Merry Christmas to all!

[JLHPROF]

QUOTE REMOVED DUE TO BAD REFERENCING.

"“Strictly speaking, if this Church was organized ‘one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh,’ then the sixth of April must have been the anniversary of the Savior’s birthday. If the organization of the Church had been before or subsequent to that date, if only by one or any number of days, the great event would have been more or less than one thousand eight hundred and thirty years by just so many days. (This argument also holds good as to the year of Christ’s birth.) Opinions formed by the study of chronological events may or may not be accurate. But we would scarcely think the Lord would make any mistake about dates. Least of all he who was born on that day, and on that day thirty-three years later was crucified. "  - President Joseph F. Smith

"We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1." - Elder James E. Talmage

"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." - President Harold B. Lee

"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. " - President Spencer W. Kimball

"While we now know through revelation the time of the Savior's birth, we observe the 25th of December with the rest of the Christian world." - President Gordon B. Hinckley

"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." - Elder David A. Bednar

"We commemorate the humble birth of the Savior at this time of year even though we know it did not occur in December. More likely, the Lord was born in April. Both scriptural and historical evidence suggest a time in the spring of the year, near the Jewish Passover." - President Russell M. Nelson

Edited April 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

Maybe we should give this day another name, to avoid confusing this day with what we usually call the holiday (holy day) on December 25th.

Smithmas, maybe? Something other than Christmas. 

Merry Smithmas everybody! 

[Garden Girl]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Maybe we should give this day another name, to avoid confusing this day with what we usually call the holiday (holy day) on December 25th.

Smithmas, maybe? Something other than Christmas. 

Merry Smithmas everybody! 

Please no... not even suggesting in jest... we get enough criticism as it is without that!

GG

 

[Scott Lloyd]

How about Founder's Day?

It has a dual meaning: the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a nod to the Founder of the Church Himself.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about Founder's Day?

It has a dual meaning: the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a nod to the Founder of the Church Himself.

I like it!

[JAHS]

"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)

This might be a bold statement on my part but I don't agree with any of the past church leaders that this scripture sets the date of the birth of Christ. In my opinion it's just a fancy oratorical way of declaring the date of the organization of the church. Has Joseph Smith himself explained that this scripture sets the date of Christ's birth (besides this scripture)?

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"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)

This might be a bold statement on my part but I don't agree with any of the past church leaders that this scripture sets the date of the birth of Christ. In my opinion it's just a fancy oratorical way of declaring the date of the organization of the church. Has Joseph Smith himself explained that this scripture sets the date of Christ's birth (besides this scripture)?

Did you happen to read the OP?

[The Nehor]

How about apocalypse day? It was the founding of the church and beginning of all the apocalyptic revelation.

Plus it will give everyone else the wrong idea which will be delightfully fun.

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Did you happen to read the OP?

Yes I did. And like I said it's a bold statement. It is very likely and possible that it was April 6, but if the statements of all those people are based only on the D&D 20 scripture then I consider it just their opinion

I know some here don't trust what Bruce R McConkie said but according to him:
"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" (McConkie, Bruce R. Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 349, n. 2. Salt Lake City, 1979).

There is also this to consider:
"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation.""  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html?pg=all

 

 

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about Founder's Day?

It has a dual meaning: the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a nod to the Founder of the Church Himself.

Yeah, well, at least it is technically correct, but I was thinking about a name that sounded a little more Christmas-sy. A name with the "mas" part in the name.

How about, hmm, maybe Christchurchmas?

Or ChurchofJesusChristmas, maybe?

Happy ChurchofJesusChristmas everybody!

Eh, maybe it will grow on me some more with some more repetition.

Happy ChurchofJesusChristmas!

Happy ChurchofJesusChristmas!

Happy ChurchofJesusChristmas!

...

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

"On the 6th of April [1833], in the land of Zion, about eighty officials, together with some unofficial members of the Church, met for instruction and the service of God.... The day was spent in a very agreeable manner, in giving and receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom—it being just 1800 years since the Savior laid down His life that men might have everlasting life, and only three years since the Church had come out of the wilderness, preparatory for the last dispensation.... This was the first attempt made by the Church to celebrate the anniversary of her birthday, and those who professed not our faith talked about it as a “strange thing.” That Christ, who is called both the “Firstborn” and the “beginning” of God’s creation in both the Bible and early Christian texts, should be born on the day commemorating the creation is especially significant, for it was through him that God created the earth." - President Joseph Smith Jr.
 

The underlined portion that I bolded is not in the History of the Church volume one that I can find.  Here is the paragraph:

Quote

On the 6th of April, in the land of Zion, about eighty officials,
together with some unofficial members of the Church, met for instruction
and the service of God, at the Ferry on Big Blue river near the western
limits of Jackson county, which is the boundary line of the state of
Missouri and also of the United States. It was an early spring, and the
leaves and blossoms enlivened and gratified the soul of man like a glimpse
of Paradise. The day was spent in a very agreeable manner, in giving and
receiving knowledge which appertained to this last kingdom--it being just
1800 years since the Savior laid down His life that men might have
everlasting life, and only three years since the Church had come out of
the wilderness, preparatory for the last dispensation. The Saints had
great reason to rejoice: they thought upon the time when this world came
into existence, and the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of
God shouted for joy; they thought of the time when Israel ate the
"Passover," as wailing came up for the loss of the firstborn of Egypt;
they felt like the shepherds who watched their flocks by night, when the
angelic choir sweetly sang the electrifying strain, "Peace on earth, good
will to man;" and the solemnities of eternity rested upon them. This was
the first attempt made by the Church to celebrate the anniversary of her
birthday, and those who professed not our faith talked about it as a
strange thing.

Can you clarify your source?

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by SeekingUnderstanding
formatting

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The underlined portion that I bolded is not in the History of the Church volume one that I can find.  Here is the paragraph:

Can you clarify your source?

 

My apologies - that will teach me to use someone else's work.

That last section was a footnote quote from an article - http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/when-was-christ-born/#sdfootnote60sym
which was quoted by http://scottwoodward.org/jesus_christ_dateofbirth.html without removing the article author's comments.

I will remove it from the OP.  Remember kids, always check the primary source materials first!

ETA - I don't even agree with the article writer's interpretation of Joseph claiming April 6 was the birthday of the earth.  It may have been, but that wasn't what Joseph said in HC.  Just not a very good article from the get go.

 

Edited April 6, 2016 by JLHPROF

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My apologies - that will teach me to use someone else's work.

That last section was a footnote quote from an article - http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/when-was-christ-born/#sdfootnote60sym
which was quoted by http://scottwoodward.org/jesus_christ_dateofbirth.html without removing the article author's comments.

I will remove it from the OP.  Remember kids, always check the primary source materials first!

 

It's not the first time its happened on this board so don't feel too bad...

 

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, JAHS said:

Yes I did. And like I said it's a bold statement. It is very likely and possible that it was April 6, but if the statements of all those people are based only on the D&D 20 scripture then I consider it just their opinion

I know some here don't trust what Bruce R McConkie said but according to him:
"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" (McConkie, Bruce R. Mortal Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 349, n. 2. Salt Lake City, 1979).

There is also this to consider:
"The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation.""  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700094707/What-was-the-real-date-of-Jesus-birth.html?pg=all .
 

Correct.  The phrase in question is merely an example of standard use of Anno Domini, which was quite common at that time, and has no revelatory meaning at all.

Based on Book of Mormon chronology, the only possible birthdate for Jesus is in late September, most likely at Jewish New Year's Day (Rosh haShana), the same date on which Joseph took the plates from that hill near Manchester.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It's not the first time its happened on this board so don't feel too bad...

 

Yeah, I got caught too in the lack of clear differentiation between primary source and commentary.

[RevTestament]

On 4/6/2016 at 1:56 PM, JLHPROF said:

"“Strictly speaking, if this Church was organized ‘one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh,’ then the sixth of April must have been the anniversary of the Savior’s birthday. If the organization of the Church had been before or subsequent to that date, if only by one or any number of days, the great event would have been more or less than one thousand eight hundred and thirty years by just so many days. (This argument also holds good as to the year of Christ’s birth.) Opinions formed by the study of chronological events may or may not be accurate. But we would scarcely think the Lord would make any mistake about dates. Least of all he who was born on that day, and on that day thirty-three years later was crucified. "  - President Joseph F. Smith

"We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1." - Elder James E. Talmage

"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." - President Harold B. Lee

"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. " - President Spencer W. Kimball

"While we now know through revelation the time of the Savior's birth, we observe the 25th of December with the rest of the Christian world." - President Gordon B. Hinckley

"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." - Elder David A. Bednar

"We commemorate the humble birth of the Savior at this time of year even though we know it did not occur in December. More likely, the Lord was born in April. Both scriptural and historical evidence suggest a time in the spring of the year, near the Jewish Passover." - President Russell M. Nelson

Actually, the BoM gives a precise date for His birth - and His death. It is probably the best record of each in all of scripture.

[PeterPear]

On April 7, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  The phrase in question is merely an example of standard use of Anno Domini, which was quite common at that time, and has no revelatory meaning at all.

Based on Book of Mormon chronology, the only possible birthdate for Jesus is in late September, most likely at Jewish New Year's Day (Rosh haShana), the same date on which Joseph took the plates from that hill near Manchester.

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

+ 9 = the birth was in the Spring.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/526874/jewish/The-Jewish-Month.htm

[JAHS]

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, the BoM gives a precise date for His birth - and His death. It is probably the best record of each in all of scripture.

How do you figure this? What is the date?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

+ 9 = the birth was in the Spring.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/526874/jewish/The-Jewish-Month.htm

Read the whole story, Peter.

You are confusing the 6th month of the Jewish year (Elul) with the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy.  The angel Gabriel first comes to the priest Zacharias at the Temple, announcing to him that his wife will get pregnant and bear a son named John.  At some point thereafter Elizabeth became pregnant.  We do not  know when.  However, Luke 1:24 takes up the story when Elizabeth had been pregnant for five months.  Then, Luke 1:26ff says that "in the sixth month" the same angel came to Mary with an annunciation for her own pregnancy -- including the statement in verse 36 that her cousin Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her pregnancy.  Mary immediately went to see her cousin, both women now pregnant.  Mary stayed with her about three months (nearly to her cousin's full term), and returned home to Nazareth.

Given the overlapping sequence here, it is possible that the two births are separated by just six months, John being born in Nisan 5BC, and Jesus on Tishri 1 (Rosh haShana) 5BC, since that date of birth is the only possible synchronism with the Book of Mormon.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/6/2016 at 2:15 PM, JAHS said:

"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)

This might be a bold statement on my part but I don't agree with any of the past church leaders that this scripture sets the date of the birth of Christ. In my opinion it's just a fancy oratorical way of declaring the date of the organization of the church. Has Joseph Smith himself explained that this scripture sets the date of Christ's birth (besides this scripture)?

I would agree with this.  I would like to see LDS leaders from the 19th century that show they understood D&C 20:1 as a declaration of the birthday of Christ.  Orson Pratt seems to have a different view

"If I were to celebrate Christmas, or the birthday of Christ, I should go back a little less than thirty-three years from his crucifixion, and it would bring it to Thursday, the 11th day of April, as the first day of the first year of the true Christian era…. The first day of the year of the true Christian era should be the day of the Savior's birth -- the 11th day of April." (Orson Pratt Journal of Discourses, 15: 261)

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I would agree with this.  I would like to see LDS leaders from the 19th century that show they understood D&C 20:1 as a declaration of the birthday of Christ.  Orson Pratt seems to have a different view

"If I were to celebrate Christmas, or the birthday of Christ, I should go back a little less than thirty-three years from his crucifixion, and it would bring it to Thursday, the 11th day of April, as the first day of the first year of the true Christian era…. The first day of the year of the true Christian era should be the day of the Savior's birth -- the 11th day of April." (Orson Pratt Journal of Discourses, 15: 261)

Yes, and like I said in another post that first verse in D&C 20 was not part of the original revelation received by Joseph. It was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations. 

[Stargazer]

On 4/6/2016 at 0:56 PM, JLHPROF said:

"We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1." - Elder James E. Talmage
 

Note to Elder Talmage: April 6, BC 1 was one year before Jesus's birth.  AD 1 was one year afterwards.  We count years according to how many years after or before an event occurred.  At the moment it occurred it is 0.  Not Year 0, but just 0.  

Edited April 9, 2016 by Stargazer

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Read the whole story, Peter.

You are confusing the 6th month of the Jewish year (Nisan) with the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy.  The angel Gabriel first comes to the priest Zacharias at the Temple, announcing to him that his wife will get pregnant and bear a son named John.  At some point thereafter Elizabeth became pregnant.  We do not  know when.  However, Luke 1:24 takes up the story when Elizabeth had been pregnant for five months.  Then, Luke 1:26ff says that "in the sixth month" the same angel came to Mary with an annunciation for her own pregnancy -- including the statement in verse 36 that her cousin Elizabeth was in the sixth month of her pregnancy.  Mary immediately went to see her cousin, both women now pregnant.  Mary stayed with her about three months (nearly to her cousin's full term), and returned home to Nazareth.

Given the overlapping sequence here, it is possible that the two births are separated by just six months, John being born in Nisan 5BC, and Jesus on Tishri 1 (Rosh haShana) 5BC, since that date of birth is the only possible synchronism with the Book of Mormon.

Not only that but the sixth month of the Jewish calendar is around our October, so another 9 months would be June-July.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Note to Elder Talmage: April 6, BC 1 was one year before Jesus's birth.  AD 1 was one year afterwards.  We count years according to how many years after or before an event occurred.  At the moment it occurred it is 0.  Not Year 0, but just 0.  

Because our calendar couldn't be off by 1 year?  Why couldn't Christ have been born in 1BC?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, RevTestament said:

Not only that but the sixth month of the Jewish calendar is around our October, so another 9 months would be June-July.

Depends on which calendar you are using, civil or religious, Northern Kingdom or Kingdom of Judah.  Judaism traditionally counts Tishri as the seventh month (Sept-Oct), even though it begins with New Year's Day and memorializes the Day of Creation -- each new year since is numbered from that date.

At the same time, I erred in my reply to Peter Pear.  Thanks for the heads up.