False Doctrine At Conference

[sethpayne]

Wouldn't that be more "nondoctrinal" as opposed to false doctrine which implies an untruth/falsehood.

 

I think "nondoctrinal" is the more polite way to say it but essentially nondoctrinal and a false doctrinal statement are essentially the same thing.

 

I think many of us here are comfortable saying the curse of cain "doctrine" is "false doctrine."  And I think we can say it without being insulting to the person(s) who may have made statements that support this "false doctrine."  But, like I said, "nondoctrinal" is more polite and there are a few semantic differences which may make it a better word choice in some circumstances.

[sethpayne]

I  have never taken such talks as scripture. 

 

Why not?  We have been instructed to treat it as such.

[why me]

Why not?  We have been instructed to treat it as such.

Maybe figuratively. There is no way that we are encouraged to read past talks etc. And very few of us read past talks for home study etc. But we are encouraged to read the standard works. I don't think that the GAs are perfect when they write their talks. I think that they can get some things wrong too. I take it all as advice, advice that I can accept or reject.

[theplains]

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.  

 

In April 1973, then President Harold 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)" (Strengthen the Stakes of Zion, 

Ensign, July 1973).

 

In April 1980, then President Kimball said, "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" (Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings, Ensign, May 

1980).

 

This is repeated yet again in  the April 1997 General Conference by Richard G. Scott (of the 

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles).  He said, "It is April 6th. Modern scripture records that Jesus 

Christ was born on this day."  This particular scripture is a revelation supposed given to Joseph 

Smith - Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 - "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" (Jesus Christ Our Redeemer, Ensign, April 1997).

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Give a reference when you use someone else's work.

[Calm]

Plains, are you the writer for ldslearning?

[Grudunza]

Has anyone linked to Bill's recent podcast about this?  If not, here it is: http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/e/was-jesus-born-on-april-6th/

 

Bill makes it very clear that all references to that date, in General Conference and otherwise, are drawing back to D&C 20, and therefore, based on an error.  I don't think "false doctrine" is the right term for it, either, but it's a mistake and we should correct it and move past it at this point.  There are enough Mormon myths and urban legends and such, and it's good to cross them off when they are confirmed to be false.  Focus on what's true, and not perpetuate false assumptions.  Okay, so the brethren made a mistake and it got repeated for many years.  That's okay...  I still respect and sustain them.  Is there a slight chance that Jesus was actually born on April 6?  Yes, but we don't know that by revelation and shouldn't claim to.  Everything has been based on D&C 20, the revelation of which was given on April 10 and the first verse of which was added by John Whitmer and meant to be a part of the header, not part of the scriptures (and he wrote the same type of introduction for other things).

I think I said this before earlier in this thread, but I always wondered why anyone made the assumption based on the wording of D&C 20 that it is identifying Jesus' birthday...  Even if the revelation *was* given on April 6 and the first verse was not added by John Whitmer, it still doesn't indicate that to me.  "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..."  That's not necessarily pinpointing the specific day, just making a general statement about what year it is.  Then later in the verse it declares the church to be organized on April 6, but those are separate ideas. 

 

As an example, a 9/11 memorial museum just opened today.  It would be perfectly acceptable for someone to say something like "It's been 13 years since the horrific day of 9/11, and today we dedicate this museum to the memory of the fallen."  But of course, 9/11 didn't happen on May 21.  The two things don't need to connect specifically for the frame of reference of 13 years to still work.  It did happen 13 years ago, in a general sense.  (John Whitmer likely got the year wrong, though, as most scholars now agree that Christ was born some time between 1-10 B.C.  Another reason to correct the error of that.)

Edited May 22, 2014 by Grudunza

[DBMormon]

I  don't think that it is false doctrine. Even if a GA gets it wrong, he may have just made a mistake. I have no idea why members use loaded words such as false doctrine as in this case and why members wish to find fault here and there and attempt to make a touch down? Why can't someone just say it was a mistake? Why use the words such as false doctrine?

 

I agree that Elder Bednar made an innocent mistake.  That said any time we teach that we have a truth from God that was never given by god, that supposed truth is false doctrine.  True Doctrine is that which God himself gives to man.  False Doctrine is a teaching that is claimed to have been given by God but has not been.  It is false Doctrine because it is false to claim God delivered truth XYZ and in reality he didn't.  I am not saying Elder Bednar knowingly taught something he knew was false.

 

My bigger issue is the fact that The ensign chose rather then to insert a footnote acknowledging the issue (And by the way I know directly that the Church was aware of the issue and discussed how to address it), they instead chose to entrench by defending the view with four sources which are also a reiteration of claiming revealed truth when it wasn't revealed.  Rather than acknowledge the issue and correct course, we instead chose to lift up such nonsense and treat it as a fact.

Edited May 22, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Has anyone linked to Bill's recent podcast about this?  If not, here it is: http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/e/was-jesus-born-on-april-6th/

 

Bill makes it very clear that all references to that date, in General Conference and otherwise, are drawing back to D&C 20, and therefore, based on an error.  I don't think "false doctrine" is the right term for it, either, but it's a mistake and we should correct it and move past it at this point.  There are enough Mormon myths and urban legends and such, and it's good to cross them off when they are confirmed to be false.  Focus on what's true, and not perpetuate false assumptions.  Okay, so the brethren made a mistake and it got repeated for many years.  That's okay...  I still respect and sustain them.  Is there a slight chance that Jesus was actually born on April 6?  Yes, but we don't know that by revelation and shouldn't claim to.  Everything has been based on D&C 20, the revelation of which was given on April 10 and the first verse of which was added by John Whitmer and meant to be a part of the header, not part of the scriptures (and he wrote the same type of introduction for other things).

 

The Kimball quote is important because the audio implies he is speaking the the Resurrection and the transcript implies he is speaking of the birth of Christ on April 6th.  Personally, I am going with the audio

[Grudunza]

My bigger issue is the fact that The ensign chose rather then to insert a footnote acknowledging the issue (And by the way I know directly that the Church was aware of the issue and discussed how to address it), they instead chose to entrench by defending the view with four sources which are also a reiteration of claiming revealed truth when it wasn't revealed.  Rather than acknowledge the issue and correct course, we instead chose to lift up such nonsense and treat it as a fact.

 

Wow, I hadn't seen that.  Here are the specific references given: (See D&C 20:1; Harold B. Lee, “Strengthen the Stakes of Zion,” Ensign, July 1973, 2; Spencer W. Kimball, “Why Call Me Lord, Lord, and Do Not the Things Which I Say?” Ensign, May 1975, 4; Spencer W. Kimball, “Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,” Ensign, May 1980, 54; Discourses of President Gordon B. Hinckley, Volume 1: 1995–1999 [2005], 409.) 

 

And you're right, that it seems like a rather blatant entrenchment of that idea, with so many references given there (no other part of his talk has more than one reference).  That's unfortunate, especially considering this was a good opportunity to make a quick correction going forward.  I get that nobody wants to make Elder Bednar seem misinformed or show disrespect or whatever, and I suppose the references could be meant to show *his* sources for that idea, wrong though the basis for that idea is.  But now, because all of that is referenced in the Ensign, the "Jesus was born on April 6" thing gains another level of "must be true" for many, just because of that.  No matter how many times you repeat an error, it's still an error.  

[DBMormon]

Wow, I hadn't seen that.  Here are the specific references given: (See D&C 20:1; Harold B. Lee, “Strengthen the Stakes of Zion,” Ensign, July 1973, 2; Spencer W. Kimball, “Why Call Me Lord, Lord, and Do Not the Things Which I Say?” Ensign, May 1975, 4; Spencer W. Kimball, “Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,” Ensign, May 1980, 54; Discourses of President Gordon B. Hinckley, Volume 1: 1995–1999 [2005], 409.) 

 

And you're right, that it seems like a rather blatant entrenchment of that idea, with so many references given there (no other part of his talk has more than one reference).  That's unfortunate, especially considering this was a good opportunity to make a quick correction going forward.  I get that nobody wants to make Elder Bednar seem misinformed or show disrespect or whatever, and I suppose the references could be meant to show *his* sources for that idea, wrong though the basis for that idea is.  But now, because all of that is referenced in the Ensign, the "Jesus was born on April 6" thing gains another level of "must be true" for many, just because of that.  No matter how many times you repeat an error, it's still an error.  

 

exactly

[why me]

I agree that Elder Bednar made an innocent mistake.  That said any time we teach that we have a truth from God that was never given by god, that supposed truth is false doctrine.  True Doctrine is that which God himself gives to man.  False Doctrine is a teaching that is claimed to have been given by God but has not been.  It is false Doctrine because it is false to claim God delivered truth XYZ and in reality he didn't.  I am not saying Elder Bednar knowingly taught something he knew was false.

 

My bigger issue is the fact that The ensign chose rather then to insert a footnote acknowledging the issue (And by the way I know directly that the Church was aware of the issue and discussed how to address it), they instead chose to entrench by defending the view with four sources which are also a reiteration of claiming revealed truth when it wasn't revealed.  Rather than acknowledge the issue and correct course, we instead chose to lift up such nonsense and treat it as a fact.

I think that the problem exists with the members themselves and on how they look upon church leaders: flawless. I don't put much stake in an ensign article or in a conference talk. I may read and listen but I try to keep my own wits about me and make my own conclusions. I think that many other members should also do this, if they don't already. So why would I consider such a mistake false doctrine if I have such an attitude toward such talks or articles? We all make mistakes.

[mfbukowski]

Really?  The GAs consistently tell us that Conference = Scripture.

 

Scripture contains Church doctrine.  Therefore, General Conference = Church doctrine.

 

I can see why someone may want clarification on something stated in GC.  Saying something is "false doctrine" doesn't disparage the one who may have stated something incorrectly.  It merely identifies a given proposition as being outside accepted Church Doctrine.

 

Of course, now that Elder Bednar has made this statement in GC that Jesus was born on April 6th is now official Church doctrine according to BCSpace's Grand Unified Theory of Mormon Doctrine.  

It's even more complicated than that:

 

 

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.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

If we read it carefully we find it says that the brethren "Counsel together to establish doctrine"- which is highly ambiguous of course in itself, but including the fact that doctrine does not include a "Single statement by a single leader on a single occasion" it makes it even worse.

 

What are general conference talks but single statements made by single leaders on a single occasion??

 

Yes- they are made IN FRONT of the entire assembly, but who's mouth is moving?  A single leader.

 

So this theoretical "doctrine" which has supposedly been established by all together (how often does that actually happen?) is supposedly "consistently proclaimed" in official church publications.

 

So what does that mean?  Does it mean that it is "always proclaimed", or "regularly proclaimed" or does it mean that if it is NOT consistent, then it is not "proclaimed" or is not "doctrine"?

 

And to make it worse, these alleged utterances "reside" - I have no clue what that means either- in the highly ambiguous "standard works".

 

So if they are "consistently proclaimed"- whatever that means- yet "reside"- whatever that means- in the standard works, does that mean that when they are "proclaimed" they BECOME PART of the Standard Works?

 

The bottom line is that this ambiguity doesn't bother me at all- but we need to face the facts that what is and what is not doctrine has never been "consistently proclaimed" at all. AND QUIT WORRYING ABOUT IT

 

Language by its very nature is imprecise, and ANY formulation of a definition of "doctrine" is bound for failure from the very beginning- especially with an open canon and where everyone individually has a right to THEIR OWN REVELATION!

 

By it's very nature, individual's revelations on what is best for THEM is not going to be consistent with what is best for others.

 

Ostler is completely right on this one- if you are PRACTICING in an "orthodox" manner, you are in as good standing as any Mormon can be.

 

If you pass a temple recommend interview honestly- with all the ambiguity of the questions included- you are eligible to receive all the ordinances, of the kingdom.

 

The Lord has rightly given us guidelines for behavior consistent with the Plan of Happiness, with the freedom to choose our individual way along the path. 

 

We get to change lanes, start, stop, get off for lunch, take a side trip, or whatever we need to do to on the journey!  That is the way it should be!!

 

If we don't make it to the destination, he even gives us a second shot at it if we really deserve it.

 

So what's the big deal about "doctrine" anyway?  

[mfbukowski]

This is my favorite line of the press release above:

 

Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

Oh the irony!

[why me]

It's even more complicated than that:

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

 

What are general conference talks but single statements made by single leaders on a single occasion??

 

Which was my point exactly. And this is why some members need to see such conferences differently and not take every word as if it came from god.

[why me]

This is my favorite line of the press release above:

Oh the irony!

But it should make us all feel rather good.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think "nondoctrinal" is the more polite way to say it but essentially nondoctrinal and a false doctrinal statement are essentially the same thing.

 

I quite disagree.

 

In a Latter-day Saint context, the term false doctrine implies a contradiction of true doctrine, as, for example, asserting that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and the Redeemer of mankind, or that Christ did not restore the gospel in latter-days through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

There is a clear distinction between such a thing and merely voicing an opinion on a matter on which the Church has taken no official position, which, if FairMormon Answers is to be believed, is the case with respect to the date of the birth of Christ.

 

Thus, Elder Bednar is no more guilty of teaching false doctrine than are those who theorize in favor of a limited geography model regarding the setting for Book of Mormon events. It is reckless and inflammatory to say he has taught false doctrine, when he has not done so, especially considering the fact that teaching false doctrine is an offense punishable by excommunication. One ought to beware of throwing such accusations around when dealing with the reputation of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

DBMormon seems wont to display a pattern of such recklessly inflammatory rhetoric, as when he asserts that Joseph Smith had "serious character flaws," when, apparently, all he really meant was that the Prophet was subject to human imperfections.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

I quite disagree.

 

In a Latter-day Saint context, the term false doctrine implies a contradiction of true doctrine, as, for example, asserting that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God and the Redeemer of mankind, or that Christ did not restore the gospel in latter-days through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

 

There is a clear distinction between such a thing and merely voicing an opinion on a matter on which the Church has taken no official position, which, if FairMormon Answers is to be believed, is the case with respect to the date of the birth of Christ.

 

Thus, Elder Bednar is no more guilty of teaching false doctrine than are those who theorize in favor of a limited geography model regarding the setting for Book of Mormon events. It is reckless and inflammatory to say he has taught false doctrine, when he has not done so, especially considering the fact that teaching false doctrine is an offense punishable by excommunication. One ought to beware of throwing such accusations around when dealing with the reputation of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve.

 

DBMormon seems wont to display a pattern of such recklessly inflammatory rhetoric, as when he asserts that Joseph Smith had "serious character flaws," when, apparently, all he really meant was that the Prophet was subject to human imperfections.

 

 

If I claimed Jesus gave revelation that We will wear shoes in heaven and Jesus actually never gave said revelation, is not my claim of having been given a divine truth "false" Doctrine?   In that the claiming it by revelation is not true "False" and the issue I claim is Doctrinal.  The birth date is not my issue it is the claim that it came by revelation when it did not.  The claiming it by revelation is false and the issue of the birth date is Doctrinal.  Jesus Birth date is non Doctrinal and Elder Bednar claimed it was Doctrinal... To me that is false Doctrine.  That said I do not blame him as it is an innocent mistake, but not fixing it after that to me is very disappointing.

Edited May 25, 2014 by DBMormon

[Storm Rider]

DB, I agree that we each need to be careful about the words we use; the testimony must be given by the Spirit. I think there is a difference between teaching false doctrine and being misinformed and the example you give on Elder Bednar is a good one. I don't agree that he consciously mislead people or meant to deceive members. I suspect this has more to do with a poor memory or having read something that improperly lead to an incorrect conclusion.  

 

I am not sure if I know the correction.  Should a leader retract incorrect statements when realized or when corrected? Should the membership be more cognizant of what is said and be prompted to study and confirm?  I don't think we should ever be blind sheep and simply take every word as if it was from the mouth of God.  More importantly, we need to recognize exactly how much was said on conference that was accurate and/or factual relative to the times that a leader may misspeak.  

[Senator]

 

I am not sure if I know the correction.  Should a leader retract incorrect statements when realized or when corrected?

 

Yes

 

It is not hard to post edit published addresses.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Senator

[Storm Rider]

Yes

 

It is not hard to post edit published addresses.

 

So, you publish every mistake you do in life also?  Where can I read these?  I am sure it is a rather long list, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

[Senator]

So, you publish every mistake you do in life also?  Where can I read these?  I am sure it is a rather long list, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

 

Wow!

 

That retort missed the target by several hundred feet......and you were standing only ten feet away!

Edited May 25, 2014 by Senator

[Storm Rider]

Wow!

 

That retort missed the target by several hundred feet......and you were standing only ten feet away!

 

Senator, we each live in a glass house and I don't see a need to throw stones. If you will set up a standard to judge another then you must be judged by that same standard.  That glass does not shatter from ten feet away; it is right in front of each of us; we just have to be willing to look in the mirror. 

[Thinking]

I think it's quite humorous really that D&C 20:1 has ben interpreted to mean that Christ was literally born on April 6th.

"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"

 

I graduated from high school 33 years ago. Would any of you interpret the previous sentence to mean that I graduated from high school on May 25th, 1981?

[Calm]

If they had been directed to begin the Church specifically on that day, they would have assumed there was some sort of significance to it. If so, hardly surprising if in the lack of actual reason given they came up with this given that they would have looked to what they understood was the revelation for any information about the date.

Edited May 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

What an odd discussion of an odd situation.

 

We claim to believe in fallible leaders, but when an Apostle actually stands and makes what appears to be a mistake in conference, how quickly we circle the wagons. 

 

And if DBMormon is to be believed, this statement (and its subsequent publication in the Ensign) wasn't made in a vacuum; apparently there were people familiar with the arguments against the "revelation" of April 6 who were in a position to do something, but instead we have the Church doubling-down.

 

This would have been a wonderful opportunity to show the Church members exactly what we believe about fallibility, and how to properly deal with situations where mistakes are made.  If there really is a degree of doubt on the subject, then let that doubt be acknowledged. 

 

But if it is true that the strongest evidence for "April 6" is D&C 20, and that verse was an addition by David Whitmer, and he also used such language to describe the year on days other than April 6, then the way in which Elder Bednar presented the information and the way it was published in the Ensign was not a good thing, and I would feel silly for trying to pretend otherwise.