bcspace wrote:We'll probably have to wait a looooong time before anyone can come up with anything new to try and get around the Church's stance on doctrine.
Nah, it didn't take you long at all. You're doing it right now by insisting that something that has been published by the church is not official doctrine.
The average member of the Church is a better apologist than those you've been asking.
Really? Because the average member of the church would agree with McConkies 7 Deadly Heresies talk.
They might.
The average member believes that when a prophet proclaims something, it is as if the Lord himself said it.
That's why the average member is a better apologist. By limiting the doctrine to scripture only as many of the apologists you've been talking to do, they eliminate prophets and apostles and the corresponding modern revelation/inspiration. At least the aforementioned member is on the right track and that is why you'll get better answers from them because it's more likely the Church teaches what they said than what someone with a Sunstone agenda said.
However, most active members I know are of familiar with Helen Mar Kimball as well as the fact the BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" is not doctrine and the fact that publication is the factor that defines doctrine.
bcspace wrote:That's why the average member is a better apologist. By limiting the doctrine to scripture only as many of the apologists you've been talking to do, they eliminate prophets and apostles and the corresponding modern revelation/inspiration. At least the aforementioned member is on the right track and that is why you'll get better answers from them because it's more likely the Church teaches what they said than what someone with a Sunstone agenda said.
However, most active members I know are of familiar with Helen Mar Kimball as well as the fact the BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" is not doctrine and the fact that publication is the factor that defines doctrine.
It's a good thing you don't eliminate prophets and apostles. Oh, wait. :)
Yup. If it's an IRI publication, it's an official publication of the church.
Nope. You've got it bass ackwards. Official publications of the Church are going to identified as intellectual property by the IRI, but not everything the IRI identifies as intellectual property is an official publication of the Church.
It's a good thing you don't eliminate prophets and apostles.
Yep. I admit all of their officially published words are doctrine.
bcspace wrote:Nope. You've got it bass ackwards. Official publications of the Church are going to identified as intellectual property by the IRI, but not everything the IRI identifies as intellectual property is an official publication of the Church.
ROFL
I've shown, you may have noticed, that those church-affiliated publications that are not official have a separate copyright, such as the one for BYU. The notion that something the church has put its copyright on and claimed as its intellectual property is unofficial is perhaps the dumbest apologetic argument I have ever heard. Keep on digging.
Yep. I admit all of their officially published words are doctrine.
Apparently not. I'll probably kick myself for asking, but if, as you say, some IRI publications are official and others are not, how do you determine which is and which isn't?
Another interesting tidbit: The president of Intellectual Reserve, Inc., is a church employee working at 50 East North Temple. You know, that's the place where I had my imaginary training in church policies and procedures regarding doctrine and publications.
Any minute now, bcspace will disappear from this thread, never to return.
We'll probably have to wait a looooong time before anyone can come up with anything new to try and get around my idiosyncratic, personal stance on doctrine.
FIFY
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Runtu wrote:Apparently not. I'll probably kick myself for asking, but if, as you say, some IRI publications are official and others are not, how do you determine which is and which isn't?
This is hilarious. It is like some bizarro world. For years critics beat up apologists for claiming some things the prophets teach are not doctrine, with the primary argument that there is no way to know what is doctrine and what is opinion. So BC Space comes up with a great way to know. If it is published by the church, it is doctrine, if not, it is probably opinion. But now we find out that not everything that is published by the church is doctrine after all. so we are all the way back to square one. LOL. Now we know what it must have been like to hire Joseph Smith and his seer stone to find buried treasure. Just when you think you've found it, it moves.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Runtu wrote:That's not quite correct. Above the copyright notice are links to church-owned educational facilities, including the colleges and universities and the MTC. Below that is a link to the church's web site. The copyright notice is below that link.
If you click on the copyright notice, you get a long statement from BYU about their copyright authority, making it clear that university holds the copyright. Also, there are several disclaimers, including the following:
"That's not quite correct." You're too generous, Runtu, I was dead ass wrong.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
This is hilarious. It is like some bizarro world. For years critics beat up apologists for claiming some things the prophets teach are not doctrine, with the primary argument that there is no way to know what is doctrine and what is opinion. So BC Space comes up with a great way to know. If it is published by the church, it is doctrine, if not, it is probably opinion. But now we find out that not everything that is published by the church is doctrine after all. so we are all the way back to square one. LOL. Now we know what it must have been like to hire Joseph Smith and his seer stone to find buried treasure. Just when you think you've found it, it moves.