David T Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 And yet oddly enough Joseph Smith approved the publication with no correction... Joseph Smith never claimed that the fancy introductory language had anything to do with revealing Jesus' birthday. That was a much later reading of it.
omni Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) And yet oddly enough Joseph Smith approved the publication with no correction... I think the point was that the original intent of the revelation was not to state Christ's birth, it was just a fancy way for the author to give the date (as has been shown by similar usage's). From what I understand, the mistaken belief of Chirst's birth date was initiated by James E. Talmage in 1915. Edit: It looks like David beat me by one minute. I'm going with great minds think alike on this one Edited April 10, 2014 by omni
wtrdog Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 And yet oddly enough Joseph Smith approved the publication with no correction... Why do so many members insist on translating the leaders (past and present) into a magical world of mysticism? If you read the article in Deseret News, and if you just use a little common sense and read D&C 20:1, it's plainly obvious that the verse was not meant to say anything about Christ's birthday at all. It's just a fluffy introduction to the text. It was their way of doing chapter headings in those days. John Whitmer wrote the exact same sort of thing for several other chapters in D&C also. As the Deseret article also points out, other apostles, like J Reuben Clark and Bruce R. McConkie, didn't regard D&C 20:1 as a revelation. They openly disagreed with people who thought Christ was born in April. So if multiple apostles are disagreeing with each other on the meaning of a scripture and the existence of a revelation, tell me, which one is right?
frank_jessop Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Dbmormon, just in case you missed itFor 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.
David T Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Dbmormon, just in case you missed itFor 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.President Lee presented Section 20 as the authority backing up his assertion, as has been posted multiple times: 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.)
DBMormon Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) President Lee presented Section 20 as the authority backing up his assertion, as has been posted multiple times: 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.) talk about fast and loose... huh. Thanks for defending me, but that has been pointed out several times...... For some, if they want to hold a false assumption, they will not let the facts get in the way. Edited April 10, 2014 by DBMormon
frank_jessop Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) talk about fast and loose... huh. Thanks for defending me, but that has been pointed out several times...... For some, if they want to hold a false assumption, they will not let the facts get in the way.And what is the correct "assumption" and can you prove it is the ONLY correct assumption. You, assume Lee was relying solely on Section 20.yes, someone else posted it, after I made an initial CFR to you.The original CFR was for you to prove Lee did not know by revelation. That Lee reads the verses, does not prove Lee is solely relying on Section 20. He very well could have known for himself. Edited April 10, 2014 by frank_jessop
jchristopher Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 You think you're going to break people's addictions with one grand denouncement?Nope. But I thought it was worth pointing out.
jchristopher Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 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.You just made my point again. Ridiculous.
Bob Crockett Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 talk about fast and loose... huh. Thanks for defending me, but that has been pointed out several times...... For some, if they want to hold a false assumption, they will not let the facts get in the way.CFR that April 6 is not the correct date, based on D&C 20. Do you have some authority? [i have a couple, do you?]
stemelbow Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 CFR that April 6 is not the correct date, based on D&C 20. Do you have some authority? [i have a couple, do you?] What the garbage, are you trying to start this all over again?
DBMormon Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 And what is the correct "assumption" and can you prove it is the ONLY correct assumption. You, assume Lee was relying solely on Section 20.yes, someone else posted it, after I made an initial CFR to you.The original CFR was for you to prove Lee did not know by revelation. That Lee reads the verses, does not prove Lee is solely relying on Section 20. He very well could have known for himself. Using that line of thinking you could justify anything and everything. So have at it. When Joseph said he saw god and Jesus, how do you know he didn't see aliens that claimed to be god? When Noah said the flood covered the whole earth, how do you know he was talking real water and not dirty dishwater.... I can make the flying spaghetti monster real with that kind of logic. While these are matters of faith, they also have historical context and in the case of april 6th, My perspective would win in a court of law if I was debating with one who wants to hold Pres. Lee knew by revelation independent of section 20.
Grudunza Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Even if the first verse of D&C 20 was meant to be part of the revelation (which it apparently wasn't), it still doesn't really imply or specify the exact date of Christ's birth, just the number of years since. It would be like someone saying that it's been 13 years since 9/11 and today on April 10, 2014 we are starting a new anti-terrorism program to continue the fight. Well yes, it's been about 13 years since that happened, so it's fine to say that (12 would also work), but it doesn't have to imply that today is 9/11 or that 9/11 happened on April 10, which would be silly, of course.
wtrdog Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Another amusing development. Meridian Magazine has just published an article from some guy discussing "signs of the last days," connecting lunar eclipses with the anniversary of the birth of Christ, and citing Bednar as a source for the April 6 date. Double, triple, quadruple facepalm. http://www.ldsmag.com/article/14199/1 Well it would seem this constitutes proof positive that the leaders CAN lead us astray. At least one guy has been led at least a little astray by Bednar's remarks. Asinine.
Calm Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 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. .Seems to me that this may yield a good result though it may take time. 1
Rivers Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 General Conference needs to be moved so it's not at the beginning of April. Then the GA's won't have as many opportunities to perpetuate this silly myth.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 General Conference needs to be moved so it's not at the beginning of April. Then the GA's won't have as many opportunities to perpetuate this silly myth. What is silly and sad is the time wasted in its discussion. It is totally irrelevant.
rlds_coc_lds Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 What is silly and sad is the time wasted in its discussion. It is totally irrelevant. It's not totally irrelevant. It may not be relevant to our salvation when Jesus was born, but it was stated in conference that we shouldn't pick and choose what we believe from the Apostles and that whether it be the Apostles or God speaking it is no different. So how are we supposed to interpret those injunctions when the Apostles contradict each other on when Jesus was born and whether there is revelation to back up an April 6th birth. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 What is silly and sad is the time wasted in its discussion. It is totally irrelevant.You are missing the point. I would imagine that no one that has discussed this point actually cares when Christ was born. We all agree that it is irrelevant. What is extremely relevant is how we determine truth and doctrine. In this conference we were advised on a great many things. Apostles told us that they knew things by revelation in their testimonies. We are told that women need to not be concerned with their rights to the priesthood, but rather be concerned with their responsibility. We are told that same gender marriage is against God's law. We were exhorted on a great number of topics. In all of this we assume that we are being led by divine revelation. Here we are told by a living prophet seer and revelator that we know by revelation something that is most likely based on faulty evidence. That is a big deal. If (and it would appear likely) he is wrong, then what else might be wrong that we claim to know by revelation? Perhaps discerning what is revealed doctrine is of no importance to you, but it certainly important to me and worthy of discussion. 1
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 It's not totally irrelevant. It may not be relevant to our salvation when Jesus was born, but it was stated in conference that we shouldn't pick and choose what we believe from the Apostles and that whether it be the Apostles or God speaking it is no different. So how are we supposed to interpret those injunctions when the Apostles contradict each other on when Jesus was born and whether there is revelation to back up an April 6th birth. We are to seek out our own personal revelation. If we don't get confirmation then put it down to "interesting stuff" or "good advice" or "something to work on in the future" or "irrelevancies not important enough to hinge our testimonies on".
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) You are missing the point. I would imagine that no one that has discussed this point actually cares when Christ was born. We all agree that it is irrelevant. What is extremely relevant is how we determine truth and doctrine. In this conference we were advised on a great many things. Apostles told us that they knew things by revelation in their testimonies. We are told that women need to not be concerned with their rights to the priesthood, but rather be concerned with their responsibility. We are told that same gender marriage is against God's law. We were exhorted on a great number of topics. In all of this we assume that we are being led by divine revelation. Here we are told by a living prophet seer and revelator that we know by revelation something that is most likely based on faulty evidence. That is a big deal. If (and it would appear likely) he is wrong, then what else might be wrong that we claim to know by revelation? Perhaps discerning what is revealed doctrine is of no importance to you, but it certainly important to me and worthy of discussion. See previous post and cease to seek out nits to pick. Nobody is sitting on your chest telling you that you must believe. There, however, has been much exhortation to seek and receive your own revelation. Edited April 10, 2014 by ERayR
wtrdog Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 We are to seek out our own personal revelation. If we don't get confirmation then put it down to "interesting stuff" or "good advice" or "something to work on in the future" or "irrelevancies not important enough to hinge our testimonies on". Are you of the opinion then that they should make an end to the strong rhetoric about "prophets, seers, and revelators"? Is it appropriate for Elder Hallstrom to say "...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."?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 We are to seek out our own personal revelation. If we don't get confirmation then put it down to "interesting stuff" or "good advice" or "something to work on in the future" or "irrelevancies not important enough to hinge our testimonies on".Indeed this is where this leads. I reject the churches teachings on evolution same sex marriage and a whole host of other topics based on this principle. Glad we are on the same page that this is acceptable to do.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Are you of the opinion then that they should make an end to the strong rhetoric about "prophets, seers, and revelators"? Is it appropriate for Elder Hallstrom to say "...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."? No, that is always what the God has advocated. You didn't see the little bit I highlighted did you? Part of receiving that word is verify it with your own inquiry just as Nephi did.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Indeed this is where this leads. I reject the churches teachings on evolution same sex marriage and a whole host of other topics based on this principle. Glad we are on the same page that this is acceptable to do. Be careful, just because you reject them does not invalidate them. It just shifts the responsibility and consequences for the rejection squarely to your shoulders. Once they have admonished, taught etc then they no longer have to answer for not telling you but you are directly responsible and the consequences are yours. Its called AGENCY. Now I have time to add: Those church leaders you reject are not infallible but they do give up promising careers and sacrifice personal and family time to prepare themselves to receive Gods will in the context of their own experience and understanding. Perhaps they are not always totally correct but at least they put in the effort to be so. I suspect that Gods admonition to David when he cut off the hem of King Saul's garment probably holds for the GA's. ". . . touch not mine anointed . . . " Edited April 10, 2014 by ERayR
Recommended Posts