Russel M. Nelson comments on big bang theory and evolution

[_bcspace]

Let me know if you guys come up with any new arguments as I've addressed all the ones here. Friday night and I have a family and my work is done.

[_J Green]

You've not read it. But I've quoted them before here on this board. Proof left to the student. Come back when you have found the relevant quotes. Simply perusing the chapter titles should lead you to them. The DHO statement is found, If I recall correctly, in an Ensign. Should be easy to find.

This is not how a CFR works. In any case, I discussed these things in the discussion where you claimed that DHO claimed that the CH is doctrine when he actually didn't. And when I provided the quotes to show you that he didn't, you walked away.
So once again, I'd like to see the Church's statement to the effect that everything that it publishes is doctrine.

CFR.

CFR.

I have a feeling I'll be waiting longer than Vladimir and Estragon.

[_Darth J]

bcspace, if a person committed copyright infringement regarding material from LDS.org, who would be the plaintiff in the resulting lawsuit?

How does that relate to whether or not something is doctrine or published by the Church?

I'll show you. Who would be the plaintiff, and why?

[_bcspace]

You've not read it. But I've quoted them before here on this board. Proof left to the student. Come back when you have found the relevant quotes. Simply perusing the chapter titles should lead you to them. The DHO statement is found, If I recall correctly, in an Ensign. Should be easy to find.

This is not how a CFR works.

I know. But I've CFR'd them enough times already that they should be easy to find. They certainly are on LDS.org. by the way, what kind of a board do you think this is? MDD?

[_bcspace]

How does that relate to whether or not something is doctrine or published by the Church?

I'll show you. Who would be the plaintiff, and why?

One can own something and not have published it as one can plainly see in the SDH case.

[_bcspace]

So once again, I'd like to see the Church's statement to the effect that everything that it publishes is doctrine.

That one I've already done implicitly. CFR on the list of exceptions.

[_J Green]

I was right.

ESTRAGON: Charming spot. (He turns, advances to front, halts facing auditorium.) Inspiring prospects. (He turns to Vladimir.) Let's go.

VLADIMIR: We can't.

ESTRAGON: Why not?

VLADIMIR: We're waiting for BC to answer the CFR.

ESTRAGON: (despairingly). Ah! (Pause.) You're sure? He hasn't answered it before.

VLADIMIR: He said it would be in his siggy. (They look at the siggy.) Do you see it there?

ESTRAGON: No. Do you?

VLADIMIR: Then we wait!

[_J Green]

I know. But I've CFR'd them enough times already that they should be easy to find. They certainly are on LDS.org. by the way, what kind of a board do you think this is? MDD?

As I said, I looked at these in depth in the conversation you walked away from. None of these say either implicitly or explicitly that everything the Church publishes is doctrine. So . . .

CFR

[_Darth J]

How does that relate to whether or not something is doctrine or published by the Church?


I'll show you. Who would be the plaintiff, and why?

One can own something and not have published it as one can plainly see in the SDH case.

Well, kids, is bcspace correct? Let's ask the United States Copyright Office:

Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9, Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.
.........
Publication has a technical meaning in copyright law. According to the statute, “Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.” Generally, publication occurs on the date on which copies of the work are first made available to the public. For further information see Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Publication.”

More from the U.S. Copyright Office about publication:

[I]t is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.

The statement on "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" has not been published as defined by copyright law, because it has not changed hands. It merely stays on a web site. Additionally, the owner of the statement is Intellectual Reserve, Inc., and the publisher is also Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (the owner of both the statement and the website on which it is found).

So, because it has not been published, and in any event the publisher is IRI (not the LDS Church), and the author is also IRI, the "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" statement is not official doctrine under its own terms.

[_Darth J]

Let's repeat this one for emphasis:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author.

If Intellectual Reserve, Inc., is holding intellectual property on behalf of the Church, then the Church is considered to be the author of those works.