False Doctrine At Conference

[De Groote]

Is it possible that Elder Bednar was basing what he said upon a misunderstanding of D&C 20? -Yes.

Is it possible that Elder Bednar was basing what he said upon other prophet or apostles' misunderstanding of D&C 20? -Yes.

Is it possible that Elder Bednar (and other Prophets) were basing something on inspiration that was brought upon by reading D&C 20 (regardless of whether that opening description was part of the original revelation)? -Yes.

Did Elder Bednar spend a lot of time researching, praying and pondering the question of when Christ was born? Or was it just a peripheral thing that had nothing to do really with his talk? -Could go either way.

Did Elder Bednar know that President J. Reuben Clark and Elder Bruce R. McConkie had a different opinion than President Harold B. Lee and President Spencer W. Kimball? -?

When he said "we know," who is the "we" that knows this? -?

-What is the "revelation" that he is referring to? -D&C 20 or something more?

I see a lot of possibilities in a Church that teaches that its prophets and apostles are not infallible but also are open to direct revelation and inspiration.

 

So I know that it is possible that God has declared by revelation that April 6 is the date, but it is hard to know from what Elder Bednar said if he was just referring to D&C 20 or further inspiration. 

 

I wrote the first article quoted in the OP and found the information I gathered interesting. I'm happy either way. I do think, however, that D&C 20, by itself, can not be used to declare April 6 as the exact date of Christ's birth. Why?

-It was not part of the original revelation

-It was written by John Whitmer as an introduction.

-The way it was written was just a typical fancy way of saying what the date was back then

-The way it was written was the way John Whitmer wrote dates. For example, here is another thing John Whitmer wrote: 

"It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh." -John Whitmer

"The rise of The Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh" - John Whitmer in D&C 20

 

Again, by itself, D&C 20 no more declares April 6 as Christ's birth than Whitmer's other declaration about June 12.

This, however, does not preclude other inspiration having been prompted by D&C 20 that confirms that April 6 is indeed the date of Christ's birth. The exact date of the organization of the Church certainly could have been significant precisely because of that reason.

And I think that would be really cool.

[mfbukowski]

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).

Get out the popcorn.  

[mfbukowski]

For anything to be "false doctrine" we have to have a clear definition of doctrine.

 

We don't.

 

Everyone knows that a single statement on a single occasion might be someone's opinion.

 

They guy was wrong.  So what?  We are ignoring an amazing talk for one line.

 

Ridiculous.

[funguyrye]

Greetings,

 

Whatever man says, the bible points to Jesus being born in the fall.  Specifically on Tishri 15, the first day of Sukkot, or the Feast of Tabernacles.

[The Nehor]

I tried to explain this controversy to my parents at dinner when we were discussing conference. They are both smart people. My dad's comment was probably the most poignant: (best I can do from memory) "Why do people argue about what is and is not doctrine when it is clear that either belief has no practical effect, leads to no other principles or doctrines, and has no application?"

 

I'm going to go with my patriarchal leader on this one.

[MiserereNobis]

Greetings,

 

Whatever man says, the bible points to Jesus being born in the fall.  Specifically on Tishri 15, the first day of Sukkot, or the Feast of Tabernacles.

 

Dang, December 25 seems to be failing at every turn!

 

Yet the symbolism of Christ coming into the world at the winter solstice is more moving to me than any other date (how's that for some religious pragmatism )

[The Nehor]

Dang, December 25 seems to be failing at every turn!

 

Yet the symbolism of Christ coming into the world at the winter solstice is more moving to me than any other date (how's that for some religious pragmatism )

 

I see Groundhog's Day as more poignant, announcing an early Spring. Who is with me?

[funguyrye]

Dang, December 25 seems to be failing at every turn!

 

Yet the symbolism of Christ coming into the world at the winter solstice is more moving to me than any other date (how's that for some religious pragmatism )

Well, sorry for the following lengthy post.  Here is a cliff notes version of how the bible points to October being Jesus's birth.

 

Most people recognize December 25 as Jesus's birthday. There is little to no scriptural basis for this day being the day Jesus was born, or April 6 for that matter. If one wanted to really know where that date came from, it wouldn't be hard to find where this "tradition" came from. Don't get me wrong, I do my usual token traditional Christmas day observance with the family, but does the bible give us clues on when he was born? Try and follow along:

Luke 1:5,8,9 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.

1 Chronicles 24:1,2,10,19 Now these are the divisions of the sons of Aaron. The sons of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. But Nadab and Abihu died before their father, and had no children: therefore Eleazar and Ithamar executed the priest's office. 10 The seventh to Hakkoz, the eighth to Abijah, 19 These were the orderings of them in their service to come into the house of the LORD, according to their manner,

The course of Abia, or Abijah tells us what time of the year it was and when he was serving. Each of these courses (teams) would serve once a week, twice a year and would rotate. I will use the word teams to just facilitate our western idea and thoughts about what a course meant. What happened was during the 3 annual pilgrimages to the Jerusalem temple in Israel for the Feasts, it has been documented up to 1 - 2 million people would come during this time and the priests would serve in weekly rotations. During the annual pilgrimages, all the teams would serve together due to the multitudes of people coming to sacrifice. So Zacharias was the eighth team (1 Chronicles 24), and understanding the Feasts that approximately 8 weeks from Passover is Pentecost, we can understand when he was serving and what time of the year it was. Zacharias would be serving double duties. One week for what would now be his regular duties, and then an additional week for his Pentecost duty. It would look like this:

The following is the order of the priestly divisions in relation to the Feasts:1st week of Nissan/Abib,

1st priestly division of Jehoiarib serves

2nd week of Nissan, 2nd priestly division of Jedaiah serves

3rd week of Nissan, Passover/Feast of Unleavened Bread, ALL PRIESTS SERVE

4th week of Nissan, 3rd priestly division of Harim serves

1st week of Iyar, 4th priestly division of Seorin serves

2nd week of Iyar, 5th priestly division of Malkijah serves

3rd week of Iyar, 6th priestly division of Mijamin serves

4th week of Iyar, 7th priestly division of Hakkoz serves

1st week of Sivan, 8th priestly division of Abijah serves

2nd week of Sivan, Shavuot, ALL PRIESTS SERVE (including the division of Abijah

Luke 1:10,11 And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

Multitude means a plethora, or a large number of people. And why were they there? It was for the Feast of Pentecost that would have been at the time, upwards of 1 - 2 million people would have descended upon the city (Deuteronomy 16:16) as it was commandment to be there. God wanted us to know that this was during a Feast time.

Luke 1:23,24 And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house. And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months,

For his wife to conceive, it would not have happened unless he was there, so obviously he was in a hurry to get home. LOL

Luke 1:26,35,36 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

It would now be in December of Elizabeth being pregnant and Mary spent 3 months with her until Elizabeth gave birth to John the Baptist which would be around Passover in March - April.

Luke 1:56 And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

Jesus was conceived in her womb about late December or January, and 9 months from then would be into September or October which would take us into the fall Feasts. Namely Succot.

Understanding the Messianic connection of Jesus to the Feast of Tabernacles, or Succot even helps us grasp something of the mystery of His Incarnation:

"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

The word "dwelt" here in the Greek means "tabernacled."When He became flesh, Jesus inhabited the temporary shelter of an earthly body, knowing He soon would be required to leave it. Why did He do it? So that we might find a home in Him - not a temporary shelter in the wilderness, but an eternal home in a Kingdom that abides forever.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (When?)

Mark 9:1,2,5 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

Peter saw this as a Feast of Tabernacles event, and that is why he wanted to build a tabernacle.

But back to baby Jesus, he has now been born, and has been wrapped in swaddling cloths and there was no room in the inn. Why was there no room in the inn? Being born during the Feasts, there was a huge influx of Jews to Israel for the annual pilgrimage, and all the rooms were taken. If he was born in December, there would have been plenty of room. That explains why there was no room in the inn.

December as well does get cold in Israel, particularly in December. Luke 2:8-11 has the shepherds out in the fields. The heavy rains start in December and January, and the sheep were not kept out to be hit by rain and snow. They were back in their pens for the winter months. It would have been cruel for God to have Mary make the trek to Jerusalem 30 days after her purification to travel over mountainous terrain during the rainy and cold season (Leviticus 12:4; Luke 2:22).

Succot is to be a time of great rejoicing and one is to even bring strong drink if desired (Deuteronomy 14:26).

Deuteronomy 16:14-15 <SUP></SUP>and you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter and your male and female servants and the Levite and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your towns. Seven days you shall celebrate a feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful. Seven days you shall celebrate a feast to the Lord your God in the place which the Lord chooses, because the Lord your God will bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, so that you will be altogether joyful.

God wants us to party and celebrate when he will dwell with us once again. He wants us to celebrate his birthday. Not just for one day, but for one week!!! So loosen up a bit, and celebrate the day when he first dwelt with man, and will one day return for all of eternity.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

[Calm]

Dang, December 25 seems to be failing at every turn!

 

Yet the symbolism of Christ coming into the world at the winter solstice is more moving to me than any other date (how's that for some religious pragmatism )

I love the symbolism of Jesus' birth at Winter Solstice.

[pogi]

Dang, December 25 seems to be failing at every turn!

 

Yet the symbolism of Christ coming into the world at the winter solstice is more moving to me than any other date (how's that for some religious pragmatism )

 

The symbolism is fitting, even if it was stolen from the Pagans.  

 

"December 25th was the date of the winter solstice in the calendar Julius Caesar devised for Rome in 46BC. Today the winter solstice usually occurs on December 21st. Although Caesar used a 365 1/4 day year, a year is actually a little shorter, and this made the solstice occur a little earlier over the years. There was a discrepancy of 1 day in 128 years.

 

The pagans celebrated the winter solstice as the Unconquered Sun. After this day, the Sun would begin to stay in the sky longer each day, and there would be less cold, and less night; the Sun would win the battle of night and day. There would be feasts, evergreens would be brought into the house to be decorated and lighted with candles to pay tribute to the Sun.

 

There is nothing in the Christian Bible to specify the day of Christmas. Prior to the fourth century, Christ’s birth had been associated with Three King’s Day on January 6. But the pagans and the newly converted were being a major problem to the church because they were still celebrating the Unconquered Sun. Nothing the church did or said made a difference; the winter solstice was just too important a festival.

 

What the Christians did in this dilemma, was execute a move seen over and over in history. If you can’t defeat them, and refuse to join them, at least make it appear that you defeated them. Sometime between AD 354 and 360 a few decades after Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, the celebration of Christmas was shifted to the day of the Unconquered Sun. But the tradition of the Sun god lived on a long time."

 

http://home.ccil.org/~kmiles/dln/12-95/decsol.html

[pogi]

Astrological evidence?  This is pretty cool!

 

SolsticeSun-300x227.jpg

 

Edited April 7, 2014 by pogi

[frank_jessop]

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? &nbsp;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.

Pogi, your reliance on McConkie's is misguided. McConkie's statement was not accurate when written; in the EOM article or when McConkie wrote it in his book. The error of your reliance on the EOM is compounded by the contradictory nature of the EOM article.

Here is a statement from the EOM:

"Presidents of the Church, including Harold B. Lee (p. 2) and Spencer W. Kimball (p. 54), have reaffirmed that April 6 is the true anniversary of Christ's birth, ..."

The Harold B. Lee statement is from 1973, thus McConkie was clearly wrong in 1979. Furthermore, Lee spoke at General Conference, and his statement has been republished by the Church. McConkie was speaking for himself, and there is no reason for anyone to believe that McConkie speaking for himself negates an statement of a Prophet at General Conference.

Kimball's statement is from 1980, and again his statement was during General Conference and has been republished by the Church.

The EOM article a poor piece of "research" (if it even deserves that title). John Hall contradicts himself; Hall is misguided in his attempt to allow a statement from McConkie bind the Church.

Reliance on the "articles" linked in the first post is also misguided. DeseretNews does not establish Doctrine. The Fairmormon article and the Chadwick paper are both internally contradictory, if not flatout dismissive of Prophetic statements that counter the desired conclusion of the articles.

Edited April 7, 2014 by frank_jessop

[pogi]

frank_jessop, on 06 Apr 2014 - 9:37 PM, said:

Pogi, your reliance on McConkie's is misguided. 

 

First, I haven't placed my reliance anywhere.  Frankly, I don't know who to believe on this subject.

 

Second, if it is OK for McConkie and J. Reuben Clark to be misguided on this subject, then I am in good company! (assuming that I agree with them).   

 

Third, how can you be certain that your reliance in Bednar is not misguided?  Were McConkie and Clark less of apostles?  How do you know for sure that Lee, Kimbal, and Bednar are not just passing on traditional beliefs taught to them which are unfounded in revelation?  It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.  

 

Fourth, I think it is misguided to call anyone misguided on this subject without a definitive revelation on the matter.

[Calm]

Funguyre, when you use others' work without giving them credit, that is plagiarism and against board rules. If you are the original writer of this website, my apologies:

http://www.chosenpeople.com/main/holidays-and-festivals/203-sukkot-a-gathering-of-messiahs-harvest

PS: are you Ryan of this post which is identical to yours save for some deleting of poor coding, I believe, including the copying from at least the one site without attribution.

http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/happy-birthday-jesus.50066/

Edited April 7, 2014 by calmoriah

[juliann]

Is it possible that Elder Bednar was basing what he said upon a misunderstanding of D&C 20? -Yes.

Is it possible that Elder Bednar was basing what he said upon other prophet or apostles' misunderstanding of D&C 20? -Yes.

Is it possible that Elder Bednar (and other Prophets) were basing something on inspiration that was brought upon by reading D&C 20 (regardless of whether that opening description was part of the original revelation)? -Yes.

Did Elder Bednar spend a lot of time researching, praying and pondering the question of when Christ was born? Or was it just a peripheral thing that had nothing to do really with his talk? -Could go either way.

Did Elder Bednar know that President J. Reuben Clark and Elder Bruce R. McConkie had a different opinion than President Harold B. Lee and President Spencer W. Kimball? -?

When he said "we know," who is the "we" that knows this? -?

-What is the "revelation" that he is referring to? -D&C 20 or something more?

I see a lot of possibilities in a Church that teaches that its prophets and apostles are not infallible but also are open to direct revelation and inspiration.

 

So I know that it is possible that God has declared by revelation that April 6 is the date, but it is hard to know from what Elder Bednar said if he was just referring to D&C 20 or further inspiration. 

 

I wrote the first article quoted in the OP and found the information I gathered interesting. I'm happy either way. I do think, however, that D&C 20, by itself, can not be used to declare April 6 as the exact date of Christ's birth. Why?

-It was not part of the original revelation

-It was written by John Whitmer as an introduction.

-The way it was written was just a typical fancy way of saying what the date was back then

-The way it was written was the way John Whitmer wrote dates. For example, here is another thing John Whitmer wrote: 

 

Again, by itself, D&C 20 no more declares April 6 as Christ's birth than Whitmer's other declaration about June 12.

This, however, does not preclude other inspiration having been prompted by D&C 20 that confirms that April 6 is indeed the date of Christ's birth. The exact date of the organization of the Church certainly could have been significant precisely because of that reason.

And I think that would be really cool.

Thanks for this!

[frank_jessop]

pogi, McConkie's 1979 statement, was McConkie speaking only for himself in a his own book. For me, McConkies statement has no value in trying to establish the position of the Church. Why? Because McConkie was speaking only for himself.

At present I am unaware of any statement J. R. Clark has made on the subject of Christs birth date.

What I do know is that two Prophets speaking to the world assembly of membership of the Church made pronouncements regarding the date. And today we had a 3rd witness. So I have no reason to believe that Lee, Kimball, and Bednar are misguided by "unfounded revelation".

Edited April 7, 2014 by frank_jessop

[CV75]

Considering that His mortal birth was in the Meridian of Time (no one can put a date on that), it is appropriate to testify of any mortal date of which the Spirit bears witness.

[stemelbow]

These debates are silly, but are so Mormon.

 

IMO, Bednar could be wrong.  No big deal.  IMO, he probably is.  No big deal. 

 

IMO, it's silly to declare he most definitely is wrong.  Why make a fuss of it? 

 

The fun of this is we'll see plenty of people at Church reminding us of this "revelation" for the next few weeks as if it represents something significant.  I guess I'll just sit quietly amongst my ward members pretending like they are making some significant point, again.

[JAHS]

The exact date of Christ's birth is not doctrinal; it is simply a date. So whether he's right or wrong is no big deal. I tend to agree that the D&C statement was just an oratorical fancy way of stating the current date. It might be interesting to see if Bednar's printed version of the talk makes a slight correction to indicate that it "might be" the date of Christ's birth.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow.... if we can't even acknowledge when really do get it wrong and feel such a need to defend even when wrong then we simply will never apply Elder Uchtdorf's words.  

 

 

 

 

The fact is Elder Bednar beleives Jeusus was born on April 6th and he bases that belief on Section 20 as he beleive the april 6th mention was part of Joseph revelation.... It is historical fact it was not.  It was written in by John Whitmer on April 10 to signify the dat and Bro. Whitmer did this with other revelations NOT received on April 6th

Actually who has the authority to interpret scripture? You? The history department at BYU?  I think I will stick with the Apostles on this one solely from the counsel of Peter. It has been confirmed again that Jesus was born on April  6th via revelation.

[stemelbow]

Actually who has the authority to interpret scripture? You? The history department at BYU?  I think I will stick with the Apostles on this one solely from the counsel of Peter. It has been confirmed again that Jesus was born on April  6th via revelation.

 

Which year?  Wouldn't the year be as significant as the day?  Was it really on 1 B.C. or was there a 0?

[DBMormon]

Pogi, your reliance on McConkie's is misguided. McConkie's statement was not accurate when written; in the EOM article or when McConkie wrote it in his book. The error of your reliance on the EOM is compounded by the contradictory nature of the EOM article.

Here is a statement from the EOM:

"Presidents of the Church, including Harold B. Lee (p. 2) and Spencer W. Kimball (p. 54), have reaffirmed that April 6 is the true anniversary of Christ's birth, ..."

The Harold B. Lee statement is from 1973, thus McConkie was clearly wrong in 1979. Furthermore, Lee spoke at General Conference, and his statement has been republished by the Church. McConkie was speaking for himself, and there is no reason for anyone to believe that McConkie speaking for himself negates an statement of a Prophet at General Conference.

Kimball's statement is from 1980, and again his statement was during General Conference and has been republished by the Church.

The EOM article a poor piece of "research" (if it even deserves that title). John Hall contradicts himself; Hall is misguided in his attempt to allow a statement from McConkie bind the Church.

Reliance on the "articles" linked in the first post is also misguided. DeseretNews does not establish Doctrine. The Fairmormon article and the Chadwick paper are both internally contradictory, if not flatout dismissive of Prophetic statements that counter the desired conclusion of the articles.

 

 

Not all prophet statements are prophetic.   We love to tought the "Prophet is only a prophet" but we really can't deal well with it when they mis-state.

 

This is the same way Theories on Race became Doctrine.  It is not true.  We have no revelation stating Jesus was born April 6th, other then we have prophets seers and revelatiors simply repeating a false understanding of D&C 20:1

 

I am calling a spade a spade, it is not true.  Simply repeating nonsense and pointing to others who have repeated it does not make something true.  It is false. 

Jesus may have been born on april 6th (1 in 365 chance) but we have no revelation stating such and simply rehashing a false reading others had as they made the leap is still nonsense.

[DBMormon]

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.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the earth is 6000 years old.... does it matter to me who said it... nope.  I take truth from the Holy Ghost and I shove off nonsense when I am made aware, regardless of who said it.

[DBMormon]

When we goof up and this would be easy to fix, Someone ask Elder Bednar where he gets that "truth" from?  If he says Elder Talmadge or Elder So and So, someone informs him of the histoprical debate about how many have taken more from Section 20 then the revelation intended.  He can then say... huh... I was not aware of that, I had made an assumption, or he can say I know independent of that section.

 

Problem solved.

[ERayR]

pogi, McConkie's 1979 statement, was McConkie speaking only for himself in a his own book. For me, McConkies statement has no value in trying to establish the position of the Church. Why? Because McConkie was speaking only for himself.

 

 

And you are absolutely sure of this because,,,,