False Doctrine At Conference

[Senator]

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?

 

Hey, If that's what works for you, then go for it!

[DBMormon]

Everyone seems to agree that the April 6th birth is anything but revealed revelation. The disagreement seems to be on whether it is worth discussing or correcting.

It may not be serious in several ways
1 - No one should lose faith that Elder Bednar stated such as it is an easy enough assumption to make based on prior statements and the surface reading of D&C 20:1

2 - This in no way implies any negative on Elder Bednar or even the Church at large.

But to me it serious for several reasons as well

1. Anytime we state we know by revelation something that may not be divine truth, we risk people losing faith when encountering such things. We should be quick to correct and help others grasp these issues rather then defend them or entrench in them

2.) This is an easy issue to fix. There should be a mechanism in the Church when such statements occur to be able to notify the speaker of any information they may be missing and give them the chance to correct any bad assumptions. The fact this got published in the written edition of the talk and may make the ensign next month severely bothers me. Why would we care to repeat such false assumptions rather then let them go and welcome a better understanding?

3.) If "Mormonism is truth" meaning it is the goal of Mormonism to let go of incorrect things and welcome new truth no matter where it is found, then why would we not welcome a discussion on a more accurate understanding instead of brushing it off as unimportant and not serious? Why not get the small things right when we have a chance to fix them and correct them. If this makes it to the Ensign it shows me that we really have no desire to let go of bad assumptions, there is no reason to let this ride out into quasi Doctrine? What good reason would there be to not correct this and rid ourselves of this once and for all?

Are we serious about welcoming new truth?

[DBMormon]

also to the CFR - Harold B Lee acknowledged it is section 20 he gets his belief from and PResident Kimball didn't say "born on this day" as the ensign says, rather the audio has him saying "born on this earth" and the quote actually makes more sense as he refers to Easter Sunday.

Edited April 9, 2014 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

Everyone seems to agree that the April 6th birth is anything but revealed revelation. The disagreement seems to be on whether it is worth discussing or correcting.

It may not be serious in several ways

1 - No one should lose faith that Elder Bednar stated such as it is an easy enough assumption to make based on prior statements and the surface reading of D&C 20:1

2 - This in no way implies any negative on Elder Bednar or even the Church at large.

But to me it serious for several reasons as well

1. Anytime we state we know by revelation something that may not be divine truth, we risk people losing faith when encountering such things. We should be quick to correct and help others grasp these issues rather then defend them or entrench in them

2.) This is an easy issue to fix. There should be a mechanism in the Church when such statements occur to be able to notify the speaker of any information they may be missing and give them the chance to correct any bad assumptions. The fact this got published in the written edition of the talk and may make the ensign next month severely bothers me. Why would we care to repeat such false assumptions rather then let them go and welcome a better understanding?

3.) If "Mormonism is truth" meaning it is the goal of Mormonism to let go of incorrect things and welcome new truth no matter where it is found, then why would we not welcome a discussion on a more accurate understanding instead of brushing it off as unimportant and not serious? Why not get the small things right when we have a chance to fix them and correct them. If this makes it to the Ensign it shows me that we really have no desire to let go of bad assumptions, there is no reason to let this ride out into quasi Doctrine? What good reason would there be to not correct this and rid ourselves of this once and for all?

Are we serious about welcoming new truth?

 

I agree with "Everyone seems to agree that the April 6th birth is anything but revealed revelation."  - Agreed, no recorded revelation.

 

But you seem to think this makes the idea false.  I think unproven is a better label.  There is simply no way to know if the April 6th birth is true or false.  So in light of there being NO proof, I will accept the apostles words as being inspired for now.

 

If it was blatantly false, ie - there is a known, provable fact that Christ was actually born in July, then perhaps I would label it false.  And false things should be put down.

 

Until then, it's just unproven not false, like a lot of religious beliefs.

[frank_jessop]

also to the CFR - Harold B Lee acknowledged it is section 20 he gets his belief from...

For someone who demands accuracy, you sure like to play fast and loose to suit your agenda.

And CFR that Lee "acknowledged it is section 20 he gets his belief from". Lee did not "acknowledge" that he made the statement based on Section 20. Please practice the accuracy you demand.

Edited April 9, 2014 by frank_jessop

[pogi]

Prove it.  Do you have his birth certificate?

 

You are starting to sound like Donald Trump 

[JLHPROF]

You are starting to sound like Donald Trump 

 

You're fired!  Because this whole "prove he was born on April 6th"  / "prove he wasn't born on April 6th" should not be labelled as false doctrine (or true).  It's as ludicrous as the birther debate (not to get political).

 

But I have just as many issues with people labelling teachings as false with no evidence as the OP does with people labelling teachings as true with no evidence.

[Alan]

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.

 

I don't need to prove that Christ was not born on this date. To do that I would have to know the date on which he was born.

But it isn't doctrine that Christ was born on the 6th April - that is much easier to prove.

[JLHPROF]

I don't need to prove that Christ was not born on this date. To do that I would have to know the date on which he was born.

 

Kind of my point.  Can't prove it true or false.

 

 

But it isn't doctrine that Christ was born on the 6th April - that is much easier to prove.

 

Ok, go ahead.  And I am asking you to prove that it isn't doctrine, not that the reference in the D&C wasn't part of the revelation.

 

Last I checked, official teachings in conference and publication of apostles and prophets counted as doctrine, especially current ones.  So between Talmage, Lee, Kimball and Bednar, I'm pretty sure it qualifies as being doctrinally taught regardless of the D&C.

[Alan]

 

 

Last I checked, official teachings in conference and publication of apostles and prophets counted as doctrine, especially current ones.  So between Talmage, Lee, Kimball and Bednar, I'm pretty sure it qualifies as being doctrinally taught regardless of the D&C.

 

That is the real issue here.

Doctrine is not created by General Conference sermons. To be doctrine it has to be scriptural and subject to the common consent of the members. That is the law of the church.

Elder Bednar's comment is part of the same genre as Brigham's conference talks recorded in the Journal of Discourses; ie. interesting, doctrinally suspect, and not binding on the Saints.

[DBMormon]

I agree with "Everyone seems to agree that the April 6th birth is anything but revealed revelation."  - Agreed, no recorded revelation.

 

But you seem to think this makes the idea false.  I think unproven is a better label.  There is simply no way to know if the April 6th birth is true or false.  So in light of there being NO proof, I will accept the apostles words as being inspired for now.

 

If it was blatantly false, ie - there is a known, provable fact that Christ was actually born in July, then perhaps I would label it false.  And false things should be put down.

 

Until then, it's just unproven not false, like a lot of religious beliefs.

unproven as in 1 out of 365 chance and based on a incorrect reading of section 20?  if you agree there then we are in agreement

[DBMormon]

That is the real issue here.

Doctrine is not created by General Conference sermons. To be doctrine it has to be scriptural and subject to the common consent of the members. That is the law of the church.

Elder Bednar's comment is part of the same genre as Brigham's conference talks recorded in the Journal of Discourses; ie. interesting, doctrinally suspect, and not binding on the Saints.

Does False Doctrine also have to be scriptural and subjected to common consent?

[mfbukowski]

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.

No you are not understanding at all.

 

I am asking you why you think the Bible is the Word of God.

 

How do you KNOW that?  Why are not other scriptures the Word of God??  You have come here to challenge that the leaders of our church do not speak the WOG- if you come here preaching you better be ready for the questions you will get.

 

The Zoroastrians have scriptures, the Hindus have scriptures, many other groups have scriptures which they consider to be the "word of God".

 

I consider that the words of our prophets, in the proper context are as much the Word of God as the bible- in fact, more so.  If you have studied the Bible you know there are many errors etc.  Many of the stories are strictly fanciful- talking donkeys etc.  God doesn't make up silly stories.

 

So how do you know the Bible is the word of God??

 

I believe it is, because I have a testimony of it.

 

The usual answers are:

1- because it is thousands of years old.

 

Not a good answer.  That means that it was NOT the word of God the day after the prophet wrote it, because it was "too new"

2- it is the Word of God because it contains no errors

 

Not a good answer.  It is full of errors.

3- because reason tells me it is.

 

Not a good answer.

 

Reason doesn't tell you that men rise from the dead, or why a sacrifice of one man could take away my sins thousands of years later.  That is not reasonable.

 

I believe it is the Word of God because God gave me a "testimony"- a witness of it's truth.  He also gave me a witness that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God, and that our present prophets speak the "Word of God"

 

So if you come here preaching Christian fundamentalism, you better be ready for some tough questions, and THAT is only the first.

 

So why do you think the Bible is the "Word of God"?????

[mfbukowski]

3.) If "Mormonism is truth" meaning it is the goal of Mormonism to let go of incorrect things and welcome new truth no matter where it is found, then why would we not welcome a discussion on a more accurate understanding instead of brushing it off as unimportant and not serious?

Because NO discussion at all could possibly BE "accurate"!!

What could possibly be a "more accurate" understanding in this context? There is NO "accuracy" to any of it. How could ANYONE POSSIBLY establish an "accurate" birthdate for anyone born 2000 years ago, when the date was not significant to anyone?

The date Caesar was born, yes. The date Jesus was born and laid in the manger? No possible way!

This is all on FAITH. That means it is uncertain and cannot be made certain. It is about "things which are hoped for which are UNSEEN but true".

E. Bednar has one belief. Others have other beliefs. Who cares? No one could possibly know what is "accurate"! None is better than any other!

So the next time you buy something for your wife tell her "Merry Christmas!" because you have as much a shot at being right as anyone!

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO OUR SALVATION OR ANYTHING ELSE! IT IS NOT IMPORTANT!

Edited April 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[frank_jessop]

Dbmormon, just in case you missed it

For someone who demands accuracy, you sure like to play fast and loose to suit your agenda.

CFR that Lee "acknowledged it is section 20 he gets his belief from". Lee did not "acknowledge" that he made the statement based on Section 20. Please practice the accuracy you demand.

[Senator]

This is all on FAITH. That means it is uncertain and cannot be made certain.

 

I understand what you are saying, however, I have a hard time envisioning any prophet or apostle getting up and saying, We know by revelation that XYisZ, however we can never be certain that it is true, we can only express faith in it.

 

It seems that the whole purpose of revelation from God (at least in the LDS mindset)  is to establish certainty regardless of the "but not really".

Edited April 10, 2014 by Senator

[DBMormon]

Because NO discussion at all could possibly BE "accurate"!!

What could possibly be a "more accurate" understanding in this context? There is NO "accuracy" to any of it. How could ANYONE POSSIBLY establish an "accurate" birthdate for anyone born 2000 years ago, when the date was not significant to anyone?

The date Caesar was born, yes. The date Jesus was born and laid in the manger? No possible way!

This is all on FAITH. That means it is uncertain and cannot be made certain. It is about "things which are hoped for which are UNSEEN but true".

E. Bednar has one belief. Others have other beliefs. Who cares? No one could possibly know what is "accurate"! None is better than any other!

So the next time you buy something for your wife tell her "Merry Christmas!" because you have as much a shot at being right as anyone!

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO OUR SALVATION OR ANYTHING ELSE! IT IS NOT IMPORTANT!

 

Everyone here seems to want to deal with the fact that I can't prove what Day Jesus was born on.  That is not the issue.  Perhaps he was.  Rather I am dealing with how we arrive at a conclusion he was which we deem by revelation and KNOW it is the accurate and actual.  His Knowing is in all likelhood based on a false assumption.  I am simply pleading he be allowed to know what assumption he made and what the sources tell us so this incorrect knowing can be corrected.  If once aware he says I know outside of that, that Christ was born on April 6th.... AWESOME.  But we all walk on eggshells afraid to raise such concerns so rather let the nonsense go....     We have a whole new generation who believe such as you put it Unknowable event  if/until God were to actually decide to tell someone.

Edited April 10, 2014 by DBMormon

[stemelbow]

Everyone here seems to want to deal with the fact that I can't prove what Day Jesus was born on.  That is not the issue.  Perhaps he was.  Rather I am dealing with how we arrive at a conclusion he was which we deem by revelation and KNOW it is the accurate and actual.  His Knowing is in all likelhood based on a false assumption.  I am simply pleading he be allowed to know what assumption he made and what the sources tell us so this incorrect knowing can be corrected.  If once aware he says I know outside of that, that Christ was born on April 6th.... AWESOME.  But we all walk on eggshells afraid to raise such concerns so rather let the nonsense go....     We have a whole new generation who believe such as you put it Unknowable event  if/until God were to actually decide to tell someone.

 

Actually, most of us are like, Yiptey, who cares which day he was actually born.  If we know, then fine.  if we don't, fine again. 

 

Some of us would rather approach the notion of revelation, truths regarding doctrine, and that which we do know with something more substantive.

[Senator]

Actually, most of us are like, Yiptey, who cares which day he was actually born.  If we know, then fine.  if we don't, fine again. 

 

 

 

I guess most then are not like Elder Bednar.

 

This is how he feels about the day:

 

"Today is April 6. We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior’s birth. April 6 also is the day on which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized.....On this special and sacred Sabbath day".....he then uses this to segue into his testimony of the Savior. 

[DBMormon]

Actually, most of us are like, Yiptey, who cares which day he was actually born.  If we know, then fine.  if we don't, fine again. 

 

Some of us would rather approach the notion of revelation, truths regarding doctrine, and that which we do know with something more substantive.

For being so "who cares" this thread has over 2,700 views and 10 pages of comments.... weird.

[stemelbow]

For being so "who cares" this thread has over 2,700 views and 10 pages of comments.... weird.

 

yes.  Good job getting people riled up over an inconsequential issue.  But don't let it go to your head, that's kind of the state of discussion boards these days. 

[wtrdog]

Sorry if someone else already posted this.  But the transcript is on lds.org now and here is the quote, including reference.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng

 

 

 

May each of us do and become better through the Savior’s Atonement. Today is April 6. We know by revelation that today is the actual and accurate date of the Savior’s birth. April 6 also is the day on which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized. (See D&C 20:1; Harold B. Lee, “Strengthen the Stakes of Zion,” Ensign, July 1973, 2; Spencer W. Kimball, “Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,” Ensign, May 1980, 54; Discourses of President Gordon B. Hinckley, Volume 1: 1995–1999 [2005], 409.) On this special and sacred Sabbath day, I declare my witness that Jesus the Christ is our Redeemer. He lives and will cleanse, heal, guide, protect, and strengthen us. Of these things I joyfully testify in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.

 

So what he said is based on what Harold B. Lee said.  So what did Lee say?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/07/strengthen-the-stakes-of-zion?lang=eng

 

 

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.)

 

Let there be no more confusion.  Bednar cites Lee who cited a very literal interpretation of a verse he thought was based on revelation.  As it turns out, based on the Joseph Smith Papers, not only is it not based on revelation, but Joseph Smith didn't even write it.  Bednar is perpetuating a myth, period, bottom line.  There is NO revelation.  Bednar is wrong.  An embarrassing mistake from a "prophet, seer, revelator."

 

While this is certainly a trite issue, after all, who care when Christ was born?  It means nothing.  But it's a relevant issue because of the principles this relates to.  What is the nature of revelation?  What is the nature of official revelation?  What does it mean to be a "prophet, seer, and revelator"?  

 

In priesthood session Elder Hallstom said:

 

 

...this vastly increased accessibility to the Lord's voices, to the voices of the Lord's servants, which are the same as the Lord's own voice, has little value unless 

we are willing to receive the word and then follow it.

 

I'm thinking maybe the over-hyped rhetoric about the leaders speaking for Christ, literally, ought to be toned down just a bit.

[stemelbow]

Sorry if someone else already posted this.  But the transcript is on lds.org now and here is the quote, including reference.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng

 

 

So what he said is based on what Harold B. Lee said.  So what did Lee say?

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/07/strengthen-the-stakes-of-zion?lang=eng

 

 

Let there be no more confusion.  Bednar cites Lee who cited a very literal interpretation of a verse he thought was based on revelation.  As it turns out, based on the Joseph Smith Papers, not only is it not based on revelation, but Joseph Smith didn't even write it.  Bednar is perpetuating a myth, period, bottom line.  There is NO revelation.  Bednar is wrong.  An embarrassing mistake from a "prophet, seer, revelator."

 

While this is certainly a trite issue, after all, who care when Christ was born?  It means nothing.  But it's a relevant issue because of the principles this relates to.  What is the nature of revelation?  What is the nature of official revelation?  What does it mean to be a "prophet, seer, and revelator"?  

 

In priesthood session Elder Hallstom said:

 

 

I'm thinking maybe the over-hyped rhetoric about the leaders speaking for Christ, literally, ought to be toned down just a bit.

 

Its a fair point to make.  Surely I wish it was based on something of more substance, but I guess it is what it is.  After all, Elder Bednar did indeed make the statement.

 

DB Mormon, please accept my apologies for trying to shoot down this thread.

[DBMormon]

Its a fair point to make.  Surely I wish it was based on something of more substance, but I guess it is what it is.  After all, Elder Bednar did indeed make the statement.

 

DB Mormon, please accept my apologies for trying to shoot down this thread.

No problem..... My point, and I likely could have worded it better, and more graciously, was not to criticize Elder Bednar, but rather to ensure people were aware before it got put it no print and soon hereafter, the Ensign.    I wrote someone in the church history dept. who said little could be done by existing mechanisms to fix this, other then their talking to their superior, which they did prior to my communication.  

 

A nobody like me is left to simply deal with it.  That is a shame since we live in a time where fixing such things would be easy and helpful to others if such a mechanism existed.

Edited April 10, 2014 by DBMormon

[JLHPROF]

 As it turns out, based on the Joseph Smith Papers, not only is it not based on revelation, but Joseph Smith didn't even write it.  Bednar is perpetuating a myth, period, bottom line.  There is NO revelation.

 

And yet oddly enough Joseph Smith approved the publication with no correction...