Should General Authorities publish?

[creekster]

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.

Thta's probably correct except the policy could typically be to go to the genreal fund as oposed to a specific function. I have no knowledge either way, but I am not persuaded that LeGrand Richards' forward resolves the question.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The difference is the medium.

A book costs a lot more money to produce and it must be purchased as a single item. As a result, it tends to carry more weight than a talk normally would.
Additionally, according to what I have heard, books are not vetted to nearly the same extent as talks in General Conference or articles in the Ensign.

That strikes me as bit of a distinction without a difference. It's all subjective of course, but somehow I don't picture folks sitting around thinking, "Well, this book cost a lot to produce, so it must be important doctrine. But that General Conference talk ... that's featherweight stuff."

If you're going to recommend against publication, maybe you ought to recommend they not speak altogether. General Conference could instead be one big scripture recitation, with the only extemporaneous comments coming from the prophet himself.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

Thta's probably correct except the policy could typically be to go to the genreal fund as oposed to a specific function. I have no knowledge either way, but I am not persuaded that LeGrand Richards' forward resolves the question.

There is evidence that general authorities receive royalties on their books (note: I'm glad they both publish and receive royalties). This is from Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, page 210:

Although not a formal salary, general authorities can also receive significant income from the books they publish. When he published The Way To Perfection in 1931, Joseph Fielding Smith specified that all its future royalties would go to the LDS Genealogical Society. However, he was not as generous with the royalties from his dozens of other books. For example, when President Smith died in July 1972, his royalties from Deseret Book Company totaled $9,636 for the previous six-month period. Presiding Bishop (and later apostle) LeGrand Richards set a remarkable example by accepting no royalties for his Marvelous Work and a Wonder which had sold 2 million copies by the time of his death in 1983. However, a president of the LDS church's publishing company has observed that very few general authorities have declined royalties for their books.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

That strikes me as bit of a distinction without a difference. It's all subjective of course, but somehow I don't picture folks sitting around thinking, "Well, this book cost a lot to produce, so it must be important doctrine. But that General Conference talk ... that's featherweight stuff."

If you're going to recommend against publication, maybe you ought to recommend they not speak altogether. General Conference could instead be one big scripture recitation, with the only extemporaneous comments coming from the prophet himself.

Ah, yes. Because totally silencing all GA communications is my clear goal here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

However, a president of the LDS church's publishing company has observed that very few general authorities have declined royalties for their books.

I find that quite disturbing.

What about you, Tex? That doesn't bother you at all?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Ah, yes. Because totally silencing all GA communications is my clear goal here.

If the argument is "how do we know when it's doctrine, and how do we know when it's just their own thoughts?" ... it sure sounds like exactly that.

It's an odd position to have twisted yourself into: that their books carry more weight than their General Conference addresses. But regardless, is it not their mission and duty to be "special witnesses of Christ" to all the world? Whereto do you decide that it is inappropriate for them to do so, at their own discretion?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I find that quite disturbing.

What about you, Tex? That doesn't bother you at all?

Should it? Are we afraid the prospect of receiving some compensation will unduly influence their "objectivity"?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Should it? Are we afraid the prospect of receiving some compensation will unduly influence their "objectivity"?

Does the word "priestcraft" mean anything?

Yes, the prospects of profits for publications bothers me. If they are truly about the Lord's work, then they shouldn't be seeing how much profit they can make from spreading the word.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Does the word "priestcraft" mean anything?

Yes, the prospects of profits for publications bothers me. If they are truly about the Lord's work, then they shouldn't be seeing how much profit they can make from spreading the word.

Hmm ... doesn't seem to bother you when Bushman does it.

PS. I love the way you worded that! ("seeing how much profit ...") Nice to see you continue to impute the worst motives to the best men.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hmm ... doesn't seem to bother you when Bushman does it.

Is Bushman a general authority?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Hmm ... doesn't seem to bother you when Bushman does it.

PS. I love the way you worded that! ("seeing how much profit ...") Nice to see you continue to impute the worst motives to the best men.

Bushman is a university professor, whose job it is to publish or perish. He is specifically trained in what he publishes according scholarly endeavors and credentials. Should anybody take a profitable publication with a grain of salt? Yes.