Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_bcspace]

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?

It's not personal opinion that these are doctrine, no. So what does one do when confronted with doctrine? One reads it and accepts it as the doctrine of that organization.

[_bcspace]

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

Yes and yes. If there is a part of the talk or any other doctrine you feel is incompatible with evolution, feel free to bring it up and I will address it by and by.

[_Darth J]

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?

It's not personal opinion that these are doctrine, no. So what does one do when confronted with doctrine? One reads it and accepts it as the doctrine of that organization.

Therefore, "official publication" is the doctrine of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. ("that organization").

Were you ever baptized as a member of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.?

[_madeleine]

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?

the 1k answer: To keep others from using it.

[_Runtu]

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.

No bind here whatsoever. That talk has been through correlation. If the copyright isn't enough to show that, the editing done to make it appear less dogmatic shows that the church didn't like the original audio version and thus changed it to pass a correlation review.

You refuse to answer my two simple questions. Calling me a lying anti-Mormon only gets you so far, and then it just makes you look angry and foolish.

[_bcspace]

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?

Sure and especially in that case to prevent/control it's yellow journalistic use or to prevent it being presented by someone else as if it were doctrine.

the 1k answer: To keep others from using it.

Precisely.

[_Runtu]

Sure and especially in that case to prevent/control it's yellow journalistic use or to prevent it being presented by someone else as if it were doctrine.

We copyright our own stuff so you can't present it as being official.

[Guest]

Precisely.

I was half-joking.

Kinda funny to copyright stuff, post it on your website, teach it from an official location/pulpit and then say: that's not doctrine. But it's under copyright just cuz it's ours and we don't want no one else to use it in an untoward manner.

Church Of The Funny Walks And Double-Talks (CoTFWaD)

[_Equality]

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.

You cannot possibly be this dense. Seriously. It's just not possible. Do you get pleasure out of trying to make people think you are an ignoramus? I know you are not an ignoramus, so some psychological need on your part to be viewed that way is the only sensible explanation I can imagine for you continuing to post stuff like this. KBYU, KSL, and D-News are owned by the church, but not everything they publish bears an IRI copyright. Only that which the church is publishing bears the IRI copyright, such as General Conference addresses. Get it? When the church publishes something, it bears the IRI copyright. When BYU publishes something, it bears a BYU copyright. The BYU web site contains material that is copyrighted by BYU, by individual authors, and by IRI. The SDH address is on the BYU speeches web site and bears the IRI copyright. Ergo, it's published by the church. If the IRI stamp does not show that it was published by the church, what would?

[_bcspace]

You refuse to answer my two simple questions.

You've asked the wrong questions. I've answered by giving you the question you should have asked and whose answer will solve your little conundrum.

We copyright our own stuff so you can't present it as being official.

"You" being all those who are not the prophets and apostles, correct. Only they can establish doctrine for the Church.

Kinda funny to copyright stuff, post it on your website, teach it from an official location/pulpit and then say: that's not doctrine.

I've not seen that happen. BYU is not an official pulpit. In fact, official locations and official pulpits don't exist in any doctrinal sense. If what's spoken from a location/pulpit gets published by the Church as opposed to merely being IRI stamped, then it becomes doctrine.