thesometimesaint Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 There is a 1 in 365 chance that every speculation about it is right, and none of them matter. And every leap year 366. 1
Calm Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) Honestly this is no big deal. It is kind of a hobby of mine to compare written transcripts with the audio, and have found that changes are made all the timeJust another ambiguity of life to get used to.It really doesn't matter.And the change may not be just a change or editing error, it is possible that the printed version is the original one and the speaker misspoke. Unless indicated, how would one know?Which then is the right version? The one intended originally or the final intended version? Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah
MiserereNobis Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) Dude!Congratulations, you are now a follower of Rorty and the boys. Rorty and the Boys. Sounds like a post-modern bluegrass band. Rorty will sing, as is the practical use of language. We'll put Lacan on the upright bass (the size is very Freudian), Derrida can deconstruct the banjo (is that 5th string a hierarchically imposed binary to the other 4 strings?), Foucault can play the mandolin (vying for power against the knowledge of the lead singer), Irigaray can be our guitar multi-instrumentalist (the men, of course, will pass her around from instrument to instrument... perhaps she could even play the speculum), Deleuze and Guattari can double up on the keyboard (the identity of the 88 keys are obviously determined by their differences), and finally, Heidegger can keep time (and being) with the cowbell (and Christopher Walken can periodically tell him we need more). Edited April 8, 2014 by MiserereNobis 4
ksfisher Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Rorty and the Boys. Sounds like a post-modern bluegrass band. Rorty will sing, as is the practical use of language. We'll put Lacan on the upright bass (the size is very Freudian), Derrida can deconstruct the banjo (is that 5th string a hierarchically imposed binary to the other 4 strings?), Foucault can play the mandolin (vying for power against the knowledge of the lead singer), Irigaray can be our guitar multi-instrumentalist (the men, of course, will pass her around from instrument to instrument... perhaps she could even play the speculum), Deleuze and Guattari can double up on the keyboard (the identity of the 88 keys are obviously determined by their differences), and finally, Heidegger can keep time (and being) with the cowbell (and Christopher Walken can periodically tell him we need more). If it wasn't for Christopher Walken and the cowbell I don't think that this band would have a chance of selling any records. But, with the cowbell in there (and being produced by the immortal Walken) I'm ready to pre-order on iTunes! 3
MiserereNobis Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) If it wasn't for Christopher Walken and the cowbell I don't think that this band would have a chance of selling any records. But, with the cowbell in there (and being produced by the immortal Walken) I'm ready to pre-order on iTunes! Pre-order away! I believe their first song will be called "Me and My Baby Ain't Got Correspondence No More (Signifier/Signified)" Edited April 8, 2014 by MiserereNobis 3
Calm Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Rorty and the Boys. Sounds like a post-modern bluegrass band. Rorty will sing, as is the practical use of language. We'll put Lacan on the upright bass (the size is very Freudian), Derrida can deconstruct the banjo (is that 5th string a hierarchically imposed binary to the other 4 strings?), Foucault can play the mandolin (vying for power against the knowledge of the lead singer), Irigaray can be our guitar multi-instrumentalist (the men, of course, will pass her around from instrument to instrument... perhaps she could even play the speculum), Deleuze and Guattari can double up on the keyboard (the identity of the 88 keys are obviously determined by their differences), and finally, Heidegger can keep time (and being) with the cowbell (and Christopher Walken can periodically tell him we need more).You are never allowed to leave this board. I can't imagine how we managed to survive without you. 3
Bob Crockett Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 If it wasn't doctrine then and the Church publishes Bednar's talk, it's doctrine now. I don't get that is necessarily Jesus' DoB from my reading of the D&C though just like I don't get the Garden of Eden was necessarily in the USA or even in this hemisphere from my reading of the two verses in the D&C used to justify that doctrine. It's doctrine. But, like the name of the Brother of Jared, it isn't that important a point. For me anyway, being mocked is the furthest thing from my mind. I simply hate false assumptions being handed down generation to generation when they are easy enough to correct. Check out my list of false assumption many in the Church hold http://mormondiscussion.podbean.com/false-assumptions/For one who decries black and white thinking, you're not quite there. April 6 is doctrine. 1
MiserereNobis Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 You are never allowed to leave this board. I can't imagine how we managed to survive without you. Aww, thanks
David T Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Its online, along with his sources. All as expected.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng 1
3DOP Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 (edited) 3DOPDude!Congratulations, you are now a follower of Rorty and the boys.Apply that logic to the Trinity, and we will be on the same page! Shoot!!! And here I was thinking I could hold off to going to confession until Good Friday. Edited April 8, 2014 by 3DOP 3
bluebell Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Its online, along with his sources. All as expected.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng I see a source for when the church was organized, but not a source for his statement on the date of Christ's birth. Am i looking in the wrong place?
David T Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) He believes they are one and the same. Which apparently also shows he believes Jesus was born in 1 A.D. Which is also all sorts of problematic. But whatever. Edited April 9, 2014 by David T 2
bluebell Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 He believes they are one and the same. Oh. I guess i didn't get that from the way the source is sited.
frank_jessop Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 I see a source for when the church was organized, but not a source for his statement on the date of Christ's birth. Am i looking in the wrong place?Perhaps these: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)
DBMormon Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 It's doctrine. But, like the name of the Brother of Jared, it isn't that important a point. For one who decries black and white thinking, you're not quite there. April 6 is doctrine. What revelation does that Doctrine come from? the only answer is a misreading and uninformed grasp of who wrote the first verse and section 20, when he wrote it, and how he wrote the same verse on other places including other sections of the D&C You can fabricate true Doctrine. You can't simply make it up and and when you do, it magically becomes true. We have no revelation that the Lord gave us the knowledge that Jesus was born on April 6th.... and yet we have invented such a doctrine... It is false and we can hold to it if we like, but it shows our inability to really mature as a faith and own the times we overstep what the Lord has really said. 1
DBMormon Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 Perhaps these: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) But Harold B Lee is basing his assumption off section 20 and I already pointed out President Kimball did not actually say what is in the published quote
David T Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) There's two options:1) Elder Bednar is not aware of either the scholastic literature showing that a 1 BC date for Jesus' birth is problematic, AND unaware of the Joseph Smith Papers showing that that verse 1 was an addition not even written by Joseph Smith, and that incredibly similar flowery phrases are used for other dates, as presented in in depth studies in BYU Studies.2) Elder Bednar is fully aware, but because they contradict more than one prophet's traditional repetitions of the traditional interpretation, the Prophets, because they are the President of the Church, trump the evidence. Being familiar with Elder Bednar's rhetoric and his highly conservative view of Scripture, I think it's highly likely it's number 2, and he included that just to ruffle the feathers of historians and scholars who accept evidence over a Church president's assertion. I think he views it as defending or showing loyalty to the Prophets. I get what he's going for in this case, I just think the approach is unfortunate and misguided. But again...whatever. Edited April 9, 2014 by David T 3
DBMormon Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 Its online, along with his sources. All as expected.https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=engAwesome, so two leaders making a false assumption based on section 20 and one leader not saying what he is quoted as saying, and there you have it it. True Doctrine. beautiful.... I give up... If we can't get the little things right, how will we ever get the big things right?
David T Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Awesome, so two leaders making a false assumption based on section 20 and one leader not saying what he is quoted as saying, and there you have it it. True Doctrine. beautiful.... I give up... If we can't get the little things right, how will we ever get the big things right? I REALLY wish we had a wide shot during conference when he said that. I'd be particularly interested to see if any fellow Apostles grimaced, closed their eyes, or facepalmed.
JLHPROF Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) Awesome, so two leaders making a false assumption based on section 20 and one leader not saying what he is quoted as saying, and there you have it it. True Doctrine. beautiful.... I give up... If we can't get the little things right, how will we ever get the big things right? You still have yet to prove that the doctrine is false. All you have proven is that its origin is questionable....Have a little faith, especially since it doesn't matter. Joseph Smith said the Brother of Jared's name was Mahonrimoriancumer. Where was his proof? Is it doctrine? Sure, why not? And for the record, I think the pearly gates swing outward. Not sure why. Just "tastes good" to me. Edited April 9, 2014 by JLHPROF
David T Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Even if the April 6 ends up being true (and really, nobody during Jesus' life probably knew his birthday anyway), the 1 BC date is incredibly problematic. And using D&C 20:1 as the proof-text for April 6 as Jesus' Birthday also ties one to the 1 BC dating. The BYU Studies articles are fantastic, and I was sure that it would at least halt Church Leaders from using D&C 20:1 as a prooftext going forward, but, well, Elder Bednar, although young, is totally Old Skool. 1
canard78 Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Awesome, so two leaders making a false assumption based on section 20 and one leader not saying what he is quoted as saying, and there you have it it. True Doctrine. beautiful.... I give up... If we can't get the little things right, how will we ever get the big things right? Is this a case of focusing on the thorn and missing the rose? It was a good talk. The 6 April reference is something he believes to be revealed and authoritative. Just because something is said a few times in conference, does not make it correct. So what. The 14 fundamentals have been repeated twice in conference. I don't think they're correct either. So what. 90% of his talk was outstanding and among the best messages we've heard from him. Ignore the thorn, embrace the rose. We're all human. I make small assumptive mistakes on a regular basis and don't kick myself over it. 3
frank_jessop Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 But Harold B Lee is basing his assumption off section 20...CFR. Please prove the origin of Lee's 1973 statement. Surely you can prove the lee's statement was not a revelation to him.
canard78 Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 You still have yet to prove that the doctrine is false. All you have proven is that its origin is questionable....Have a little faith, especially since it doesn't matter. Joseph Smith said the Brother of Jared's name was Mahonrimoriancumer. Where was his proof? Is it doctrine? Sure, why not? If it doesn't matter... why should we have a little faith in it? If it doesn't matter, why just not ignore the sentence?
David T Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) CFR. Please prove the origin of Lee's 1973 statement. Surely you can prove the lee's statement was not a revelation to him. So it's more important for God to have a special revelation to the Prophet making sure we know the exact day Jesus was born, but not to know anything about the alleged Heavenly Mother, or,for that matter, that everything they were saying about Blacks in 1973 was way off? Got it. Edited April 9, 2014 by David T 1
Recommended Posts