Should General Authorities publish?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

That's my point. I don't think they are relying on royalties, else we would see more publish. I don't believe that royalties are a major factor in the decision to publish, and possibly not even a minor factor.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

That's my point. I don't think they are relying on royalties, else we would see more publish. I don't believe that royalties are a major factor in the decision to publish, and possibly not even a minor factor.

It seems more effective if GAs continue doing their excellent job of administration, and leave publishing to those truly skilled at it. If a GA was a published writer beforehand, then I see no reason for him to cease unless he rides the crest of GA fandom to greater wealth.

Most of the GA publications, several notable ones notwithstanding, don't really stand out.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It seems more effective if GAs continue doing their excellent job of administration, and leave publishing to those truly skilled at it. If a GA was a published writer beforehand, then I see no reason for him to cease unless he rides the crest of GA fandom to greater wealth.

Most of the GA publications, several notable ones notwithstanding, don't really stand out.

I wonder if publishing falls, however loosely, under the umbrella of "Administration." They want to get a message out to members of the church (or beyond, as several of President Hinckley's books seem to attempt) and publishing is one method of doing so in a manner that is not otherwise possible.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

I wonder if publishing falls, however loosely, under the umbrella of "Administration." They want to get a message out to members of the church (or beyond, as several of President Hinckley's books seem to attempt) and publishing is one method of doing so in a manner that is not otherwise possible.

This is my thought as well.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

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

I was referring to a specific jab you took. That and your second reference to Bushman.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

That's my point. I don't think they are relying on royalties, else we would see more publish.

You don't think GA's publish a lot of books? Do you ever visit Deseret Book? It seems that every Christmas season, KSL is running ads for GA books non-stop. I dare bet the royalties can be substantial.

Originally Posted by All-American

I don't believe that royalties are a major factor in the decision to publish, and possibly not even a minor factor.

Not even a minor factor? That seems like quite a stretch.

Let's suppose for a second that BRM received royalties from Mormon Doctrine. If so, he had to have made a fortune off of that book. Given the chain of events and controversy surrounding the publication of the second edition, do you honestly believe that a substantial revenue stream would not be even a "minor factor" in how he handled that situation?

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by All-American

I wonder if publishing falls, however loosely, under the umbrella of "Administration." They want to get a message out to members of the church (or beyond, as several of President Hinckley's books seem to attempt) and publishing is one method of doing so in a manner that is not otherwise possible.

If the message were sufficiently important for the salvation of church members, they could put the message online at little or no cost. My problem with GA's publishing is that it puts up a cost barrier for those who want to read the words of inspired men.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I was referring to a specific jab you took. That and your second reference to Bushman.

I know what you're referring to, and you're missing the point. As I have repeatedly said, I have no problem with Bushman publishing his book.

I'm ruminating on the interesting contrast that exists in folks who think the GA's should never publish anything while at the same time waiting for the next LDS historical "expose" with all the glee of a new Harry Potter novel.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by All-American

Again, regarding profits for publications:

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

That's an interesting argument. I guess it boils down the question I asked Tex: How do you define priestcraft? What amount of money or what type of activity would you consider to be non-kosher in terms of profiting from the calling?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You don't think GA's publish a lot of books? Do you ever visit Deseret Book? It seems that every Christmas season, KSL is running ads for GA books non-stop. I dare bet the royalties can be substantial.

I looked just now at Deseret Book's web site and the GA books are sparse. Maybe it's just a slow time of year.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Not even a minor factor? That seems like quite a stretch.

Let's suppose for a second that BRM received royalties from Mormon Doctrine. If so, he had to have made a fortune off of that book. Given the chain of events and controversy surrounding the publication of the second edition, do you honestly believe that a substantial revenue stream would not be even a "minor factor" in how he handled that situation?

I think the fact that the book was riddled with errors, which even he acknowledged in the forward of the second edition, had more to do with it.