Damien the Leper Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Or maybe there is no proof source of the teaching but it's true anyway....since when did we need proof for religion. Isn't it a faith based thing anyway? The prophet Joseph Smith made many doctrinal pronouncements with absolutely no evidence, written revelation, or historical source. Maybe Elder Bednar is wrong, but what harm does it do to exercise a little faith that he might be right? Are we afraid we might be mocked by historians, scientists or other religions, because I've got news for you.... Come on...just do a simple Google search. There are plenty of resources out there that attest to a Fall birth.
Bob Crockett Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 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.You've got the wrong paradigm. You're drawing a line in the sand. You're thinking too black and white. You need to be more nuanced.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Maybe I am just a simpleton, but wasn't Christ born according to the Jewish calendar and whatever date that is would be a moving target on the Roman calendar?Help me out here. 1
SeekingUnderstanding 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.From the talk Pres. Lee's talk: 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. Joseph Smith wrote this, preceding a revelation given at that same date:“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, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” (D&C 20:1.)Traditionally since that time, the spring conferences of the Church are held on the days of each year which include April 6. Edited April 9, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
DBMormon Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 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. My issue is not with Elder Bednar. I have no criticism of him. We all hold false assumptions. My issue is that in our day and age, with the scholars we have, and the ability to share the historical context, someone didn't squash this making it into the published version.... and it will likely be in the Ensign as well.... We are in a day and age where we can be aware and correct such things..... we didn't. I absolutely don't blame him for saying it, I blame us as a awhole of letting things like this continue to be held as truth by a large majority of saints. Elder Bednar's talk was awesome, I have listened to it 3 times already. Again we all hold false assumptions.... but at some point the nonsense has to get weeded out.
DBMormon Posted April 9, 2014 Author Posted April 9, 2014 From the talk Pres. Lee's talk: thank you for saving my fingers from typing that
Lachoneus Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 From the talk Pres. Lee's talk:How many of the documents Joseph Smith wrote are in his own handwriting?
ksfisher Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 My issue is not with Elder Bednar. I have no criticism of him. We all hold false assumptions. My issue is that in our day and age, with the scholars we have, and the ability to share the historical context, someone didn't squash this making it into the published version.... and it will likely be in the Ensign as well.... We are in a day and age where we can be aware and correct such things..... we didn't. I absolutely don't blame him for saying it, I blame us as a awhole of letting things like this continue to be held as truth by a large majority of saints. Elder Bednar's talk was awesome, I have listened to it 3 times already. Again we all hold false assumptions.... but at some point the nonsense has to get weeded out. Does it really matter what day that Savior was born on? Does getting the date wrong (or right) subtract anything from Elder Bednar's message? Our ability to have faith in the Savior and apply the atonement in our lives has nothing to do with the date that He was born on. Our testimony that we are led by living prophets who are special witnesses of the Lord has nothing to do with their ability as historians. Question: when he walked the earth did Jesus know what day he was born?
jchristopher Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 People, this thread is absolutely ridiculous and utterly unworthy of your time and attention.
mfbukowski Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Pre-order away! I believe their first song will be called "Me and My Baby Ain't Got Correspondence No More (Signifier/Signified)"You sir are one smart dude to figure that one out!
frank_jessop Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) thank you for saving my fingers from typing thatYou have not shown that Lee was not speaking by revelation. The CFR was that it was not revelation to Lee.How do Chadwick and Hall address Lee's and Kimball's statements? Edited April 9, 2014 by frank_jessop
mfbukowski Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) People, this thread is absolutely ridiculous and utterly unworthy of your time and attention.Agreed. But that's never stopped us before! Now we get to argue about it being ridiculous or not! AND 87 reasons for and against it being ridiculous or not ridiculous! And if reason 42 subsection 23 b possibly has merit, does it make the whole thing ridiculous or not? You thought the Pharisees and Sadducees argued?? We got 'em beat by a mile! Edited April 9, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
Senator Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 People, this thread is absolutely ridiculous and utterly unworthy of your time and attention. You think you're going to break people's addictions with one grand denouncement? 1
JLHPROF Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 People, this thread is absolutely ridiculous and utterly unworthy of your time and attention. Maybe, but it's fun! I like to accept the unprovable doctrines taught by GA's on faith, mostly because they don't matter so why not accept them and partly because it bugs the academics/proof seekers. Bring on the sun-dwellers, the global flood, and the Missouri Eden!
Senator Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Maybe, but it's fun! I like to accept the unprovable doctrines taught by GA's on faith, mostly because they don't matter so why not accept them and partly because it bugs the academics/proof seekers. Bring on the sun-dwellers, the global flood, and the Missouri Eden! If their are doctrines taught by GAs "that don't matter", then I would think the appropriate response to such would be indifference, not faith. 1
Alan Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Joining this discussion late.Elder Bednar was wrong. It is false doctrine.However, this is not the first time I have heard false doctrine in General Conference.
funguyrye Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Maybe I am just a simpleton, but wasn't Christ born according to the Jewish calendar and whatever date that is would be a moving target on the Roman calendar?Help me out here.Yes, you are completely onto something here. Getting onto God's calendar, not the Roman calendar puts certain issues into the proper perspective. For instance, Jesus died on Nisan 14 the same time the Israelites were to sacrifice the Passover lamb. On our calendar, it could be anywhere from March - April on any given year. This year it just happens to be on April 14. The Roman calendar is the calendar man uses, the Hebrew calendar is the one God uses.
funguyrye Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Oh my.And how pray tell do you know that your quotes are the "word of God" and the others are not?Did you watch God write them with his quill pen?What I have provided is a logical analysis of why Jesus was born on Succot based on the Word of God, which was fairly easy to follow along. The Word of God is the final authority. A revelation from God that is not supported by the Word of God, is nothing but empty words.
Senator Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 (edited) A revelation from God that is not supported by the Word of God, is nothing but empty words. Do you want to give that one another shot? Edited April 9, 2014 by Senator
funguyrye Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 funguyryeIs anyone interested in discussing what the Word of God says on when Jesus was born, or more interested in what the church leaders have to say? 3DOPThe Scriptures alone just don't resolve the question. I hold that the date is Dec. 25th based upon the biblical and patristic argument that the feast at which Zachary was promised a child was held in September. This would make the visit of the Archangel to Mary on March 25th, six months later, and called the Feast of the Annunciation. The Feast of the Birth of John the Baptist is naturally held on June 25th. Six months from that date the sun is low in the sky, Christmas. It provides a beautiful symmetry to the seasons of the Church Year as has been pointed out, with the Sun of Righteousness (thank you bukowski) arriving in the bleak midwinter. Souls have been edified for centuries with what is admittedly a not certainly accurate chronology. It isn't as important to be certain about the chronology in my opinion, as it is to decide whether you think it is of critical importance. For those who think the exact date is easily derived, and they have a certainty about it that is in conflict with how Western Christianity including Protestants and Mormons has celebrated, they are free to preach their "good news", gather the crowds, and set up their own church calendar instead of following the apparent corruptions that originate with the Roman Church with its desire to introduce paganism to Christianity.Well, to just go a bit further, I believe Jesus was conceived on Hanukkah. Hanukkah is the Festival of Lights, Jesus was and did live in an authentically Jewish community and upbringing, and he observed Hanukkah. It is a better fit the Light of the World was conceived on the Festival of Lights which is very close to being 9 months before Succot. Do I think matters like this is of critical importance? I believe in some respect they are. If we understand the Messiah was a Jew, born a Jew, raised a Jew and died a Jew, we can bring some of the context of how he lived and of the scriptures to life. Trying to place Jesus into a roman or pagan context gives his name and life a great disservice, and understanding the Hebrew connections will bring clarity to many of his sayings and teachings.
funguyrye Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Do you want to give that one another shot?LOL. Someone who SAYS they received a revelation from God, that is contrary to the Word of God is nothing but empty words. I know, a duh moment
JLHPROF Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 If their are doctrines taught by GAs "that don't matter", then I would think the appropriate response to such would be indifference, not faith. Where's the fun in that? If I choose to believe that Christ was born on April 6th because Talmage, Lee, Kimball, and Bednar all taught it without a shred of evidence to back it up where is the harm? It's hardly the only religious doctrine I believe without actual evidence...isn't that called faith?
Bob Crockett Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Joining this discussion late.Elder Bednar was wrong. It is false doctrine.However, this is not the first time I have heard false doctrine in General Conference.Who says it is false doctrine? I'm willing to flip my opinion on this. The reason I ask is that I've some across some writings of JFSmith who challenges this date. That must be why Elder McConkie challenges it. But did anybody have the temerity to raise it in general conf?
JLHPROF Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Elder Bednar was wrong. It is false doctrine. Prove it.The source may be questionable, but prove Christ WASN'T born on April 6th. Do you have his birth certificate? It's no more wrong to assume this apostolic doctrine is false than to assume it's true.
Bob Crockett Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Well, it could be false doctrine to rely on D&C 20 as the source for April 6.
Recommended Posts