So we are back to what the Church has said, "official publications".
The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not say "official publications." Intellectual Reserve, Inc. said "official publications."
Nope. Church did. IRI merely holds it as intellectual property.
bcspace wrote:But it didn't show that the Church had published it. The IRI stamp merely says it's being held as intellectual property.
So, again, how do you determine which publications bearing the IRI copyright are doctrine and which are not? It seems the only reason you think the McConkie speech isn't official is that you disagree with it.
Are you honestly not sure it's the Church's web site? C'mon Runtu, you don't see the name of the Church on that site? You don't believe it's part of the "family of Church web sites"?
I don't doubt it, as it bears the IRI copyright. You're the one who doesn't believe that something published by the church's intellectual property division is part of the family of church web sites. I notice that you didn't respond what I said about using unofficial publications to show that official publications aren't actually official. Wise move.
Nope. The copyright holder is the entity responsible for the content, not the publisher. The Church did not write that statement any more than Scholastic, Inc. wrote J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books.
So no, the Church did not create the content in that statement, and it is the creation of content, not "publication," that matters for copyright and for doctrine.
The "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement irrefutably is not doctrine.
It is a Church published site and they control completely the message.
I'm sorry, but you said we can't be sure that something copyrighted by IRI is official LDS doctrine. The statement is copyrighted by IRI, so we can't be sure it is official doctrine. And the Church itself never said "publication" is the standard. Only IRI said that, and we can't be sure IRI represents the official position of the Church, as you have convincingly argued.
This is actually pretty funny. BC appears to be making the argument here that IRI could hold intellectual property over other material for which the Church may or may not have exercised editorial control. Thus the fact that all Church-published material bears the IRI mark does not necessarilly prove to BC that all material with an IRI mark is Church-published material. The fact that all of X is Y does not autimatically mean that all of Y is X. And in order to grant that all of Y is X in this case, he needs to see evidence where the Church explicitly states that all of Y is X.
Bravo. Well done. I simply point out that if this is his argument, it's a good thing that BC isn't one of those silly guys who argues that doctrine is consistently published by the Church ergo everything that is published by the Church must be doctrine. And I'm also glad that BC is of the opinion that the Church would have to actually explicitly state this to be the case in order for the latter proposition to be true.
Consistency, it's what's for dinner.
". . . but they must long feel that to flatter and follow others, without being flattered and followed in turn, is but a state of half enjoyment" - Jane Austen in "Persuasion"
Darth J wrote:I'm sorry, but you said we can't be sure that something copyrighted by IRI is official LDS doctrine. The statement is copyrighted by IRI, so we can't be sure it is official doctrine. And the Church itself never said "publication" is the standard. Only IRI said that, and we can't be sure IRI represents the official position of the Church, as you have convincingly argued.
Oh snap!
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
You do more to make Mormonism look ridiculous than any other poster on this board. I'm almost certain that you are really an anti-Mormon pretending to be a faithful believer. You're really good at it, dude. Really good at it.
It is a Church published site and they control completely the message.