False Doctrine At Conference

[CV75]

I'd say it's already been well pointed out that the statement, "we know by revelation..." isn't referring to personal revelation by Elder Bednar but is alluding to something the audience is most likely familiar with. If that be the case it appears, from all available evidence, that Elder Bednar is alluding to something that we know was mistaken characterized as revelation. We all make mistakes, or suggest we know things when in fact we don't. That's the issue at hand, it seems. At times, we've had our dear leaders, as well-intentioned as they are, claim to know things they perhaps don't know. It's easy to be dogmatic about religious matters and claim knowledge when knowledge is not had. As I listen to people in my ward speak each week and during the week in other conversations I'm astounded how often we all tend to do this. its not wonder our own apostles tend to do it as well.

I too think he is using “We” to convey generally-accepted Church knowledge and belief that has its basis in what is known or believed to be revelation. Where “know” and “believe” are often the same thing (and one man’s knowledge is another’s belief, even in how he uses the terms), determining whether he knows, or believes, or whether he knows/believes that we likewise know/believe does not define the mistake. If no one knows what the actual revelation is, or knows (or believes) by revelation that the purported revelation isn’t a revelation, or doesn’t believe the revelation anyway (whether purported or actual), there is still no strong basis to call his statement a mistake.

 

That “We all make mistakes, or suggest we know things when in fact we don't” is a given knowledge/belief for most of us, but doesn’t mean that Elder Bednar necessarily made a mistake in this instance, or that other matters of Church policy, practice and doctrine that we might disagree with are or are likely mistakes.

 

So it can be said he was wrong, but who is to really know that? It can be said he made a mistake, or suggested he knows things he merely believes in or doesn’t know (let’s not say he lied), but who is to really know that, and how? It is often said we cannot convey what we know to another person until we show how much we care about him; likewise, we cannot really know something until we care enough to do what it takes to find out. In this case, it revelation would make it a fair playing field.

[CV75]

Something occurred to me this morning when thinking about this:

 

Whether or not the April 6 date was initially included as a header to the revelation, it has long been part of the scriptural canon and authoritatively interpreted to be a designation of the date of Christ's birth. That may be a reason why the Brethren ostensibly continue to regard it as having been given by revelation. It is also a reason why I am withholding judgment on the matter until I hear more from the Church leaders about it.

I agree -- there are / could be many reasons why the Brethren regard that date as having been given by revelation. I'm willing to even go with it came from a source other than D&C 20. As you said, we just don't know. I read somewhere (I think it was in an Institute Manual long ago) that to understand the prophets we need to get the spirit of the prophets. So I'm OK with it whenever they use the date, and how. I'm sure by the time they say more about "April 6," if they ever do, I'll try to focus on the many other wonderful things they have to say, like those I found in Elder Bednar's talk!

[mfbukowski]

I agree -- there are / could be many reasons why the Brethren regard that date as having been given by revelation. I'm willing to even go with it came from a source other than D&C 20. As you said, we just don't know. I read somewhere (I think it was in an Institute Manual long ago) that to understand the prophets we need to get the spirit of the prophets. So I'm OK with it whenever they use the date, and how. I'm sure by the time they say more about "April 6," if they ever do, I'll try to focus on the many other wonderful things they have to say, like those I found in Elder Bednar's talk!

You get a couple of rep points for that one- on random other posts as well just to make up for the fact I cannot give more than one for this post!

[CV75]

You get a couple of rep points for that one- on random other posts as well just to make up for the fact I cannot give more than one for this post!

Well that's mighty kind of you, sir! And I especially like the random idea--throws 'em all off!

[cinepro]

I agree -- there are / could be many reasons why the Brethren regard that date as having been given by revelation. I'm willing to even go with it came from a source other than D&C 20. As you said, we just don't know. I read somewhere (I think it was in an Institute Manual long ago) that to understand the prophets we need to get the spirit of the prophets. So I'm OK with it whenever they use the date, and how. I'm sure by the time they say more about "April 6," if they ever do, I'll try to focus on the many other wonderful things they have to say, like those I found in Elder Bednar's talk!

 

Even if Elder Bednar was referring to a secret revelation that we don't know about*, I think it's been well established that he alone does not have the authority to reveal new revelations for the Church (especially without any type of explanation or exposition other than an oblique reference). 

 

I suspect he would agree, and so I would bet all my money on D&C 20:1 being the "revelation" he was referring to.

 

 

*A hypothetical I raised the day he gave the talk.

Edited May 28, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

Even if Elder Bednar was referring to a secret revelation that we don't know about*, I think it's been well established that he alone does not have the authority to reveal new revelations for the Church (especially without any type of explanation or exposition other than an oblique reference). 

 

I suspect he would agree, and so I would bet all my money on D&C 20:1 being the "revelation" he was referring to.

 

 

*A hypothetical I raised the day he gave the talk.

Suppose there had been another statement, an authoritative one from Joseph Smith,  that more explicitly identifies April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Would you still bet all of your money on D&C 20:1 being the one he was referring to?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

The "error" talked about is not the day but the claim of revelation to know the day.

I see, thank you for the correction.

 

CFR that it is NOT revelation and how you know that.

 

Of course that implies a discourse on what constitutes how we can know the "truth" of a revelation.

Edited May 28, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Suppose there had been another statement, an authoritative one from Joseph Smith,  that more explicitly identifies April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Would you still bet all of your money on D&C 20:1 being the one he was referring to?

Cinepro, this is not a rhetorical question. I'm expecting -- and awaiting -- a response from you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Suppose there had been another statement, an authoritative one from Joseph Smith,  that more explicitly identifies April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Would you still bet all of your money on D&C 20:1 being the one he was referring to?

If this was the case, wouldn't Elder Bednar have referenced that in his talk instead of President Kimball and President Lee (along side D&C 20)? 

[Scott Lloyd]

If this was the case, wouldn't Elder Bednar have referenced that in his talk instead of President Kimball and President Lee (along side D&C 20)? 

Then let me pose this question to you and to others:

 

If there were a statement from Joseph Smith identifying April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth -- one more explicit than D&C 20:1 -- would you be so quick to conclude that Elder Bednar had erred (or, in the words of some, taught "false doctrine")?

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

Suppose there had been another statement, an authoritative one from Joseph Smith,  that more explicitly identifies April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth. Would you still bet all of your money on D&C 20:1 being the one he was referring to?

 

I've never heard it claimed that "authoritative statement from Joseph Smith" = "revelation" (and it's certainly a cornerstone of LDS apologetics that they aren't), so.....yes.

 

But if you want to argue that "authoritative statements" from Joseph Smith are always revelations, then that sound you hear is a giant can of worms opening.

Edited May 28, 2014 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

I've never heard it claimed that "authoritative statement from Joseph Smith" = "revelation" (and it's certainly a cornerstone of LDS apologetics that they aren't), so.....yes.

 

But if you want to argue that "authoritative statements" from Joseph Smith are always revelations, then that sound you hear is a giant can of worms opening.

Do you think Joseph would teach something as explicit as the precise anniversary date of Christ's birth if it hadn't been revealed to him by the Lord?

[cinepro]

I also don't consider authoritative statements from John Pratt to be revelation.

[cinepro]

Do you think Joseph would teach something as explicit as the precise anniversary date of Christ's birth if it hadn't been revealed to him by the Lord?

 

Compared to, say, explicit and precise statements about Book of Mormon geography?

[Scott Lloyd]

I also don't consider authoritative statements from John Pratt to be revelation.

Non sequitur.

 

I said Joseph Smith, not John Pratt.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Compared to, say, explicit and precise statements about Book of Mormon geography?

So you have no straight answer then?

[cinepro]

So you have no straight answer then?

 

My straight answer is "Yes, I absolutely believe Joseph Smith would teach something as explicit as the precise anniversary date of Christ's birth if it hadn't been revealed to him by the Lord."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I see, thank you for the correction.

 

CFR that it is NOT revelation and how you know that.

 

Of course that implies a discourse on what constitutes how we can know the "truth" of a revelation.

Well it is my opinion that it is pretty much impossible to "know" anything. Here are the things that seem most clear however:

 

Joseph is not on record as giving a date for Jesus birth. 

 

No one alive when Joseph was alive is on record for giving a "revealed" birthdate for Jesus. As has been linked earlier, Orson Pratt suggested April 11th. 

 

Elder Talmage is the first (as far as I am aware) GA to suggest April 6 as the "revealed" date and bases it on D&C20.

 

Subsequent GA's and prophets have given April 6 as the revealed date (though Elder McConkie is an exception). In all cases where sources are given, they refer to D&C 20:1

 

JSP project people tell us it is very likely D&C 20:1 was written by Whitmer and the language used was similar to language he used elsewhere to state the date.

 

Based on the evidence given to date, it seems most likely that Elder Bednar is mistaken with regards to his statement that "we know by revelation" the exact date of Christ's birth.

[Scott Lloyd]

My straight answer is "Yes, I absolutely believe Joseph Smith would teach something as explicit as the precise anniversary date of Christ's birth if it hadn't been revealed to him by the Lord."

Interesting.

 

But your disdain for the Prophet is not probative.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then let me pose this question to you and to others:

 

If there were a statement from Joseph Smith identifying April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth -- one more explicit than D&C 20:1 -- would you be so quick to conclude that Elder Bednar had erred (or, in the words of some, taught "false doctrine")?

Still awaiting a response to this.

[Scott Lloyd]

Well it is my opinion that it is pretty much impossible to "know" anything. Here are the things that seem most clear however:

 

Joseph is not on record as giving a date for Jesus birth. 

 

No one alive when Joseph was alive is on record for giving a "revealed" birthdate for Jesus. As has been linked earlier, Orson Pratt suggested April 11th. 

 

Elder Talmage is the first (as far as I am aware) GA to suggest April 6 as the "revealed" date and bases it on D&C20.

 

Subsequent GA's and prophets have given April 6 as the revealed date (though Elder McConkie is an exception). In all cases where sources are given, they refer to D&C 20:1

 

JSP project people tell us it is very likely D&C 20:1 was written by Whitmer and the language used was similar to language he used elsewhere to state the date.

 

Based on the evidence given to date, it seems most likely that Elder Bednar is mistaken with regards to his statement that "we know by revelation" the exact date of Christ's birth.

This is from History of the Church 1:336

 

On the 6th of April, in the land of Zion, about eighty officials, together with some unofficial members of the Church, met for instruction and the service of God, at the Ferry on Big Blue river near the western limits of Jackson county, which is the boundary line of the state of Missouri and also of the United States. It was an early spring, and the leaves and blossoms enlivened and gratified the soul of man like a glimpse of Paradise. The day was spent in a very agreeable manner, in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom—it being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down His life that men might have everlasting life, and only three years since the Church had come out of the wilderness, preparatory for the last dispensation. The Saints had great reason to rejoice: they thought upon the time when this world came into existence, and the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy; they thought of the time when Israel ate the ‘Passover,’ as wailing came up for the loss of the firstborn of Egypt; they felt like the shepherds who watched their flocks by night, when the angelic choir sweetly sang the electrifying strain, ‘Peace on earth, good will to man;’ and the solemnities of eternity rested upon them. This was the first attempt made by the Church to celebrate the anniversary of her birthday, and those who professed not our faith talked about it as a strange thing.” That Christ, who is called both the “Firstborn” and the “beginning” of God’s creation in both the Bible and early Christian texts, should be born on the day commemorating the creation is especially significant, for it was through him that God created the earth.

 

(Bold emphasis mine)

 

So here we have a statement identifying April 6, the anniversary date of the Church's organization, as not only the anniversary of the birth of Christ but the anniversary of the creation of the earth.

 

So what can we draw from this?

 

It is possible that the preface to the content of D&C 20 was more than just John Whitmer's fancy way of saying 1830, that it reflected knowledge that was had among the early Brethren of the Church as taught to them by the Prophet who would had to have learned it by revelation.

 

Given the above, it is plausible that what was originally conceived as a header was later incorporated into the scriptural canon as part of D&C 20 because it was meant to be interpreted as identifying the date of Jesus' birth, which information was taught by Joseph Smith under revelation from God.

 

Furthermore, it is quite possible that Elder Bednar, aware of all of the above, spoke deliberately in his general conference sermon, did not err, and, contrary to DBMormon's brazen accusation, did not teach false doctrine.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Then let me pose this question to you and to others:

 

If there were a statement from Joseph Smith identifying April 6 as the anniversary of Christ's birth -- one more explicit than D&C 20:1 -- would you be so quick to conclude that Elder Bednar had erred (or, in the words of some, taught "false doctrine")?

 

Scott,

 

If Elder Bednar had said "It has been revealed to me as a prophet of God that Christ was born on April 6," there would be no issue. He didn't. He referenced D&C 20:1. He also referenced other prophets who cited D&C 20:1. None of his sources had any reference to any revelatory experience outside of D&C 20:1.  The JSPP has called this source into question.

 

To provide a straight answer, if Joseph Smith had claimed a revelatory experience in relation to the April 6 date, of course we would not be having a conversation on whether Elder Bednar erred in his doctrine.

 

Now we might be having a conversation about why God reveals minutia like "When was Christ born" but not answers to bigger questions like "why did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives" or "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood" but that is a topic for another thread.

Edited May 28, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

If Elder Bednar had said "It has been revealed to me as a prophet of God that Christ was born on April 6," there would be no issue. He didn't. He referenced D&C 20:1. He also referenced other prophets who cited D&C 20:1. None of his sources had any reference to any revelatory experience outside of D&C 20:1.  The JSPP has called this source into question.

 

To provide a straight answer, if Joseph Smith had claimed a revelatory experience in relation to the April 6 date, of course we would not be having a conversation on whether Elder Bednar erred in his doctrine.

 

Now we might be having a conversation about why God reveals minutia like "When was Christ born" but not answers to bigger questions like "why did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives" but that is a topic for another thread.

Your response came a minute too late, I'm afraid.

 

See my prior post above.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Well it is my opinion that it is pretty much impossible to "know" anything. Here are the things that seem most clear however:

 

Joseph is not on record as giving a date for Jesus birth. 

 

No one alive when Joseph was alive is on record for giving a "revealed" birthdate for Jesus. As has been linked earlier, Orson Pratt suggested April 11th. 

 

Elder Talmage is the first (as far as I am aware) GA to suggest April 6 as the "revealed" date and bases it on D&C20.

 

Subsequent GA's and prophets have given April 6 as the revealed date (though Elder McConkie is an exception). In all cases where sources are given, they refer to D&C 20:1

 

JSP project people tell us it is very likely D&C 20:1 was written by Whitmer and the language used was similar to language he used elsewhere to state the date.

 

Based on the evidence given to date, it seems most likely that Elder Bednar is mistaken with regards to his statement that "we know by revelation" the exact date of Christ's birth.

Let me simply juxtapose two lines of the above statement and see how substantial the rest of the comment is.

 

 

Well it is my opinion that it is pretty much impossible to "know" anything.....

 

Based on the evidence given to date, it seems most likely that Elder Bednar is mistaken with regards to his statement that "we know by revelation" the exact date of Christ's birth.

Given the first statement, I fail to see how the second one is justified.

 

Sometimes people say "you can't prove a negative" which is really kind of a sloppy way of saying that a statement is non-falsifiable.

 

The statement "The revealed date for Jesus' birth is April 6" is completely non-falsifiable, and therefore cannot be considered "false".

 

No one knows with precision what doctrine IS, or what "revelation" IS, and yet the claim is to know with certainty what doctrine and revelation is NOT.  How do you pull that one off?

 

The very concept is totally absurd to me- that something which is in principle unknowable could be considered "false"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is from History of the Church 1:336

 

(Bold emphasis mine)

 

So here we have a statement identifying April 6, the anniversary date of the Church's organization, as not only the anniversary of the birth of Christ but the anniversary of the creation of the earth.

 

So what can we draw from this?

 

It is possible that the preface to the content of D&C 20 was more than just John Whitmer's fancy way of saying 1830, that it reflected knowledge that was had among the early Brethren of the Church as taught to them by the Prophet who would had to have learned it by revelation.

 

Given the above, it is plausible that what was originally conceived as a header was later incorporated into the scriptural canon as part of D&C 20 because it was meant to be interpreted as identifying the date of Jesus' birth, which information was taught by Joseph Smith under revelation from God.

 

Furthermore, it is quite possible that Elder Bednar, aware of all of the above, spoke deliberately in his general conference sermon, did not err, and, contrary to DBMormon's brazen accusation, did not teach false doctrine.

Scott,

 

I'm not sure what version of history of the church you are using, but the section you are quoting, but here is what is actually recorded (see here):

On the 6th of April, in the land of Zion, about eighty officials, together with some unofficial members of the Church, met for instruction and the service of God, at the Ferry on Big Blue river near the western limits of Jackson county, which is the boundary line of the state of Missouri and also of the United States. It was an early spring, and the leaves and blossoms enlivened and gratified the soul of man like a glimpse of Paradise. The day was spent in a very agreeable manner, in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom—it being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down His life that men might have everlasting life, and only three years since the Church had come out of the wilderness, preparatory for the last dispensation. The Saints had great reason to rejoice: they thought upon the time when this world came into existence, and the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy; they thought of the time when Israel ate the "Passover," as wailing came up for the loss of the firstborn of Egypt; they felt like the shepherds who watched their flocks by night, when the angelic choir sweetly sang the electrifying strain, "Peace on earth, good will to man;" and the solemnities of eternity rested upon them. This was the first attempt made by the Church to celebrate the anniversary of her birthday, and those who professed not our faith talked about it as a strange thing.

 

You'll notice that most of your bolded section " That Christ, who is called both the “Firstborn” and the “beginning” of God’s creation in both the Bible and early Christian texts, should be born on the day commemorating the creation is especially significant, for it was through him that God created the earth" is commentary not in the original source. It appears to be added by John Tvedtnes at Mormon Interpreter (see footnote 60). 

 

I don't think the commentary can be supported from the text itself however and apparently neither does John sense he did not draw the conclusion from the quote that Jesus was born April 6.