April 6Th Birthday ~ Opinion Or Inspired Declaration

[thesometimesaint]

No one knows for sure but I believe the GoE was in what is today northern Iran.

[JAHS]

I think that even though a few apostles have indicated that April 6 is the birth date of Jesus I tend to believe it is still just their opinion which may or may not be correct, even though their opinions have been printed in the church magazine. Knowing the date of something would not be considered a point of doctrine that is essential to my eternal life, nor would it be something that God would need to reveal to a prophet. IMHO.

[rameumptom]

Current research on the Joseph Smith Papers Project show that D&C 20:1 was not part of the original revelation, but was added by the scribe as an introduction. Later, it somehow became part and parcel of the revelation. It was B.H. Roberts who first suggested from this verse that Jesus' birthday was 6 April, 1 BC. So, GAs that support that belief are actually just following a tradition that is only a century old.

Jesus' birth likely had to be between 4-6 BC, because Herod the Great died in 4 BC. If we are to believe the Bible's birth stories, which include Herod seeking Jesus' death, then Jesus could not have been born in 1 BC, or we have to determine that the wise men/Herod story is not true.

[Duncan]

Current research on the Joseph Smith Papers Project show that D&C 20:1 was not part of the original revelation, but was added by the scribe as an introduction. Later, it somehow became part and parcel of the revelation. It was B.H. Roberts who first suggested from this verse that Jesus' birthday was 6 April, 1 BC. So, GAs that support that belief are actually just following a tradition that is only a century old.

Jesus' birth likely had to be between 4-6 BC, because Herod the Great died in 4 BC. If we are to believe the Bible's birth stories, which include Herod seeking Jesus' death, then Jesus could not have been born in 1 BC, or we have to determine that the wise men/Herod story is not true.

not to be pitnicky or whatnot but how could Jesus be born in 1 BC if "BC" stands for before Christ? or could it mean he was born in British Columbia?!

[Freedom]

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.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

I do not think the church statement supports your opinion. Yes the publications contain doctrine but the doctrine resides in the standard works, not in the magazines. The grocery store contains healthy food that is consistently proclaimed in their fliers, but this does not mean that all their food is healthy.

[BCSpace]

I do not think the church statement supports your opinion.

It's not my opinion, the the Church's own stance. For example, the Church publications are referenced for use in teaching the doctrine and keeping the doctrine pure in Teaching, No Greater Call. Not too long ago in training on the new CHI, it was held up while the statement "it is doctrine" was made. No vote was held. No equivocation was made. That is the Church's position on all it's publications. it does not publish that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such.

Yes the publications contain doctrine but the doctrine resides in the standard works, not in the magazines. The grocery store contains healthy food that is consistently proclaimed in their fliers, but this does not mean that all their food is healthy.

That is the incorrect way to view the Church's statement. While the doctrine resides in the standard works, etc. only the apostles and prophets can establish the doctrine from them. Neither you nor I can tell, for example, if the water in John 3:5 means water baptism or physical birth. It takes an official publication in which the doctrine is established for that. The same can be said for many LDS doctrines that aren't necessarily clear or detailed in the scriptures. That is why we have apostles and prophets in the first place and why Sola Scriptura is not part of our religion. There is no doctrine for the apostles and prophets to establish if the scriptures are all there is.

Edited March 26, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

not to be pitnicky or whatnot but how could Jesus be born in 1 BC if "BC" stands for before Christ? or could it mean he was born in British Columbia?!

There is no "year 0". The year after 1 BC is 1 AD. BC/AD were established based on one particular theory. However, some theories actually place Jesus' birth in 4 BC.

[David T]

Not too long ago in training on the new CHI, it was held up while the statement "it is doctrine" was made.

No, he said "It is doctrinal", IE, founded on principles disseminated from points of doctrine. See the transcript online. It was Elder Oaks.

"Handbook 2, which is the book most of you will use, is focused on the salvation of the children of God and the strengthening of their families. It is doctrinal, and it is shorter than the prior handbook because on many subjects it refrains from stating rules or giving directions. Instead, it gives principles that inspired leaders can apply to administer Church programs according to their local circumstances. "

He goes into more detail in the previous training.

Edited March 26, 2012 by David T

[Damien the Leper]

not to be pitnicky or whatnot but how could Jesus be born in 1 BC if "BC" stands for before Christ? or could it mean he was born in British Columbia?!

I find it to be less confusing when I use BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). It's what we use in academia at least.

[LeSellers]

I find it to be less confusing when I use BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era). It's what we use in academia at least.

It's also very PC, a position many find to be a slap in the face of the predominant culture in the West (i.e., Christianity).

There is nothing wrong with the traditional abbreviations, BC and AD. But people love to take offense, and they love to rebel against the very notion of there being a God.

What is the difference between BCE and BC, between CE and AD? In a word, sir, nothing, nothing useful at all.

Lehi

[JAHS]

It's not my opinion, the the Church's own stance. For example, the Church publications are referenced for use in teaching the doctrine and keeping the doctrine pure in Teaching, No Greater Call. Not too long ago in training on the new CHI, it was held up while the statement "it is doctrine" was made. No vote was held. No equivocation was made. That is the Church's position on all it's publications. it does not publish that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such.

That is the incorrect way to view the Church's statement. While the doctrine resides in the standard works, etc. only the apostles and prophets can establish the doctrine from them. Neither you nor I can tell, for example, if the water in John 3:5 means water baptism or physical birth. It takes an official publication in which the doctrine is established for that. The same can be said for many LDS doctrines that aren't necessarily clear or detailed in the scriptures. That is why we have apostles and prophets in the first place and why Sola Scriptura is not part of our religion. There is no doctrine for the apostles and prophets to establish if the scriptures are all there is.

I think it depends on wht one calls "doctrine". In my opinion knowing the exact date that Jesus was born is not doctrine; it's trivia.

[Damien the Leper]

It's not my opinion, the the Church's own stance. For example, the Church publications are referenced for use in teaching the doctrine and keeping the doctrine pure in Teaching, No Greater Call. Not too long ago in training on the new CHI, it was held up while the statement "it is doctrine" was made. No vote was held. No equivocation was made. That is the Church's position on all it's publications. it does not publish that which is not doctrine without identifying it as such.

That is the incorrect way to view the Church's statement. While the doctrine resides in the standard works, etc. only the apostles and prophets can establish the doctrine from them. Neither you nor I can tell, for example, if the water in John 3:5 means water baptism or physical birth. It takes an official publication in which the doctrine is established for that. The same can be said for many LDS doctrines that aren't necessarily clear or detailed in the scriptures. That is why we have apostles and prophets in the first place and why Sola Scriptura is not part of our religion. There is no doctrine for the apostles and prophets to establish if the scriptures are all there is.

Says who? CFR that the church magazines are official doctrine. As stated before, the magazines have doctrinal elements but they are far from the top tier of scriptural doctrine found in the standard works. This was discussed in an institute class a few years ago. The teacher, also the institute director, stated that scripture and official doctrine are in the standard works. He also stated that the magazines and general conference addresses are in no way "scripture" or are to be views as such.

[Damien the Leper]

It's also very PC, a position many find to be a slap in the face of the predominant culture in the West (i.e., Christianity).

There is nothing wrong with the traditional abbreviations, BC and AD. But people love to take offense, and they love to rebel against the very notion of there being a God.

What is the difference between BCE and BC, between CE and AD? In a word, sir, nothing, nothing useful at all.

Lehi

Ease up, Lehi. I meant no disrespect. The terms I used are for historical and academic purposes. When talking about theology and spiritual matters I use the traditional terms to avoid that confusion.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with either set of terminology.

[BCSpace]

That is the incorrect way to view the Church's statement. While the doctrine resides in the standard works, etc. only the apostles and prophets can establish the doctrine from them. Neither you nor I can tell, for example, if the water in John 3:5 means water baptism or physical birth. It takes an official publication in which the doctrine is established for that. The same can be said for many LDS doctrines that aren't necessarily clear or detailed in the scriptures. That is why we have apostles and prophets in the first place and why Sola Scriptura is not part of our religion. There is no doctrine for the apostles and prophets to establish if the scriptures are all there is.

Says who? CFR that the church magazines are official doctrine.

They are an official publication of the Church, the standard for doctrine. See my siggy below to the Church's statement. See also Teaching, No Greater Call on Teaching the Doctrine and Keeping the Doctrine Pure.

As stated before, the magazines have doctrinal elements

The Church does not knowingly allow that which is not doctine to be published in any of it's publications.

but they are far from the top tier of scriptural doctrine found in the standard works.

Definitely not far, but in another sense, they are more important than the scriptures c.f. the John 3:5 example above.

This was discussed in an institute class a few years ago. The teacher, also the institute director, stated that scripture and official doctrine are in the standard works. He also stated that the magazines and general conference addresses are in no way "scripture" or are to be views as such.

This is true. I agree with everything you reported him saying. The doctrine resides in the standard works etc. It takes the apostles and prophets to establish that doctrine, not us, and officially publish it (the web site, the magazines, the manuals, the hymnbooks, etc.) as the Church itself has stated (siggy) I have not proposed that the magazines or manuals etc. are canon or scripture. But I do recognize, as the Church does, that official doctrine is not necessarily scripture.

We do have a thread dedicated to this topic:

http://www.mormondia...e/page__st__220

It's going to come up from time to time on these and other threads and it's nobody's fault that it does. The Church has officially published it's doctrine and I am going to refer to that doctrine as official doctrine in any number of threads on any number of subjects as will others.

Edited March 26, 2012 by BCSpace

[LeSellers]

Ease up, Lehi. I meant no disrespect. The terms I used are for historical and academic purposes. When talking about theology and spiritual matters I use the traditional terms to avoid that confusion.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with either set of terminology.

I disagree.

When two terms unambiguously describe precisely the same thing, the choice to use one or the other may depend on the audience (I know it does when I write). But when the audience's preference is blatantly bigoted, we ought to see the prejudice and call it what it is. In this case. using "BCE" or "CE" in academia is not justified by a claim of clarity—it is often pure disdain for Christianity. After all, we don't want to offend those who are not Christians, do we?

But it is plain that "not offending" one group is offensive to others. It is incomprehensible to accept that the better group to avoid offending is the minority. Why do academics routinely offend Christians and not non-Christians? It would have nothing to do with a Christian's propensity to follow Christ's commandment to "turn the other cheek", would it? I mean it is rare (albeit not unknown) for a Christian to flair up in rage and behead someone who offended his God, while others do so frequently.

Maybe it's simply that some academics are cowards? Maybe some really do despise Christianity. For some, maybe both are true. One thing it is not, and that is respectful of Christianity.

BTW, my own research leads me to believe that Jesus' birthday is 6 April. Herod died between a lunar eclipse and a Passover. One eclipse that gets rare mention was (date corrected for the Gregorian calendar) on 10 Jan of what we know as 1 BC. This allows for an April 1 BC Nativity. (It also allows all of the things that Herod experienced in the time after the eclipse and his death. Josephus is explicit and the list is long, too long to accommodate the traditional Mar 4 bc eclipse and its Passover.) Jesus was ~29½ when John baptized Him in ad 29. The wrong man, Varus, was "governor" of Judea in 4 bc.

Some Jewish traditions also make it the date of Isaac's birth, and Isaac was a "prototype" of Christ.

Jesus was ~29½ when John baptized Him in ad 29. The wrong man, Varus, was "governor" of Judea in 4 bc.

But no matter when it was, it is not a war-stopper for me.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

"The Church does not knowingly allow that which is not doctine to be published in any of it's publications".

I don't think that is true. Many times the Church has in its magazines published things that are not its actual doctrine. IE; Hugh Nibley published in The Improvement Era his ideas about the location of the Nephites empire in what is now known as qancient Mesoamerica. The Church has no doctrine as to the actual location of the Nephite empire. I'm not saying that Nibley is wrong, I believe he is right on his contention. But my agreement with and its publication in Church magazines doesn't make it doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

We don't use the Jewish calander. Is that a slight to Jews? We don't use the Chinese calander is that a slight to the Chinese? We don't use the Mayan calander is that a slight to the Mayans religion?

[LeSellers]

We don't use the Jewish calander. Is that a slight to Jews? We don't use the Chinese calander is that a slight to the Chinese? We don't use the Mayan calander is that a slight to the Mayans religion?

So, are you saying there's a difference between the BC/AD calendar and the BCE/CE calendar? If they're the same calendars, and they are, then the change from BC to BCE and AD to CE is nothing but cosmetic, designed to hide the "flaws" in the traditional, Christian terminology. Of course, the "flaws" are mythical, supposedly there because non-Christians would be offended. If there's any other reason for using them, what is it?

We don't use the calendars you mentioned because they either don't work well for our purposes, or, working well, a change to them would be needlessly painful. We have had a traditional calendar since the Julian version centuries ago. The minor adjustment to the modern Gregorian calendar was traumatic for many: they thought the Pope had stolen 11 days* from their lives.

* The number of days in the shift depended on when the country adopted it.

What is the justification for using the "academic" terminology? We've seen "clarification" cited, but I believe that to be a smokescreen since the one is no more clear than the other.

Lehi

Edited March 27, 2012 by LeSellers

[BCSpace]

"The Church does not knowingly allow that which is not doctine to be published in any of it's publications".

I don't think that is true.

I'm quite certain it is true and holds even before Correlation though in that case there was more of an assumption of trust that the authors would get it right.

Many times the Church has in its magazines published things that are not its actual doctrine.

This is true and such can be known by context or direct statement.

IE; Hugh Nibley published in The Improvement Era his ideas about the location of the Nephites empire in what is now known as qancient Mesoamerica. The Church has no doctrine as to the actual location of the Nephite empire. I'm not saying that Nibley is wrong, I believe he is right on his contention. But my agreement with and its publication in Church magazines doesn't make it doctrine.

So what is the context? If Nibley said something like "in my opinion" or "leads me to conclude" or "my idea" etc. or if the Chuch said something like "this is Nibley's research" then the doctrine would be that such and such is Nibley's opinion or research. This would merely be taking the Church at it's own word which is exactly what anyone would expect one to do. Perhaps you should answer in the thread dedicated to this subject so we don't derail this one.

[Freedom]

It's not my opinion, the the Church's own stance.

No, it is your opinion. the church has made it very clear that the doctrine is found in the standard works only. Other publications contain doctrine, but not all things published in other publications is doctrine. Otherwise we are left with contradicting doctrines in the magazines. You are welcome to your opinion, but the church statement you quote contradicts it. In my opinion.

[BCSpace]

It's not my opinion, the the Church's own stance.

No, it is your opinion. the church has made it very clear that the doctrine is found in the standard works only.

No, the Church has never said that at any time. In the 2007 statment, the Church said the doctrine resides there and that the apostles and prophets establish it and publish it. I don't disagree with any of that. It has also been established by reference in the other thread dedicated to this topic that the Church considers these other publications to be official doctrine, even using such descriptors as "voice of the Church".

Edited March 26, 2012 by BCSpace

[Damien the Leper]

I disagree.

When two terms unambiguously describe precisely the same thing, the choice to use one or the other may depend on the audience (I know it does when I write). But when the audience's preference is blatantly bigoted, we ought to see the prejudice and call it what it is. In this case. using "BCE" or "CE" in academia is not justified by a claim of clarity—it is often pure disdain for Christianity. After all, we don't want to offend those who are not Christians, do we?

But it is plain that "not offending" one group is offensive to others. It is incomprehensible to accept that the better group to avoid offending is the minority. Why do academics routinely offend Christians and not non-Christians? It would have nothing to do with a Christian's propensity to follow Christ's commandment to "turn the other cheek", would it? I mean it is rare (albeit not unknown) for a Christian to flair up in rage and behead someone who offended his God, while others do so frequently.

Maybe it's simply that some academics are cowards? Maybe some really do despise Christianity. For some, maybe both are true. One thing it is not, and that is respectful of Christianity.

BTW, my own research leads me to believe that Jesus' birthday is 6 April. Herod died between a lunar eclipse and a Passover. One eclipse that gets rare mention was (date corrected for the Gregorian calendar) on 10 Jan of what we know as 1 BC. This allows for an April 1 BC Nativity. (It also allows all of the things that Herod experienced in the time after the eclipse and his death. Josephus is explicit and the list is long, too long to accommodate the traditional Mar 4 bc eclipse and its Passover.) Jesus was ~29½ when John baptized Him in ad 29. The wrong man, Varus, was "governor" of Judea in 4 bc.

Some Jewish traditions also make it the date of Isaac's birth, and Isaac was a "prototype" of Christ.

Jesus was ~29½ when John baptized Him in ad 29. The wrong man, Varus, was "governor" of Judea in 4 bc.

But no matter when it was, it is not a war-stopper for me.

Lehi

Thank you for the historical insight. I was not aware of this information.

Whether or not academics or others use BCE and CE to show disrespect or disdain for Christianity is not important to me. What is important to me is that I respectfully use both sets of terminology depending on the audience. For example, if I were to give a lecture on Biblical history, I would use BCE and CE. I would use the others if I were speaking to a faith group.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

The Passover has always begun on the 15th day the first month. So assuming that Jesus was killed soon after the Passover, the Book of Mormon date is not a Jewish calendar date, nor is it a date from the Julian or Gregorian calendars, or any other known calendar. It also has no direct connection to any of the solstices or equinoxes, nor to the phases of the moon.

[Cobalt-70]

When two terms unambiguously describe precisely the same thing, the choice to use one or the other may depend on the audience (I know it does when I write). But when the audience's preference is blatantly bigoted, we ought to see the prejudice and call it what it is. In this case. using "BCE" or "CE" in academia is not justified by a claim of clarity—it is often pure disdain for Christianity. After all, we don't want to offend those who are not Christians, do we?

There are plenty of Christian writers who use BCE and CE. In fact, CE can also stand for "Christian Era." It is by no means an expression of bigotry, or a concession to bigots. It arose in the 1700s as an English translation of the earlier Latin term that distinguished the dating system from regnal dating systems. It uses "common" in the sense of "not regnal."

The use of "BCE" and "CE" is not part of a war on Jesus. Christians can say it means "Christian Era" while Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else can say it means "Common Era." That's the beauty of abbreviations.

[Doctor Steuss]

<---- Born April 6th