False Doctrine At Conference

[DBMormon]

Elder Bednar stated it is our Doctrine by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th

 

Incorrect

 

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

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

 

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

[JLHPROF]

Elder Bednar stated it is our Doctrine by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th

 

Incorrect

 

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

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

 

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

 

I just posted another thread on this topic - but I take the opposing view.  This is NOT false doctrine.  Perhaps we should get the MOD's to merge the threads.

Edited April 6, 2014 by JLHPROF

[CMZ]

I don't see this as false doctrine either.

[The Nehor]

Elder Bednar stated it is our Doctrine by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th

 

Incorrect

 

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

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

 

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

Are you under the impression that any of those publications have authority to declare doctrine?

[DBMormon]

Are you under the impression that any of those publications have authority to declare doctrine?

 

If it is historically proven fact that the April 6th date in section 20 had absolutely nothing to do with section 20 and the revelation Joseph received.... and it is that statement in section 20, we base such Doctrine off of.... then absolutely yes.  

[DBMormon]

If it is historically proven fact that the April 6th date in section 20 had absolutely nothing to do with section 20 and the revelation Joseph received.... and it is that statement in section 20, we base such Doctrine off of.... then absolutely yes.  

 

Steven Harper - on the Church History department makes it clear.  It is a false assumption based on think part of section 20 is Joseph's words from God when it came from John Whitmer and on April 10th

[CMZ]

That doesn't keep a current apostle from making a more certain statement on it.

[Scott Lloyd]

If it is historically proven fact that the April 6th date in section 20 had absolutely nothing to do with section 20 and the revelation Joseph received.... and it is that statement in section 20, we base such Doctrine off of.... then absolutely yes.  

Operative phrase here is "historically proven fact." I don't think you can make that declaration about someone's theory.

[JLHPROF]

If it is historically proven fact that the April 6th date in section 20 had absolutely nothing to do with section 20 and the revelation Joseph received.... and it is that statement in section 20, we base such Doctrine off of.... then absolutely yes.  

 

Well, unless you can produce Christ's birth certificate, there is no such thing as historically proven where his birthdate is concerned.

I like the prophets and apostles version better than the academics.

[DBMormon]

Wow.... if we can't even acknowledge when really do get it wrong and feel such a need to defend even when wrong then we simply will never apply Elder Uchtdorf's words.  

 

 

We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

 

 

The fact is Elder Bednar beleives Jeusus was born on April 6th and he bases that belief on Section 20 as he beleive the april 6th mention was part of Joseph revelation.... It is historical fact it was not.  It was written in by John Whitmer on April 10 to signify the dat and Bro. Whitmer did this with other revelations NOT received on April 6th

[CMZ]

Wow.... if we can't even acknowledge when really do get it wrong and feel such a need to defend even when wrong then we simply will never apply Elder Uchtdorf's words.  

 

 

 

 

The fact is Elder Bednar beleives Jeusus was born on April 6th and he bases that belief on Section 20 as he beleive the april 6th mention was part of Joseph revelation.... It is historical fact it was not.  It was written in by John Whitmer on April 10 to signify the dat and Bro. Whitmer did this with other revelations NOT received on April 6th

 

I think the people that have chimed in here so far are aware of the points involved. There is still the very real possibility of a current apostle who is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator giving more certain knowledge to the world. There is absolutely nothing that says he must be tied to the uncertainties of the past.

[DBMormon]

I think the people that have chimed in here so far are aware of the points involved. There is still the very real possibility of a current apostle who is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator giving more certain knowledge to the world. There is absolutely nothing that says he must be tied to the uncertainties of the past.

 this statement is absolutely hinged on section 20.  No leader has claimed otherwise.  It is not independent of section 20.  Sorry but When will we adopt Elder Uchtdorf's quote and be willing to let go and not defend error to the nth simply because a prophet said so.

 

 

We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

 

I now know fully well who is willing to change assumptions and who isn't.   This is as cut and dry as it gets.  

#1 - In the midst of some leaders claiming april 6th, others have at the same time disagreed... it is not unanimous.  (Elder Mcconkie for example dod not liek the April 6th birth

#2 -  It is an easy assumption to make but one must take on further study to realize this is not as one would think on the surface.  I would simply think by now that we have moved past some of the nonsense of Mormonism.... Today I am incredibly dissapointed  not by his error which is easy enough to make, though incorrect... but rather our need to defend nonsense to the nth degree to justify our false assumption in what a prophet is and isn't

[DBMormon]

I think the people that have chimed in here so far are aware of the points involved. There is still the very real possibility of a current apostle who is sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator giving more certain knowledge to the world. There is absolutely nothing that says he must be tied to the uncertainties of the past.

show me an independent revelation outside section 20.  Show me a leader who claims knowledge outside section 20

[omni]

Never let facts get in the way of prophetic pronouncements.

[CMZ]

show me an independent revelation outside section 20.  Show me a leader who claims knowledge outside section 20

 

You are so missing the point it's not even funny. You are insisting that Section 20 is the only possible source of knowledge on this matter. And further insisting that nothing more could ever be known on this subject.

[ERayR]

If it is historically proven fact that the April 6th date in section 20 had absolutely nothing to do with section 20 and the revelation Joseph received.... and it is that statement in section 20, we base such Doctrine off of.... then absolutely yes.  

 

Please post the absolutely irrefutable proof.

[CMZ]

Never let facts get in the way of prophetic pronouncements.

 

Facts are facts. But what we are dealing with here is prior uncertainty, not someone attempting to overturn solidly established facts. And some in this thread are saying, in effect, "If uncertainty is what reigned before then it must be what always reigns. Certainty can never be achieved."

[cdowis]

Like BOM geography, this is not doctrine but a matter of fact and research.

[frank_jessop]

Elder Bednar stated it is our Doctrine by revelation that Jesus was born on April 6th

Incorrect

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

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

From the Fairmormon entry:

"However, at least two Presidents of the Church—Harold B. Lee and Spencer W Kimball—have affirmed that April 6th is the actual birth date of the Savior as well as the anniversary of the organization of the Church."

Harold B. Lee, "Strengthen the Stakes of Zion," Ensign (July 1973), 2.

Spencer W. Kimball, "Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings," Ensign (May 1980), 54

I'll take a two Prophets (mouth of two witnesses). And now a third "Prophet". So we have three witnesses.

[strappinglad]

To quote my teen age daughter... " whatever" . The statement about April 6 is a statement and not doctrine. Will I get into a church disciplinary procedure for believing it was actually April 7th? Will I loose my recommend until I concede ? By the way, what calendar is to be used? Gregorian, Julian, Jewish, Mayan, Chinese? If half the church thinks April 6th was the correct date and the other half prefers Dec. 25th I could care less( but not much less). My salvation does not reside in that truth.

Now , if Elder Bednar had said that Christ had resurrected on the 4th day, we would definitely have a bone of contention!!

[CMZ]

The fact is Elder Bednar beleives [sic] Jeusus [sic] was born on April 6th and he bases that belief on Section 20

 

I did hear most or all of his talk. I don't remember him saying, "I'm basing my belief on Section 20." With all due respect, you're perceiving "facts" that are resting on ill-conceived assumptions. I invite you to more thoroughly think through what you are saying.

[Vance]

Wow.... if we can't even acknowledge when really do get it wrong and feel such a need to defend . . . .

Physician, heal thyself.

[Rivers]

I really enjoyed this talk up until the point when he made this statement. Oh well. I'll get over it.

[T-Shirt]

Good grief, who cares? I too, think Elder Bednar was wrong, however, there is absolutely nothing in this that has any significant bearing regarding the truthfulness of the gospel or its saving ordinances. I am far more troubled by closet apostates who lie in wait to find anything an authority says they can deem to be false so they can, loudly, proclaim it to the world. To paraphrase Elder Eyring, if one wants to find flaws in the Lord's annointed, he will find them. The question is, however, for what purpose?

Edited April 6, 2014 by T-Shirt

[Rivers]

Good grief, who cares? I too, think Elder Bednar was wrong, however, there is absolutely nothing in this that has any significant bearing regarding the truthfulness of the gospel or its saving ordinances. I am far more troubled by closet apostates who lie in wait to find anything an authority says they can deem to be false so that can, loudly, proclaim it to the world. To paraphrase Elder Eyring, if one wants to find flaws in the Lord's annointed, he will find them. The question is, however, for what purpose?

I'm not a closet apostate. I just have a bad habit of nitpicking. Maybe somebody should start a thread where we can say all the good and positive things we got from conference.