Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_bcspace]

Within context, yes.

CFR.

One merely takes the publication at it's word. For example, the Bible Dictionary, published by the Church, expressly states in it's Introduction that it's not doctrine. Elsewhere, one might find in a Church publication someone stating, "It's my opinion that such and such is true." In that case, the doctrine is that such and such is that person's opinion. etc. etc.

And a trademark is not a legal entity. It is just a visual representation. IRI does not own "the Church." IRI owns the following way of writing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Precisely. Thus, the IRI stamp is not a mark of doctrinicity whereas publication by the publishing entity is the doctrine of that entity.

Within context, yes.

And just WHERE can this Russel M. Nelson talk be found?

In General Conference I believe. Ask the OP. But notice that none of it precludes evolution as I have shown previously in this thread.

Within context, yes.

Another way of saying "if I agree with it, yes." Welcome to Cafeteria Mormonhood!

Nope. Just a common sense rule not to read between the lines that which is not there.

[_Equality]

It's yet to be proven that all IRI stamps are Chruch published as Runtu claimed . . . .

Are you saying you don't believe the church when it says in the CHI that IRI is the company that holds ALL of the church's intellectual property (including copyrighted materials)? Are you saying the church has intellectual property that is NOT held by IRI? Are you saying that IRI holds all of the church's IP and also holds other non-church IP?

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Wrong, space, the talk is found on LDS.org and is thus by your own self serving twisted definition, DOCTRINE. Which Article of Faith says we believe in doctrines? Didn't one say something about prophets?

[_bcspace]

All you have to do to disprove my statement is show a publication with an IRI copyright that wasn't published by the church.

You're the one claiming the SDH is doctrine by virtue of the IRI stamp. But the Church did not state "IRI stamp" it stated "official publication". Are you going to now tell us the Church believes KSL, KBYU, and the D-News are doctrine? Put up or shut up by either showing us Church publication of the SDH or admit you're wrong about the SDH being doctrine as is the title of your other thread.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

All you have to do to disprove my statement is show a publication with an IRI copyright that wasn't published by the church.

You're the one claiming the SDH is doctrine by virtue of the IRI stamp. But the Church did not state "IRI stamp" it stated "official publication". Are you going to now tell us the Church believes KSL, KBYU, and the D-News are doctrine? Put up or shut up by either showing us Church publication of the SDH or admit you're wrong about the SDH being doctrine as is the title of your other thread.

Is the SDH to be found on LDS.org?

[_bcspace]

Wrong, space, the talk is found on LDS.org

Wrong about what? The Nelson talk is indeed doctrine being published as you described. The SDH so far has yet to be found so published.

[_J Green]

Within context, yes.

CFR.

One merely takes the publication at it's word. For example, the Bible Dictionary, published by the Church, expressly states in it's Introduction that it's not doctrine. Elsewhere, one might find in a Church publication someone stating, "It's my opinion that such and such is true." In that case, the doctrine is that such and such is that person's opinion. etc. etc.

I'm sorry, but I didn't CFR your personal opinion. Can you provided the Church's official statement for the above? Or is this simply your personal opinion?

Thanks

[_bcspace]

Is the SDH to be found on LDS.org?

I have found three quotations from it. Thus those specific quotations are doctrine. None of them are from the part on evolution. Feel free to continue the search to see if there is anything else. Perhaps you can help Runtu out of a bind.

[_Spurven Ten Sing]

Wrong, space, the talk is found on LDS.org

Wrong about what? The Nelson talk is indeed doctrine being published as you described. The SDH so far has yet to be found so published.

So is the talk doctrine? So is evolution compatible with doctrine?

[_Darth J]

bcspace, given that IRI is wholly owned by the Church, why would the Church have an entity it owns copyright something that is contrary to the Church's doctrines?