cobalt. My bad. I meant to say "597 B.C." Thanks for the correction.

The footnotes to this or that edition of the Book of Mormon are considered metatext and have no scriptural standing. Orson Pratt's notes to the 1879 edition were gutted and brand new notes issued in 1920 by James Talmage, followed by a completely new set of notes in the most recent edition (1981). I knew some of the people who created the newest set of notes, and they were people just like you and me.

360-day temple years were in use in Egypt and in Israel-Judah, but they did not coincide with the agricultural year (which was solar). Indeed, the pre-exilic calendar is little understood and still a matter of controversy.

I mention the Long Count Calendar of Mesoamerica because it was invented by the Olmec and became so dominant that it is hard to conceive of any date there not being part of that sequence. Bear in mind also that the plates of Nephi were not even started until long after the arrival in the New World. I can't speak for the angel, but it seems quite acceptable for an angel to speak in terms of whatever calendar seems appropriate. The prophet receiving the revelation is not required to understand the full implications, but only to pass it on for future consideration.

[Robert F. Smith]

So they are vetted.

Not really. Anyone can watch the former broadcasts and get it as it was given. Very few changes in the printed text are made, if at all.

[Senator]

Not really. Anyone can watch the former broadcasts and get it as it was given. Very few changes in the printed text are made, if at all.

So they are, but the aren't.

I believe there's been discussion here before of some heavy editing of a conference talk. I believe it was Elder Poleman.

[LeSellers]

Why would the angel speaking to Nephi, a Jew, have used a Mesoamerican calendar, rather than the Jewish calendar?

Who said he did?

There were several "Jewish calendars" over the years. The religious calendar was the lunar one we mostly hear about. It had to be intercalated from time to time because, as we all know, the moon and the sun don't work well together as chronographs.

There were at least two others, as I recall, one a secular calendar that corresponded to the Mesoamerican one in many details, notably in its having exactly 360 days in the next smaller unit plus five days that did not coincide with any "month".

As we can easily deduce from the first calendar's intercalation, over time, the solar year and the lunar year would stay pretty well in sync in any case. Six centuries would meet the "over time" condition.

As to the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, I read once that there may have been a second, earlier Zedekiah (which was a throne name, not the personal name, of the king). Lehi would not have known about the reign of the one we usually think about under the name because he'd left Jerusalem before the imposition of the more malleable puppet-king. Sorry I don't recall more about this, and I'm really not feeling well enough to search for it now.

Lehi