Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_Runtu]

I don't think you know what "logic" means. The IRI is owned by the church, 'tis true. For a purpose entirely different from the purpose the church owns KSL. It is not the ownership of IRI, per se, that is important here--it's the purpose of the company so owned. IRI is owned by the church to hold all of the church's intellectual property, including all copyrighted publications. Whenever the church publishes anything official, it will bear the IRI copyright. And anything published with the IRI copyright has been through correlation. Show me something published by the church today that does not bear the IRI copyright. Or answer Runtu's challenge: show us something published by IRI that is not church-owned.

Exactly. KSL doesn't exist to be an official outlet. IRI does.

[_bcspace]

It doesn't say that in the siggy either

Sure it does. It's expanded on elsewhere such as in Teaching, No Greater Call and DHO calling Church publications the "voice of the Church". But notice the 2007 statement does not list any exceptions. So the only way to know if something in an official publication is not doctrine is by disclaimer or qualifying statement.

[_Equality]

"It's not official doctrine unless it's published by the Church, but it's IRI that said that, but merely being copyrighted by IRI doesn't make it official doctrine, but the statement about 'publication' I'm relying on was made by IRI, but....."

This.

Best thread ever. Keep it coming, bcspace. This is one for the ages.

[_Equality]

It doesn't say that in the siggy either

Sure it does. It's expanded on elsewhere such as in Teaching, No Greater Call and DHO calling Church publications the "voice of the Church". But notice the 2007 statement does not list any exceptions. So the only way to know if something in an official publication is not doctrine is by disclaimer or qualifying statement.

But your signature line was copyrighted by IRI, which you say is not official. See your dilemma?

[_Darth J]

It's expanded on elsewhere such as in Teaching, No Greater Call

Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching

© 2010 Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

[_Molok]

BcSpace is doing a fine job of making his religion appear to be run by the most mindless collection of cluster f***s ever. Keep it up Spacey, you're doing God's work. LOL

bcspace is an anti-Mormon. No doubt about it in my mind.

I understand why you would think that. Space would be the ultimate troll if it were true, and I would feel obligated to tip my hat to him, but I don't think anyone has the kind of stamina to keep up the guise for as long, and as consistently as he has.

[_bcspace]

Exactly. KSL doesn't exist to be an official outlet. IRI does.

Non sequitur either way you look at it.

1. KSL and IRI are both owned by the Church yet everything they say is not doctrine so ownership is not the mark of doctrine.
2. KSL and IRI are separate companies under the Church aegis but neither of them is tasked with establishing or publishing doctrine. The IRI specifically is tasked with holding intellectual property, that's it. So neither the KSL or IRI stamp is the mark of official doctrine.

Either way, you've lost the argument and now must show the SDH is published by the Church to try and prove the unrelated point you made that everything the IRI holds is published by the Church. You've already shunted you argument off to something that whether true or not has no bearing on whether or not the SDH is doctrine.

The facts have already granted you that a few small quotes are indeed doctrine because they are found elsewhere in Church publications. But I noted that long ago and before anyone else did. I'd take that and run while you still can.

[_J Green]

It doesn't say that in the siggy either

Sure it does. It's expanded on elsewhere such as in Teaching, No Greater Call and DHO calling Church publications the "voice of the Church". But notice the 2007 statement does not list any exceptions. So the only way to know if something in an official publication is not doctrine is by disclaimer or qualifying statement.

It actually doesn't say this in any of these locations. If it does, quote the part here.
CFR.

[_bcspace]

Teaching, No Greater Call: A Resource Guide for Gospel Teaching

© 2010 Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Amen. Also published by the Church which fact alone makes it doctrine.

[_Darth J]

The IRI specifically is tasked with holding intellectual property, that's it. So neither the KSL or IRI stamp is the mark of official doctrine.

Therefore, neither the Church Handbook of Instructions, nor the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement, nor anything on LDS.org are official doctrine.