General Authority Books

[David T]

Thanks for your responses.

I never buy GA's books. What can they tell us, of importance, that they can't tell us at General Conference?

To me it does, very much, smack of priestcraft.

Since no one has ever said that purchasing hardbound collections of slightly revised talks and similar biographical musings is essential to one's Salvation, I'm not really seeing the validity of the accusation of priestcaraft - especially since such books are never hawked during conference, and are clearly marked as not being official publications of the Church.

 

I personally enjoy having some of these collections. I enjoy some of the additional insights on their beliefs and character I get from reading their additional - and at times uncorrelated - musings. Just as anyone can publish a book on their thoughts on the scriptures, I don't think being a General Authority should disqualify oneself from publishing.

 

Sometimes, the book contains expanded versions based on talks given - expansions with nuances that would not fit into a closely regulated 15 or 20-minute broadcast window. I appreciate seeing some of these additional thoughts, whether or not I necessarily agree with them. 

Edited December 13, 2013 by David T

[Stone holm]

Since no one has ever said that purchasing hardbound collections of slightly revised talks and similar biographical musings is essential to one's Salvation, I'm not really seeing the validity of the accusation of priestcaraft - especially since such books are never hawked during conference, and are clearly marked as not being official publications of the Church.

 

I personally enjoy having some of these collections. I enjoy some of the additional insights on their beliefs and character I get from reading their additional - and at times uncorrelated - musings. Just as anyone can publish a book on their thoughts on the scriptures, I don't think being a General Authority should disqualify oneself from publishing.

 

Sometimes, the book contains expanded versions based on talks given - expansions with nuances that would not fit into a closely regulated 15 or 20-minute broadcast window. I appreciate seeing some of these additional thoughts, whether or not I necessarily agree with them.

I don't see it as Priestcraft, members enjoy those books. The only time it ever gave me pause , was right after I was baptized back when the local 70's quorums had little bookstores at the chapels , a general authority came through and complained about the fact that the 70's had some non-GA authored books in their display window. But those bookstores disappeared along with the local 70's quorums. Most of them were having difficulty selling the requisite number of books that Deseret Books required in order for them to maintain their dealerships anyway.

[Alan]

Since no one has ever said that purchasing hardbound collections of slightly revised talks and similar biographical musings is essential to one's Salvation, I'm not really seeing the validity of the accusation of priestcaraft - especially since such books are never hawked during conference, and are clearly marked as not being official publications of the Church.

 

 

 

Well, DB is a church owned business. If it's published by DB as opposed to some other publisher, a certain status is attached to it. It's not official, but as close to it as you can get. Not only that, but DB (and presumably the authors) know that the LDS faithful will buy these books because of who writes them. It's perhaps not priestcraft in the purest sense of the word, but it's pretty close......... unless, of course, the author receives no recompence or gives it away.

And if much of the material is from general conference talks or other official sources, then the accusation of priestcraft is harder to deny because the author would be making money from his preaching.

 

Like I said, I never buy such books.

[David T]

If paying towards someones personal and individual profits was the only way to get access to General Conference and essential Church teachings, you might have a point.

Otherwise,it's simple supply and demand marketing.

Edited December 13, 2013 by David T

[cinepro]

To be fair, it should be noted that it's only been the last 10 years or so that every GC talk from the last 40 years (and earlier) has been available instantaneously to anyone with an internet connection.  

 

Before that, finding a specific talk would involve the possession of a personal archive of Ensigns or conference reports, or a trip to the local library.  And that assumes you knew which talk you were looking for.  If you just had a quote but didn't know where it was from, or were looking for talks on a specific subject, it was much harder.

[brightpath]

Speaking from experience the GA's do get royalties off the books they write. They do get a generous salary from the church too

[Stargazer]

Have you seen his house?  If that's what "modest financial circumstances" can get you, then may I ever be so modest.

 

If I had saved my money diligently, made wise investments, and been a good steward, I could have had a very very nice house now.  But I didn't, so I don't.

[cinepro]

Speaking from experience the GA's do get royalties off the books they write. They do get a generous salary from the church too

 

So which GA are you that has gotten book royalties and a generous salary?

[mormonnewb]

If our leaders are guilty of "priestcraft," then I suggest they should plead "non compos mentis" because they are insanely bad at it. Our leaders earn a pittance compared to their Protestant counterparts.

For example, Pastor Joel Osteen earns MILLIONS in salary, book sales and speaking fees, and for the most part, his members are fine with it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they take up a special collection for his birthday or his anniversary as pastor. In a world where Kim Kardashian earns millions in the absence of any discernible skill, should the man of God live in poverty?

And when we look at the numbers, I almost feel sorry for our POOR leaders. It's been reported that Pastor Osteen has an annual salary of $200,000 to shepherd his flock of 30,000 -- 0.2% of the LDS membership. I'm an American, so my math is probably wrong, but if Pres Monson was paid the same amount on a per capita basis, his annual salary would be $100 million ... and growing.

Interestingly, Pastor Osteen stopped taking a salary a few years back and instead lives on book royalties, product sales and speaker honorariums (the royalties on his second book alone were estimated to upwards of $11 million).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1869498/posts

In contrast, Pres Monson travels the world giving talks for free and does other "minor" duties like, say, possessing all of the keys of the priesthood.

I'm quick to find fault with leadership (to whom much is given much is required), but on this score, our leaders are quite commendable. Whatever they receive in terms of stipend and book royalties is a TINY fraction of what they deserve.

[Calm]

Let's not forget through that a good deal of pastors get paid so little that they need to take a second job to pay the bills

[Alan]

If our leaders are guilty of "priestcraft," then I suggest they should plead "non compos mentis" because they are insanely bad at it. Our leaders earn a pittance compared to their Protestant counterparts.

For example, Pastor Joel Osteen earns MILLIONS in salary, book sales and speaking fees, and for the most part, his members are fine with it. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they take up a special collection for his birthday or his anniversary as pastor. In a world where Kim Kardashian earns millions in the absence of any discernible skill, should the man of God live in poverty?

And when we look at the numbers, I almost feel sorry for our POOR leaders. It's been reported that Pastor Osteen has an annual salary of $200,000 to shepherd his flock of 30,000 -- 0.2% of the LDS membership. I'm an American, so my math is probably wrong, but if Pres Monson was paid the same amount on a per capita basis, his annual salary would be $100 million ... and growing.

Interestingly, Pastor Osteen stopped taking a salary a few years back and instead lives on book royalties, product sales and speaker honorariums (the royalties on his second book alone were estimated to upwards of $11 million).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1869498/posts

In contrast, Pres Monson travels the world giving talks for free and does other "minor" duties like, say, possessing all of the keys of the priesthood.

I'm quick to find fault with leadership (to whom much is given much is required), but on this score, our leaders are quite commendable. Whatever they receive in terms of stipend and book royalties is a TINY fraction of what they deserve.

 

You're right, your maths isn't good.

You are comparing one pastor with 3 members of the 1st Pres., 12 Apostles, the presiding bishopric, and several Quorums of Seventy's.

And, who says that Osteen is the benchmark by which these things should be measured. As Calmoriah said, there are a lot of poor pastors out there.

[mormonnewb]

You're right, your maths isn't good.

You are comparing one pastor with 3 members of the 1st Pres., 12 Apostles, the presiding bishopric, and several Quorums of Seventy's.

And, who says that Osteen is the benchmark by which these things should be measured. As Calmoriah said, there are a lot of poor pastors out there.

There are lots of poor pastors out there but not ONE of them is the pastor of a mega church. Also, to correct my math, I've seen estimates of Osteen's membership to be as high as 45,000. That drops Pres Monson's per capita salary to a paltry $66.6 million.

However, as you noted, Pres Monson does not run the church alone ... and neither does Osteen. His church, Lakewood, has 335 FULL-TIME staffers, including at least 5 pastors (4 of whom are named Osteen). I'd guess they have about 10 pastors given that they have 20 or so ministries. However, assuming just 5 pastors, we'd need a Quorum of the 1,600 to be as top-heavy, ALL of whom would be paid $120,000 (this is my estimate of the Osteen Five average salary, given that Joel makes $200,000 and assuming that he pays the others HALF his salary).

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/print-edition/2013/03/08/bjiw-joel-osteen.html?page=all

But, once again, you're right that Osteen isn't the appropriate yardstick to measure against since he is really an amateur when it comes to priestcraft. His $200,000 is TINY in comparison to the size of his congregation. The median pastor salary is just under $87,000 (or about 43% of Osteen's salary). Yet, the median congregation size is not even close to 43% of Lakeside (about 20,000). There are MANY preachers who earn in excess of $200,000 with congregations that are a fraction as large.

http://www1.salary.com/Pastor-Salary.html

Finally, I know that my math isn't good, yet I don't see how even someone good at math could argue that our leaders are overpaid.

[Alan]

They're overpaid because they shouldn't be paid at all unless they need it.

[Duncan]

They're overpaid because they shouldn't be paid at all unless they need it.

 

 

if the brethren and general auxillary leaders aren't working FT anymore then wouldn't they need it?

[David T]

They're overpaid because they shouldn't be paid at all unless they need it.

 

What does that even mean?

[mormonnewb]

There are lots of poor pastors out there but not ONE of them is the pastor of a mega church. Also, to correct my math, I've seen estimates of Osteen's membership to be as high as 45,000. That drops Pres Monson's per capita salary to a paltry $66.6 million.

However, as you noted, Pres Monson does not run the church alone ... and neither does Osteen. His church, Lakewood, has 335 FULL-TIME staffers, including at least 5 pastors (4 of whom are named Osteen). I'd guess they have about 10 pastors given that they have 20 or so ministries. However, assuming just 5 pastors, we'd need a Quorum of the 1,600 to be as top-heavy, ALL of whom would be paid $120,000 (this is my estimate of the Osteen Five average salary, given that Joel makes $200,000 and assuming that he pays the others HALF his salary).http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/print-edition/2013/03/08/bjiw-joel-osteen.html?page=all

But, once again, you're right that Osteen isn't the appropriate yardstick to measure against since he is really an amateur when it comes to priestcraft. His $200,000 is TINY in comparison to the size of his congregation. The median pastor salary is just under $87,000 (or about 43% of Osteen's salary). Yet, the median congregation size is not even close to 43% of Lakeside (about 20,000). There are MANY preachers who earn in excess of $200,000 with congregations that are a fraction as large.http://www1.salary.com/Pastor-Salary.html

Finally, I know that my math isn't good, yet I don't see how even someone good at math could argue that our leaders are overpaid.

They're overpaid because they shouldn't be paid at all unless they need it.

You could have just said that the last time and saved me a lot of "math."

And, by the way, how do you define "need"? Does a church leader "need" three meals a day? In a few cases, the answer might be "No." (as I was told upon joining the Church, "we are a fatsome and delightful people").

Does a leader "need" a new car every year? I doubt it. What about every five years? Ten years? Or must the leader drive a car until it literally disintegrates while he is at the wheel?

What about the size of his home? Does he "need" more than a single room hut? What about a 2-bedroom condo? Must he move every time one of the kids leaves the nest, creating an extra bedroom?

Now, don't me wrong. All of these are subjective questions with no "right" answer and it requires a fair amount of judgmental piety to answer what another person needs. On that score, I'm with you, Brother! I'm a former Baptist and we put the "mental" in judgmental. I'd love nothing more than to rail against "the Man" (Public Enemy's Fight the Power is playing in my head now). And, in the next thread, I'm sure that I'll be doing just that ("Yeah, boy! Flava Flav!"). But, in my oh-so-humble opinion, the Brethren exercise considerable restraint in terms of compensation because if I was the Prophet, I'd have enough bling to make a rapper blush. (Reason 238,468 that I'm not the Prophet)

Edited December 18, 2013 by mormonnewb

[AndyDnom]

It's my understanding that many GA's make enough off of book royalties that they do not need the "stipend" trotted out by our enemies as proof that we pay our leaders. Doggoned if they do, doggoned if they don't, I suppose.

 

How would you have that understanding? that information is kept secret.

[Kenngo1969]

Buzzard:

It's my understanding that many GA's make enough off of book royalties that they do not need the "stipend" trotted out by our enemies as proof that we pay our leaders. Doggoned if they do, doggoned if they don't, I suppose.

 

 

How would you have that understanding? that information is kept secret.

The only place the "secret" information of an author's annual income from royalties would be listed is on an author's personal tax return.  Right after you put your money where your mouth is by publishing your own personal tax return for us all to examine, we can discuss whether General Authorities ought to be required to do the same.  Until then ...

[Stargazer]

In contrast, Pres Monson travels the world giving talks for free and does other "minor" duties like, say, possessing all of the keys of the priesthood.

 

 

It's a tough job, but someone has to do it!

[Stargazer]

And yet President Packer, who's only employment has been the church has a home worth over a million dollars.  Many GA's, including President Monson  have second and a third holiday homes.  I don't begrudge these people their salaries, but I think it is a little disingenuous when members claim their leaders are not compensated well.   

 

Hmmm.  My parents bought a 3BR 1.5BA home in 1959 for $12,000.  My oldest brother occupies the place now.  I looked up its current value, and that is a half-million dollars.  This is largely due to inflation, although my father did do a few serial remodels over the years -- work done largely by his own hand -- making it larger, improving this and that, and so on.  Do you think that Elder Packer just bought it last week for a cool million, or something?

[Stargazer]

They're overpaid because they shouldn't be paid at all unless they need it.

 

Well, now, there's the problem.  I'd be surprised if the Church forces any of them to accept the stipend if they don't want or need it. 

 

Two GA's I am somewhat familiar with are Monte J. Brough and Bruce D. Porter.  Brough was a 5-year GA, I think, so he's not there any longer, but he was one of my sons' mission president.  My son was one of his Assistants, and he said that Brough didn't take the normal MP stipend, and that was because Brough is a multimillionaire.  I doubt that he accepted a GA stipend either.  Porter on the other hand was largely an academic during his working life (worked as a Russian translator for a govt agency, too), and was not by any means well off.  I doubt that he could survive without a stipend.

 

I think this whole worry is a tempest in a teapot.

[hoo rider]

 

 

I think this whole worry is a tempest in a teapot.

 

You're probably right, but this sort of thing is fueled by the secrecy surrounding the stipends (and the church's finances in general).  It seems like it would be an easy thing for the church to disclose during the annual audit statement in general conference.  Something along the lines of "50 general authorities received a stipend during the last fiscal year for a combined total of $5,000,000."  That would let GAs keep their privacy while giving the membership a rough idea of how much of a stipend President Monson is giving the GAs (and probably himself).

 

I think as humans (or maybe just Americans), we tend to be naturally skeptical of any claims stating that everything is ok and we don't need to worry about the details.  As an active member of the church, I am mildly bothered by the church's financial secrecy.

[Duncan]

Well, now, there's the problem.  I'd be surprised if the Church forces any of them to accept the stipend if they don't want or need it. 

 

Two GA's I am somewhat familiar with are Monte J. Brough and Bruce D. Porter.  Brough was a 5-year GA, I think, so he's not there any longer, but he was one of my sons' mission president.  My son was one of his Assistants, and he said that Brough didn't take the normal MP stipend, and that was because Brough is a multimillionaire.  I doubt that he accepted a GA stipend either.  Porter on the other hand was largely an academic during his working life (worked as a Russian translator for a govt agency, too), and was not by any means well off.  I doubt that he could survive without a stipend.

 

I think this whole worry is a tempest in a teapot.

 

 

Elder Brough passed away. I know that Elder John Madsen came here in 2007 and I briefly talked with him, his shoes could not have been any older and his scriptures were extremely well used!!

[Coreyb]

You're probably right, but this sort of thing is fueled by the secrecy surrounding the stipends (and the church's finances in general).  It seems like it would be an easy thing for the church to disclose during the annual audit statement in general conference.  Something along the lines of "50 general authorities received a stipend during the last fiscal year for a combined total of $5,000,000."  That would let GAs keep their privacy while giving the membership a rough idea of how much of a stipend President Monson is giving the GAs (and probably himself).

 

I think as humans (or maybe just Americans), we tend to be naturally skeptical of any claims stating that everything is ok and we don't need to worry about the details.  As an active member of the church, I am mildly bothered by the church's financial secrecy.

How many details would you want. I am a member of a local Ironworkers Union that has a financial report at every monthly meeting. the thing takes almost a full hour with the guy reading it super fast. That is for an organization with about six hundred total members and eight employees. Most in the Church calling for open finances would not be satisfied with a very general financial report like you suggested and nobody would want to listen to/read it anyways. A full financial report would be enormous and the only people to touch it would be detractors mining for numbers to pull out of context in order to make nasty internet memes and video clips like tea partiers do with the federal governments budget. Be careful what you ask for

[hoo rider]

How many details would you want. I am a member of a local Ironworkers Union that has a financial report at every monthly meeting. the thing takes almost a full hour with the guy reading it super fast. That is for an organization with about six hundred total members and eight employees. Most in the Church calling for open finances would not be satisfied with a very general financial report like you suggested and nobody would want to listen to/read it anyways. A full financial report would be enormous and the only people to touch it would be detractors mining for numbers to pull out of context in order to make nasty internet memes and video clips like tea partiers do with the federal governments budget. Be careful what you ask for

 

As to the number of details for stipends - a statement like I gave in my first paragraph would be fine.  

 

If you're referring to details for church finances, I think giving details like they used to (before 1959) give in general conference would be good (i.e. total income, spending on schools, buildings, missions, charity, etc.).  Maybe I'd want more, I haven't put a lot of thought into how many details would be needed.  As for reading it in general conference, I'd keep that to very general numbers.   The church could make a more detailed report available on its website if it felt the need to give more details.  With regard to detractors, that doesn't bother me.  Just like with the federal government budget, you'll have people making arguments for and against.  Discussion and argument help us not only learn more about things, but also help us learn about ourselves and what we personally value.