False Doctrine At Conference

[AndyDnom]

i heard that most religious scholars believe jesus was born in the spring, is this true? why the obsession with 12/25 then?

[CMZ]

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

 

Exactly. If President Monson corrected Elder Bednar I wouldn't mind. If Elder Bednar never gets corrected and we find out later Christ was born on April 5th or 7th or December 25th or some other date it still does not change the gospel. Nothing Elder Bednar said is likely to put anyone on a path that leads away from the celestial kingdom. But, I don't want to take the pleasure away from some who are looking to cry, "False doctrine!" It must be a fun game to play, so, heck, play it.

[webbles]

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

 

 

I personally believe the Book of Mormon supports April 6th (or at least a spring date).

 

8 Now the Nephites began to reckon their time from this period when the sign was given, or from the coming of Christ; therefore, nine years had passed away.

 

5 And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.

 

We know that Christ was crucified during Passover and Passover is in the spring.  In 3 Nephi 8:5, it looks like He was crucified on the 4th day of the Nephite year.  If you take 3 Nephi 2:8 to mean that they started the year on the day of His birth (so day 1 would be His birthday), then that would mean that He was crucified 3 days after His birthday.  And so His birthday would be during Passover.

[cdowis]

This is pure silliness.  Let's get back to a serious thread, "What if Moroni had died before burying the plates."

[ERayR]

The first thing I said when I heard Elder Bednar say that was: "Self the self righteous nit pickers are going to have a feeding frenzy with this". 

[bluebell]

i heard that most religious scholars believe jesus was born in the spring, is this true? why the obsession with 12/25 then?

The Catholic Church had a habit if co-opting pagan holidays and making them Christian to help the pagans convert.

Before Christmas was Christmas it was the celebration of saturnalia.

[Rivers]

i heard that most religious scholars believe jesus was born in the spring, is this true? why the obsession with 12/25 then?

Winter solstice.

[rpn]

DBMormon, Why don't you ask Elder bednar in writing to his office why he said that given the origin of the words recorded.  Send him your links.   You probably won't get a response, but who knows, you might and then you can tell us all about it.

 

I was quite surprised myself about how he presented the information given what we know about the language of the scripture.   But it is clear what Elder Bednar believes is true.

[Scott Lloyd]

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

There have already been several threads started with a positive view of individual speakers' sermons.

[CMZ]

I was quite surprised myself about how he presented the information given what we know about the language of the scripture.   But it is clear what Elder Bednar believes is true.

 

I don't see any problem with a prophet, seer and revelator giving us more certain knowledge on it than we've had in the past. Especially when it concurs with the word of two prior prophets, seers and revelators. What kind of position are we in as a church that believes in continuing revelation if we say that we can never know more now than we did before?

[Thinking]

It is my opinion that Elder Bednar dropped the ball, even if Jesus was born on April 6th.

 

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine. Link

 

That Christ was born and lived is much more important than when He was born. The problem here is that Bednar is the one (not the media) who placed such a peripheral doctrine at the center by declaring it true by revelation at GC.

[Coreyb]

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

What he is saying is that none of them have claimed any divine instruction on it. If they had, it would be a different story. Using section 20 takes a lot of reading into. It isn't even inferred by the text, and that is if the date is right for the revelation, and it seems like it is not.

[CMZ]

It is my opinion that Elder Bednar dropped the ball, even if Jesus was born on April 6th.

 

 

That Christ was born and lived is much more important than when He was born. The problem here is that Bednar is the one (not the media) who placed such a peripheral doctrine at the center by declaring it true by revelation at GC.

 

Not only did I not hear him cite his belief as being based on Section 20, but I also didn't hear him say he knew it was true by revelation.

[CMZ]

What he is saying is that none of them have claimed any divine instruction on it. If they had, it would be a different story. Using section 20 takes a lot of reading into. It isn't even inferred by the text, and that is if the date is right for the revelation, and it seems like it is not.

 

Not looking at a transcript but I don't think Elder Bednar cited Section 20. Did he cite divine instruction? No, not that I remember. But does that rule it out? No. But even if he is wrong about April 6th I still don't see it as "false doctrine." I just see it as him getting a date wrong. And that's IF he got it wrong.

[Coreyb]

Not looking at a transcript but I don't think Elder Bednar cited Section 20. Did he cite divine instruction? No, not that I remember. But does that rule it out? No. But even if he is wrong about April 6th I still don't see it as "false doctrine." I just see it as him getting a date wrong. And that's IF he got it wrong.

True, dates are hardly doctrines

[Thinking]

Not only did I not hear him cite his belief as being based on Section 20, but I also didn't hear him say he knew it was true by revelation.

 

I heard him say, "We know by revelation..."

 

If I misheard, I will correct my post.

[CMZ]

I heard him say, "We know by revelation..."

 

If I misheard, I will correct my post.

 

That could be right. And he may be referring in part or in whole to Section 20. Or not at all.

 

I really don't see what all the fuss is about Bednar's statement when we know Presidents Lee and Kimball have said the same thing. How come all of a sudden an apostle is seen as teaching "false doctrine?"

[frank_jessop]

Mormontimes tweeted the statement by Elder Bednar regarding the birth date

[Thinking]

For the relevant part of Bednar's talk, scroll to 1:26:09.

 

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

[Calm]

For the relevant part of Bednar's talk, scroll to 1:26:09.

 

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

Thanks for taking the time to do this (out of points, I owe you one).

[Lachoneus]

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

Incorrect"

There is nothing incorrect about Elder Bednar's statement, nor did he call it doctrine. Irrespective of what Brother Chadwick and others have written, the fact remains that it was "by the spirit of prophecy and revelation" that "the precise day upon which, according to his will and commandment, we should proceed to organize his Church once more here upon the earth" was revealed by the Lord to the Prophet Joseph Smith (1 History of the Church 64-70). As has already been documented by others in this thread, other modern-day prophets have explained that this specific revealed day is also the anniversary of Christ's birth. April 6th is not an arbitrary day.

 

[CMZ]

Lachoneous is stating what I've been too lazy to.

[juliann]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8651

 

 

Dates Proposed by Latter-day Saints for the Birth of Jesus Christ

Orson Pratt (1870)

April 11, 4

bc

James E. Talmage (1915)

April 6, 1

bc

J. Reuben Clark (1954)

December, 5

bc

(

or early 4

bc

)

Sidney B. Sperry (1970)

April 6, 1

bc

Bruce R. McConkie (1979)

December, 5

bc

(or January to April, 4

bc

;

alternatively, as early as April, 5

bc

)

John C. Lefgren (1980)

April 6, 1

bc

John P. Pratt (1982)

April 6, 1

bc

Thomas A. Wayment (2005)

Between spring and winter, 5

bc

 

But it comes down to this: (formatting does not survive copying)

 

 

First, however, three primary issues involved in dating Jesus’s birth

need to be discussed. These are (1) the date of the death of Herod the Great,

(2) the date of the death of Jesus himself, and (3) the length of Jesus’s mortal

life. The first two issues can be confidently addressed in relation to histori

-

cal, archaeological, and astronomical evidence that has become generally

available in recent times, and important information regarding the length

of Jesus’s mortal life can be found in the Book of Mormon

 

 

 

Conclusions

Two conclusions emerge from this study. The first is this: in the five-year

period examined (5

bc

to 1

bc

), there is no year in which April 6 could have

been the birth date of Jesus. This conclusion may disappoint some

Latter-day

Saints who have been conditioned to think of April 6 as the Savior’s birthday.

However, Latter-day Saints’ appreciation for this calendar date should in no

way be diminished, because the intent of D&C 20:1 was not to fix the date of

Jesus’s nativity; rather, the intent (as with D&C 21:3) was to designate April 6

as the day on which the Church of Jesus Christ was organized in its latter-

day dispensation. This noble and divinely inspired event makes the date of

April 6 a sacred latter-day anniversary in its own right.

59

The second conclusion perhaps goes without saying: the traditional

date of Christmas, December 25, falls within the window of time in which

it would appear that Jesus must have been born. It is just as possible

that Jesus was born on the calendar date we call December 25 as on any

other date in the few weeks preceding it or the week following it. But this

study in no way concludes that December 25 was actually the birth date

of Jesus.

60

While people may always see things differently, the totality of

the evidence presented above allows only one conclusion: that his birth

occurred within those December weeks that we now commonly refer to

as the Christmas season.

 

[Lachoneus]

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8651

In his article, Brother Chadwick makes a number of assumptions, as any historian must. Unfortuanately, several of his assumptions are false. Therefore, his conclusions are also false. His conclusion that April 6, 1 BC, is not an acceptable date for Christ's birth is one of those false conclusions.

[CMZ]

In his article, Brother Chadwick makes a number of assumptions, as any historian must. Unfortuanately, several of his assumptions are false. Therefore, his conclusions are also false. His conclusion that April 6, 1 BC, is not an acceptable date for Christ's birth is one of those false conclusions.

 

But we have to put his conclusions based on his false assumptions above prophetic statements.