April 6th

So today is April 6th. For the vast majority of the world, it's just another day with no significance. But for Mormons, i.e. members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it does have significance historically, but many also consider it to be of doctrinal importance. I hate to burst many of your bubbles, but, in short, this blog post is going to refute the doctrinal basis of April 6th because, well, it isn't doctrine and never has been!

I debated whether this post belonged more at Live From Kent... than here, but figured it definitely has a lot of history involved, plus I haven't posted here since last June. Plus, I'm planning on doing some blogging about my recent visit to Ukraine there, so this would get buried beneath those posts.

In any case, here we go! Historically, April 6th is the day of two significant events in LDS history. The first is the official foundation of what is now The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The organization meeting for what was originally called the "Church of Christ" was held April 6, 1830. The official history has this meeting taking place at the home of Peter Whitmer in Fayette, New York, a township near Waterloo, New York. Today you can visit the recreated Whitmer log home, which is adjacent to a church that includes a visitor center. There are some records that indicate the meeting took place at the home of Joseph Smith Sr., in the town (not to be confused with the village) of Manchester, just south of Palmyra. In any case, the date of April 6th is used by the LDS Church as it's official "start date" and how our annual and semi-annual General Conferences are numbered each year, with April 6, 1830, being the first annual General Conference of the church. In the church today, the annual General Conference of the church is always held around April 6, being held the first weekend of April. The semi-annual General Conference is held six months later in the first weekend of October. The many splinter groups who also claim the lineage of being founded by Joseph Smith, also use that date as their beginning. The other historic event in LDS history is the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, which occurred April 6, 1893.

While other events have obviously occurred on April 6 in the church, those are the two most significant. But ask a member of the church what else is significant about April 6, and many will tell you it's the day we believe Jesus Christ was born. Before just recently, I would've been one of them, but after some research, that doesn't appear to be so.

Now, for those of you who may not be familiar with LDS doctrine and practices, we do celebrate Christmas on December 25th just like the rest of the Christian world. As I have blogged about previously related to Christmas, the actual date of Jesus's birth is a matter of debate that will likely never be settled. About the only thing you see on April 6th is a casual mention of the church organization happening or a random "Happy Birthday Jesus" on social media. Even I have one of those from a few years ago! But no, Mormons don't celebrate Christmas in April by any means. And really, even the historic significance of the date only gets attention on major anniversaries. I imagine in 2030 there will likely be a big event for the bicentennial, much like there was for the 150th in 1980. I remember in 1993 the church celebrated the centennial of the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, but outside of that, the date is more a trivia fact that anything. Because General Conference is always near (or on) April 6th, you'll occasionally see mention of it in a conference talk, too, which helps to cement it as "doctrine" for many members when, in fact, it isn't.

A great resource for background and details on the "why" and "how" April 6th is regarded as such by so many members, even all the way to the top, can be found on the FairMormon website. They have a page specifically devoted to the date of birth for Jesus Christ, including the prevailing belief about April 6th, and it includes citations to several articles. In short, the belief stems from one verse in the Doctrine & Covenants, from section 20 verse 1, which is dated April 6, 1830:

"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 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—"

If you take that verse literally, then yes, he was born on April 6th, 1,830 years prior to when this section was written. The problem is that's not why the verse was written the way it was; it was simply a fancy way of saying "April 6, 1830". Indeed, historical analysis indicates verse 1 was inserted later as more of an introduction. Nowhere else in scripture will you find any mention of the Savior's birthday being April 6th, and outside the dedication of the Salt Lake Temple, no other major church event happened on April 6th, even ones that could've easily been held. The most significant to me is the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, which occurred March 27, 1836. If April 6th was that significant of a date, why not wait an extra few days and dedicate it then?

The most recent high-ranking person to reference April 6th as the birthday of Jesus was Elder David A. Bednar in a General Conference talk a few years ago. As is almost always the case, it was a passing mention (i.e. the talk wasn't about the birth of the Savior). At the time, I made a remark on my Facebook page that he was incorrect in stating we believed it was the birthday of the Savior (and yes, I obviously still stand by that remark), and you would've thought I had just openly renounced my beliefs and membership in the church the way some reacted. The reality is that, like many things in history, it's a case of being repeated so often, people assume it must be true since they've heard it so many times. They fail to analyze exactly where it comes from and if, in fact, it's an actual church doctrine vs. a general tradition. It's also the reality that even the Apostles are human beings who are not perfect, and that statements in General Conference addresses in themselves are not canon. In fact, the church has no official position on the birthdate of Jesus Christ and statements from various general authorities vary significantly. None of those statements, however, carry the weight of canon, and as I've already pointed out, only a very literal reading of D&C 20:1 supports the idea.

Bottom line, though, does it really matter? From a doctrinal standpoint, as I've stated before, no, it really doesn't. Our salvation and well-being is not determined by believing Jesus was born on April 6th or not. Even so, it's important to know the difference between doctrine and teachings, and understand what are official statements from the church and scripture vs. opinions or simply understandings from general authorities. And again, General Conference talks in themselves do not constitute canonized doctrine, nor do works like Jesus the Christ or other similar publications (and incidentally, a BYU article cited in the above site states that Jesus the Christ author James E. Talmage is the first person on record to use the literal reading of D&C 20:1 in identifying April 6th as the birthdate of Jesus...he wrote the book in 1915). One of these days I'll write a more detailed post about the difference between the teachings and doctrine as they're often confused.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has taken no official position on the exact date of Christ’s birth. In his 1915 classic Jesus the Christ, Elder James E. Talmage maintained that Jesus Christ was born on April 6 in the year 1 BC. Talmage was apparently the first LDS writer to propose this particular date." --Jeffrey R. Chadwick (2010)

From a historical standpoint, it's merely interesting, both the actual birthdate of Jesus and the role of April 6th in LDS Church history. In any case, happy "Restoration Day" if nothing else! HA!

Origins of Easter

I had a request to do a blog post similar to my post "Understanding Christmas" about the origins of many of our Easter traditions as we approach Easter Sunday.  In many ways, the way Easter has evolved both religiously and secularly is similar to how Christmas has developed over the centuries.  Like Christmas, Easter has many traditions and symbols that pre-date Christianity and are rooted in ancient paganism.  Also like Christmas, it wasn't a simply matter of the early Christian Church inserting a Christian holiday in place of a Pagan one; rather, it was a gradual association of Pagan symbolism and tradition with the Christian holiday simply because the two occurred around the same time.  What I intend to focus on here are the most visible secular symbols of Easter: the Easter Bunny and the Easter Egg, both of which seemingly have no connection to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I'll also touch on the name of Easter and the reasoning behind its date.

The first thing that always seems to throw people for a loop is the date of Easter.  Every year it's on a different day and can be anywhere from late March to late April.  What gives?  Easter is different from most holidays because it's not a fixed day like Christmas, Valentine's Day, Independence Day, etc. are.  Instead, Easter is based on a "lunisolar" calendar, similar to the way Passover is determined in Judaism.  Basically, the cycles of the moon are included in the calculations where our typical measure of time on our Gregorian calendar is made using the Sun.  The rule for Easter (which seems to be first established in 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea but was debated many times after) is that it's the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox (first day of spring in the Northern Hemisphere).  Because the spring equinox is March 20 or 21, Easter cannot happen before then.  Easter and Passover are normally celebrated very close to each other (according the the Bible, the events celebrated in Easter happened during Passover), but because the calendar used by the western world (Gregorian calendar) is not identical to the Hebrew calendar (Passover starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan), the two holidays occasionally are weeks apart.  While Passover is a fixed day in the Hebrew calendar, because of the way the Hebrew calendar is determined and measured, it appears to move around when compared to the Gregorian calendar.  For your info, next year, Easter will be on March 31st again, which last happened in 2002.

The next thing about Easter that is confusing on the surface is the name itself.  Where on earth is the name "Easter" from and what does it have to do with the Resurrection of Christ?  From what I can find, the name Easter is derived from the Pagan goddess Eostre.  The ancient Anglo-Saxons worshiped Eostre, who was the goddess of fertility and "new beginnings", during the springtime.  Her symbol was the rabbit, since the rabbit is a symbol of fertility, as are eggs.  In other languages, the word for "Easter" is the same word as "Passover" (based on the Latin "Pascha" from the Hebrew "Pesach").  Why did English adopt a pagan word for this holiday?  From what I have read it was simply due to the fact that the two events were at the same time of the year, so it simply evolved from common usage.  One source mentioned that the ancient month for the goddess Eostre (also spelled Eastre), known as Eostremonat ("Eostre's month") was at the same time as April.  As Christianity replaced Paganism as the dominant religion, it is natural that many of the wordings and cultural traditions would carry over, similar to many of the symbols associated with Christmas.  In many Christian churches and movements, they will refer to Easter as "Resurrection Day" as a way to avoid using a Pagan name.

Eostre seems to be the source for the most common Easter symbols: the Easter Bunny and Easter Eggs.  Both of them are ancient symbols of fertility and re-birth that pre-date Christianity by hundreds, even thousands, of years, and thus were used by the Anglo-Saxons in association with Eostre and the spring festivals in her honor.  Even so, they were not used in any way similar to how we use the Easter Bunny or Easter Eggs, but it does explain where the idea came from.  The legend of the Easter Bunny bringing eggs to children seems to come from Germany with the earliest mention being in the 1500s.  What I found interesting about the early use of the Easter Bunny was that kids would make "nests" for the rabbit (where we get our "Easter grass") using their hat (boys) or bonnet (girls) and later using sticks in their garden.  They would put them in secluded places and then go and find them the next morning.  Of course this has now evolved into using Easter baskets instead.  The German custom seemed to be a way to help their children be better behaved similar to Santa Claus, since the Easter Bunny would only bring these colorful eggs to good kids.  When German immigrants came to the United States, they brought this tradition with them, though it wasn't until after the Civil War that we see the emergence of the Easter Bunny and Easter in general as any kind of major holiday celebrated around the country.  Christmas is similar in that it wasn't widely celebrated early in the history of the US simply because it was considered British.  The German immigrants also introduced making pastry bunnies and later, chocolate bunnies.

As for the Easter Egg, as I mentioned, were long symbols of fertility and re-birth associated with Spring.  In the Middle Ages, eggs were forbidden during Lent, so any that were laid during Lent were boiled or preserved in some other way.  At the end of Lent, eggs were a major part of the menu and were a seen as a wonderful gift for children and even servants.  Early Easter Eggs were sometimes decorated with gold leaf or were dyed in colors boiled from flower petals.  Over time, different kinds of candy have been added along with eggs (does anyone still put real eggs in their Easter baskets anymore?).

Of course there are other symbols and traditions that are associated with Easter, but these are the biggest ones.  In doing this little study of the history of Easter, it's interesting to come to understand how everything came to be and how the Pagan symbols were worked into a Christian holiday.  In the end, Easter is just like Christmas in that it has a very serious religious side (the Resurrection of Christ) and a very secular side.  Both Christmas and Easter have elements of Paganism in them (though hardly anyone uses the symbols as they were originally intended or even thinks about the original symbolism), but they also have the general recognition of when they take place.  Easter is generally associated with spring because that's when it happens.  Christmas is generally associated with winter because that's when it happens too (and yes, even in the Southern Hemisphere I've heard of people viewing a "White Christmas" as basically the iconic Christmas even though in the Southern Hemisphere, Christmas occurs at the beginning of summer!).  As such, many of the symbols and traditions associated with Christmas and Easter on the secular side are more appropriately associated with the season rather than the religious aspect and as I said before, no longer have any Pagan association to the average person.  I imagine that like any convert, these early converts to Christianity from Paganism over 1,000 years ago didn't just wholesale drop all their customs and beliefs, but sought to make sense of what they knew compared to that they were learning in their new religion and it gave them new meaning to some of their previous beliefs.  I can also see why there was an association with a Pagan spring holiday and the Resurrection since both have rebirth and renewal at their core.

Personally, I love many of the Easter traditions (especially the candy and chocolate!!!) :).  Does it lessen the religious aspect of Easter?  Hardly.  I'm also a big proponent of having Sacrament Meeting on Easter be a little more special than your average weekly meeting (we do it for Christmas, why not Easter?) with extra music and talks.  But just like Christmas, it's not like I only think about the wonder of the Resurrection ONLY at Easter, so why can't I enjoy some of the cultural fun that has developed alongside the religious rite?  The fun, secular side of Easter is part of our culture and there is nothing wrong with having fun, especially when so many of the secular traditions associated with Easter involve spending time with family (Easter dinner, Easter egg hunts, doing Easter baskets, decorating eggs, etc.).   How can that be bad or negative?  Yes, you CAN take part in the secular aspects of Easter and still not lose any of the value or meaning of the religious side.  It's a matter of balance just like anything.  Just like with Santa Claus, my parents also did the Easter Bunny thing and would you believe I STILL go to church and still believe in the Resurrection and have a testimony of the Atonement?

For more on Easter and its history see the Wikipedia articles on Easter, Easter Bunny, Easter customs, and Eostre, as well as:

• Easter Symbols and Traditions by David Johnson and Shmuel Ross
• The History of Easter and the Easter Bunny by Arlene Wright-Correll

I also found a great answer for the calendar question on Yahoo answers (it has sources): "Why didn't Passover and Easter coincide this year?" (2008)

So it begins!

I've been toying with the idea of adding a history-only blog to my regular blog and my private blog.  Lately I've really gotten more into history, especially Kent history, so I've been directing people to my blog.  But my blog isn't just about history.  Instead, it's a random collection of whatever I feel like posting about at a specific time, so it has history, opinion, happenings, etc.  One of the great things about having a traffic feed on my blog is that I can see where people are coming from and often why.  Knowing that and after writing my most recent post on my main blog, I figured, why not now?  So, here it is: Happenin' History, which I plan on focusing mostly on Kent history, but that will hardly be exclusive.  The history of my fair hometown of Kent, Ohio is a huge interest and hobby of mine, but I also enjoy many other general aspects of history like LDS (Mormon) history, US history, Ancient history (ancient Greece and Rome in particular), and many other eras.  I also enjoy sports history and architectural history too.  I suppose I will be reorganizing my main blog too and creating more of a central website for the "jonridinger.com" address, but first things first!  More to come!