Happy Birthday Jesus!

[person0]

As we all are aware The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was formally organized on April 6th, 1830.  A great many of the General Authorities of the Church have opined that a portion of this dates significance is that it was the actual date of birth of Jesus Christ.  There are many references, but here are a few from Church resources:

Quote

“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” (Harold B. Lee)

“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. Being one of the sons of God and His Only Begotten, his birth is of supreme importance.” (Spencer W. Kimball)

"We believe that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea, April 6, B.C. 1." (James E. Talmage - Jesus The Christ - p104)

"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." (David A. Bednar - Bear Up Their Burdens with Ease - April 2014 General Conference)

However, there have also been General Authorities who have offered a differing opinion:

Quote

"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 [i.e., in which year] the natal day of the Lord Jesus actually occurred." (Bruce R. McConkie)

Most who accept the date of April 6th, still point to D&C 20:1 as a source. We now know that verse was not part of the original wording, and regardless it would not necessarily mean, when read with knowledge of the particular writing style used, that it was a statement of an exact day.

Personally, I am inclined to wonder why Elder Bednar's talk would not have been edited before presenting it in General Conference if the April 6th date is not accurate (regardless of year).  Additionally, if April 6th is not the accurate date, what else would be the significance of that date? Because, we do in fact know it was received by revelation that the Church should be organized that exact day of April 6th, 1830.  With these two thoughts in mind, I am inclined to accept the April 6th date, while also recognizing others may rationally conclude otherwise.

Do you believe Christ's date of birth was actually on April 6th?  Why or why not?
If you do not believe it is on April 6th, what do you believe would be the special significance of that date as to why Joseph Smith was commanded to organize the Church that day?

Edited April 6, 2017 by person0

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

Personally, I am inclined to wonder why Elder Bednar's talk would not have been edited before presenting it in General Conference if the April 6th date is not accurate (regardless of year).

Because it's not important.

5 minutes ago, person0 said:

1) Do you believe Christ's date of birth was actually on April 6th?  Why or why not?

Shrug.

5 minutes ago, person0 said:

2) If you do not believe it is on April 6th, what do you believe would be the special significance of that date as to why Joseph Smith was commanded to organize the Church that day?

[Guest]

My daughter was delivered at home with a midwife and her assistant.  Her assistant happened to be LDS.

My daughter was born on the morning of April 6th.  The midwife mentioned some people whom she knew were born on the 7th and the 5th.  The assistant looked at us and said, "Yeah, April 6th is a good day to be born."  We all shared a knowing smile.

The midwife was wondering what she was missing, but never asked about it.  So, we didn't tell her.

[Backroads]

I'm charmed by the potential idea of knowing Christ's birthday, and I suppose on one level I accept the 4/6 date, but I don't think I would ever defend it.

[person0]

Possibly a more important question than those posed in my OP:  If there is party to celebrate April 6th as Christ's birthday, hamburgers, hot dogs, cake, ice cream, etc, served, are you going to not show up just because you don't think it's really his birthday? 

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

Possibly a more important question than those posed in my OP:  If there is party to celebrate April 6th as Christ's birthday, hamburgers, hot dogs, cake, ice cream, etc, served, are you going to not show up just because you don't think it's really his birthday? 

lol. That's awesome 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

Personally, I am inclined to wonder why Elder Bednar's talk would not have been edited before presenting it in General Conference if the April 6th date is not accurate (regardless of year).

Who would have edited it?

[JohnsonJones]

It is a common LDS tradition that I don't have problems with.  I have no problem with it being on that day, though I must admit I do not spend an overly huge amount of effort or thought on it.

What is more alarming is it is also my Father in Law's Birthday and I, not only have not called them yet, but forgot to mail a Birthday gift!

I probably SHOULD spend a little bit more time and thought pertaining to the events of April 6th in that light.

[Guest]

Happy birthday church. 13 years away from being 200 years old.

[Blackmarch]

9 hours ago, person0 said:

As we all are aware The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was formally organized on April 6th, 1830.  A great many of the General Authorities of the Church have opined that a portion of this dates significance is that it was the actual date of birth of Jesus Christ.  There are many references, but here are a few from Church resources:

However, there have also been General Authorities who have offered a differing opinion:

Most who accept the date of April 6th, still point to D&C 20:1 as a source. We now know that verse was not part of the original wording, and regardless it would not necessarily mean, when read with knowledge of the particular writing style used, that it was a statement of an exact day.

Personally, I am inclined to wonder why Elder Bednar's talk would not have been edited before presenting it in General Conference if the April 6th date is not accurate (regardless of year).  Additionally, if April 6th is not the accurate date, what else would be the significance of that date? Because, we do in fact know it was received by revelation that the Church should be organized that exact day of April 6th, 1830.  With these two thoughts in mind, I am inclined to accept the April 6th date, while also recognizing others may rationally conclude otherwise.

Do you believe Christ's date of birth was actually on April 6th?  Why or why not?
If you do not believe it is on April 6th, what do you believe would be the special significance of that date as to why Joseph Smith was commanded to organize the Church that day?

I celebrate it on both dates ^.^

[Guest]

We celebrate His birthday on Dec 25th every year when we're pretty certain that is NOT His birthday.  So, what does it matter if it is or is not April 6th?

[zil]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We celebrate His birthday on Dec 25th every year when we're pretty certain that is NOT His birthday.  So, what does it matter if it is or is not April 6th?

Hmm.  Do we really celebrate his "birthday", or do we celebrate his "birth"?  I think there's a difference, and the latter is more important.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, zil said:

Hmm.  Do we really celebrate his "birthday", or do we celebrate his "birth"?  I think there's a difference, and the latter is more important.

And what is the definition of "is"?

Definitions:

birthday: a day marking or commemorating the birth of someone.

birth: the act of being born?  (kinda circular). such as "day of one's birth".

But the more important question is:  What fountain pen and what type of invitation paper would be used to send out invitations to His birthday party?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

Just now, Carborendum said:

And what is the definition of "is"?

Isn't "birthday" a celebration that someone made it to another year mark (originally geared around children)?  Do we not (generally) stop celebrating this when someone passes (and therefore doesn't make it to the next year mark)?  Is it not normal for many adults, once far enough from parents, to stop celebrating their own birthdays?

In other words "birthday" is not a recurring celebration of the event of birth, it is a celebration of another year of life.  And it is often tied to age-specific rites.

I'm not trying to say it's wrong to celebrate the Savior's birthday (though you'll need a really large cake to hold all those candles and a compressor to blow them all out; and pointy hats, noisemakers, and pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey don't seem terribly reverent).

I am saying I think it's a different thing when, in one's mind, one celebrates the fact that our Savior chose to be born into mortality, and it seems to me the Christmas traditions are geared toward remembering the event of his birth, not celebrating the fact that he's survived another year of life or reached the age for a particular rite.

[person0]

1 hour ago, zil said:

(though you'll need a really large cake to hold all those candles and a compressor to blow them all out. . .)

Couldn't you just do it like this?

[MrShorty]

20 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, zil said:

I am saying I think it's a different thing when, in one's mind, one celebrates the fact that our Savior chose to be born into mortality, and it seems to me the Christmas traditions are geared toward remembering the event of his birth, not celebrating the fact that he's survived another year of life or reached the age for a particular rite.

Are you actually refusing to answer the more important question of paper and pen? (for shame).  I would hope that a 0.7 mm flat tip would be used for the calligraphic effect.  As always, I prefer green.  But we could mix up the red and green to carry on the Christmas traditional colors.  The paper could be a 20 lb linen surface with an aged yellow parchment background.  Do they even make that?  Parchment / linen? How does a flat tip do on a linen surface?

Another option would be to forego common calligraphy script and go with a Gothic font which would be more in line with the Biblical nature of the event.  Those would take forever to write a single invitation.  So, it would have to go to the printer anyway, assuming we want at least 1 billion invitations printed for such an event.  If it is done with a press, I'd skip the linen and go with the slightly rumpled texture of a true parchment-like paper.  Heck I'd frame such an invitation regardless of the event for which it was sent.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Guest

[Maureen]

19 hours ago, Vort said:

Who would have edited it?

I'll take a wild guess and say the Church Correlation Committee.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

According to at least one online Hebrew calendar, the 1830 Passover began on Thursday, April 8.  The preceding evening would have been "Erev Pesach" (Passover evening); and that day would have been "Taanit Bkhorot", or the "Fast of the Firstborn", which commemorates the slaying of Egypt's firstborn--the great and last act of divine power that ultimately set ancient Israel free.  The day is seen as one of individual repentance and purification, mourning for the  lost glories Israel once enjoyed, and gratitude for the salvations God has provided.

The Church was restored on Tuesday, April 6:  the eve of the Jewish Fast of the Firstborn. 

[zil]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Are you actually refusing to answer the more important question of paper and pen? (for shame).

You edited your post to ask that after I started my other reply.  Then an emergency happened here at work.  And now it's time for me to shut down and run about doing errands, so you'll just have to wait until I get home.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

 

Is that what ET's parents look like?

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I'll take a wild guess and say the Church Correlation Committee.

Where do you get the notion that the Correlation Committee reviews General Conference talks -- especially those of an apostle -- before they are delivered?

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Where do you get the notion that the Correlation Committee reviews General Conference talks -- especially those of an apostle -- before they are delivered?

That's why it was a wild guess, but my understanding of correlation is so that the LDS Church remains unified in its doctrines and policies within all organizations of the Church.

Correlation is a unifying process in which each organization of the Church subordinates limited views to the good of the whole Church. It is not censorship in the sense of inhibiting or channeling free expression and creativity. Rather, it is the way the Church ensures suitable and effective use of its resources.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Correlation_of_the_Church_Administration

M.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Maureen

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, Maureen said:

That's why it was a wild guess, but my understanding of correlation is so that the LDS Church remains unified in its doctrines and policies within all organizations of the Church.

Correlation is a unifying process in which each organization of the Church subordinates limited views to the good of the whole Church. It is not censorship in the sense of inhibiting or channeling free expression and creativity. Rather, it is the way the Church ensures suitable and effective use of its resources.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Correlation_of_the_Church_Administration

Correlation applies to lesson manuals, handbooks, missionary presentations, and such. I could be wrong, of course, but I have never heard any suggestion that General Conference talks are "correlated".

[JohnsonJones]

55 minutes ago, Vort said:

Correlation applies to lesson manuals, handbooks, missionary presentations, and such. I could be wrong, of course, but I have never heard any suggestion that General Conference talks are "correlated".

I suppose it depends on what you mean correlated.  There sometimes is a general theme or idea given for talks, sometimes there is no idea given.  However, almost all the talks are written and then "turned in" prior to the conference.  I imagine there are people who read through them.

Here's something that one friend of mine did not realize before the conference.  When up on the stand, many of those talks are actually being read.  If you look closely, there are these little panes of glass on stands in front of the podium.  These are see through on the audiences side, but have the text of the talk on the speakers side. This is so they don't constantly look down at their talk written on paper.  It also keeps them able to look out at the audience as they read their talk.  It also enables those who are doing close captioning or translating to try to keep up (well, that's a guess on my part, I imagine that since they have the text they use it to try to keep up, but not sure on that part).

Now, there is an occasional time that the speaker may not follow what they've read, or using what they read just to jog their memory, at which point if closed captioning is going on, or translating and they actually go off the text rather than what the speaker is saying...it can show a little different than what came out.

Some speakers are pretty smart people.  I don't think some of them actually use the written talk as much as others, for example, I think Bednar is pretty good at memorization or at least knowing his talks, typically. 

Anyways, as per being "correlated" as in their is a General Conference correlation meeting to address who says what and how it is said...I don't think there is one of those, exactly.

There has been an occasion in the past when the one conducting has mentioned how well all the talks came together as if it were correlated, but in that instance they are referring to how miraculous and guided by the spirit those giving talks were as there was no direct correlation to that effect, thus any correlation in that manner was due to guidance of the spirit.

My thoughts on it at least.