What was the real date of Jesus' birth?

[Suzie]

Obviously, Bert has not read the article nor our responses very well. The article states that D&C 20:1 was NOT part of the revelation Joseph Smith received. It was added by his scribe later as a heading. We learn this from the recent volume published on the Joseph Smith Papers. D&C 20:1 is NOT part of the revelation Joseph Smith received.

So, Bert, your insistence on it being by revelation is baseless, just as your claims on climate change, etc. Facts are what makes the difference between a real discussion and just spouting nonsense. Volgadon has given real evidence, including personal experience living in Israel. You claim to receive all your claims by personal revelation. Well, I'd suggest your personal revelations are not all coming from the right place! Otherwise, where is your evidence?

I agree with what you are saying, so are we saying then President Hinckley, Harold B. Lee and others got it wrong ?

Edited January 1, 2011 by Suzie

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

I agree with what you are saying, so are we saying then President Hinckley, Harold B. Lee and others got it wrong ?

Yes.

Because, as the DNews suggests, they all took the heading to be scriptural when it was editorial.

Reminds me of a joke about Job but there is overwhelming evidence that if I told it here, no one would get it.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . . This has nothing to do with climate changes.

Just that easy?

You are saying that it cannot go from a land of milk and honey

to desert by the weather going hotter, cooler, dryer, wetter, etc,?

This making it today more forage available then there was in the

meridian of time or even a thousand years before then?

Just wondering:cool:

[JohnnyRudick]

Yes.

. . .Reminds me of a joke about Job but there is overwhelming evidence that if I told it here, no one would get it.

Are you sure?

"overwhelming evidence".

We are that obvious huh:cool:

[volgadon]

Just that easy?

You are saying that it cannot go from a land of milk and honey

to desert by the weather going hotter, cooler, dryer, wetter, etc,?

I am saying that a land of milk and honey has utterly nothing to do with a northern European or north American climate that Bert seems to be envisioning. Israel is not mainly a desert, though the climate is rough. Compared to the Sinai, which indeed is a desert, Israel (and parts of Transjordan) is a land flowing in milk and honey. Dairy products formed a vital part of Palestinian diet even in times when the country was extremely impovrished and underdeveloped. The honey the Bible refers to is almost never bee honey, but mainly date honey.

The flowering of Israel that you refered to again has nothing to do with climate changes, but with hard work and agricultural and medical developements. I remember a conversation on a train in soiuthern Russia. I asked the woman sitting in front of me if it was true that the black earth of her village there was very good for farming. She replied that it was a very blessed land, very fruitful, but that they have to put massive and constant effort into it.

If you or Bert can point to anything showing that the climate changed so utterly and drastically sometime within the last 2000 years, please do so.

Climate changes are usually subtler. What you are proposing would have completely altered ALL aspects of life in Israel and the Middle-East, yet no record of that exists.

This making it today more forage available then there was in the

meridian of time or even a thousand years before then?

Just wondering:cool:

Yet even in the summer, when forage is scarce, shepherds are out with their flocks, let alone winter, WHEN THE MAJORITY OF THE RAINFALL TAKES PLACE, be it ever so much or so little. Our winter is really what you would consider autumn. Some years are better (such as 1968), others (like the past 10 or so) are worse, but the basic features remain the same.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .The flowering of Israel that you refered to again has nothing to do with climate changes, but with hard work and agricultural and medical developements. I remember a conversation on a train in soiuthern Russia. I asked the woman sitting in front of me if it was true that the black earth of her village there was very good for farming. She replied that it was a very blessed land, very fruitful, but that they have to put massive and constant effort into it. . . .

See post 71

I referred to that as well.

[volgadon]

See post 71

I referred to that as well.

And this success had nothing to do with climate change.

[JohnnyRudick]

And this success had nothing to do with climate change.

That is very true:cool:

[rameumptom]

I agree with what you are saying, so are we saying then President Hinckley, Harold B. Lee and others got it wrong ?

We do not believe our prophets to be infallible. We believe that much of what they say and teach is based upon doctrine, and secondly on their personal interpretation of scripture.

The problem with basing a belief on one verse here is the same as anyone basing a belief in one or two verses in the scriptures. Because of this, we have Christian faiths who believe:

1. That we are saved only by grace and works have nothing to do at all with our salvation.

2. That there is no longer any gifts of the Spirit, prophecy, speaking in tongues, healing, etc.

3. That one must believe in the Trinity, or the Athanasius Creed in order to be saved by grace.

4. TULIP. No free will, limited atonement, God chooses whom he will save regardless of what we do, etc.

SO, we need to divide such teachings from core doctrine. Core doctrine does not change. God will always be our Eternal Father, and Jesus will always be the Christ. But the Word of Wisdom may be changed or removed at any time.

It is important, even necessary, that we distinguish core doctrine from all the rest. Then keep our minds open to various ways in which a verse, or group of verses or prophetic teachings can be understood. As Brigham Young taught, each of us is responsible for gaining our own testimony of whatever things are taught. Too many members have fallen away from the Church because a General Authority(ies) speculated on a belief, and when it was found to be otherwise, they lost their blind faith in that concept.

Many members teach their kids a form of anti-evolution Creationism. When the children move off to college and study biology and science, they find that evolution does exist, and they are left with only one option: the Church is wrong, and therefore God does not exist. Why do we do such stupid things to our children's faith? Why not teach them the core doctrines, and then explain that there are optional beliefs that are okay! No one is going to burn in hell if they believe God used evolution as a method for creating life.

This falling away happened when polygamy was ended, when the priesthood ban was lifted, etc. Brigham Young forewarned the saints that his temple (SLC) would have 6 spires, so they should not be shocked and leave the Church because Joseph Smith's temples only had one. Blind faith kills and destroys.

Shall we force many members to leave the Church, because of a poor reading of a verse in the D&C? When history and science show that the way many have read it is wrong, do we ignore that evidence and insist on being dogmatic? Do we allow such a thing to cause our children to disbelieve in the Church, thinking our prophets are false and revelations wrong, simply because we are too thick-headed to realize that there is more than one way to interpret it?

THAT is why such an issue is so important to me. Is it possible that Christ was born April 6, 1 BC? Of course it is possible. It just isn't probable, given Herod died in 4 BC. Either D&C 20:1 is misread, or the Bible was wrong to include Herod the Great in the story. We must choose to either be open-minded, or go with the more logical conclusion. To be adamantly connected to April 6 1BC is simply a losing strategy for the Church and its members. It gains us nothing, and we risk losing much.

[MarginOfError]

We do not believe our prophets to be infallible. We believe that much of what they say and teach is based upon doctrine, and secondly on their personal interpretation of scripture.

The problem with basing a belief on one verse here is the same as anyone basing a belief in one or two verses in the scriptures. Because of this, we have Christian faiths who believe:

1. That we are saved only by grace and works have nothing to do at all with our salvation.

2. That there is no longer any gifts of the Spirit, prophecy, speaking in tongues, healing, etc.

3. That one must believe in the Trinity, or the Athanasius Creed in order to be saved by grace.

4. TULIP. No free will, limited atonement, God chooses whom he will save regardless of what we do, etc.

SO, we need to divide such teachings from core doctrine. Core doctrine does not change. God will always be our Eternal Father, and Jesus will always be the Christ. But the Word of Wisdom may be changed or removed at any time.

It is important, even necessary, that we distinguish core doctrine from all the rest. Then keep our minds open to various ways in which a verse, or group of verses or prophetic teachings can be understood. As Brigham Young taught, each of us is responsible for gaining our own testimony of whatever things are taught. Too many members have fallen away from the Church because a General Authority(ies) speculated on a belief, and when it was found to be otherwise, they lost their blind faith in that concept.

Many members teach their kids a form of anti-evolution Creationism. When the children move off to college and study biology and science, they find that evolution does exist, and they are left with only one option: the Church is wrong, and therefore God does not exist. Why do we do such stupid things to our children's faith? Why not teach them the core doctrines, and then explain that there are optional beliefs that are okay! No one is going to burn in hell if they believe God used evolution as a method for creating life.

This falling away happened when polygamy was ended, when the priesthood ban was lifted, etc. Brigham Young forewarned the saints that his temple (SLC) would have 6 spires, so they should not be shocked and leave the Church because Joseph Smith's temples only had one. Blind faith kills and destroys.

Shall we force many members to leave the Church, because of a poor reading of a verse in the D&C? When history and science show that the way many have read it is wrong, do we ignore that evidence and insist on being dogmatic? Do we allow such a thing to cause our children to disbelieve in the Church, thinking our prophets are false and revelations wrong, simply because we are too thick-headed to realize that there is more than one way to interpret it?

THAT is why such an issue is so important to me. Is it possible that Christ was born April 6, 1 BC? Of course it is possible. It just isn't probable, given Herod died in 4 BC. Either D&C 20:1 is misread, or the Bible was wrong to include Herod the Great in the story. We must choose to either be open-minded, or go with the more logical conclusion. To be adamantly connected to April 6 1BC is simply a losing strategy for the Church and its members. It gains us nothing, and we risk losing much.

Ram, if I understand Suzie as well as I think I do, her overall point is that the prophets and apostles are not the final authority on every topic. She's just trying not to say it directly, but guide others to that same conclusion.

The whole issue of prophets in this discussion came up when someone claimed that there was no definitive statement by a Church authority that Christ was definitely born on April 6 in the year 1 BCE. Suzie followed that by asking the individual how they interpreted statements by prophets that we know by revelation that Christ was born on April 6th. We provided a few quotes, and sought out discussion.

Suzie can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that her interpretation is that many of the people in the era from which some of those statements were made grew up being taught that D&C 20:1 was to be taken literally while many of us today are prone to consider it more ambiguous. That is to say, even prophets will repeat things they were taught in their youth even if they are not completely accurate, and that we should be listening for the spiritual truths from our spiritual leaders and not historical truths.

[Suzie]

Ram, if I understand Suzie as well as I think I do, her overall point is that the prophets and apostles are not the final authority on every topic. She's just trying not to say it directly, but guide others to that same conclusion.

Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to say (you are of course more eloquent than I am) I have being on this forum for a little while and from the start I noticed that certain things can be interpreted completely in the wrong way or context than the one intended (example: The "Sandra Tanner" remark on Women and the Priesthood topic). Such is the issue with the Internet I guess and poor reading.

The whole issue of prophets in this discussion came up when someone claimed that there was no definitive statement by a Church authority that Christ was definitely born on April 6 in the year 1 BCE. Suzie followed that by asking the individual how they interpreted statements by prophets that we know by revelation that Christ was born on April 6th. We provided a few quotes, and sought out discussion.

And yet, very few feedback was given specifically about those quotes that talk about "revelation" being received with regards to the date of April 6th.

If there are such things as core doctrine and non-core doctrine then we are left to wonder if the things we are following may not well be revelations from God? Is that what is being said? What are the measuring sticks we are using? If the Prophets may well give their thoughts, opinion and interpretation of scripture how we do know when they are speaking in God's behalf and what they aren't? (just questions to ponder)

This is why I do not believe in the infallibility of Prophets or any other man for that matter.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Suzie

[Suzie]

Now let me state that I personally do not lose any sleep over this issue, however my point being is that just because sometimes we follow something out of tradition doesn't necessarily means is true.

[bert10]

Agreed. Tradition is a poor guide for truth.

bert10

[rameumptom]

I think there are many times when the Lord really doesn't care what we believe on a topic. Do you think he is really concerned over whether we think his birthday is 1BC or 5BC? Probably not. And so most prophets just pass down the tradition without really gaining their own revelation of it. Or they receive inspiration based upon the best information of the day, with that inspiration changing as we gain new information. Such would not be on a key/core doctrine, but just on a regular teaching. Jesus will always be Christ, but how we understand the atonement and how it works in our lives could change.

[Suzie]

Such would not be on a key/core doctrine, but just on a regular teaching. Jesus will always be Christ, but how we understand the atonement and how it works in our lives could change.

So it would be okay in your opinion if this teaching (even though is not doctrinal) is taught in Institute or Seminary manuals? (the quote about April 6th as the birth of Christ is in Institute manuals I believe).

[Suzie]

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Manual:

"Doctrine and Covenants 20:1—Why the Sixth of April? The Lord gave 6 April 1830 as the day to formerly organize His Church. President Harold B. Lee spoke of the significance of this date: “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 Latterday Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1973, 4; or Ensign, July 1973, 2).(Doctrine and Covenants and Church History: Seminary Student Study Guide, Page 32)

[Maureen]

I would think that if the LDS church promotes itself as an religion with an open canon, then members must accept that over time, certain teachings will change.

M.

[HiJolly]

Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Manual:

"Doctrine and Covenants 20:1—Why the Sixth of April? The Lord gave 6 April 1830 as the day to formerly organize His Church. President Harold B. Lee spoke of the significance of this date: “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 Latterday Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1973, 4; or Ensign, July 1973, 2).(Doctrine and Covenants and Church History: Seminary Student Study Guide, Page 32)

I believe the temple endowment teaches us that even what we hear over the pulpit in General Conference is often "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture."

Good example.

HiJolly

[bert10]

Not only is the date 6 April according to the Gregorian Calender ...a day of the salvation of the Lord...the year has also important significance. Nothing is an accident.

Among other things...it marks the beginning of the Times of the Restitution of all Things. And this time is exactly 1260 years after the age of the prophets. And this is sufficient for now. But I will add one more bit to this...everything is right on Schedule even the founding of the LDS Church was right on Schedule and was the Appointed time even before the foundation of this world was laid. It was all done according To God's timing. That by itself is a great miracle.

bert10

I believe the temple endowment teaches us that even what we hear over the pulpit in General Conference is often "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture."

Good example.

HiJolly

Edited January 4, 2011 by bert10

[MarginOfError]

Not only is the date 6 april according to the Gregorian Calender ...a day of the salvation of the Lord...the year has also important significance. Nothing is an accident.

Among other things...it marks the beginning of the Times of the Restitution of all Things. And this time is exactly 1260 years after the age of the prophets. And this is sufficient for now.

bert10

References?

[Captain_Curmudgeon]

Sufficient? We're going in circles. We're way beyond sufficient.

Oh, by the way, Noah's flood started on my birthday. (Gen 7:11) so I hope Pam will make note of that this year.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Captain_Curmudgeon

[MarginOfError]

Sufficient? We're going in circles. We're way beyond sufficient.

Oh, by the way, Noah's flood started on my birthday. (Gen 7:11) so I hope Pam will make note of that this year.

I'm so glad you provided a reference!

[Wingnut]

Oh, by the way, Noah's flood started on my birthday. (Gen 7:11)

Yes, but on which calendar?

[pam]

Yes, but on which calendar?

The old one.

[JohnnyRudick]

The old one.