Savior's birth - April 6 vs December 25

[marineland]

Why does the church continue to commemorate the birth of Christ on December 25
when the 2014 General Conference says April 6 is the actual and accurate date?
 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng
 
"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"

Thanks
 
Tony

[JAHS]

Is it really so important that we know the exact date? Just knowing that He was born into this world and is our Savior is what is most important. 
I know Elder Bednar said this but I actually disagree with him.  

"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," (D&C 20:1)

I don't think this first verse was intended to fix the year of Christ's birth but was simply an oratorical mode of expressing the current year. The Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, show that the above phrase was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations and therefore not actually part of that revelation written by Joseph Smith.
Bruce R. McConkie (knowing what that verse in the D&C says)  stated in his "Mortal Messiah":
"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).

[InCognitus]

I found this podcast on LDS Perspectives helpful for this topic.

https://ldsperspectives.com/2016/12/14/episode-13-dating-christs-birth/

Transcript here:   Episode 13: When was Jesus Born? With Jeffrey R. Chadwick

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Why does the church continue to commemorate the birth of Christ on December 25
when the 2014 General Conference says April 6 is the actual and accurate date?
 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng
 
"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".........................

The General Conference said no such thing.  It was Elder Bednar who was expressing his opinion.  Was he correct?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Why does the church continue to commemorate the birth of Christ on December 25
when the 2014 General Conference says April 6 is the actual and accurate date?
 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/bear-up-their-burdens-with-ease?lang=eng
 
"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"

Thanks
 
Tony

The ancient Roman Catholic church put so much effort into getting the pagans to change the focus of their yearly saturnalia festival to a celebration of the birth of Christ that it only seems neighborly to be supportive.  

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The General Conference said no such thing.  It was Elder Bednar who was expressing his opinion.  Was he correct?

Yes, he was.

[InCognitus]

To elaborate on my post above, in that podcast Jeffery R. Chadwick presents his view of some of the data for dating the birth of Christ.  And he also mentions the different opinions that have gone back and forth on how to interpret the data.  There are three BYU Studies articles that are relevant to this topic for anyone who wants to research this further:

Dating the Birth of Christ, BYU Studies Journal 49:4 (2010):  https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/dating-birth-christ.  Here's a quote of the summary:

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken no official position on the exact date of Christ's birth. In his 1915 classic Jesus the Christ, Elder James E. Talmage maintained that Jesus Christ was born on April 6 in the year 1 BC. Talmage was apparently the first LDS writer to propose this particular date. Nearly a century has passed since his book appeared, and in that time it has become practically axiomatic among Latter-day Saints that Jesus was born on April 6 in that year. Two other Apostles, President J. Reuben Clark and Elder Bruce R. McConkie, published major studies on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and proposed that Jesus was born in late 5 BC or early 4 BC. In this article, Jeffrey R. Chadwick, Jerusalem Center Professor of Archaeology and Near Eastern Studies, draws upon many sources—scriptural, historical, archaeological, and astronomical—to shed light on the probable date of the Savior's birth. Using the known date of Herod the Great's death, information from the Book of Mormon about the length of Jesus's life, technical details about the Jewish lunar-solar calendar, the timing of the Annunciation to Mary, and other historical data, Chadwick narrows the window of time in which the Savior would have been born to December of 5 BC. The author is careful to deal with statements made by latter-day prophets supporting the April 6, 1 BC, date first proposed by Elder Talmage. Chadwick is able to show that these statements always occur in talks given about other topics (not expressly about the date of Christ's birth) and probably rely on Elder Talmage's assumptions. But a careful look at Doctrine and Covenants 20:1, upon which Talmage's proposal is based, shows that this verse was not a revelation by the Lord about his birth date. In fact, the verse is likely prefatory material dictated by Joseph Smith and recorded by his scribe with the express purpose of establishing the date of the Church's organization rather than the date of the Savior's birth.

And there was a response to Chadwick's article published in BYU Studies in 2012:  When Was Jesus Born? A Response to a Recent Proposal, by Lincoln H. Blumell and Thomas A. Wayment, Journal 51:3, (here: https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/when-was-jesus-born-response-recent-proposal ) with this conclusion:

Quote

Conclusion

As stated previously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and perhaps the only thing that can be agreed upon with respect to the evidence concerning Jesus’s birth date is that it is extraordinarily complex. To offer a compelling case regarding the date of Jesus’s birth, one must exclude certain pieces of information as well as weight some pieces of evidence as more important than others. While we appreciate Chadwick’s attempt to untangle this Gordian knot, we ultimately feel that the argument that Jesus was born in December of 5 BC is flawed and does not adequately take account of all the diverse evidence. In all likelihood, the evidence supporting Jesus’s birth probably cannot justify more than to say that Jesus was born before Herod “the Great” passed away in the spring of 4 BC and probably not any earlier than 6 BC, and that he died under the prefecture of Pontius Pilate. An ambiguous solution is at times frustrating to many readers, but until further evidence comes forward, our current sources will permit only opinions beyond those boundaries.

And Chadwick adds to his evidence in another article about a different topic, but utilizing some of the same dating events:  Dating the Death of Jesus Christ (BYU Studies, Journal 54:4, here:  https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/dating-death-jesus-christ), this is the preface:

Quote

In December 2010, BYU Studies published a study by Jeffrey R. Chadwick entitled “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ.” It presented historical and scriptural evidence showing that Jesus was not born in April of 1 BC, as popular Latter-day Saint thought supposed, but most likely in December of 5 BC. A significant component in “Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ” was the proposition that Jesus died at Passover in the early spring of AD 30. While this dating is widely accepted, a minority of scholars disagree. A great deal of historical and scriptural evidence suggests otherwise, however, and this study demonstrates, with some degree of certainty, that Jesus did in fact die in AD 30, on the eve of Passover, the 14th day of the Jewish month Nisan, which in that year fell on April 6 in the old Julian calendar. This study also presents evidence that the day on which Jesus died was not a Friday, but the fifth day of the Jewish week, the day we call Thursday. This paper introduces a great deal of data to support the author’s conclusions, including modern scholarly assessments, original primary historical references, citations from the New Testament and the Mishnah, astronomical information, and tables that display the timing of events.

So it all depends on if you take the preface to D&C 20 literally, although many church leaders (like Elder Bednar) have viewed it that way.   And even if April 6th turns out to be the right date, I'm totally fine with picking a date (like December 25) as a day to remember his birth.  And there certainly is a lot of symbolism associated with a late December date.

Edited December 20, 2019 by InCognitus

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, Attalus said:

..................

December 25^th: When December 25 was chosen as the date to celebrate Christ’s birth in the fourth century, it coincided with the pagan winter solstice celebration. .......................

Correct.  And that has to do with the effort by the Roman Catholic Church to subsume all pagan festivals under a Christian mantle.  By using the pagan Winter Solstice of Dec 25 (Julian), it was possible to have Jesus Christ take over the festivals dedicated to the Egyptian Sun-god Re, to Persian Mithra (beloved by the Roman legions), as well as to Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Sun), and the Roman Saturnalia (Jan 6) -- not to mention the English Yuletide.

What is far more interesting, as Eric Werner has shown, is that the whole Roman Catholic Christmas liturgy was taken over from the Jewish festival liturgy of Autumnal New Year (Rosh haShana).  Werner concludes that the early Jewish Christian Church celebrated the birth of the Savior at that Fall New Year, and used the same liturgy as the Jewish synagogue to do so (Werner, The Sacred Bridge [1970], 79-83, 89-90, and nn. 94, 110-111, citing esp. L. Venetianer, Jüdisches im Christentum, 139).  John B. Lightfoot placed the birth of Jesus at this autumnal point as well (Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, II:32-33). 

If we correlate the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah (when Lehi left Jerusalem), with the 600-year prophecy of Christ's birth, and the precise Book of Mormon timeline for his death, we are left with no alternative but to accept the Fall Jewish New Year as the date of Christ's birth.

[theplains]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The General Conference said no such thing.  It was Elder Bednar who was expressing his opinion.  Was he correct?

Elder Bednar mentions a revelation, not his opinion.  Besides, he was echoing past teachings of LDS Presidents.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/05/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng

President Spencer W. Kimball said, "The name Jesus Christ and what it represents has been 
plowed deep into the history of the world, never to be uprooted. Christ was born on the 
sixth of April."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/contents?lang=eng

President Harold B. Lee said, "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."

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, he was.

CFR -- do the math.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, theplains said:

Elder Bednar mentions a revelation, not his opinion.  Besides, he was echoing past teachings of LDS Presidents.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/05/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng

President Spencer W. Kimball said, "The name Jesus Christ and what it represents has been 
plowed deep into the history of the world, never to be uprooted. Christ was born on the 
sixth of April."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/contents?lang=eng

President Harold B. Lee said, "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."

Thanks,
Jim

That would be nice, Jim, if it had any substantive backing.  The "revelation" on which those statements were based does not exist.  As noted already, John Whitmer penned those formulaic words, not Joseph Smith.  The Brethren were led astray through poor editing.

Edited December 20, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

CFR -- do the math.

Which Math are you referring to?

Everyone has a birthday.  Is there some mathematical reason April 6th can't be Jesus' birthday?

[theplains]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That would be nice, Jim, if it had any substantive backing.  The "revelation" on which those statements were based does not exist.  As noted already, John Whitmer penned those formulaic words, not Joseph Smith.  The Brethren were led astray through poor editing.

Which LDS President revealed that the April 6 teaching was false in order to stop past LDS Presidents from leading
their readers/hearers astray?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

....................................  And even if April 6th turns out to be the right date, I'm totally fine with picking a date (like December 25) as a day to remember his birth.  And there certainly is a lot of symbolism associated with a late December date.

Most people have no problem with celebrating the birth of Christ on Dec 25, or Jan 6, depending on certain calendric assumptions.  But that is merely tradition.  If we are asking a more scholarly question, the answer is bound to be very different.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which Math are you referring to?

Everyone has a birthday.  Is there some mathematical reason April 6th can't be Jesus' birthday?

Yes, Virginia, everyone has a birthday, and most of us have documentary evidence for the actual date of our birth.  Where is Jesus' birth certificate?

April 6 does not compute, no matter how hard one tries to make it fit.  I have carefully read all the scholarly articles produced by LDS scholars on this matter, and not one of them can justify an April 6 date.  Only one birthdate fits, and that must be at Autumnal Jewish New Year in 5 BC.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, theplains said:

Which LDS President revealed that the April 6 teaching was false in order to stop past LDS Presidents from leading
their readers/hearers astray?

The assumption of infallibility in LDS theology is invalid, Jim, no matter how much one wants it to be true.  The fallacy of infallibility is a huge problem for some.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

20 minutes ago, theplains said:

Elder Bednar mentions a revelation, not his opinion.  Besides, he was echoing past teachings of LDS Presidents.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1975/05/why-call-me-lord-lord-and-do-not-the-things-which-i-say?lang=eng

President Spencer W. Kimball said, "The name Jesus Christ and what it represents has been 
plowed deep into the history of the world, never to be uprooted. Christ was born on the 
sixth of April."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1973/07/contents?lang=eng

President Harold B. Lee said, "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."

Thanks,
Jim

That would be nice, Jim, if it had any substantive backing.  The "revelation" on which those statements were based does not exist.  As noted already, John Whitmer penned those formulaic words, not Joseph Smith.  The Brethren were led astray through poor editing.

Right. John Whitmer would often identify a date with similar language. Another time he wrote, "It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh."  (John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847)

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, Virginia, everyone has a birthday, and most of us have documentary evidence for the actual date of our birth.  Where is Jesus' birth certificate?

April 6 does not compute, no matter how hard one tries to make it fit.  I have carefully read all the scholarly articles produced by LDS scholars on this matter, and not one of them can justify an April 6 date.  Only one birthdate fits, and that must be at Autumnal Jewish New Year in 5 BC.

Thank goodness for your wisdom to set us straight.
Remind me to wish you Merry Christmas in the Autumn.

Since there is no birth certificate I'll think I'll go on believing the old folklore belief that April 6th sacred as Christ's birth date, death date, true start of each new year, and founding of the Church day.
Until a birth certificate is produced correcting me at least.
 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

Why does the church continue to commemorate the birth of Christ on December 25
when the 2014 General Conference says April 6 is the actual and accurate date?

Because it commemorates the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, whatever date that honored event may be proven to be.

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, theplains said:

Which LDS President revealed that the April 6 teaching was false in order to stop past LDS Presidents from leading their readers/hearers astray?

Please research this question and let us know.

[Robert F. Smith]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank goodness for your wisdom to set us straight.
Remind me to wish you Merry Christmas in the Autumn.

Since there is no birth certificate I'll think I'll go on believing the old folklore belief that April 6th sacred as Christ's birth date, death date, true start of each new year, and founding of the Church day.
Until a birth certificate is produced correcting me at least.

That is perfectly fine, and is what most people will do -- as they do now.  Much of what we do as a society is folklore-based.  Even Christmas is filled with folklore, from the Three Magi (the NT nowhere has three magi), coming at the time of Jesus' birth (they don't come until later, when the Holy Family has moved to a house), etc.

Only a Grinch would complain about eggnogg, mistletoe, yule logs, Christmas trees, and all the other folderol which is so much fun.

Discussing it as a scholarly matter is very different.  It is very sad if you cannot separate the two.

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Right. John Whitmer would often identify a date with similar language. Another time he wrote, "It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh."  (John Whitmer, History, 1831–circa 1847)

Yes, and that was standard procedure for many writers and editors.

[Maidservant]

The liturgical year, of which a December 25th nativity, also sets the baptism commemoration at 13 days after the nativity, and the remainder of his life in the following days culminating in the resurrection and the establishment of the church. It also has the advent, annunciation, etc, within the same month (earlier in December); and even though it takes 9 months to cook a baby. It includes John the Baptist's "prepare the way" on one of the weeks, which he was barely have been a baby. It is a sacred cycle, NOT ever even meant to match up dates.

If I remember correctly, the early Christian fathers did a lot of back and forth on the date with various supports of different ideas.

I'm not stuck on April 6. Not least, I'm pretty sure Jesus was born before the Gregorian calendar was initiated.

[boo]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Correct.  And that has to do with the effort by the Roman Catholic Church to subsume all pagan festivals under a Christian mantle.  By using the pagan Winter Solstice of Dec 25 (Julian), it was possible to have Jesus Christ take over the festivals dedicated to the Egyptian Sun-god Re, to Persian Mithra (beloved by the Roman legions), as well as to Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Sun), and the Roman Saturnalia (Jan 6) -- not to mention the English Yuletide.

What is far more interesting, as Eric Werner has shown, is that the whole Roman Catholic Christmas liturgy was taken over from the Jewish festival liturgy of Autumnal New Year (Rosh haShana).  Werner concludes that the early Jewish Christian Church celebrated the birth of the Savior at that Fall New Year, and used the same liturgy as the Jewish synagogue to do so (Werner, The Sacred Bridge [1970], 79-83, 89-90, and nn. 94, 110-111, citing esp. L. Venetianer, Jüdisches im Christentum, 139).  John B. Lightfoot placed the birth of Jesus at this autumnal point as well (Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae, II:32-33). 

If we correlate the first year of the reign of King Zedekiah of Judah (when Lehi left Jerusalem), with the 600-year prophecy of Christ's birth, and the precise Book of Mormon timeline for his death, we are left with no alternative but to accept the Fall Jewish New Year as the date of Christ's birth.

I think you are missing something. Lehi left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of king Zedekaih . That is clear. however the Babylonian Chronicles make it clear that that was 597 BC. The 600 hundred year prophecy only works if you accept that it was based on the Jewish lunar calendar. If you use 600 solar years like the Gregorian calendar you have Christ being born in 3 Ad 6 years or more after the death of Herod. I have done the math using the Jewish year count and it works exactly showing Christ being born in late 5 or early 4 BC. I think that if you look at the gospel account Luke 1 ;26 it appears Mary became pregnant about the 6 month of the Jewish year ( Nissan or Mar-April ) and would have delivered9 months in the middle or end of Dec . Exactly as the earliest Christian traditions have it I think it was probably the winter Solstice . The symbolism is compelling . think of when Joseph was born Dec23

[boo]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, he was.

No . J Ruben Clark says he wasn't . More importantly multiple classical authors place Herods death at the end of March or very early April 4 BC