April 6Th Birthday ~ Opinion Or Inspired Declaration

[mercyngrace]

I'm fairly sure this topic comes up around December every year but I listened to a great lecture today that makes the argument that Jesus was probably born in September.

If I get around to it, I'll lay the argument out but it's based on the Jewish calendar, when Zacharias would have been in the temple, and relates the various divine events leading up to the birth of Christ to Jewish festivals which adds even more symbolic dimension to each occurrence.

If you'd like to listen to it, you can find it at the website followtherabbi,com The lecture is called The Original Christmas Setting (or something like that).

In the mean time, let me know what you think about the April 6th pronouncements.

[inquiringmind]

I'm fairly sure this topic comes up around December every year but I listened to a great lecture today that makes the argument that Jesus was probably born in September.

If I get around to it, I'll lay the argument out but it's based on the Jewish calendar, when Zacharias would have been in the temple, and relates the various divine events leading up to the birth of Christ to Jewish festivals which adds even more symbolic dimension to each occurrence.

If you'd like to listen to it, you can find it at the website followtherabbi,com The lecture is called The Original Christmas Setting (or something like that).

In the mean time, let me know what you think about the April 6th pronouncements.

A Church I attended in my early twenties believed that Christ was born around this time of year (on or about what they called The Feast of Tabernacles.)

(I think they claimed there was evidence, but I never really looked at it.)

Is the info you heard today from an LDS source?

[David T]

The association of D&C 20:1's fancy and formal way of saying a date with somehow stating Jesus exact birthday doesn't make any sense. Especially taking into consideration that no contemporaries of Joseph Smith appear to have made such a connection.

[mercyngrace]

Is the info you heard today from an LDS source?

No - not an LDS source. The lecture was given by Ray Vander Laan.

[Freedom]

I take it as hyperbole. The church has never stated that the Savior was born on this date. I think we have Cleon Skousen for this literal interpretation of the verse. He had some great things to say but he had absolutely no concept of poetry and ancient linguistic nuances.

[mercyngrace]

I take it as hyperbole. The church has never stated that the Savior was born on this date. I think we have Cleon Skousen for this literal interpretation of the verse. He had some great things to say but he had absolutely no concept of poetry and ancient linguistic nuances.

I'm not sure where it originated but according to this Ensign article, both President Harold B. Lee and President Spencer W. Kimball have affirmed that 6 April on our calendar is the anniversary of the Savior’s birth. (See Ensign, July 1973, p. 2; May 1980, p. 54.)

[Duncan]

Elder Scott gave a talk some years ago in GC saying that he was but who knows for sure if he was or was not, besides it would be extremely cool if Jesus was born in Sept. because that's when I was born!

Edited March 25, 2012 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

Add in that it probably wasn't exactly 1830 years since the birth of the Savior and the verse seems to me even less convincing.

[mercyngrace]

Add in that it probably wasn't exactly 1830 years since the birth of the Savior and the verse seems to me even less convincing.

Isn't the current scholarship putting it between 6 and 4 bc? I can't remember...

[The Nehor]

Isn't the current scholarship putting it between 6 and 4 bc? I can't remember...

I don't know. I stopped following it when it seemed to change by the hour.

[blackstrap]

After one reads the Julian calendar article on wikipedia, and takes a couple of aspirin for the induced headache,the conclusion will be that there is enough slop in the calculations to be able to announce any date in the year for the birth of Christ give or take 6 months.

[Damien the Leper]

Isn't the current scholarship putting it between 6 and 4 bc? I can't remember...

Bruce Metzger, Raymond Brown and Bart Ehrman place his birth in that period. No earlier and no later.

[Log]

After one reads the Julian calendar article on wikipedia, and takes a couple of aspirin for the induced headache,the conclusion will be that there is enough slop in the calculations to be able to announce any date in the year for the birth of Christ give or take 6 months.

I C WAT U DID THAR

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[Stargazer]

I vloted Other. That's because it doesn't matter.

If Jesus said that's his birthday, then that's his birthday. It is much like the Queen of England's official birthday. Whether she was actually born on that day or not, that's when it is celebrated.

It's clear that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, because the circumstances militate against it. But it doesn't matter on what day he was born. If it mattered, then HE would have said something and it would have been mentioned somewhere in canon scripture. It wasn't, so it doesn't. If we celebrate his birthday or not is of no importance whatsoever.

The important things about Jesus, when it comes to events that should be celebrated, are his death, resurrection, and atonement. All the rest is much ado about nothing.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

A Church I attended in my early twenties believed that Christ was born around this time of year (on or about what they called The Feast of Tabernacles.)

(I think they claimed there was evidence, but I never really looked at it.)

Is the info you heard today from an LDS source?

Would that be the Worldwide Church of God? Herbert W. Armstrong?

[thesometimesaint]

I think a good case can be made for sometime in the early to mid spring some two thousand years ago. Beyond that it makes no difference to me.

[Robert F. Smith]

Would that be the Worldwide Church of God? Herbert W. Armstrong?

Very likely. No other group makes an issue of it than Armstrong and his followers, including Garner Ted's offshoot.

However, the systematic chronology within the Book of Mormon allows only an autumnal Nativity (between 6 to 4 B.C.), and, at the same time, the early Christian liturgy for Christmas is taken directly from the Jewish liturgy for New Year - Tabernacles in the Autumn. There are a number of other reasons why such a synchronism is most reasonable, but, as pointed out on this thread, one's salvation doesn't depend on such issues.

[BCSpace]

I'm not sure where it originated but according to this Ensign article, both President Harold B. Lee and President Spencer W. Kimball have affirmed that 6 April on our calendar is the anniversary of the Savior’s birth. (See Ensign, July 1973, p. 2; May 1980, p. 54.)

Which makes it official doctrine of course though not a very important one imho. Just by the way I read it, I personally don't see how D&C 20:1 is an express statement of the specific date of Jesus' birth, just a general statement of how long ago it was.

IIRC, there is a similar problem with the location of the Garden of Eden being placed in North America but the verses used to show that only specify the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman, a place where Adam spoke to his posterity some 900 years after the Fall. A lot of movement can happen in that time period.

Eden

See also Adam; Eve.

The home of our first parents, Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:8–3:24; 4:16; 2 Ne. 2:19–25; Moses 3, 4; Abr. 5), designated as a garden, eastward in Eden. Adam and Eve were sent out of Eden after eating of the forbidden fruit and becoming mortal (Moses 4:29). Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of the Garden of Eden. It adds the important information that the garden was located on what is now the North American continent (D&C 116; 117:.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/eden?lang=eng

[Damien the Leper]

Which makes it official doctrine of course though not a very important one imho. Just by the way I read it, I personally don't see how D&C 20:1 is an express statement of the specific date of Jesus' birth, just a general statement of how long ago it was.

IIRC, there is a similar problem with the location of the Garden of Eden being placed in North America but the verses used to show that only specify the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman, a place where Adam spoke to his posterity some 900 years after the Fall. A lot of movement can happen in that time period.

I never got the impression that the Ensign constituted as doctrine. It contains doctrinal elements at best but it isn't scripture. The opinions on the time of Jesus' birth are just that and not necessarily revelatory. History places his birth in the Fall. This also taught academically. The establishment of the LDS church as an organization does not coincide with Jesus' birth.

Furthermore, the Garden of Eden does not reside in the state of Missouri. At least there is no evidence for such a claim.

In the end, these are simple musings and ideas propagated by LDS lore.

[Traela]

Very likely. No other group makes an issue of it than Armstrong and his followers, including Garner Ted's offshoot.

However, the systematic chronology within the Book of Mormon allows only an autumnal Nativity (between 6 to 4 B.C.), and, at the same time, the early Christian liturgy for Christmas is taken directly from the Jewish liturgy for New Year - Tabernacles in the Autumn. There are a number of other reasons why such a synchronism is most reasonable, but, as pointed out on this thread, one's salvation doesn't depend on such issues.

In 3rd Nephi, we read that the events surrounding the Crucifixion began on the 4th day of the 1st month. Since we know for certain that this happened in late March or early April, the Nephites would have had to have changed their New Year at some time.

[Lachoneus]

The association of D&C 20:1's fancy and formal way of saying a date with somehow stating Jesus exact birthday doesn't make any sense.

It made a lot of sense to a number of General Authorities.

On 6 April 1973 Harold B. Lee said:

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. Joseph Smith wrote this, preceding a revelation given at that same date:

“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” (D&C 20:1.)

(Harold B. Lee, Ensign, July 1973, 2)

In the April 1975 annual conference of the Church, President Spencer W. Kimball commented that

“the name Jesus Christ and what it represents has been plowed deep into the history of the world, never to be uprooted. Christ was born on the sixth of April. Being one of the sons of God and His Only Begotten, his birth is of supreme importance.”

(Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, May 1975, 4)

On 6 April 1980 Spencer W. Kimball added:

“My brothers and sisters, today we not only celebrate the Sesquicentennial of the organization of the Church, but also the greatest event in human history since the birth of Christ on this day 1,980 years ago. Today is Easter Sunday.

(Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, May 1980, 54)

On 6th April 1997 Elder Richard G. Scott, speaking in General Conference said,

It is April 6th. Modern scripture records that Jesus Christ was born on this day. Humbly I speak of this glorious being to whom each of us owes so very much. I know that what the scriptures teach of Him is true and will use some of them in expressing personal feelings.

(Richard G. Scott, “Jesus Christ, Our Redeemer,” Ensign 53 (May 1997))

In Jesus the Christ James Talmage wrote:

As to the season of the year in which Christ was born, there is among the learned as great a diversity of opinion as that relating to the year itself. It is claimed by many Biblical scholars that December 25th, the day celebrated in Christendom as Christmas, cannot be the correct date. We believe April 6th to be the birthday of Jesus Christ as indicated in a revelation of the present dispensation already cited, in which that day is made without qualification the completion of the one thousand eight hundred and thirtieth year since the coming of the Lord in the flesh. This acceptance is admittedly based on faith in modern revelation, and in no wise is set forth as the result of chronological research or analysis. We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1.

(James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ 98)

I have decided to stay with these statements of the Brethren until something more authoritative comes along. Anyone who wants to listen to other sources is certainly free to do so, but I figure that even if I am wrong, I will be in good company.

In 3rd Nephi, we read that the events surrounding the Crucifixion began on the 4th day of the 1st month. Since we know for certain that this happened in late March or early April, the Nephites would have had to have changed their New Year at some time.

See 3 Nephi 2:8.

Another reason to think that Christ was born in early April.

[Sky]

I've always thought that Jesus was born on or close to April 6th. But we don't definitively know one way or the other. But the fact that the Lord told Joseph to organize the Church on the precise day of April 6, 1830 is not a trivial thing or by chance, IMHO.

[JAHS]

Interesting Deseret News article about this which says:

"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation. The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses "shouldn't be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ," Harper said. "The interpretation that has been most popular over time is very much subject to question"

http://www.deseretne...esus-birth.html

Edited March 26, 2012 by JAHS

[Freedom]

Interesting Deseret News article about this which says:

"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation. The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses "shouldn't be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ," Harper said. "The interpretation that has been most popular over time is very much subject to question"

http://www.deseretne...esus-birth.html

thanks for this link. I have read a few comments by church leaders on this topic. I often hear the quotes that support the april 6th date but those that disagree are ignored. The same approach is taken with evolution and other such controversies. The evidence suggests that the savior was born in the spring, but as this article reminds us, we just cannot be certain of the exact date.

[BCSpace]

Which makes it official doctrine of course though not a very important one imho. Just by the way I read it, I personally don't see how D&C 20:1 is an express statement of the specific date of Jesus' birth, just a general statement of how long ago it was.

IIRC, there is a similar problem with the location of the Garden of Eden being placed in North America but the verses used to show that only specify the location of Adam-ondi-Ahman, a place where Adam spoke to his posterity some 900 years after the Fall. A lot of movement can happen in that time period.

I never got the impression that the Ensign constituted as doctrine. It contains doctrinal elements at best but it isn't scripture.

Publication is the standard for doctrine (see my siggy) and the Church does not publish that which is not doctrine without so identifying. The apostles and prophets establish doctrine from the scriptures (et. al.), but scripture alone does not contain or tell what the doctrine is.

The opinions on the time of Jesus' birth are just that and not necessarily revelatory.

I agree. Yet the Church has established it as doctrine. The Church believes it to be true and while doctrine can change with new information/revelation, we have to decide whether or not we agree with the doctrine.

History places his birth in the Fall. This also taught academically.

I don't agree but I don't deny the possibility.

The establishment of the LDS church as an organization does not coincide with Jesus' birth.

Again, I agree. The LDS Church does not.

Furthermore, the Garden of Eden does not reside in the state of Missouri. At least there is no evidence for such a claim.

Also agreed. Yet the doctrine specifically states "North America" Considering the fact that I also agree with scientific evolution (and claim it does not conflict with LDS doctrine on the creation), I can handle a Garden in any location, be it North America or Africa.