Let's see. Ronald P. Millett thinks Christ was born on a passover in the BoM year 92. That would have been the 14th of Nisan, the year being 14 days old. Since the Nephites kept the law of Moses, proper dating was important. Nonetheless Jesus Christ died on the forth day of Nisan according to 3 Nephi 8:5. So the Nephite calender somehow was 10 days off. How is that possible using a lunisolar calendar? Differing one day is possible, but 10 days is not. In any case - if Christ was born on 14th Nisan, everything that is written about in 3 Nephi 1:4-13 happened in thirteen days. Aw, come on!
AnnsterJuly 24, 2017
Has anyone we know of ever asked the Savior when his birthday is and gotten a reply?
Bill WrigleyJuly 20, 2017
As John Pratt has pointed out, the uproar over the year of Christ's birth comes from Josephus's date for the death of Herod the Great, which would be 4 B.C. on our calendar. But Josephus may have been wrong. See John Pratt's article, "Yet Another Eclipse for Herod."
David VanLangeveldJuly 17, 2017
While a well-researched article, there are two key arguements against Jesus being born on April 6, ad 1. First, even with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve proofreading Elder Talmage's manuscripts, Elder Talmage himself didn't have the authority to announce new doctrine. Only Joseph F. Smith, who was President of the Church at the time would have had the authority to announce new doctrine. (See D&C 28:6-7). And, the exact date of Jesus' birth would have been new doctrine. Every other Apostle who has referred to an April 6 birthdate, including the statement by President Hinckley above, has only done so because Elder Talmage declared it first in _Jesus the Christ_. It's possible President Hinckley was the first President of the Church since Talmage to validate the April 6th date as doctrine but, if so, why didn't President Hinckley mention it in The Living Christ Proclamation, which was signed by him, President Monson, President Faust and the Twelve Apostles who served under them on January 1, 2000? In the end, however, the actual birthday of Jesus is irrelevant. (Birthdays the way we Gentiles celebrate them weren't celebrated at the time of Christ.) What is relevant is the doctrines about Christ spelled out in The Living Christ Proclamation. Every Latter-day Saint who keeps all their covenants to the end will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of whether the believe Christ was born on April 6, December 25, or some other day entirely.
Cathleen DowningJuly 17, 2017
Since joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2005 I have received a consistent spiritual witness that April 6th [1AD] is the correct birthdate of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Having read many articles debating this knowledge, I am keenly aware of the consistency of that witness, and do not doubt in the least. I believe Elder Millets argument, noting the exceedingly great risk to all Missionaries of the Church if in fact Elder Talmage was mistaken on this issue, is sound, and provides the necessary additional witness that some things must simply be accepted on faith, which is the foundation upon which this Church was Restored.
Comments | Return to Story
Old AbeDecember 29, 2021
Let's see. Ronald P. Millett thinks Christ was born on a passover in the BoM year 92. That would have been the 14th of Nisan, the year being 14 days old. Since the Nephites kept the law of Moses, proper dating was important. Nonetheless Jesus Christ died on the forth day of Nisan according to 3 Nephi 8:5. So the Nephite calender somehow was 10 days off. How is that possible using a lunisolar calendar? Differing one day is possible, but 10 days is not. In any case - if Christ was born on 14th Nisan, everything that is written about in 3 Nephi 1:4-13 happened in thirteen days. Aw, come on!
AnnsterJuly 24, 2017
Has anyone we know of ever asked the Savior when his birthday is and gotten a reply?
Bill WrigleyJuly 20, 2017
As John Pratt has pointed out, the uproar over the year of Christ's birth comes from Josephus's date for the death of Herod the Great, which would be 4 B.C. on our calendar. But Josephus may have been wrong. See John Pratt's article, "Yet Another Eclipse for Herod."
David VanLangeveldJuly 17, 2017
While a well-researched article, there are two key arguements against Jesus being born on April 6, ad 1. First, even with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve proofreading Elder Talmage's manuscripts, Elder Talmage himself didn't have the authority to announce new doctrine. Only Joseph F. Smith, who was President of the Church at the time would have had the authority to announce new doctrine. (See D&C 28:6-7). And, the exact date of Jesus' birth would have been new doctrine. Every other Apostle who has referred to an April 6 birthdate, including the statement by President Hinckley above, has only done so because Elder Talmage declared it first in _Jesus the Christ_. It's possible President Hinckley was the first President of the Church since Talmage to validate the April 6th date as doctrine but, if so, why didn't President Hinckley mention it in The Living Christ Proclamation, which was signed by him, President Monson, President Faust and the Twelve Apostles who served under them on January 1, 2000? In the end, however, the actual birthday of Jesus is irrelevant. (Birthdays the way we Gentiles celebrate them weren't celebrated at the time of Christ.) What is relevant is the doctrines about Christ spelled out in The Living Christ Proclamation. Every Latter-day Saint who keeps all their covenants to the end will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, regardless of whether the believe Christ was born on April 6, December 25, or some other day entirely.
Cathleen DowningJuly 17, 2017
Since joining the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 2005 I have received a consistent spiritual witness that April 6th [1AD] is the correct birthdate of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Having read many articles debating this knowledge, I am keenly aware of the consistency of that witness, and do not doubt in the least. I believe Elder Millets argument, noting the exceedingly great risk to all Missionaries of the Church if in fact Elder Talmage was mistaken on this issue, is sound, and provides the necessary additional witness that some things must simply be accepted on faith, which is the foundation upon which this Church was Restored.
ADD A COMMENT