False Doctrine At Conference

[DBMormon]

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.

That wasn't my question ERAYR, As Happy Wagon points out one's opinion to hold a date as true in their own personal beliefs is absolutely ok with me (Whether that be an apostle, A Stake President, a Bishop, or a Ward Librarian).  you may keep answering questions I am not asking or the actual question I am.  My Question =   Do any of us of you (Scott in particular) believe that there is official Church revelation from the Lord that the general membership is aware of that states Christ's birth date with certainty?

Edited January 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

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.

I agree with you but that wasn't my question, let me rephrase

Do you believe that there is official Church revelation from the Lord that the general membership is aware of that states Christ's birth date with certainty?

[DBMormon]

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?

Thank you.  I often feel that while only a handful do that, only a handful seem willing to call it out.  Thank you for doing so.  It is comforting to know others see it as well.

[ERayR]

That wasn't my question ERAYR, As Happy Wagon points out one's opinion to hold a date as true in their own personal beliefs is absolutely ok with me.  you may keep answering questions I am not asking or the actual question I am.  My Question =   Do any of us of you (Scott in particular) believe that there is official Church revelation from the Lord that the general membership is aware of that states Christ's birth date with certainty?

 

My answer is I don't know.but to some D & C 20:1 could be interpreted that way.

 

Now answer my question.  What difference does it make?

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree with you but that wasn't my question, let me rephrase

Do you believe that there is official Church revelation from the Lord that the general membership is aware of that states Christ's birth date with certainty?

Asked and answered (see board guidelines). The response to this is implied in the answer I gave.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Asked and answered (see board guidelines). The response to this is implied in the answer I gave.

My apologies as your answer seemed very unrelated to the question and seemed to address a question that wasn't asked.  I wrongly assumed you misunderstood the question.  It didn't answer my question but I will refrain from re-asking per board rules. I can understand the dilemma at hand.  Good day

[Scott Lloyd]

My apologies as your answer seemed very unrelated to the question and seemed to address a question that wasn't asked.  I wrongly assumed you misunderstood the question.

I disagree that the response was unrelated, and I am not bound by your assumption that I misunderstood the question.

 

 

It didn't answer my question but I will refrain from re-asking per board rules. I can understand the dilemma at hand.  Good day

 

I have an aversion to being placed unwillingly in the position of a witness undergoing a cross-examination.

[ERayR]

I disagree that the response was unrelated, and I am not bound by your assumption that I misunderstood the question.

 

 

I have an aversion to being placed unwillingly in the position of a witness undergoing a cross-examination.

 

Especially by some one who dodges and ignores questions himself.

[HappyJackWagon]

My answer is I don't know.but to some D & C 20:1 could be interpreted that way.

 

Now answer my question.  What difference does it make?

Someone "could" interpret the scripture that way if they are bound and determined to make it work, but it doesn't mean they should. Still, we all have the ability to believe this any way we choose because there is no definitive revelation accepted by the church about the birthdate of Christ.

[DBMormon]

I disagree that the response was unrelated, and I am not bound by your assumption that I misunderstood the question.

I have an aversion to being placed unwillingly in the position of a witness undergoing a cross-examination.

I totally agree that each member has a right to believe what they want about the date of Christ's birth.  I agree because there is no Doctrinal statement of such.  I would guess (please correct me if wrong) you would also agree there is no revelation we can point to with any level of agreement or certainty that decrees the birth date of Christ which is why such varied belief is permitted and valid?

 

Since there is no church wide revelation that is accepted and sustained church wide as delivering such a definitive date on Christ's birth, would it be fair to say that while one can hold their own independent belief, it would be faulty to assume that as a Church whole, we (as a group) know the birth date of Christ.  Would you agree?

Edited January 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

Someone "could" interpret the scripture that way if they are bound and determined to make it work, but it doesn't mean they should. Still, we all have the ability to believe this any way we choose because there is no definitive revelation accepted by the church about the birthdate of Christ.

 

The first time I read that I interpreted it that way.  It wasn't until subsequent readings that I realized that it could be interpreted differently but by then I was aware that it was irrelevant.

[Scott Lloyd]

I totally agree that each member has a right to believe what they want about the date of Christ's birth.  I agree because there is no Doctrinal statement of such.  I would guess (please correct me if wrong) you would also agree there is no revelation we can point to with any level of agreement or certainty that decrees the birth date of Christ which is why such varied belief is permitted and valid?

 

Since there is no church wide revelation that is accepted and sustained church wide as delivering such a definitive date on Christ's birth, would it be fair to say that while one can hold their own independent belief, it would be faulty to assume that as a Church whole, we (as a group) know the birth date of Christ.  Would you agree?

I told you, I won't be cross-examined.

[DBMormon]

I told you, I won't be cross-examined.

this is a discussion board... sorry you don't like to be asked questions.  I always thought good discussions had questions in them.  Like I said I totally understand the dilemma.  If one agrees that we have no common revelation, one might then be agreeing by default that a leader who claims such would likely be incorrect.  If one takes the side that we do have a common revelation and hence it is appropriate to claim "we" know, one might be seen as being unwilling to accept historical data and heavily weighted historical analysis no matter how likely that it is true.  I get it... Could be quite the pickle.

[Scott Lloyd]

this is a discussion board... sorry you don't like to be asked questions.

I didn't say that. I said I don't like -- and will not abide -- being cross-examined.

[DBMormon]

I didn't say that. I said I don't like -- and will not abide -- being cross-examined.

definition = question (a witness called by the other party) in a court of law to discredit or undercut testimony already given.

 

exactly.... I am sorry for that.

[Bob Crockett]

this is a discussion board... sorry you don't like to be asked questions.  I always thought good discussions had questions in them.  Like I said I totally understand the dilemma.  If one agrees that we have no common revelation, one might then be agreeing by default that a leader who claims such would likely be incorrect.  If one takes the side that we do have a common revelation and hence it is appropriate to claim "we" know, one might be seen as being unwilling to accept historical data and heavily weighted historical analysis no matter how likely that it is true.  I get it... Could be quite the pickle.

My goodness -- you avoid questions like the plague around here.  At least you're somewhat not anonymous.

 

You and April 6.  Just go out of town on that date and don't listen to conference to get you all in a twitter.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[HappyJackWagon]

 

My goodness -- you avoid questions like the plague around here.  At least you're somewhat not anonymous.

Really? DBMormon's somewhat anonymous? I'm pretty sure everyone knows who he is. Would you like me to tell you?

 

At least he's not screaming into the wind "I WILL NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED."

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? DBMormon's somewhat anonymous? I'm pretty sure everyone knows who he is. Would you like me to tell you?

 

At least he's not screaming into the wind "I WILL NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED."

Who's screaming? You're the one using ALL CAPS.

 

And I wasn't directing it to the wind. I was calmly reiterating it to DBMormon who, in violation of board guidelines, wouldn't let up in his badgering.

 

I think by "somewhat not anonymous," Bob Crockett means that with someone who is totally not anonymous, there is no question from the screen name as to the identity of the person. There are only a few of us who are like that, including him, me, Daniel Peterson (when he was still posting here), etc.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

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.

GAs can parrot as well as any other member. Some of them do almost nothing but parrot.

[Scott Lloyd]

GAs can parrot as well as any other member. Some of them do almost nothing but parrot.

Like most anti-Mormons and antagonistic critics? I rarely if ever see an original thought from them, even when they are not copying and pasting.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

GAs can parrot as well as any other member. Some of them do almost nothing but parrot.

 

In light of D & C 20: I think it is reasonable to accept it without the label of parrot

Edited January 13, 2015 by ERayR

[DBMormon]

In light of D & C 20: I think it is reasonable to accept it without the label of parrot

And D&C 1:25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known.  We should expect some mistakes.

[ERayR]

And D&C 1:25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known.  We should expect some mistakes.

 

But in this case it is not obvious they are wrong and you are right, unless you want to declare your infallibility.  

[JLHPROF]

I agree with you but that wasn't my question, let me rephrase

Do you believe that there is official Church revelation from the Lord that the general membership is aware of that states Christ's birth date with certainty?

 

I don't think ANYONE believes that there is.  So they all choose to accept or not accept April 6th as the day.

 

Even I (who like to believe April 6th is the day) was disagree with someone who said it had been confirmed by revelation.

[teddyaware]

I don't think ANYONE believes that there is.  So they all choose to accept or not accept April 6th as the day.

 

Even I (who like to believe April 6th is the day) was disagree with someone who said it had been confirmed by revelation.

 

Here's the problem with this thread, as I see it: Let's liken General Conference to an wonderfully delicious feast of many different gourmet dishes and costly delicacies gathered from around the world, all expertly prepared by renowned chefs. And let's say that from an experienced food critic's point of view each individual dish, and the vast array of delicacies, are a smashing gastronomic success -- the lone exception being the fact that a small number of the raw oysters served were a little gritty with very small particles of sand. So would it make sense or seem fair if it turned out that the food critic's review of this triumphantly spectacular, once-in-a-lifetime gustatory experience was focused only on decrying the seafood bar's few oysters that betrayed a little easily overlooked grittiness?

 

We'll know we're reaching greater spiritual maturity as saints when we're able to focus upon and discuss the main content and focus of our General Authority's General Conference addresses, rather than waste so much time carping and worrying about small and virtually inconsequential doctrinal "grains of sand" that 'get by' every now and then. 

 

Since my "limited" status will not allow me to post new topics, I'm wondering if some of the faithful Church members on the board would reread Elder Bednar's address and post a thread or two that focuses on some of the compelling doctrinal concepts he presents there, rather than continue to "miss the mark" by carrying on and on over a few minute grains of sand.

Edited January 13, 2015 by teddyaware