Should General Authorities publish?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Is Bushman a general authority?

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Irrelevant. If the prospect of earning profit must cause us to question the motives of the source, what does it matter?

I should note, parenthetically, this is a bit of a hijack of my topic, although it's still interesting. My original argument was about the theological impact of forbidding GAs from publishing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Irrelevant. If the prospect of earning profit must cause us to question the motives of the source, what does it matter?

You are arguing a point that I have not made, and I am not sure if anyone has made that point. I don't believe that the royalties substantially alter what the GA's put in their books. Rather, it is a question of ethics. Is it appropriate for someone in a high position in the church to make a significant financial gain from the publication of a church-related work? If so, what type of profit-making would you consider to be inappropriate?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Irrelevant. If the prospect of earning profit must cause us to question the motives of the source, what does it matter?

I should note, parenthetically, this is a bit of a hijack of my topic, although it's still interesting. My original argument was about the theological impact of forbidding GAs from publishing.

And what would be the "theological" impact?

If what they are publishing isn't doctrine, wouldn't the impact be minimal? If it is doctrine, wouldn't it be better presented in a publication that the church actually endorses? Otherwise, aren't we just breeding more confusion about what is and what is not doctrine?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Irrelevant. If the prospect of earning profit must cause us to question the motives of the source, what does it matter?

I should note, parenthetically, this is a bit of a hijack of my topic, although it's still interesting. My original argument was about the theological impact of forbidding GAs from publishing.

You can't see a difference between a person professional paid to publish and a supposed administrator being paid, in light of our proud claims we don't have paid clergy?

I don't believe people object to GAs publishing how to books, although I wish all profits were donated to the Church, that way their motives could be beyond reproach.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Moreover, it is fascinating to me that those who criticize all shades of "mullah-ness" would be so emphatic in counseling the church's leadership in what they ought to publish, all the while cheering the latest historical expose by Richard Bushman or Prince and Wright.

Ironic indeed.

Your continued crusade against these books is quite amusing, Tex. Have you even read them yet?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You are arguing a point that I have not made, and I am not sure if anyone has made that point. I don't believe that the royalties substantially alter what the GA's put in their books. Rather, it is a question of ethics. Is it appropriate for someone in a high position in the church to make a significant financial gain from the publication of a church-related work? If so, what type of profit-making would you consider to be inappropriate?

If the royalties do not substantially alter what they put in their books, how is it a question of ethics?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

And what would be the "theological" impact?

If what they are publishing isn't doctrine, wouldn't the impact be minimal? If it is doctrine, wouldn't it be better presented in a publication that the church actually endorses? Otherwise, aren't we just breeding more confusion about what is and what is not doctrine?

My personal take is that they are charged with sending the name of Christ into every nation, home, and heart that they can reach, and if publishing is a means to that end, so be it. In my mind, the apostles have the best interests of God and his people at heart, and if they really thought their publications were generating all the confusion you say it does, they'd stop.

In reality, I think it's exactly the opposite, evidenced by the fact that passages from various authorities' books end up in church curricula.

Moreover, you have not made any convincing argument as to why Neal Maxwell giving a talk in Conference is okay with you, but instead publishing that same talk as a chapter in a book is verboten. The whole "it takes more money" line doesn't compute. I don't hear a lot of church members citing publishing costs as a divining rod to what they take do or do not take seriously.

Originally Posted by Archaea

You can't see a difference between a person professional paid to publish and a supposed administrator being paid, in light of our proud claims we don't have paid clergy?

I don't believe people object to GAs publishing how to books, although I wish all profits were donated to the Church, that way their motives could be beyond reproach.

Of course I see a difference. I'm merely using your broad brush to paint a different profession. If your objection is money, you must be consistent.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your continued crusade against these books is quite amusing, Tex. Have you even read them yet?

This is not a crusade against these books. Please try and understand my point here.

[All-American]

Again, regarding profits for publications:

Does anybody here believe that becoming a General Authority is a good financial move?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

Again, regarding profits for publications:

Does anybody here believe that becoming a General Authority is a good financial move?

Not for most. However, should somebody try to recover losses through publications?

If you're going to take the job, don't worry about the consequences. Teachers complain constantly about compensation. Don't take the job if it pays so badly.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Not for most. However, should somebody try to recover losses through publications?

If you're going to take the job, don't worry about the consequences. Teachers complain constantly about compensation. Don't take the job if it pays so badly.

I don't see bookshelves flooded with titles by General Authorities. Here is a link to Deseret Book's bestsellers:

http://deseretbook.com/store/promo?promotion_id=4062

Elbowing their way from the bottom of the list are the only two books on the list by General Authorities: One Bright Shining Hope, by President Hinckley, and All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, by Elder Maxwell, who is probably not receiving royalties at this time. Could you argue that either of them are "recovering losses through publications"?

I don't believe that the argument can be made that publications are a significant source of income for General Authorities.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I don't see bookshelves flooded with titles by General Authorities. Here is a link to Deseret Book's bestsellers:

http://deseretbook.com/store/promo?promotion_id=4062

Elbowing their way from the bottom of the list are the only two books on the list by General Authorities: One Bright Shining Hope, by President Hinckley, and All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, by Elder Maxwell, who is probably not receiving royalties at this time. Could you argue that either of them are "recovering losses through publications"?

I don't believe that the argument can be made that publications are a significant source of income for General Authorities.

We don't know the specifics, but there is a high probability you are correct that most GAs don't receive a significant supplement for royalties. It is an appearance matter. If you want to claim a lay priesthood, allowing them to earn from their teachings is contradictory. I release the fulltime leaders are paid modest sums.

If the GAs need more, we should pay them more, not encourage them to rely upon royalties.