False Doctrine At Conference

[JLHPROF]

Orson Pratt believed it was on April 11th.  I give the odds of Jesus being born on April 6th to be 1 in 365.  Is there any evidence of anyone before B.H. Roberts or James Talmage advocating this date?  At the end of the day, does it matter whether he was born on April 6th or the 11th or in March or December? 

 

I think that:

1. Since it doesn't matter one iota

2. Since we have NO absolute information otherwise

3. Since even historians agree it wasn't December 25th

 

I am going to choose to believe Christ's birthday (and death day if you believe some) was April 6th.  What is the harm in allowing myself to believe that compared to no viable alternative.

If I'm shown to be wrong one day, well then I'll change my belief.  For now, April 6th is the day I choose to believe.  And whyever not?

 

And if we're concerned about feeling foolish folklorists to our critics, well, you should know my opinion on that at this point in the game.

Edited January 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[carbon dioxide]

I think that:

1. Since it doesn't matter one iota

2. Since we have NO absolute information otherwise

3. Since even historians agree it wasn't December 25th

 

I am going to choose to believe Christ's birthday (and death day if you believe some) was April 6th.  What is the harm in allowing myself to believe that compared to no viable alternative.

If I'm shown to be wrong one day, well then I'll change my belief.  For now, April 6th is the day I choose to believe.  And whyever not?

 

And if we're concerned about feeling foolish folklorists to our critics, well, you should know my opinion on that at this point in the game.

Based on the evidence I have seen, I am less inclined to believe April 6th is his birthday.  But whenever someone in Church brings the issue up and says he was born on April 6th, I hold my tongue.  It simply is not an issue worth contention.  It is one of those things if you or I are wrong about, does it really matter if we are wrong?  No big deal really.

[sunstoned]

I can't think of any General Authority that has been wrong about something that if I believed what he said would put my eternal life in jeopardy. I am willing to let them be human and make a few of what I might call mistakes, but still generally follow and heed the counsel they continue to give me, confident that they will not lead me astray. 

If you were black in pre-1978 America you would not be able to this.  GA's were on on the priesthood band for over 120 years.  Think of the people who did not accept the gospel because of this.  Yes, the GA's have been wrong, and it has caused damage.

[carbon dioxide]

If you were black in pre-1978 America you would not be able to this.  GA's were on on the priesthood band for over 120 years.  Think of the people who did not accept the gospel because of this.  Yes, the GA's have been wrong, and it has caused damage.

In fairness to those GA, if people do not accept the gospel because of what they said, it still not the problem of those GA who said it.  People can find any excuse they want to reject the gospel but I think few of those excuses will be accepted by the Lord. 

[carbon dioxide]

Personally I like this thread because it illustrates the sanctimony of people upholding the "doctrine" that isn't really doctrine. I've suggested at church that we don't really know when Christ was born and immediately I get Bednar's quote thrown in my face as if it is definitive. It's not. That's the only point of this thread as far as I can tell. We act like there is only one right way to think about things when in fact there are multiple ways. We act like we have all the answers when most of the answers are based on assumptions.

 

Bottom line: The church doesn't claim to know the exact day Christ was born so everyone should stop acting like the church has spoken the doctrine and the case is settled. It's not.

Even though I don't believe there is any real reason to believe Christ was born on April 6th based on the evidence of where that view came from, Elder Bednar comment does not bother me.  It is a common view in the Church that many hold and I held to it for many years.  It sort has become tradition for LDS to accept it and not even bother to look further.  I don't expect any formal revelation coming from the Lord settling the issue because I believe the Lord does not remotely care about it.  If anything he might find it amusing how people speculate on some things.  We should not expect that when someone becomes an apostle, that Lord downloads all truth into their minds and removes all wrong beliefs.  It still is a line upon line, precept upon precept.  Apostles still have a right to be wrong on issues just as regular members we have the right.

Edited January 10, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ERayR]

Personally I like this thread because it illustrates the sanctimony of people upholding the "doctrine" that isn't really doctrine. I've suggested at church that we don't really know when Christ was born and immediately I get Bednar's quote thrown in my face as if it is definitive. It's not. That's the only point of this thread as far as I can tell. We act like there is only one right way to think about things when in fact there are multiple ways. We act like we have all the answers when most of the answers are based on assumptions.

 

Bottom line: The church doesn't claim to know the exact day Christ was born so everyone should stop acting like the church has spoken the doctrine and the case is settled. It's not.

 

All our "answers" are based on assumptions.  The answers you or I choose to accept are always based on our assumptions.  Sometimes those assumptions are correct and sometimes they are not.

[ERayR]

Orson Pratt believed it was on April 11th.  I give the odds of Jesus being born on April 6th to be 1 in 365.  Is there any evidence of anyone before B.H. Roberts or James Talmage advocating this date?  At the end of the day, does it matter whether he was born on April 6th or the 11th or in March or December? 

 

I vote for nope only if someone makes a fuss over it the way the OP did but then again I see that that does not even matter.

[ERayR]

I think that:

1. Since it doesn't matter one iota

2. Since we have NO absolute information otherwise

3. Since even historians agree it wasn't December 25th

 

I am going to choose to believe Christ's birthday (and death day if you believe some) was April 6th.  What is the harm in allowing myself to believe that compared to no viable alternative.

If I'm shown to be wrong one day, well then I'll change my belief.  For now, April 6th is the day I choose to believe.  And whyever not?

 

And if we're concerned about feeling foolish folklorists to our critics, well, you should know my opinion on that at this point in the game.

 

Me too but then I will continue to celebrate it in December, with the rest of the world.

[carbon dioxide]

Me too but then I will continue to celebrate it in December, with the rest of the world.

Same here.  Christmas makes the long cold winter a little more bearable. 

[Freedom]

Same here.  Christmas makes the long cold winter a little more bearable. 

Unless you live in the southern hemisphere. What do they get to look forward to in the cold bitter months of July and August? 

[ERayR]

Unless you live in the southern hemisphere. What do they get to look forward to in the cold bitter months of July and August? 

 

Frost bite.

[mfbukowski]

Unless you live in the southern hemisphere. What do they get to look forward to in the cold bitter months of July and August? 

That's what they get for being upside down.

[Scott Lloyd]

This site

http://www.australia.com/plan/before-you-go/australian-school-holidays.aspx

includes a listing of July holidays in Australia.

And Latter-day Saints around the world can observe Pioneer Day on or around July 24. It's not just a Utah holiday, though some dearly love to believe that

By the way, Easter this year falls on April 5, and folks in Australia and New Zealand will observe Easter Monday on April 6. So we can celebrate Christ's resurrection on those two days this year, and it wouldn't hurt to give a thought to HIs birth while we're at it -- DB's annoyance notwithstanding.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

DB's annoyance notwithstanding.

Scott - in all honesty would you answer one question for me.  Do you personally believe that we as a Church whole know what day from revelation, Jesus was born on?

[SamIam]

Unless you live in the southern hemisphere. What do they get to look forward to in the cold bitter months of July and August? 

 

While the joy of this activity is not limited to the "cold bitter months of July and August", there is always the Northeren hemisphere bucket list favorite of nerds - reverse swirlies. 

[ERayR]

Scott - in all honesty would you answer one question for me.  Do you personally believe that we as a Church whole know what day from revelation, Jesus was born on?

 

I am not Scott but what difference does it make?  What damage is done to those who want to believe it that can not be said about any other date including Dec 25?

 

What date was it?  Remember it was at the time of the Feast of the Passover.

Edited January 12, 2015 by ERayR

[HappyJackWagon]

I am not Scott but what difference does it make?  What damage is done to those who want to believe it that can not be said about any other date including Dec 25?

 

What date was it?  Remember it was at the time of the Feast of the Passover.

To me it doesn't matter what you choose to believe about the date. What does matter to me is when people take their personal opinion and declare it is doctrine when it isn't.

[ERayR]

To me it doesn't matter what you choose to believe about the date. What does matter to me is when people take their personal opinion and declare it is doctrine when it isn't.

 

Come now some may have heard it from a source they considered authoritative and just accepted it as such.  I will give Elder Bednar the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the case.  Not everyone (even GAs) are precisionist enough to be agitated over something this trivial.

[HappyJackWagon]

Sounds good to me. We can agree that there is no definitive church claim of Christ's birth that we must accept. I'm good with that. Let each person believe how they may while not attempting to force others to agree with their personal view.

[Calm]

Scott - in all honesty......

You need to use different phrasing as this implies there is a likelihood that Scott lies and thus you must encourage him to be honest. If this is not what you mean, finding a different way to request focusing or being more open about personal concepts will be less likely to cause the reader to think you don't trust someone to be automatically honest and instead he requires urging to be so.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott - in all honesty would you answer one question for me.  Do you personally believe that we as a Church whole know what day from revelation, Jesus was born on?

I see it as being like the specific location of the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, a matter on which a Latter-day Saint is free to form any non-binding opinion -- or to form no opinion at all.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

You need to use different phrasing as this implies there is a likelihood that Scott lies and thus you must encourage him to be honest. If this is not what you mean, finding a different way to request focusing or being more open about personal concepts will be less likely to cause the reader to think you don't trust someone to be automatically honest and instead he requires urging to be so.

It think that initially it was a phrase meant as a preamble to an opinion or statement a speaker or writer is about to express himself, similar to "In all candor ...." For example, "In all honesty, I find that creepy" or "In all honesty, I have not yet found time to complete the task." I agree that, when applied to someone else, it tends to cast aspersions on that person's integrity.

 

I'm thinking that usage of the phrase got corrupted over time. It is like "begs the question" in that respect.

[ERayR]

I see it as being like the location of the Hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon, a matter on which a Latter-day Saint is free to form any opinion -- or to form no opinion at all.

 

I agree but wouldn't it be neat to visit the records depository that Mormon wrote about?

[tonie]

You need to use different phrasing as this implies there is a likelihood that Scott lies and thus you must encourage him to be honest. If this is not what you mean, finding a different way to request focusing or being more open about personal concepts will be less likely to cause the reader to think you don't trust someone to be automatically honest and instead he requires urging to be so.

 

It is reassuring that I am not the only one who sees the implication of dishonesty with such phrases.

Edited January 12, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

DBMormon, there are certain individual(s) on this board, who in my opinion, rarely if ever offer anything but insult. You have been victimized by one of them, who oft repeated and deliberate misunderstanding is to call anyone and everyone who he disagrees with, but against whom he can not formulate a articulate response, resorts to name calling.  I would suggest you use the "ignore" function, and more importantly not respond to a trolls demand for you to bear testimony to his/her own personal standard for Latter-Day Saints.

 

I recall, from the Truman G. Madsen lectures on Joseph Smith, that Madsen reports that Joseph Smith may have made a comment about the birth of Christ. If I recall correctly the statement was made in relation to the founding of the modern church. Does anyone have that Madsen lecture series?