Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_madeleine]

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.

Oh yeah, I forget, Mormons just have opinions not doctrine.

[_Runtu]

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?

But I'm the one in a bind.

[_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?

Sure

That's not a yes or not question.

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.

No. You do not distance yourself from a statement by claiming ownership of it.

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

Precisely.

There is no reason to care about others using a statement that you disclaim.

In summary, "official publication" is the doctrine of Intellectual Reserve, Inc, and the website on which the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement is published is owned by IRI, not by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There is NO STATEMENT by the Church that says "official publication."

[_Runtu]

There is no reason to care about others using a statement that you disclaim.

In summary, "official publication" is the doctrine of Intellectual Reserve, Inc, and the website on which the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement is published is owned by IRI, not by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

There is NO STATEMENT by the Church that says "official publication."

Correct.

[_Ludd]

You have convinced me that being copyrighted by IRI does not prove that something is official doctrine, and the only statement about "publication" is copyrighted by IRI. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement--including the verbiage about publication--is official doctrine according to your own argument.

Poor bcspace:

[_bcspace]

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?

The pleasure I am getting right now comes from the fact that some of you are dense ignoramuses enough to try and preserve your little chestnuts in the face of what actually is LDS doctrine. You will go to great lengths to destroy logic and factual statements in order to get them across.

KBYU, KSL, and D-News are owned by the church, but not everything they publish bears an IRI copyright.

Indeed. None of those facts, owned by the Church or IRI stamp does doctrine make. But the IRI is another corporation owned by the Church, so logically, if IRI stamp of means doctrine, then KSL means doctrine too. It's just an example to show how ridiculous you guys look and how your logic doesn't extend to the real world.

Only that which the church is publishing bears the IRI copyright, such as General Conference addresses. Get it?

Sure. But the SDH was IRI stamped but not published by the Church. Church publication is the only identifier of doctrine. The IRI stamp itself does not so identify.

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.

Doesn't follow. Your assumption is that ownership indicates "published by" or "approved by". Nothing could be more erroneous.

If the IRI stamp does not show that it was published by the church, what would?

The usual statement of, for example, on the title page of a book (or magazine or manual), published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or the corporation thereof. The SDH does not have that anywhere I've seen. The IRI stamp merely says it's being held as intellectual property, not that it was published by the Church.

[_J Green]

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 once again, CFR.

[_bcspace]

You have convinced me that being copyrighted by IRI does not prove that something is official doctrine, and the only statement about "publication" is copyrighted by IRI. Therefore, we cannot be sure that the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement--including the verbiage about publication--is official doctrine according to your own argument.

All you've proven is that some doctrine published by the Church is now being held by the IRI as the intellectual property of the Church. I heartily agree and note that yet again you've proven that IRI has nothing to do with doctrine.

[_bcspace]

It's not personal opinion that these are doctrine, no.

So once again, CFR.

[taps the sign] Published by the Church.

There is NO STATEMENT by the Church that says "official publication."

[taps the sign] Siggy.

[_J Green]

[taps the sign] Published by the Church.

This doesn't answer the CFR.
Where does the Church say that everything published by the Church is doctrine?