Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_Runtu]

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

It showed the church's copyright: IRI.

Let's extend your logic. Does the Church consider all KSL or KBYU broadcasts to be doctrinal?

You're not extending my logic at all but rather again demonstrating your ignorance. Do KSL or KBYU broadcasts carry an IRI copyright? Nope, only when the broadcast is an official church broadcast, such as general conference.

What about the Deseret News? The answer of course is no.

Exactly. Your point being?

So likewise, there is no rational basis for the IRI stamp to indicate doctrinicity.

Nonsense. All you've shown is that unofficial church publications and broadcasts don't have an IRI copyright. Last I checked, that was my point, not yours.

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 already have, and you appear to agree with me that only IRI publications are official.

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

I would feel stupid if I had proven someone else's point, as you just have.

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.

How do you know it's published by the church? Where does it say it's published by the church?

[_Darth J]

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.

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.

[Guest]

I would recommend Mr. Nelson read "Relics of Eden" by Mr. Fairbanks. I downloaded the first chapter from Amazon and then went on to buy the book. The author, who believes in God, pretty much puts the nail in the coffin of creation science and a 7000 year old earth. He describes the new information coming in about evolution as a "torrent". It's information is stunning the researchers and is ten times what they hoped for as it just comfirms what scientist have been reporting for a century: that great apes (which includes man) have a common ancestor. It's not just the active genes but the inactive genes that are at the same place. And he also gets into DNA and human migration that may cause some LDS some uneasy feelings.

http://www.amazon.com/Relics-Eden-Power ... 1591025648

[_Buffalo]

They might be, I don't know.

Exactly. You're talking out of your ass.

[_Buffalo]

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.

It has been through correlation. His opinion that those who think revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized are devilish is consistent with church doctrine.

You're fighting against the church. You are in apostasy.

[_Ludd]

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

You're just now figuring this out? Really?

Why are you wasting your time with him?

It's like trying to carry on a conversation with a jihadist automaton.

bcspace:



"Let's watch it burn ..."

[_bcspace]

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

It showed the church's copyright: IRI.

But it didn't show that the Church had published it. The IRI stamp merely says it's being held as intellectual property.

How do you know it's published by the church? Where does it say it's published by the church?

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"?

[_Darth J]

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."

As soon as you have a statement from the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, let everyone know.

[_bcspace]

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.

[_Buffalo]

Let's extend your logic. Does the Church consider all KSL

© 2012 ksl.com

or KBYU broadcasts to be doctrinal?

©2012 KBYU



http://www.LDS.org: © 2012 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.