False Doctrine At Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

An erroneous understanding (if it be that) is what it is, regardless of who is involved. I can't count the number of times I've had it preached to me here that the apostles and prophets are not infallible. Yet you seem inclined here to hold them to a standard of infallibility.

 

I find it remarkable that you are more inclined to be charitable toward a Christian hymn writer (and untold millions of others) than you are toward an apostle of the Lord.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

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

 

"They" - Christians? All 2 billion+ of them?

 

Could I have a CFR please.

 

While you're at it, consider the following:

Most Christians do not believe that Jesus Christ was born on Dec. 25, according to a recent survey conducted by ChristiaNet.com.

“An overwhelming percentage of Christians surveyed believe that Jesus Christ was not born on December 25th,” said William Cooper, the CEO of the site.

This data was compiled from responses of 2,400 people that identified themselves as Christian. The survey found that about 70 percent of the group felt that Jesus was not born on Dec. 25.

Responders reacted to the question by expressing their belief that Jesus was probably born either in the spring or in the fall, not the winter.

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/december-25-the-birth-of-jesus-most-christians-say-no-survey-shows-64192/

 

And here's another:

 

The date of Christ's actual birth is unknown. It is not recorded in the Bible. However, Christians of alldenominations and faith groups, aside from the Church of Armenia, celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

 

 

http://christianity.about.com/od/christmas/f/christmashistor.htm

[Scott Lloyd]

 

"They" - Christians? All 2 billion+ of them?

 

Could I have a CFR please.

 

While you're at it, consider the following:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/december-25-the-birth-of-jesus-most-christians-say-no-survey-shows-64192/

 

And here's another:

 

http://christianity.about.com/od/christmas/f/christmashistor.htm

 

In his use of the pronoun they, I understood Storm Rider to mean not all Christians but only those who believe Christ was born on Dec. 25.

 

He can clarify, if need be. But you seem particularly and argumentatively disposed to uncharitable readings.

[canard78]

An erroneous understanding (if it be that) is what it is, regardless of who is involved. I can't count the number of times I've had it preached to me here that the apostles and prophets are not infallible. Yet you seem inclined here to hold them to a standard of infallibility.

 

I find it remarkable that you are more inclined to be charitable toward a Christian hymn writer (and untold millions of others) than you are toward a servant of the Lord.

 

Are you suggesting there is no difference between a poet writing about snow at winter and a prophet declaring a revealed birth date? Maybe you're right. Maybe there's no difference between a poet. If we are to hold the prophets to the same standard as poets then that essentially answers my question. I don't look to poets for the revealed word of God or guidance on how to progress along the path to godliness. Are you suggesting I shouldn't look to the prophets for that either? Should we hold poets and prophets to the same standard? 

 

You're missing an essential point in this discussion: Elder Bednar said he knew the date based on revelation. Did the poet make the same claim? Or was he just looking for a nice rhyming couplet?

[canard78]

In his use of the pronoun they, I understood Storm Rider to mean not all Christians but only those who believe Christ was born on Dec. 25.

 

He can clarify, if need be. But you seem particularly and argumentatively disposed to uncharitable readings.

 

I'm sure Storm Rider can offer his own clarifications.

 

But if "some" christians believe that Jesus was actually born on 25th December then firstly it's missing the point of my previous comment and regardless, the reply remains the same.

[canard78]

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.

 

SeekingUnderstanding has already pointed this out, but I think you've misread it.

 

Here's the quote:

 

We call it the first day of the year, but it has no reference to the day of Christ's birth. The first day of the year of the true Christian era should be the day of the Savior's birth—the 11th day of April.

 

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

[Scott Lloyd]

Are you suggesting there is no difference between a poet writing about snow at winter and a prophet declaring a revealed birth date? Maybe you're right. Maybe there's no difference between a poet. If we are to hold the prophets to the same standard as poets then that essentially answers my question. I don't look to poets for the revealed word of God or guidance on how to progress along the path to godliness. Are you suggesting I shouldn't look to the prophets for that either? Should we hold poets and prophets to the same standard? 

 

Millions of Latter-day Saints (including me) have assumed without question that the wording in the Doctrine and Covenants section should be taken as a revelation specifying the date of the birth of Christ. I'm guessing a good many still believe that.

 

Until very recently I saw no good reason to question it.

 

Given that, I can be forgiving of a servant of the Lord for still holding to what in the past has been a nearly universal understanding among the members of the Church (if indeed, it is something that requires forgiving; as an ordained apostle, he may be privy to what the rest of us are not; I'm willing to wait and see).

 

I'm guessing you, as a frequent critic, are one of those who are quick to point out the apostles and prophets are not infallible, yet you appear here to be holding them to a standard of infallibility.

 

Again, I guess it all boils down to how charitable one is inclined to be.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm sure Storm Rider can offer his own clarifications.

 

Undoubtedly. I've already said as much.

 

I'm just saying it's obvious I read his comment differently than you did. I would be very surprised to learn that he meant each and every professed Christian throughout the ages believes Christ was born on Dec. 25.

 

 

But if "some" christians believe that Jesus was actually born on 25th December then firstly it's missing the point of my previous comment and regardless, the reply remains the same.

 

 

But it is germane to the point that if one is quick to accuse an apostle of "teaching false doctrine" because he holds to an inaccurate understanding, consistency demands that one level that same accusation to millions through the ages who, not knowing any better, have understood Dec. 25 to be the date of Christ's birth.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

Millions of Latter-day Saints (including me) have assumed without question that the wording in the Doctrine and Covenants section should be taken as a revelation specifying the date of the birth of Christ. I'm guessing a good many still believe that.

Until very recently I saw no good reason to question it.

Given that, I can be forgiving of a servant of the Lord for still holding to what in the past has been a nearly universal understanding among the members of the Church (if indeed, it is something that requires forgiving; as an ordained apostle, he may be privy to what the rest of us are not; I'm willing to wait and see).

I'm guessing you, as a frequent critic, are one of those who are quick to point out the apostles and prophets are not infallible, yet you appear here to be holding them to a standard of infallibility.

Again, I guess it all boils down to how charitable one is inclined to be.

You've done that three times, made it personal and questioned how charitable I am. Nice ad hominem diversion. I'm used to it. It's a common tactic, especially from you.

I don't see this as a question of charity. It's instead useful discussion and case study of how prophets declare revelation.

Have you intentionally moved away from the poet comparison? You raised it, but now seem reluctant to defend it.

[canard78]

Undoubtedly. I've already said as much.

I'm just saying it's obvious I read his comment differently than you did. I would be very surprised to learn that he meant each and every professed Christian throughout the ages believes Christ was born on Dec. 25.

But it is germane to the point that if one is quick to accuse an apostle of "teaching false doctrine" because he holds to an inaccurate understanding, consistency requires that one level that same accusation to millions through the ages who, not knowing any better, have understood Dec. 25 to be the date of Christ's birth.

I would certainly agree with you that "assumption" is the problem.

It makes me wonder what else is perpetuated as revelation when it's actually no more than assumption.

[Scott Lloyd]

You've done that three times, made it personal and questioned how charitable I am. Nice ad hominem diversion. I'm used to it. It's a common tactic, especially from you.

I don't see this as a question of charity. It's instead useful discussion and case study of how prophets declare revelation.

 

 

I'm using the term charitable to convey sense #2 of this online dictionary definition.

 

2. Mild or tolerant in judging others; lenient.

 

 

I'm sorry if you take offense at it. But I think it fits very well in this instance.

 

Scholars speak quite frequently of a "charitable reading" of this or that phrase or discourse. It's really a rather common application of that adjective. See this Wikipedia discussion about the principle of charity in philosophy and rhetoric.

 

Do you honestly believe that Storm Rider meant to say that each and every Christian through the ages has believed Christ was born on Dec. 25? That would be an absurdly literalistic reading. And it would not be a charitable interpretation of his comment.

 

 

Have you intentionally moved away from the poet comparison? You raised it, but now seem reluctant to defend it.

 

I merely used that as an incidental illustration of the apparent belief among some people that the Dec. 25 date for the birth of Christ is historically accurate.

 

And no, I'm not backing away from my use of it as an illustration. Nor am I backing away from my assumption that a fair number of Christians over the centuries have believed that Dec. 25 was actually the date of Christ's birth.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I would certainly agree with you that "assumption" is the problem.

It makes me wonder what else is perpetuated as revelation when it's actually no more than assumption.

Do you or do you not hold apostles and prophets to a standard of infallibility?

 

And if not, why are you so judgmental toward Elder Bednar for continuing to hold a view and understanding that presumably most faithful Latter-day Saints -- including at least a few presidents of the Church -- have held for generations?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Do you or do you not hold apostles and prophets to a standard of infallibility?

 

And if not, why are you so judgmental toward Elder Bednar for continuing to hold a view and understanding that presumably most faithful Latter-day Saints -- including at least a few presidents of the Church -- have held for generations?

 

You can't have it both ways Scott. 

 

If Elder Bednar really is a fallible Apostle, then it isn't disrespectful or "judgmental" to point out that he made a mistake.  It also wouldn't be disrespectful to want to know exactly why he thinks we have a "revelation" indicating Jesus was born on April 6.  That would just be a garden variety CFR, and since it's well established on this board that something isn't true just because an Apostle stands in conference and says it is, it's an entirely justifiable CFR. 

 

The problem is that the Church has to admit that the leaders are "fallible" (because they do make mistakes), but we are all supposed to pretend that they aren't and when they do make mistakes, pretend like they didn't happen.  But here we have an Apostle stand in conference and claim a certain fact is known by revelation, when it was recently shown that there are very, very good reasons to not believe that fact.  So it's only natural that some LDS might not want to pretend that it didn't happen and try and figure out what it means.

 

Was Elder Bednar referring to some other unknown revelation, and if so, why did he not explain that?  Was Elder Bednar aware of the recent research that calls the efficacy of D&C 20:1 into question, and if so, was this his way of countering that research?  Was he not aware of this, and if so, why didn't someone make him aware of it?

 

And does Elder Bednar's talk mean that it's now an official Church teaching that Jesus was born on April 6, but we're still allowed to not believe it, but we have to not believe it without disagreeing with Elder Bednar?

Edited May 27, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

 

You can't have it both ways Scott. 

 

If Elder Bednar really is a fallible Apostle, then it isn't disrespectful or "judgmental" to point out that he made a mistake. 

 

It is both disrespectful and judgmental to accuse him of teaching "false doctrine" -- with all of the ecclesiastical baggage that term carries -- as I have said earlier in this thread. Reckless and inflammatory were the descriptors I used.

 

And, as I've already intimated, I believe it premature to conclude that he did make a mistake. I'm taking a wait-and-see stance on that.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It is both disrespectful and judgmental to accuse him of teaching "false doctrine" -- with all of the ecclesiastical baggage that term carries -- as I have said earlier in this thread. Reckless and inflammatory were the descriptors I used.

This might be relevant to your conversation with Canard if Canard had ever accused Elder Bednar of teaching "false doctrine." But he hasn't so it's not.

[Scott Lloyd]

This might be relevant to your conversation with Canard if Canard had ever accused Elder Bednar of teaching "false doctrine." But he hasn't so it's not.

This thread carries the title "False Doctrine at Conference." Does Canard reject that characterization with regard to Elder Bednar? I've not seen an indication that he does.

 

Moreover, Canard seems to harbor a double standard as pertaining to Church leaders who hold sincere but inaccurate conceptions as compared to others who do so. Again, this appears to impose a standard of infallibility upon Church leaders that one would expect frequent critics such as Canard to reject.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This thread carries the title "False Doctrine at Conference." Does Canard reject that characterization? I've not seen an indication that he does.

So is this a new general rule? If you don't agree with the thread title, you had better state it or you're guilty by association? Can't you just admit you were wrong and give him the benefit of the doubt rather than put words in his mouth? Isn't this what you said this:

 

But you seem particularly and argumentatively disposed to uncharitable readings.

Are you disposed to uncharitable readings?

Canard's first post in this thread was:

Is this a case of focusing on the thorn and missing the rose? It was a good talk. The 6 April reference is something he believes to be revealed and authoritative. Just because something is said a few times in conference, does not make it correct. So what. The 14 fundamentals have been repeated twice in conference. I don't think they're correct either. So what.

 

90% of his talk was outstanding and among the best messages we've heard from him. Ignore the thorn, embrace the rose. We're all human. I make small assumptive mistakes on a regular basis and don't kick myself over it.

Edited May 27, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Moreover, Canard seems to harbor a double standard as pertaining to Church leaders who hold sincere but inaccurate conceptions as compared to others who do so. Again, this appears to impose a standard of infallibility upon Church leaders that one would expect frequent critics such as Canard to reject.

Just saw your edit. You continue to miss the point. It's not a double standard. It is one standard. Elder Bednar declared that we know Christ's birthday by revelation. He (and many other's on this thread, including myself), are troubled that he used such strong language around something that appears to be false (something that you have not conceded).

 

So here is the single standard: Either we should give deference to prophets when they claim to know something by revelation (e.g. age of the earth, evolution, gay marriage, interracial marriage, tithing, word of wisdom, church service) even when it contradicts the dictates of our own conscience and understanding, or we should look to them as nothing more than wise poets and philosophers. Someone we should listen to and give consideration to, but ultimately follow our own path. Which one is it?

[Scott Lloyd]

So is this a new general rule? If you don't agree with the thread title, you had better state it or you're guilty by association? Can't you just admit you were wrong and give him the benefit of the doubt rather than put words in his mouth? Isn't this what you said this:

 

Canard has seemed to me today to be in full accord with the premise of this thread.

 

If that's a mistaken inference I'm open to clarification. I admit I didn't see his first post, which ironically seems to express a similar sentiment to what I have expressed today in posts that have been contested by him.

 

But I've not heard from him on the question. Will the real Canard please stand up?

 

Are you his spokesman/spokeswoman?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

But I've not heard from him on the question. Will the real Canard please stand up?

 

That you think the first post contradicts his later posts speaks volumes. Elder Bednar gave a good talk. The birthdate of Christ is unimportant. It is troubling with a Prophet gets up and declares that he knows something by revelation that is false. These are not mutually exclusive sentiments.

 

Are you his spokesman/spokeswoman?

 

No more than you are Stormrider's. I was merely pointing out that carnard had never used the term "false doctrine" in refering to Bednar's talk. I would have thought that you would have been grateful for the correction.

Edited May 27, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

Just saw your edit. You continue to miss the point. It's not a double standard. It is one standard.

It is a double standard. It's saying Church leaders are not expected to make occasional errors while others are.

 

Elder Bednar declared that we know Christ's birthday by revelation. He (and many other's on this thread, including myself), are troubled that he used such strong language around something that appears to be false (something that you have not conceded).

 

In this, he expressed the understanding that most Church members, including at least a few Church presidents, have held for generations, and that, until very recently, there has not been a persuasive reason to question. In castigating him for that, are you going to include me and, probably, millions of other Church members?

 

So here is the single standard: Either we should give deference to prophets when they claim to know something by revelation (e.g. age of the earth, evolution, gay marriage, interracial marriage, tithing, word of wisdom, church service) even when it contradicts the dictates of our own conscience and understanding, or we should look to them as nothing more than wise poets and philosophers. Someone we should listen to and give consideration to, but ultimately follow our own path. Which one is it?

 

Why the false dichotomy? Why can't we accept that occasionally they will err, but collectively, acting under inspiration and revelation from God, on matters of great import, they will express His word and will, as is the case with some of the things you mention here (the definition of marriage, tithing, Word of Wisdom, Church service)?

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

That you think the first post contradicts his later posts speaks volumes. Elder Bednar gave a good talk. The birthdate of Christ is unimportant. It is troubling with a Prophet gets up and declares that he knows something by revelation that is false. These are not mutually exclusive sentiments.

 

So Canard does hold apostles/prophets to an infallibility standard then.

 

No more than you are Stormrider's. I was merely pointing out that carnard had never used the term "false doctrine" in refering to Bednar's talk. I would have thought that you would have been grateful for the correction.

 

But today (as opposed to back on April 8  ) he seems very exercised about it. As though it is something very egregious that an apostle would hold a view that was extremely prevalent among the Latter-day Saints for many generations and would express that traditionally held view.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Why the false dichotomy? Why can't we accept that occasionally they will err, but collectively, acting under inspiration and revelation from God, they will express His word and will, as is the case with some of the things you mention here (the definition of marriage, tithing Word of Wisdom, Church service)?

I think that this is a fair take and is internally consistent and I apologize for setting up a false dichotomy.

 

As to why your view is difficult to accept? Well that's the crux of this thread. Elder Bednar has given us a case study here on something that is not emotionally charged like racial or gay issues. So how do we determine when the brethren are acting "collectively," and "under inspiration and revelation from God?"  In this instance, Elder Bednar claimed revelation, and sited scripture plus two past presidents of the church. Seems to meet your criteria, no? How did you choose the "some of the things" in your list? Some on this board would definitely include evolution and age of the earth as things that the brethren have acted collectively on. 

 

So what if we just call the April sixth date a mistake based on a bad reading of D&C 20? What if a bad reading of Abraham set in place doctrine stating that Black's were inferior to whites in the preexistence? Also a mistake and one that was held collectively and not questioned by all the brethren as late as 1948. What if our doctrine against gays is based on a faulty reading of Leviticus? How do we know that's not a mistake? For me the point of this discussion is not to make fun of Elder Bednar, but to point out that even when Prophets state they know something by revelation, they might be and have been wrong. Even when doctrine in question is held collectively among the brethren.

 

The take away for me is to listen, consider, pray, apply (per Alma 32), but at the end of the day if I can't reconcile my conscience to the collective will of the brethren, I will go with my conscience every time. 

 

Also, BTW I agree with you that the thread title is worded poorly and that the thread opened with an adversarial tone not conducive to good discussion. 

Edited May 27, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So Canard does hold apostles/prophets to an infallibility standard then.

Those were my words (Canard can speak for himself), and I do not hold apostles/prophets to an infallible standard. Rather I view them as people who like Paul (and everyone else for that matter) see through a glass darkly. The Bednar / birthdate of Christ is just a case study in making that point.

[Thinking]

Although officially LDS leaders are fallible, LDS culture breeds infallibility. When members bear testimony, they usually say I know instead of I believe. In fact, I have heard many say, "I don't just believe, I know..." or "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt..."

 

Elder Bednar said, "Today is April the 6th. We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior's birth."

 

Side Note: The Articles of Faith use We believe not We know.