Should General Authorities publish?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LOL. If you don't know what do you think the answer is? I bet McConkie's heirs are laughing all the way to the bank. I bet that book had over a million sales.

Feel free to find some facts to back that up.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LOL. If you don't know what do you think the answer is? I bet McConkie's heirs are laughing all the way to the bank. I bet that book had over a million sales.

So?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Feel free to find some facts to back that up.

The fact that Legrand Richards sought to dispel any doubt suggests that the profits are distributed elsewhere.

Perhaps there is a policy but it isn't public which distributes the profits charitably. The silence leaves room for speculation.

The main problem I have with Mormon publications is the lack of new ideas, ones that I haven't heard before. Some people can turn a phrase better than others, but for the most part, Mormon works are about being good citizens, the BoM speaks of Christ (loudly and it does resonate throughout its pages), and we have modern prophets. Exaggerated to make a point, but we seem, qua Mormons, narrow in our focus.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Here's a list of GA books sold by Deseret Book.

http://deseretbook.com/store/browse?...fid=266&page=1

It's an interesting list in light of this subject.

Mormon Doctrine is still in print, I see. As long as it's still in print and is unrepudiated it's the Mormon doctrine as far as I'm concerned.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Mormon Doctrine is still in print, I see. As long as it's still in print and is unrepudiated it's the Mormon doctrine as far as I'm concerned.

LOL! Sounds like a threat.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'd be surprised if anybody here knew the answer to that question with any certainty. I do remember that the copyright page of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, by LeGrande Richards, said that all profits would go to the missionary program. Beyond that, I sure don't know.

Well, I suspect SU is probably right. If they had a policy that a GA could not profit from his calling by selling books, then I suspect we would know about the policy.

I actually know a GA pretty well. I will run it by him (tactfully, of course) and see what he says.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I would guess he is right too. In fact, I would guess LeGrand Richards included the statement precisely because it wasn't redundant with church policy.

Perhaps their policy is to not dictate a policy and let each GA exercise free agency and make their own decision on what do do.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I bet McConkie's heirs are laughing all the way to the bank. I bet that book had over a million sales.

This brings up a fascinating question: Is there an entry in Mormon Doctrine on priestcraft? I wonder what it says?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This brings up a fascinating question: Is there an entry in Mormon Doctrine on priestcraft? I wonder what it says?

lol!

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

LOL. If you don't know what do you think the answer is? I bet McConkie's heirs are laughing all the way to the bank. I bet that book had over a million sales.

The book had over a million sales; ergo, it MUST have been for profit. Brilliant.

Like I said, the one example that I know of (and for a book that was published almost 50 years ago) gave no profits to the writer. I am not certain of any other instance where profits were received or reneged.

If you have a definitive example, please share it.

One more point: I very much doubt that any person agrees to become a general authority of the church because of the economic benefits. If anybody here would like to go on record as disagreeing with that statement and ensure that you are the laughing stock of the board, you may do so here.