BYU Studies: April 6 was not Jesus' birthday

[ute4ever]

I came across this article and at first rolled my eyes and thought 'oh brother', but after reading it, they make some very good points.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7...sus-birth.html

Jeffrey R. Chadwick, an associate professor of church history and doctrine at BYU, published an article in the latest issue of BYU Studies on "Dating the Birth of Jesus Christ" that challenges the popular but not universal Mormon dating of Jesus' birth to April 6.

And he is in good company.

In 1954, President J. Reuben Clark Jr., a counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS Church, wrote that Christ's birth was in December of 5 B.C. or early 4 B.C.

In 1979, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, also an apostle, favored December 5 B.C. as well as alternative dates in 4 B.C.

The crux of their argument:

D&C 20 begins with this introductory verse: "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, it (the church) being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April."

Steven C. Harper, a BYU assistant professor of church history and a volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, said in a phone interview that some people, including Elder Talmage, have read this verse as if it is the Lord speaking and revealing precisely that Christ was born 1,830 years before that day and that the revelation was given on April 6, 1830.

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation."

The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses "shouldn't be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ," Harper said. "The interpretation that has been most popular over time is very much subject to question; that's all I'm saying."

And this wasn't the only time that John Whitmer would 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."

In other words, this type of language was merely a fancy 19th-century way of saying the date.