Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_bcspace]

Have you come up with one for the Seven Deadly Heresies yet?

Yes, I did quite early in this thread. But in case you missed it:

http://runtu.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/heresy.jpg

So where is the Church publication? There is merely the IRI stamp and BYU nominally is the publisher. lol

[_Runtu]

So where is the Church publication? lol

The IRI is the church copyright.

[_bcspace]

The IRI is a company that holds intellectual property for which the Church may or may not have exercised editorial control. No indication of Church publication on this one though. I have mentioned before that there are indeed doctrinal quotes from this BYU speech published by the Church. But none of them are from the part on evolution.

by the way, I've now listened to the audio. My conclusion stands including where I highlighted portions of it in this thread. In addition to the written transcript he clearly states in the begining that these are his own views so even if it were to be found in the future that this was published by the Church, there is still no official injunction against evolution.

Let me know when you find the SDH published by the Church.

[_Runtu]

The IRI is a company that holds intellectual property for which the Church may or may not have exercised editorial control.

Then show me a single example of an IRI publication that the church has not published. Just one would suffice, you know. Everything that bears an IRI copyright has been through the Correlation process. Find me a single example that hasn't. Again, you can't.

No indication of Church publication on this one though. I have mentioned before the there are indeed doctrinal quotes from this BYU speech published by the CHurch. But none of them are from the part on evolution.

The speech was published by the church in the form it appears on the BYU speeches site. If the church hadn't published it, it would not bear an IRI copyright. As I mentioned, those speeches that have not been through Correlation either bear a BYU copyright, an individual's copyright, or no copyright at all.

by the way, I've now listened to the audio. My conclusion stands including where I highlighted portions of it in this thread. In addition to the written transcript he clearly states in the begining that these are his own views so even if it were to be found in the future that this was published by the Church, there is still no official injunction against evolution.

That was never my point. You insisted that everything officially published by the church is doctrine. Now you're weaseling out of that position by insisting that not all church publications are official. I give you props for unashamedly making yourself look foolish.

[_Ludd]

I've learned very quickly that any thread in which bcspace is posting is a thread to be avoided.

[_Runtu]

It's time for bcspace to put up or shut up. If he's going to insist that not all church publications are official, he needs to find an example of an unofficial, uncorrelated publication bearing the IRI copyright.

Until he does so, there's no point engaging him because he's just asserting stuff with nothing to back it up.

[_Darth J]

The IRI is a company that holds intellectual property for which the Church may or may not have exercised editorial control.

Hey, look what I found: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

Down at the bottom of the page, it says: Copyright 2011 Intellectual Reserve, Inc., all rights reserved.

So we can't be sure the Church exercised editorial control over this statement.

Thus, the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement is not official doctrine.

[_Runtu]

So we can't be sure the Church exercised editorial control over this statement.

You're right. It doesn't say anything about being a church publication.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

The IRI is a company that holds intellectual property for which the Church may or may not have exercised editorial control.

Hey, look what I found: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

Down at the bottom of the page, it says: Copyright 2011 Intellectual Reserve, Inc., all rights reserved.

So we can't be sure the Church exercised editorial control over this statement.

Thus, the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement is not official doctrine.

This is the best post ever written on this, or any other Mormon board. Poor bcspace.

[Guest]

Then show me a single example of an IRI publication that the church has not published.

Have you found one for the SDH yet? Your image on wordpress didn't show it.

It's time for bcspace to put up or shut up. If he's going to insist that not all church publications are official, he needs to find an example of an unofficial, uncorrelated publication bearing the IRI copyright.

Let's extend your logic. Does the Church consider all KSL or KBYU broadcasts to be doctrinal? What about the Deseret News? The answer of course is no. So likewise, there is no rational basis for the IRI stamp to indicate doctrinicity. So we are back to what the Church has said, "official publications". What have you got that is published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I don't want to believe you are this stupid but are, at best, simply trying to count coup on bcspace.

Hey, look what I found: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/a ... n-doctrine

Down at the bottom of the page, it says: Copyright 2011 Intellectual Reserve, Inc., all rights reserved.

So we can't be sure the Church exercised editorial control over this statement.

Thus, the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement is not official doctrine.

The difference being that we all know the web site is actually published by the Church whereas Runtu has not given such evidence for the SDH.