It's in the unedited audio version. Somehow I doubt you listened to the entire speech in two minutes.
I didn't, I read the transcript. Your link no longer works, however, even if the audio does have it you've contradicted yourself by erroneously assuming IRI means it's doctrine because the IRI version does not have the phrase.
In other words, you're not using the version the Church accepts if such were doctrine. Cased closed.
bcspace wrote:I didn't, I read the transcript. Your link no longer works, however, even if the audio does have it you've contradicted yourself by erroneously assuming IRI means it's doctrine because the IRI version does not have the phrase.
The church has said that doctrine "is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." If it bears an IRI copyright, it is an official church publication; there's nothing erroneous about it. Your willful rejection of the very press release you've been touting for so long does not speak well of you.
In other words, you're not using the version the Church accepts if such were doctrine. Cased closed.
It appears that, to you, doctrine is anything the church officially publishes that you agree with. Good luck with that.
It's in the unedited audio version. Somehow I doubt you listened to the entire speech in two minutes.
I didn't, I read the transcript. Your link no longer works, however, even if the audio does have it you've contradicted yourself by erroneously assuming IRI means it's doctrine because the IRI version does not have the phrase.
In other words, you're not using the version the Church accepts if such were doctrine. Cased closed.
Everything the church publishes is under Intellectual Reserve. If it's not published by the church, it will be under a different copyright.
You still have not been able to come up with anything that says Copyright the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Everything on LDS.org is copyright Intellectual Reserve.
You fail. Your one reason for existence as an apologist was pulled out from under you. Now you're obviously very upset. I can understand that. But further obfuscation will not help you. Runtu pwnd you good and proper. It's time for you to man up and admit it.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
The church has said that doctrine "is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." If it bears an IRI copyright, it is an official church publication; there's nothing erroneous about it.
No it is a publication held by the IRI and such may or may not have been published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Didn't you say you worked at the COB? I suggest you brush up on your IRI.
bcspace wrote:No it is a publication held by the IRI and such may or may not have been published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Then show me something with an IRI copyright that has not been published by the church. Should be easy, right? Find me a single current example. I've asked you this several times, and you ignore it because you know you have been shown to be wrong.
1. bcspace tells us that anything officially published by the church is doctrine. 2. J Green and I explained the church's actual position, which is that anything officially published by the church is consistent with doctrine. In other words, if they publish an Ensign article or a software manual, it is consistent with the church's doctrine insofar as it doesn't contradict the doctrines. 3. J Green and I mentioned that all official church publications bear an "Intellectual Reserve, Inc." copyright. This copyright notice means that the publication has been through the Correlation process and has thus been deemed to be consistent with doctrine. 4. bcspace insists that not everything published with an IRI copyright is "official" or consistent with doctrine. Apparently, he has some way of discerning doctrine from non-doctrine that the Correlation committee is unaware of. 5. I ask him to give me a single example of a publication bearing the IRI copyright that is not published by the church. 6. Crickets chirp. 7. bcspace repeats 4 through 7 as needed.
The church has said that doctrine "is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." If it bears an IRI copyright, it is an official church publication; there's nothing erroneous about it.
No it is a publication held by the IRI and such may or may not have been published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Didn't you say you worked at the COB? I suggest you brush up on your IRI.
Even you don't believe this now. You know you're wrong. Fess up.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Then show me something with an IRI copyright that has not been published by the church.
Have you come up with one for the Seven Deadly Heresies yet?
Even you don't believe this now. You know you're wrong. Fess up.
Face it, you've lost again by supporting the notion that the IRI stamp indicates doctrine. Even Runtu just admitted his error above by supposing all IRI hldings are published by the Church. They might be, I don't know. But instead of defending his premise, he fell back on Church publication.
