False Doctrine At Conference

[frank_jessop]

 

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

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

It comes down to this:

Dating the Birth of Christ Volume 49:4 (2010)

A significant number of later General Authorities, including Church Presidents Harold B. Lee, Spencer W. Kimball, and Gordon B. Hinckley, have commented on the April 6 date warmly and acceptingly but without explanation or greater specificity.

----

Here are two of the quotes:

Harold B. Lee: This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6, 1973, is a particularly significant date because it commemorates not only the anniversary of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. “Strengthen the Stakes of Zion,” Ensign (July 1973)

Spencer W. Kimball: My brothers and sisters, today we not only celebrate the Sesquicentennial of the organization of the Church, but also the greatest event in human history since the birth of Christ on this day 1,980 years ago. Today is Easter Sunday. “Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,” Ensign (May 1980)

I wonder why Chadwick did not include these statement in his “Dates Proposed by Latter-day Saints for the Birth of Jesus Christ” chart.

[CMZ]

President Monson is giving his closing remarks and, instead of correcting Elder Bednar, has stated that the conference talks were prepared by the promptings of the Spirit.

[Thinking]

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.

 

A false assumption makes a conclusion invalid, but not necessarily false, as any good logician knows.

[CMZ]

A false assumption makes a conclusion invalid, but not necessarily false, as any good logician knows.

 

True. I just don't put a lot of stock on the conclusion we are talking about here.

[juliann]

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.

That may well be. But you do have to provide equal documentation to your assumptions and conclusions rather than simply dismissing all others with a wave of the hand.

 

So CFR. And that means academic sources.

[juliann]

President Monson is giving his closing remarks and, instead of correcting Elder Bednar, has stated that the conference talks were prepared by the promptings of the Spirit.

There have been recent corrections of talks when they appeared in the Ensign. Did Pres. Monson correct those remarks at the closing of conference? Has any modern prophet ever done so?  If so, why did Elder Uchtdorf have to remind us they do make mistakes or express well thought out opinions that do not necessarily reflect church doctrine?

[frank_jessop]

So CFR. And that means academic sources.

Do "academic" sources establish the position of the Church? Here is what two Prophets have stated:

Harold B. Lee: This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6, 1973, is a particularly significant date because it commemorates not only the anniversary of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. “Strengthen the Stakes of Zion,” Ensign (July 1973)

Spencer W. Kimball: My brothers and sisters, today we not only celebrate the Sesquicentennial of the organization of the Church, but also the greatest event in human history since the birth of Christ on this day 1,980 years ago. Today is Easter Sunday. “Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,” Ensign (May 1980)

[CMZ]

There have been recent corrections of talks when they appeared in the Ensign. Did Pres. Monson correct those remarks at the closing of conference? Has any modern prophet ever done so?  If so, why did Elder Uchtdorf have to remind us they do make mistakes or express well thought out opinions that do not necessarily reflect church doctrine?

 

I don't know overarchingly important the date issue is. I'm not saying Elder Bednar's statement and the lack of in-conference refutation of it establishes it as ironclad doctrine. At the same time I don't think anyone should jump to the conclusion that it's false doctrine.

[mfbukowski]

WHO THE FLIP CARES?

 

That's all you got out of conference?

Edited April 6, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

WHO THE FLIP CARES?

 

 

DBMormon

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

True, dates are hardly doctrines

unless you claim it is a Doctrine and in turn, turns out flase.  Any Doctrine you claim that is not true is therefore false Doctrine.  Real Doctrine is revealed by God and accepted by the Church at large as such, any other doctrine that is stated as Doctrine and is untrue is false Doctrine

[DBMormon]

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."

 

what revelation?  I absolutely guarantee he is basing that on Section 20 and nothing independant of it.  If I am right and Historical background is correct, what he said is false.  I simply wish in our day and age there was more ways to sift out the nonsense.

[DBMormon]

"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.

 

Except you do not have unanimity among leaders.  so if a revelation was received by the Church, would not all of them believe and be aware of such Truth?

[wenglund]

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

 

Incorrect

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html?pg=all

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Date_of_birth

 

 

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=8651&linkURL=49.4ChadwickDating-61f85baf-ef24-4584-ba44-1892097daede.pdf

 

Rank and file members like yourself should always be accepted as the leading authority on what is doctrine above and beyond those called by Christ as his authorities.No pride there.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[DBMormon]

Steven Harper, a loyal faithful member, former BYU teacher and now works for the Church History Department states

 

some people, including Elder Talmage, have read this verse as if it is the Lord speaking and revealing precisely that Christ was born 1,830 years before that day and that the revelation was given on April 6, 1830.

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation."

 

 

 

"it shouldn't be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ," Harper said. "The interpretation that has been most popular over time is very much subject to question; that's all I'm saying."

 

[DBMormon]

President Monson is giving his closing remarks and, instead of correcting Elder Bednar, has stated that the conference talks were prepared by the promptings of the Spirit.

 

So every detail and remark not reproved by the Church at the time is absolutely true?  Did the Church president reprove Ronald Pohlman at the end of conference?

[DBMormon]

I simply made note of it and then when all decided to defend it simply because of who said it, then I went cray cray

[mfbukowski]

unless you claim it is a Doctrine and in turn, turns out flase.  Any Doctrine you claim that is not true is therefore false Doctrine.  Real Doctrine is revealed by God and accepted by the Church at large as such, any other doctrine that is stated as Doctrine and is untrue is false Doctrine

Extremely simplistic.

[CMZ]

 I absolutely guarantee he is basing that on Section 20 and nothing independant [sic] of it.

 

Then we should all ride your dogmatism.

 

If he's wrong about a date then he's wrong about a date. I hate to sound trite but I don't think our exaltation depends on it. He wasn't stating that baptism is no longer necessary.

Edited April 6, 2014 by CMZ

[CMZ]

I simply made note of it and then when all decided to defend it simply because of who said it, then I went cray cray

 

Dude... you must realize by now if you've read this thread that most people here still hold out the possibility that maybe the date of Christ's birth is not April 6th. What you are upset about is more that people think it's fallacious for you to declare it "false doctrine." I'm not sure you're catching the nuances here.

 

And, yes, "who said it" might not count for everything, but it counts for something.

Edited April 6, 2014 by CMZ

[pogi]

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."

 

Interestingly, Bruce R. McConkie said this on the matter (this is from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism):

 

The LDS Church has not taken an official position on the issue of the year of Christ's birth. Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, offers what for the present appears to be the most definitive word on the question: "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge-including that which is known both in and out of the Church-to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred" (Vol. 1, p. 349, n. 2).

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/April_6

 

When you have two apostles that disagree, who wins?  I can understand DBMormon's confusion when one apostle states we cannot say such things definitively, then another says it definitely.   I assume that Bruce R. McConkie was aware of the same revelation that Bednar interprets to be definitive.  

Edited April 6, 2014 by pogi

[CMZ]

Interestingly, Bruce R. McConkie said this on the matter (this is from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism):

 

The LDS Church has not taken an official position on the issue of the year of Christ's birth. Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, offers what for the present appears to be the most definitive word on the question: "We do not believe it is possible with the present state of our knowledge-including that which is known both in and out of the Church-to state with finality when the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred" (Vol. 1, p. 349, n. 2).

 

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/April_6

 

When you have two apostles that disagree, who wins?

 

I don't think this is so much a matter of disagreement. McConkie would be the last apostle on earth to state that a statement from him overrides the statement of a living prophet, seer and revelator. (Yes, I know prophets arent infallible.)

[pogi]

I don't think this is so much a matter of disagreement. McConkie would be the last apostle on earth to state that a statement from him overrides the statement of a living prophet, seer and revelator. (Yes, I know prophets arent infallible.)

 

By "a living prophet, seer and revelator", are you referring to Bednar?  If so, Bednar did not make a revelatory pronouncement on the matter, rather, he was referring to a previous revelation (assumed to be from the D&C).  Surely McConkie was aware of that same revelation and simply interpreted it differently.  In this respect, there is a disagreement in the interpretation of the revelation.  Does the interpretation from the living apostle always win out?  Perhaps Bednar would have been more careful in his wording had he been aware of what McConkie said on the matter.  Who knows?  It doesn't really matter in the end. 

Edited April 6, 2014 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

It is fascinating watching this debate, as it encompasses many issues of LDS belief (revelation, modern day prophets/apostles, Joseph Smith, history vs. doctrine, etc).

[cinepro]

Elder Bednar didn't say what "revelation" he was basing his statement on.  It could be D&C 20, or it could be an unpublished revelation we don't know about, or it could have been a revelation given to Elder Bednar this morning.

 

But if Elder Bednar was basing his statement on D&C 20, and the first verse of D&C 20 isn't in fact a "revelation", I would find it a little worrisome that an apostle would stand in conference and say something is a revelation when it isn't.

 

So I don't blame everyone who wants to believe Elder Bednar, because the alternative is much worse.

Edited April 7, 2014 by cinepro