Jesus Christ Birthday today - 06 april

[Vort]

Wow...... Vort you could be right just as well as Hemi and Pam could be..... Is this something we really need to pick apart???

It's a discussion list. We're discussing the topic.

It's very probable and so I do not see why you seem so offended or whatever about it....

I'm not offended. I just think it's a false idea. If you think it's true, please tell me what "April 6 AD 1" means, and by what authority you arrived at that determination.

[pam]

For the, what, fourth time now, I ask you: What does "April 6 AD 1" mean, and by what authority do you make that determination?

I don't know about the AD 1. But I have always been taught that Christ was born on April 6th. I have nothing to back it up...it's just what I've been taught by numerous teachers and Church leaders in my 52 years of living. Whether or not it can be proven....I don't know. Just what I've always been taught.

But your last post you made good comments and I would have to agree with much of what you said. I've just always had a hard time with blanket statements that some make (not you in particular) that say don't believe everything you are taught in seminary or institute.

[Justice]

Unless you can define what "April 6 AD 1" means, declaring it as Jesus' birthday is not meaningful, totally beside the question of whether it's a correct assertion.

His actual birthday was April 6th 1 BC, not AD. Since there was no "year 0," April 6th 1 AD was His 1st birthday.

You might have to draw it on a piece of paper to see it. But, it went from 1 BC to 1 AD.

[pam]

My earlier post quoted President Harold B. Lee as stating:

After summarizing the opinions of various scholars in the matter of Christ’s birthday, Elder James E. Talmage compares their conclusions with modern revelation and then affirms: “We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C 1.

Then I find another quote by Spencer W. Kimball in Ensign of May 1974.

My brothers and sisters and friends, another April has come, and with it the birthdate of the Church, organized on the birthday of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, which we have celebrated on the sixth of April. This weekend, we conduct the 144th Annual Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[pam]

Then by Bruce R. McConkie:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie amplified that idea: “Apparently Christ was born on the day corresponding to April 6 (D&C 20:1), but the saints nevertheless join in the wholesome portions of the Christmas celebration. Christmas becomes to them an ideal opportunity to renew their search for the true spirit of Christ and to center their attentions again on the true doctrine of his birth as the Son of an Immortal Father.”

[Justice]

On my mission, the discussions I used very clearly taught that we could not feel joy premortally.

I think it was just a matter of how you interpreted it. That man cannot feel a fullness of joy without His body is doctrine. Clearly, we did not have a physical body in the "pre-mortal" existence. I'm not sure there is a difference made here between "cannot feel joy," and "cannot receive a fullness of joy."

To avoid an argument, here is the scripture:

D&C 93:

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

I think you were concerned over semanitcs, or maybe degrees. But, that man cannot feel joy, the joy that we will feel in heaven after we are resurrected, either now or even before we were born here, is doctrine. You can draw lines between "fullness of joy" and "joy" if you want to, but I believe it was implied in the discussion. I believe we can be happy here and in the pre-mortal existence, but to have "joy" is described in the scriptues as the "joy of the saints" or the "joy of the righteous" which always implies or even taught about hope in Christ for joy in the hereafter.

[Vort]

I don't know about the AD 1. But I have always been taught that Christ was born on April 6th. I have nothing to back it up...it's just what I've been taught by numerous teachers and Church leaders in my 52 years of living. Whether or not it can be proven....I don't know. Just what I've always been taught.

And this is fine. Let's face it, 99.999% of what we think we "know" is actually just what we have been taught. But by the same token, we should not be afraid to critically examine our thoughts and beliefs. The thing is that the statement "Jesus was born on April 6" could have multiple meanings:

• Before Christ's time, early spring (around the time that now corresponds to April 6) occurred when the sun was (barely) in the constellation Aries. In fact, an astrologer would say that a person born on April 6 was "an Aries" because of this. Because of precession, by Christ's time the vernal equinox occurred when the sun was (barely) in Pisces. Over the last 2000 years, precession of the earth's axis has made it that on April 6, the sun is very far into the constellation Pisces. So if we take a sidereal (star-based) view of the year, April 6 of AD 1 would correspond to a later date in AD 2009, maybe April 26 or so. (I don't know exactly how many days difference it would be, and I don't care enough to figure it out, but it's on the order of three weeks difference. Here's a site that explains more about the movement of the vernal equinox.) So maybe "April 6 AD 1" means the date that corresponds to the sidereal position of the earth on April 6 AD 1830. (This is what I first assumed when I was taught the doctrine, at least as much as my mind at the time comprehended these issues.)
• In 1830, the vernal equinox took place on March 20 at about 9:30 pm in the eastern US. April 6 therefore occurred 16 days and a few hours after the vernal equinox. So maybe "April 6 AD 1" means the day 16.25 days after the vernal equinox. (This is the most reasonable meaning we could attach to this doctrine, in my opinion.)
• We currently use the "Gregorian calendar", which defines two millennia as consisting of exactly 730005 days. Using this system and counting backward from April 6 AD 1830, we arrive at a certain day, different from either of the two days given above. So maybe "April 6 AD 1" means the day you get when you count backward from April 6 AD 1830 using the Gregorian calendar. (This is probably the meaning most Latter-day Saints attach to the doctrine, when consciously or unconsciously.)
• You could do the same trick using the Hebrew calendar (or any other calendar you like), and you would get a different day for each. (From a religious point of view, this might be the most reasonable interpretation of the doctrine.)
• There are many other definitions for a "year", none of which is obviously superior to any other. You could use them to get yet more dates for "April 6 AD 1".

The point is, if the date "April 6 AD 1" is so poorly defined that we cannot even determine a meaning for it, why on earth would God "reveal" it as his Son's "birthday"? To my mind, that seems utterly absurd. Since attributing such a "revelation" to the opening words of Section 20 seems the only way the whole "doctrine" ever got started, it seems most reasonable to me to assume that some overly zealous Saints simply got carried away by the wording of the revelation and started taking liberties with its meaning.

But your last post you made good comments and I would have to agree with much of what you said. I've just always had a hard time with blanket statements that some make (not you in particular) that say don't believe everything you are taught in seminary or institute.

Believe it or not, I tend to feel the same way. I am no fan of those who wish to dismiss whatever they're taught that they don't like just by saying, "Well, you know, the prophets are human and make mistakes, too." That strikes me as a form of spiritual cowardice. We don't have to believe polygamy, because hey, the prophets aren't perfect! We don't have to believe the Book of Mormon is literally true, because hey, the prophets aren't perfect! We don't have to believe that fornication is truly a damaging sin, because hey, the prophets aren't perfect! And so on.

On the other hand...

While I was growing up, I was taught a great number of things as "LDS doctrine". These things included:

• Premortally, Jesus and Satan both had "plans". We "voted" on the "plans", and Jesus "won". Satan "lost", so he and those who "voted" for his "plan" were cast out.
• American blacks were the "seed of Cain" that were cursed so they could not hold the Priesthood. They were cursed because, premortally, they were not as valiant as us white-skinned people. They would not be allowed to hold the Priesthood or go to the temple until every white person in the world had a chance to accept those opportunities.**
• Lehi and his family were the ancestors of the American Indians -- that is to say, the ONLY ancestors of the American Indians.
• Jesus was born on April 6. (When I was 15, I even wrote in my journal on April 6, "Merry Christmas!")

**EDIT: To be fair, my parents, who were and are very much products of their generation and upbringing, nevertheless taught their children in no uncertain terms that black people were children of God, and that at some point they would receive the Priesthood and all the blessings of the temple. They did not necessarily hold to the "every white person gets a chance first" theory, probably because they had known too many rotten white people and a few very good black people. For this reason, the 1978 revelation came to us as a pleasant and exciting surprise that confirmed our faith, rather than a rude shock that challenged it.

I could continue with such a list, but it would serve no purpose. Suffice it to say that when I got to be an adult and actually studied the scriptures, I found that a fair amount of the "doctrine" I had been taught was not LDS doctrine at all, but just someone's ideas or opinions that had somehow become incorporated into the teachings I received. This was about the time I went on my mission, and I became very sensitive to such non-doctrinal teachings. I guess some of that sensitivity lives on in me.

Edited April 7, 2009 by Vort

[Vort]

His actual birthday was April 6th 1 BC, not AD. Since there was no "year 0," April 6th 1 AD was His 1st birthday.

"AD" means "Anno domini", or "the year of the Lord". It has obvious reference to the year Christ was born.

But I think you're right. If you're going to take the hyperliteralistic view of Section 20, it says "one thousand eight hundred thirty years since" Christ's birth, which would necessarily correspond to Christ being born one year Before Christ.

[prospectmom]

You bring up very valid points and I get your position... Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself..... Sometimes folks like to argue just to argue....... You explain yourself totally and I appreciate that....

[Jim108]

Everyday, we need to worship Jesus with the highest and equal vigor possible. If this is his birthday, then happy birthday God. Jim

[Vort]

I think it was just a matter of how you interpreted it.

No, it was not "just a matter of how you interpreted it." The exact words were, "We could not feel joy or pain." Nothing there about "fulness of joy"; the teaching was that, premortally, we were incapable of feeling joy.

I think you were concerned over semanitcs, or maybe degrees. But, that man cannot feel joy, the joy that we will feel in heaven after we are resurrected, either now or even before we were born here, is doctrine.

Now who's stretching the plain meaning of words? This was no teaching about "the joy that we will feel in heaven after we are resurrected". The plain teachings we were told to teach brand new investigators just learning the gospel for the first time ever were that we needed to be born into mortality because we were unable to feel joy premortally. You can't hand-wave this one away.

[Vort]

Everyday, we need to worship Jesus with the highest and equal vigor possible. If this is his birthday, then happy birthday God. Jim

Hey Jim,

I think you must accidentally have missed some questions I asked you to clarify. Here's the link.

[john doe]

Everyday, we need to worship Jesus with the highest and equal vigor possible. If this is his birthday, then happy birthday God. Jim

You must be confused. We are talking about Jesus' birthdate, not God's. I have no idea how we would fiugre our what God's birthdate would be since He was not born on this earth as far as we know.

Personally, the exact date does not matter to me. Jim is right on that respect, we need to honor Him every day no matter whether it is the anniversary of His birth or not.

[pam]

Jesus was born on April 6. (When I was 15, I even wrote in my journal on April 6, "Merry Christmas!")

Ahhhh so you admit it. The truth comes out!!

[bert10]

Hi Hemidakota...In -1 BC according to our Calender the birth day of the Lord was the 6 of April. This year [2009] the Lord's birthday is the 4th April.

The Gregorian Calendar did not exist in the days of Jesus. Whether J.Smith translated the date or it was given to him without his having the Knowledge of Enoch Solar Calender is not known.

I'm guessing since J. Smith wanted to set up Zion, he had access to the knowledge of this calender. For it would be needed so that men always would worship and celebrate the feasts and holy days on the correct day of the week. For example in our calender Christmas can be on a Monday one year and on a tuesday the next. Such things does not happen with the Solar calender of Enoch. For example if a holy feast is scheduled the 40th day or even the 70th day of the Spring Equinox it shall always fall on that same day of the week without fail year after year as long at the earth keeps its seasons.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Just remind everyone who loves the Savior, it is the Lord's birthday. If any birthday that should be celebrated beside close family, is His birthday. Just reminder....

[mikbone]

No, it was not "just a matter of how you interpreted it." The exact words were, "We could not feel joy or pain." Nothing there about "fulness of joy"; the teaching was that, premortally, we were incapable of feeling joy.

Now who's stretching the plain meaning of words? This was no teaching about "the joy that we will feel in heaven after we are resurrected". The plain teachings we were told to teach brand new investigators just learning the gospel for the first time ever were that we needed to be born into mortality because we were unable to feel joy premortally. You can't hand-wave this one away.

Job 38:7

[Vort]

Job 38:7

Exactly.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Maybe Mary and Joseph simply lived in Bethlehem, and somehow Luke got ahold of a tradition of census-taking for tax purposes to place them there.

If they'simply lived there' why would they be looking for somewhere to stay and finding no room at the inn?

[Hemidakota]

The institute manual doesn't define our doctrine. Interestingly, Elder McConkie apparently felt no compunction about disagreeing with these opinions.

Incorrect statement since it needs the approval of the First Presidency or the assigned Twelve member to over see what is written.

[Hemidakota]

Luke 2:1-6

1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all all world should be taxed.

2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

I have always learned since I was a child that they went to pay their annual taxes. Perhaps that was a way for a census to be done as well.

[Hemidakota]

Hemi, you still haven't answered my simple questions above. What is the unique day pointed to be the term "April 6 AD 1", and by what authority do you derive that date?

Nor do I agree on your self assumptions or pure speculation. The signifance factor here, we do remember the Savior and His birth as the prophet already seen.

Now, do I listen to Vort? Or do I listen to the prophets? You pretty much know that answer....

[Jim108]

You must be confused. We are talking about Jesus' birthdate, not God's. I have no idea how we would fiugre our what God's birthdate would be since He was not born on this earth as far as we know.

Personally, the exact date does not matter to me. Jim is right on that respect, we need to honor Him every day no matter whether it is the anniversary of His birth or not.

"You must be confused. We are talking about Jesus' birthdate, not God's"

Are you a doubting Thomas, Jim

[pam]

"You must be confused. We are talking about Jesus' birthdate, not God's"

Are you a doubting Thomas, Jim

The point John Doe was trying to make is that we are talking about Christ's birth. We believe Christ is a separate being from God thefore not celebrating God's birth as God was not physically born here on earth as far as we know.

Edited April 7, 2009 by pam

[Jim108]

The point John Doe was trying to make is that we are talking about Christ's birth. We believe Christ is a separate being from God thefore not celebrating God's birth as God was not physically born here on earth as far as we know.

Pam, thank you for your help, I would like to ask you a question and If you want me to make a new thread I will. I understand your position that Jesus and God are seperate. My question is this, do the LDS believe Jesus is a god and when you pray, do you pray to Jesus, Father or Spirit or all or some of the above. I promise I will not comment on any answer. I just want to know your point of view. Thanks for the hard work you do and allowing someone like me to "mix it up" with the good people on this site. Jim

[pam]

Jim I would recommend asking that question in a new thread as to not take away from the theme of this one. Thanks.