False Doctrine At Conference

[cinepro]

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.

 

I'm not going to quibble about whether the date of Christ's birth is actually a "doctrinal" question, but on the subject of whether or not it is an official teaching of the Church, let's keep in mind the following:

 

1. It's taught in the standard works.  (We might disagree about this with broader context, but the fact is it's technically in there, and Apostles and Prophets have interpreted it as being in there).

 

2. Apostles and Prophets have taught it, in conference and official Church publications, consistently.  Elder Bednar wasn't the first.

 

3.  As far as we can tell, there hasn't been any indication in any official Church publication that Jesus might have been born on a day other than April 6.

 

It might not be "official", but if it isn't, there isn't much that is.

Edited May 26, 2014 by cinepro

[Tiki]

"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."

Phooey. Believing FairMormon is a mistake.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Tiki

[Storm Rider]

In the greater scheme of things this kind of factoid is worthless; it has no meaning or value.  So the reason we spend 17 pages to discuss tends to support the conclusion that each has far too much time on our hands, or we don't understand priorities; or, maybe we just like to gnaw on the worthless because it is there. 

[cinepro]

In the greater scheme of things this kind of factoid is worthless; it has no meaning or value.  So the reason we spend 17 pages to discuss tends to support the conclusion that each has far too much time on our hands, or we don't understand priorities; or, maybe we just like to gnaw on the worthless because it is there. 

 

While the actual date of Jesus' birth may be "worthless", having Apostles and Prophets who can determine whether or not something is a "revelation" is rather important.  Having Apostles and Prophets who can recognize their own (or their fellows') fallibility and mistakes and take the proper public action to correct them when needed is also important.

 

I've taught over 45 Elder's Quorum lessons in the past few years, and for each one I started off with several trivia questions (usually on the subject of the lesson).  Sometimes I'd put one in there that was really surprising for the class members (i.e. "True or False: Patriarchs in the Church used to get paid for each blessing they gave?")  Very rarely did anyone ask me for a source, and when they did, I always had it available. 

 

But if I had ever made a mistake and taught something that wasn't true, I would have appreciated finding out, and would have began my next lesson with an explanation and correction.  We also have a EQ newsletter that gets emailed out, and I would try to get it included in there.  I would feel terrible if a bunch of Elders were misinformed about something (even "trivia") on my account, and would welcome the opportunity to correct the error (as well as learn something new myself).

 

If I, a lowly EQ teacher, could recognize this principle and the benefits of correction, I'm sure an Apostle could likewise recognize the importance of having well-informed members.

 

But we have to acknowledge another possibility.  Elder Bednar may be very aware of the arguments against April 6, and in weighing those arguments against the past teachings of Church leaders supporting April 6, he has chosen to go with the Church's past teachings.  If this is the case, the "fallibility" isn't one of accidental misinformation but a willful choice of "loyalty" over "evidence". 

 

Again, this would not be a good thing, especially for apologists (who usually try to choose the evidence over loyalty).  Jesus' birthday might be trivial, but the issues surrounding this are most definitely not.

[canard78]

While the actual date of Jesus' birth may be "worthless", having Apostles and Prophets who can determine whether or not something is a "revelation" is rather important. Having Apostles and Prophets who can recognize their own (or their fellows') fallibility and mistakes and take the proper public action to correct them when needed is also important.

I've taught over 45 Elder's Quorum lessons in the past few years, and for each one I started off with several trivia questions (usually on the subject of the lesson). Sometimes I'd put one in there that was really surprising for the class members (i.e. "True or False: Patriarchs in the Church used to get paid for each blessing they gave?") Very rarely did anyone ask me for a source, and when they did, I always had it available.

But if I had ever made a mistake and taught something that wasn't true, I would have appreciated finding out, and would have began my next lesson with an explanation and correction. We also have a EQ newsletter that gets emailed out, and I would try to get it included in there. I would feel terrible if a bunch of Elders were misinformed about something (even "trivia") on my account, and would welcome the opportunity to correct the error (as well as learn something new myself).

If I, a lowly EQ teacher, could recognize this principle and the benefits of correction, I'm sure an Apostle could likewise recognize the importance of having well-informed members.

But we have to acknowledge another possibility. Elder Bednar may be very aware of the arguments against April 6, and in weighing those arguments against the past teachings of Church leaders supporting April 6, he has chosen to go with the Church's past teachings. If this is the case, the "fallibility" isn't one of accidental misinformation but a willful choice of "loyalty" over "evidence".

Again, this would not be a good thing, especially for apologists (who usually try to choose the evidence over loyalty). Jesus' birthday might be trivial, but the issues surrounding this are most definitely not.

Exactly. This thread, for me, always had very little to do with a birthday and far more to do with the manner in which prophets and apostles receive and declare revelation.

This incident doesn't present a very compelling model: assumption based on a misread of scripture. Doesn't sound much like revelation to me.

[Stone holm]

Hasn't there been a calendar change?

[why me]

In the greater scheme of things this kind of factoid is worthless; it has no meaning or value.  So the reason we spend 17 pages to discuss tends to support the conclusion that each has far too much time on our hands, or we don't understand priorities; or, maybe we just like to gnaw on the worthless because it is there. 

I suppose that we can say that every christian who celebrates christmas on december 25th as the birth of christ is engaged in false doctrine. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. My own christmas manger scene as a child always had fake snow dust around it because for me, christmas was in the winter season. Maybe we are all victims of past traditions and false doctrines outside the lds church since such a birth date comes from other faith traditions.

[why me]

Exactly. This thread, for me, always had very little to do with a birthday and far more to do with the manner in which prophets and apostles receive and declare revelation.

This incident doesn't present a very compelling model: assumption based on a misread of scripture. Doesn't sound much like revelation to me.

I suppose that when we die one question that we can all ask is just when jesus was born. Hopefully, we will get an answer. I don't know how can prove or disprove the brith date in April. But I do wish that the gospel writers would have given us the exact date. They seemed to leave out so many important details about jesus to prove their point in giving the early saints some faith promotion. But on the other hand, maybe they did not know the exact date when they wrote the script. And why didn't jesus ever celebrate his birthday or did he but it was left out of the narratives as being frivolous?

Edited May 27, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose that when we die one question that we can all ask is just when jesus was born. Hopefully, we will get an answer. I don't know how can prove or disprove the brith date in April. But I do wish that the gospel writers would have given us the exact date. They seemed to leave out so many important details about jesus to prove their point in giving the early saints some faith promotion. But on the other hand, maybe they did not know the exact date when they wrote the script. And why didn't jesus ever celebrate his birthday or did he but it was left out of the narratives as being frivolous?

I'm told that in the culture of the day, it was not common to record the precise calendar day of an individual's birth. In short, birthdays were not the big thing we make of them today.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose that we can say that every christian who celebrates christmas on december 25th as the birth of christ is engaged in false doctrine. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. My own christmas manger scene as a child always had fake snow dust around it because for me, christmas was in the winter season. Maybe we are all victims of past traditions and false doctrines outside the lds church since such a birth date comes from other faith traditions.

I think you make a valid point.

I ran across a 19th century Christmas hymn that, as ward choir director, I may use for our sacrament meeting Christmas program in December. The lyrics are generally beautiful, but it begins with these words:

See, amid the winter's snow,

Born for us on Earth below,

See, the tender Lamb appears,

Promised from eternal years.

If I do use the piece, I'll probably change the opening line to something like "See below a new star's glow."

Even if we accept that Christ was born in December (and that is by no means a given), it snows only rarely in Judea, even at that time of year.

[canard78]

I suppose that we can say that every christian who celebrates christmas on december 25th as the birth of christ is engaged in false doctrine. But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. My own christmas manger scene as a child always had fake snow dust around it because for me, christmas was in the winter season. Maybe we are all victims of past traditions and false doctrines outside the lds church since such a birth date comes from other faith traditions.

You're missing the point. Christians don't claim revelation for celebrating on 25th Dec. Elder Bednar said it's 6th April based on revelation.

[Scott Lloyd]

You're missing the point. Christians don't claim revelation for celebrating on 25th Dec. Elder Bednar said it's 6th April based on revelation.

Assuming Elder Bednar's statement about it being based on revelation stems from an inaccurate understanding (and I'm not willing yet to make that concession), he is no more guilty of teaching false doctrine than are millions through the ages, such as the writer of the Christmas hymn I quoted above, who have assumed a December birth date for Jesus is a historically established fact.

[canard78]

Assuming Elder Bednar's statement about it being based on revelation stems from an inaccurate understanding (and I'm not willing yet to make that concession), he is no more guilty of teaching false doctrine than are millions through the ages, such as the writer of the Christmas hymn I quoted above, who have assumed a December birth date for Jesus is a historically established fact.

 

Except one is a poet and the other is a prophet, seer and revelator who claims to know the date based on revelation. There's a huge difference. It's not the date that's the problem, it's the teaching of something by a prophet, that is claimed to be based on revelation when it is instead likely to be based on a misunderstanding of D&C 20.

 

I don't care what date the birth was. I care about the credibility of prophets teaching principles that they claim to be based on revelation and not on tradition or cultural assumption.

[cdowis]

Is this thread still going?  Methinks we have run out of things to talk about.

[canard78]

Is this thread still going? Methinks we have run out of things to talk about.

So you've reconciled a prophet and apostle teaching something as revelation but providing a source that is questionable?

[Storm Rider]

You're missing the point. Christians don't claim revelation for celebrating on 25th Dec. Elder Bednar said it's 6th April based on revelation.

 

No they don't think it was by revelation; they actually think he was born on 25 December.

[Senator]

Assuming Elder Bednar's statement about it being based on revelation stems from an inaccurate understanding (and I'm not willing yet to make that concession), he is no more guilty of teaching false doctrine than are millions through the ages, such as the writer of the Christmas hymn I quoted above, who have assumed a December birth date for Jesus is a historically established fact.

 

Soo.....then it would be a false teaching? misinterpretation? erroneous opinion? false tradition?

 

Whatever it is, don't you think it best to correct it?

[rongo]

Whether you agree with him or not, Orson Pratt went into good detail in explaining why he regarded April 6 as revealed:

 

(Orson Pratt, December 29, 1872. Journal of Discourses 15:253-264-. "True Christmas and New Year"). The more relevant content begins on page 260.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/15/33

 

I would paste content, but for some reason, I can't paste *anything* on this site. I can on every other message board, though.

[cdowis]

 I think the "doctrine" of BOM geography taught me a valuable lesson ==>> 

 

In this particular case, the date of Christ's birth is a factual issue, not doctrine, and lends itself to investigation and informed opinion and discussion.  We can then weigh the evidence and come to our own conclusion.

 

OR we can grouse and complain that our leaders should spoon feed on every such matter, and should apologize if we think they are misinformed.

Edited May 27, 2014 by cdowis

[Senator]

 I think the "doctrine" of BOM geography taught me a valuable lesson ==>> 

 

In this particular case, the date of Christ's birth is a factual issue, not doctrine, and lends itself to investigation and informed opinion and discussion.  We can then weigh the evidence and come to our own conclusion.

 

OR we can grouse and complain that our leaders should spoon feed on every such matter, and should apologize if we think they are misinformed.

 

Like Storm Rider, you too are suffering with poor marksmanship.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Senator

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Whether you agree with him or not, Orson Pratt went into good detail in explaining why he regarded April 6 as revealed:

 

(Orson Pratt, December 29, 1872. Journal of Discourses 15:253-264-. "True Christmas and New Year"). The more relevant content begins on page 260.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Journal_of_Discourses/15/33

 

I would paste content, but for some reason, I can't paste *anything* on this site. I can on every other message board, though.

Am I reading him right that Pratt states April 6 is Christ's death day and April 11th is Christ's birthday?

[cdowis]

Like Storm Rider, you too are suffering with poor marksmanship.

 

That really cuts deeply.

[Senator]

That really cuts deeply.

As deep as that butter knife will cut.....

[Scott Lloyd]

Assuming Elder Bednar's statement about it being based on revelation stems from an inaccurate understanding (and I'm not willing yet to make that concession), he is no more guilty of teaching false doctrine than are millions through the ages, such as the writer of the Christmas hymn I quoted above, who have assumed a December birth date for Jesus is a historically established fact.

 

 

Soo.....then it would be a false teaching? misinterpretation? erroneous opinion? false tradition?

 

Whatever it is, don't you think it best to correct it?

Perhaps you missed my parenthetical statement "and I'm not willing yet to make that concession."

 

I meant what I said there. I'm not conceding that there is anything that needs correcting. I'll wait to see what Elder Bednar and/or others of the Brethren say or do.

[Senator]

Perhaps you missed my parenthetical statement "and I'm not willing yet to make that concession."

 

I meant what I said there. I'm not conceding that there is anything that needs correcting. I'll wait to see what Elder Bednar and/or others of the Brethren say or do.

Ok