April 6Th Birthday ~ Opinion Or Inspired Declaration

[Thinking]

I graduated from high school 31 years ago. Do you assume from this statement that my graduation date was March 28, 1981? I hope not.

Why then do some LDS believe that D&C 20:1 reveals Jesus' birthday as April 6th?

[LeSellers]

Why then do some LDS believe that D&C 20:1 reveals Jesus' birthday as April 6th?

Based on that alone, I doubt that many do.

But there is a heap of other evidence supporting the idea.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

You seem to be claiming that if it appears in any Church publications, including the Church magazines, it is doctrine. That is clearly not the case. If that is not what you are saying please clarify.

BTW. it doesn't really matter to me exactly when Jesus was born. With the changes in calanders over the last two thousand years 8-10 years +/- just doesn't make any difference to me.

[BCSpace]

You seem to be claiming that if it appears in any Church publications, including the Church magazines, it is doctrine. That is clearly not the case.

I've defended and demonstrated the Church's unchanging (for the last 40 years at least) position on it's own doctrine on this and other boards for about a decade so I think you already know that I am saying this is the case. This is what the Church teaches specifically to those called to teach and also conveniently summarized and reaffirmed in the 2007 statement which I link to in my siggy. This is how we enforce the teaching of the doctrine in every Stake when a doctrinal question or conundrum arises. Only two questions really need be asked in the application of this imho: "Have you found it in an official publication?" and perhaps "Have you considered together all the statements on the matter in the various publications as part of your study?". In some cases, both sides of the argument can be right.

This is why the better apologetic is to admit the doctrine, rather than deny it, and then state you personally don't accept it (if such is the case). Such prevents one from implicitly criticizing the Church for having published and taught it's own doctrines and places the onus of belief squarely on where it belongs, on one's self. The bottom line remains that the 15 apostles and prophets continue to establish and publish doctrine in official publications. Have you considered the latest Institute manual on the Book of Mormon for example?

I guarantee you that one has NEVER explained most of the Church's doctrines to someone else using the scriptures alone without also stating something not found in the scriptures but in some official publication; knowingly or unknowingly. That itself is evidence of the Restoration, that the doctrines, which are essentially the interpretations of scripture etc. merely reside in scripture until established by the prophets (not by private interpretation) and are placed into, and approved by them, the official publications.

Edited March 28, 2012 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

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

Even if that were the case, it doesn't help out in this discussion because D&C 20:1 is part of the standard works, and it can certainly be read as saying Jesus was born on April, 6, 1BC. Add in the many times latter day Prophets and Apostles have publicly taught that this verse is teaching exactly that, and it's a pretty solid reason to believe it as far as many LDS are concerned.

Edited March 28, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

My requirements for doctrine are pretty simple. Find it in the Scriptures, and have it make sense. That way allows for what is actual doctrine, and allows for the errors of men.

[BCSpace]

Even if that were the case, it doesn't help out in this discussion because D&C 20:1 is part of the standard works, and it can certainly be read as saying Jesus was born on April, 6, 1830.

Which speaks to the fact that the scriptures are not of private interpretation.

Add in the many times latter day Prophets and Apostles have publicly taught that this verse is teaching exactly that, and it's a pretty solid reason to believe it as far as many LDS are concerned.

That would be the official doctrine. The prophets have clarified (and in many case added to) the scriptures. The doctrine is obviously not very important and in this case, I don't necessarily agree with it because of the way I parse English. But then again, neither I or JS and apparently many others are not very good at English hence the prophets have spoken on this issue.

[BCSpace]

My requirements for doctrine are pretty simple. Find it in the Scriptures, and have it make sense. That way allows for what is actual doctrine, and allows for the errors of men.

That's okay. The Church does not force you to believe it's doctrine. But the Church does define what it's doctrine is and it's not "scripture only".

[LeSellers]

it can certainly be read as saying Jesus was born on April, 6, 1830.

I believe you meant "... as saying Jesus was born on April 6, 1 BC."

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

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

Ps. I believe we need to be very careful about accepting ones words as the final say. IE; TTBOMK the Chuch has never repudiated Pi. Yet right there in the Bible it has Pi as equal to exactly three.

Edited March 28, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[BCSpace]

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

Amen. Notice the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures but is established by the prophets and proclaimed in official publications. Notice that you can't tell what the water in John 3:5 means (water baptism or physical birth as the EV's say) without referring somehow to an official publication. Neither you nor I are authorized to give our own private interpretations of what the scriptures say and that is why the prophets establish the doctrine in official publications. The same goes for opportunity for marriage in the afterlife or abortion, etc. etc. etc. Those are not found in the scriptures yet we have doctrine on them. And even, as we can see in this thread, whether or not D&C 20:1 has direct bearing on when Jesus was born.

Edited March 28, 2012 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

I believe you meant "... as saying Jesus was born on April 6, 1 BC."

Lehi

Indeed.

Edited March 28, 2012 by cinepro

[Robert F. Smith]

Posted 4 days ago

Robert F. Smith, on 25 March 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

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.

Of course, you are correct that we know that Jesus was crucified at Jewish Passover in the Spring, and you are right to suggest that the Nephite calendar underwent change in the New World. 3rd Nephi even gives us the exact length of life of Jesus, 33 years and 3 days, which is crucial in determining that he was born in the Autumn. Howso? We have a series of absolute and relative dates to go by:

Clan Lehi leaves Jerusalem in 597-596 B.C., the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah. A prophecy states that Jesus Christ will be born 600 years after Lehi leaves Jerusalem, and the systematic chronology internal to the Book of Mormon counts down to that event, and then counts from there to his Crucifixion.

However, the Long Count system used in Mesoamerica then was a count of 360-day years, not our solar years. Indeed, in the absence of such a count, the sequence of 600 "years" between the first year of Zedekiah and the death of Herod the Great is impossible. Moreover, 33 years and three days in a 360-day year count loses 6 months of time relative to our solar calendar (by which we calculate the Julian or Gregorian date of Jesus' Crucifixion), forcing us to conclude that Jesus was born in the Autumn during Jewish Rosh-HaShana/Sukkot, and most likely on New Year's Day itself, the Day of Trumpets.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

It is not true that "neither you nor I can" determine for ourselves what is true doctrine. It is a fundamental tenet of LDS faith that anyone can determine true doctrine through the power of the Holy Spirit. Brother Brigham used to worry that members often sought to live on "borrowed light," instead of finding out for themselves what was true. It is that testimony which separates us from Protestant sola scriptura, or from Roman Catholic authoritarian declarations.

It is true that the Prophet will guide and direct us, and that he and the First Presidency will occasionally make formal declarations of doctrine. We are then free to seek confirmation for ourselves via the Holy Spirit. Not every comment (published or not) of the Prophet and his associates constitutes doctrine, as we should learn from the systematic statement on such matters at http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You are correct, Lehi.

Jews were sometimes offended at having to use "A.D.," since it implied worship of Jesus (Anno Domini = "year of our Lord"), so they introduced BCE "before the common era" and CE the "common era" as harmless substitutes.

Bob

[thesometimesaint]

While Jesus could have been born at any time of the year. It does seem unlikely that shephers would be out in the fields in November/December in Israel. Those months are rather cold with not a lot of feed for sheep. Spring is considered the best time to visit.

[Robert F. Smith]

While Jesus could have been born at any time of the year. It does seem unlikely that shephers would be out in the fields in November/December in Israel. Those months are rather cold with not a lot of feed for sheep. Spring is considered the best time to visit.

Amen, Brother.

[LeSellers]

While Jesus could have been born at any time of the year. It does seem unlikely that shephers would be out in the fields in November/December in Israel. Those months are rather cold with not a lot of feed for sheep. Spring is considered the best time to visit.

In addition, sheep (and goats) lamb (or kid) in the spring, rarely any other time. This gives the Jews lambs "of the first year" ready to be offered at Passover, whereas a hypothetical lamb born in October would be too small to be a meal for a large gathering of family, as the Seder is.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

In addition, sheep (and goats) lamb (or kid) in the spring, rarely any other time. This gives the Jews lambs "of the first year" ready to be offered at Passover, whereas a hypothetical lamb born in October would be too small to be a meal for a large gathering of family, as the Seder is.

Lehi

Is there a scriptural reference I've forgotten that says the sheep and lambs were birthing when Christ was born?

[mercyngrace]

However, the Long Count system used in Mesoamerica then was a count of 360-day years, not our solar years. Indeed, in the absence of such a count, the sequence of 600 "years" between the first year of Zedekiah and the death of Herod the Great is impossible. Moreover, 33 years and three days in a 360-day year count loses 6 months of time relative to our solar calendar (by which we calculate the Julian or Gregorian date of Jesus' Crucifixion), forcing us to conclude that Jesus was born in the Autumn during Jewish Rosh-HaShana/Sukkot, and most likely on New Year's Day itself, the Day of Trumpets.

That's what Ray said in the lecture I mentioned in the opening post.

[LeSellers]

Is there a scriptural reference I've forgotten that says the sheep and lambs were birthing when Christ was born?

The shepherds were in the fields. That happens only when the ewes are lambing. Otherwise, they are in the fold at night, and the shepherds are in their beds, asleep.

Lehi

[mercyngrace]

The shepherds were in the fields. That happens only when the ewes are lambing. Otherwise, they are in the fold at night, and the shepherds are in their beds, asleep.

Lehi

ahhh okay. I see your logic.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It is also the same day Israel went into and left Egypt. Thus the Passover. 430 to the day.

[Mark Beesley]

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.

No! No! No! Valentinus . . . Don't go there with BC Space. It's like a black hole from whence rational thoujght finds no escape!!!!

[Mark Beesley]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

I've defended and demonstrated the Church's unchanging (for the last 40 years at least) position on it's own doctrine on this and other boards for about a decade so I think you already know that I am saying this is the case. This is what the Church teaches specifically to those called to teach and also conveniently summarized and reaffirmed in the 2007 statement which I link to in my siggy. This is how we enforce the teaching of the doctrine in every Stake when a doctrinal question or conundrum arises. Only two questions really need be asked in the application of this imho: "Have you found it in an official publication?" and perhaps "Have you considered together all the statements on the matter in the various publications as part of your study?". In some cases, both sides of the argument can be right.

This is why the better apologetic is to admit the doctrine, rather than deny it, and then state you personally don't accept it (if such is the case). Such prevents one from implicitly criticizing the Church for having published and taught it's own doctrines and places the onus of belief squarely on where it belongs, on one's self. The bottom line remains that the 15 apostles and prophets continue to establish and publish doctrine in official publications. Have you considered the latest Institute manual on the Book of Mormon for example?

I guarantee you that one has NEVER explained most of the Church's doctrines to someone else using the scriptures alone without also stating something not found in the scriptures but in some official publication; knowingly or unknowingly. That itself is evidence of the Restoration, that the doctrines, which are essentially the interpretations of scripture etc. merely reside in scripture until established by the prophets (not by private interpretation) and are placed into, and approved by them, the official publications.

Which speaks to the fact that the scriptures are not of private interpretation.

That would be the official doctrine. The prophets have clarified (and in many case added to) the scriptures. The doctrine is obviously not very important and in this case, I don't necessarily agree with it because of the way I parse English. But then again, neither I or JS and apparently many others are not very good at English hence the prophets have spoken on this issue.

That's okay. The Church does not force you to believe it's doctrine. But the Church does define what it's doctrine is and it's not "scripture only".

Amen. Notice the doctrine merely resides in the scriptures but is established by the prophets and proclaimed in official publications. Notice that you can't tell what the water in John 3:5 means (water baptism or physical birth as the EV's say) without referring somehow to an official publication. Neither you nor I are authorized to give our own private interpretations of what the scriptures say and that is why the prophets establish the doctrine in official publications. The same goes for opportunity for marriage in the afterlife or abortion, etc. etc. etc. Those are not found in the scriptures yet we have doctrine on them. And even, as we can see in this thread, whether or not D&C 20:1 has direct bearing on when Jesus was born.

No! No! No! Valentinus . . . Don't go there with BC Space. It's like a black hole from whence rational thoujght finds no escape!!!!

Told ya so . . .

Over the top insult

Edited March 30, 2012 by Minos
thread ban