From Steven Vanden Broecke, The Limits of Influence: Pico, Louvain, and the Crisis of Renaissance Astrology (Brill: Leiden/Boston, 2003), p. 48 n. 87:
In his Elucidarium, dâ€™Ailly had mentioned two opinions on Christâ€™s natal chart. One, reported by Albertus Magnus, stated that Christ was born with Virgo [in 8 degrees] in the ascendent, while the other preferred Libra [in 2 degrees]. Both charts agreed in having the moon in Taurus [in 4 degrees]. Afinius applied an astrological technique to rectify natal charts to these data, in order to determine the time between birth and conception. Although Joannes Angelusâ€™ (d. 1512) Astrolabium planum contained the most common late medieval tools to do this, Afinius preferred to rely on the slightly different values of Leopold of Austria (fl. 1280) and Antonius de Montulmoâ€™s (fl. 1390). This established that Christ was conceived on 6 April according to the first natal chart, and on 8 April in the second case.
Clearly, we have overlooked the potential of late medieval astrology to solve Mormon controversies for too long. What other questions might be resolved this way? I’m considering rearranging home teaching arrangements in my quorum according to sign of the Zodiac, although I wouldn’t tell people that until after we move.