Did this General Authority lie in his Conference talk?

[Notatbm]

Several years ago a paystub and a memo belonging to Elder Eyering were leaked to "Mormon leaks" and it became public knowledge at the time how much some general authorities were paid and who was paid. It would seem the folks getting paid are all the full-time GAs. 

Elder Steven S Shumway of the Seventy gave a talk in General conference and made the following statement: 

"We do not receive financial compensation for serving. Instead, scripture teaches that for our “labor [we are] to receive the grace of God, that [we] might wax strong in the Spirit, [have] the knowledge of God, [and] teach with power and authority from God.” That is a very good trade! "

I pulled up the talk this came from to see if in context he actually explained the the "We" doesn't really include himself or the senior leadership of the church, but it really only applies to the worker bees below him. Nope- no disclaimer.

Do these guys still not get it that every word is scrutinized? I'm sure he meant "we" as in the collective membership of the church but even then the statement still is not true. The senior leadership of the church IS compensated. I don't have a problem with these guys being paid, but I do have a problem with them lying about it or talking about it in such a way as to convey the understanding that they themselves (looking at you Shumway) do not get paid.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/42shumway?lang=eng

 

[Pyreaux]

As usual, the critics don't understand "financial compensation" and a living stipend and financial support are distinct concepts, and often blur the lines depending on the point they are trying to make.

Financial Compensation Definition

Direct payment given in exchange for labor, skill, or services rendered, typically calculated based on market value, performance, or fixed hourly/salaried rates.

For generating personal income, create wealth, and provide a competitive reward for work performed.

Living Allowance Definition

A fixed, regular sum provided to cover mandatory living expenses (housing, food, healthcare, basic utilities) so an individual can focus entirely on a dedicated role (such as a missionary, academic researcher, graduate fellow, or full-time ecclesiastical leader).

To prevent financial hardship or bankruptcy while serving, rather than to serve as a wage for profit. It is not tied to performance, hours, or profit. 

When critics frame the leaked documents as a "scandal," they are trying to apply corporate rules to a volunteer model. Covering basic living costs is vastly different from earning a wage for work rendered. The Church has never claimed that full-time authorities receive zero financial support.

The Church publicly addresses living allowance for full-time General Authorities in church publications, manuals, and official statements dating back decades. D&C 42:71–73 and D&C 70:12 explicitly state that those who labor full-time in church administration are to have their necessary physical needs provided for out of church funds. The "leak" is canonized?

Edited 13 hours ago by Pyreaux
Corrections

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Not subject to taxes or Tithing.

Elder Erying paid tithing on his.  Whether that was by choice, iow an exception among apostles, or standard understanding (there are those who tithe on gifts, etc), I have no clue.  We just have the calculation on the back of his pay stub iirc.

[Pyreaux]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Elder Erying paid tithing on his.  Whether that was by choice, iow an exception among apostles, or standard understanding (there are those who tithe on gifts, etc), I have no clue.  We just have the calculation on the back of his pay stub iirc.

I understood the wealthy often dont accept the stipend, I suppose that means they are given it and tithing is how they give it back?

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

As usual, the critics don't understand "financial compensation" and a living stipend and financial support are distinct concepts, and often blur the lines depending on the point they are trying to make.

Many, strongly believing members don't understand this either. So I wouldn't call it specifically a lie, but I don't think that what was quoted here promotes understanding to most of what is received.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Financial Compensation Definition

Direct payment given in exchange for labor, skill, or services rendered, typically calculated based on market value, performance, or fixed hourly/salaried rates.

For generating personal income, create wealth, and provide a competitive reward for work performed.

Subject to standard payroll, income, and self-employment taxes as earned income. Also, Tithing.

Living Allowance Definition

A fixed, regular sum provided to cover mandatory living expenses (housing, food, healthcare, basic utilities) so an individual can focus entirely on a dedicated role (such as a missionary, academic researcher, graduate fellow, or full-time ecclesiastical leader).

To prevent financial hardship or bankruptcy while serving, rather than to serve as a wage for profit.

It is not tied to performance, hours, or profit. Not subject to taxes or Tithing.

When critics frame the leaked documents as a "scandal," they are trying to apply corporate rules to a volunteer model. Covering basic living costs is vastly different from earning a wage for work rendered. The Church has never claimed that full-time authorities receive zero financial support.

The Church publicly addresses living allowance for full-time General Authorities in church publications, manuals, and official statements dating back decades. D&C 42:71–73 and D&C 70:12 explicitly state that those who labor full-time in church administration are to have their necessary physical needs provided for out of church funds. The "leak" is canonized?

 

[Notatbm]

Here is the Eyering paystub along with the memo from the presiding bishopric that was leaked several years ago.

Y'all can decide if this is financial compensation. It sure looks like it as it is taxed both federally and by the state of utah except for the "Parsonage." Pyreaux would likely agree it is "financial compensation" as he is the one who stated it is compensation if it is taxed....well looks like it is taxed and the Seventy is lying. 

 

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I understood the wealthy often dont accept the stipend, I suppose that means they are given it and tithing is how they give it back?

Like I said I know people—and they aren’t mostly wealthy—that pay tithing on any money that comes to them, no matter how (not change back on the dollar kind of thing, but what they consider significant).  This included in one case a scholarship.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Many, strongly believing members don't understand this either. So I wouldn't call it specifically a lie, but I don't think that what was quoted here promotes understanding to most of what is received.

 

Exactly. I agree...

Mormon church leaders have stated many times the GAs get a "living stipend," but any time they get up and talk about compensation for clergy they default to "no paid clergy" or some such verbiage. They themselves are paid so they cannot honestly state that.  

A more transparent approach would be to say; "while we as general authorities of the church are compensated financially for our work, the remaining balance of lay clergy and other volunteers in our church perform their duties for no monetary compensation."

I'm sure there is a smart man somewhere in the COB (Id include women too, but we all know the the church makes all decisions independently of anything a woman might have to say) who can wordsmith this in such a way to make it very clear. Problem is, the GA leadership wants to keep the rank and file believing they don't get paid-IMHO.

Here are some examples that lead to confusion:

President Thomas S. Monson in 2006:

I answered that the Church is not wealthy but that we follow the ancient biblical principle of tithing, which principle is reemphasized in our modern scripture. I explained also that our Church has no paid ministry.... (lds.org)

  
Elder Boyd K. Packer in 1979:

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there is no paid ministry, no professional clergy, as is common in other churches. (lds.org)

 
Elder Larry Y. Wilson in 2012:

Because there is no paid ministry, almost every churchgoer has a responsibility. (mormonnewsroom)

 
Ensign Article in 2013:

Why does the Church have unpaid clergy? From the beginning, the Lord has called His disciples from among ordinary people with diverse backgrounds. They served out of love for the Lord and for others. In the Book of Mormon, for instance, the prophet Alma chose priesthood leaders and “commanded them … [to] labor with their own hands for their support. (lds.org)

 
Mormon Newsroom in 2009:

Members volunteer their time to serve in various positions in tens of thousands of congregations throughout the world. Their service is critical at the local level because the Church has no full-time paid clergy. (mormonnewsroom)

 
Elder Derek A. Cuthbert in 1985:

Over the years of my membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have greatly appreciated the opportunities for service, for there is no paid ministry. (lds.org)

 
Carlfred B. Broderick in 1979:

I am persuaded that one of the reasons our Church is designed differently from others, without a paid clergy, is that the Lord knows that only through service can we learn the most important virtues. (lds.org)

 
Dale M. Valentine in 2008:

Learning that the Church has an unpaid ministry or that living oracles guide the members is often surprising to investigators. (lds.org)

 
Preach My Gospel

Soon after baptism new members receive from priesthood leaders the blessing of a responsibility to help in the Church. This is referred to as a calling. All of the work in the Church is voluntary. No one is paid for such service. (lds.org)

I have heard the definition of "Clergy" argued in the past that the General Authorities are not Clergy. Yea right they arent.

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

Here is the Eyering paystub along with the memo from the presiding bishopric that was leaked several years ago.

Y'all can decide if this is financial compensation. It sure looks like it as it is taxed both federally and by the state of utah except for the "Parsonage." Pyreaux would likely agree it is "financial compensation" as he is the one who stated it is compensation if it is taxed....well looks like it is taxed and the Seventy is lying. 

I stand corrected, living allowance is taxed. The only part of a minister’s living allowance that can be excluded from income tax is a designated parsonage (housing), the portion meant to cover food and transportation is taxable. But you are still wrong, taxability does not equal a corporate salary. Paying taxes does not turn a non-profit cost-of-living stipend into a commercial wage. The 'parsonage' designation exists exclusively for religious ministers receiving housing support. 

You are taking a sociological definition of 'paid clergy' and trying to judge it using corporate terminology. When scholars, historians, and leaders say the Church has 'no paid ministry,' they mean we do not have a professional clergy class, there is no leader hired to make a career out of preaching. 99.9% of all ministry in the Church is run by unpaid volunteers. The 0.1% that receive a living allowance do not receive a wage. In that sense, nobody in Church leadership receives financial compensation for their service.

The allowance is sustenance, not pay, is fundamentally different from being paid. It aims for a zero-sum, break-even outcome rather than accumulation.

Edited 12 hours ago by Pyreaux

[bluebell]

I don't think it was a lie for two reasons.  The weakest reason is because an allowance isn't the same as being paid for time served or work being done.  The (in my opinion) stronger reason it's not a lie is because it seems clear (to me at least) that he's speaking in generalities.  In general those who serve in the church receive no compensation whatsoever.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it was a lie for two reasons.  The weakest reason is because an allowance isn't the same as being paid for time served or work being done.  The (in my opinion) stronger reason it's not a lie is because it seems clear (to me at least) that he's speaking in generalities.  In general those who serve in the church receive no compensation whatsoever.

I agree. I don’t think Elder Shumway was lying here. The fact that full-time General Authorities receive a living allowance is hardly a recent discovery—it was publicly reported in Church financial reports in General Conference as early as 1944 and acknowledged in Church publications long before Elder Shumway’s talk.

It seems much more likely that Elder Shumway was speaking about the general practice of unpaid Church service. The overwhelming majority of Church service is performed without financial compensation, which is the longstanding basis for describing the Church as having an “unpaid ministry.”

The wording may be imprecise, but calling it a lie seems unwarranted. If Elder Shumway were actually trying to conceal the fact that GAs receive a living allowance, it would be a rather odd thing to “lie” about when that fact was already publicly known.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it was a lie for two reasons.  The weakest reason is because an allowance isn't the same as being paid for time served or work being done.  The (in my opinion) stronger reason it's not a lie is because it seems clear (to me at least) that he's speaking in generalities.  In general those who serve in the church receive no compensation whatsoever.

I agree.

I think one could point out the difference by looking at someone when their health gets to the point they can no longer serve.  Do they get severance pay or does the allowance continue?

If no cut in pay for less or no service, it’s not a salary imo.  

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

seems much more likely that Elder Shumway was speaking about the general practice of unpaid Church service. The overwhelming majority of Church service is performed without financial compensation, which is the longstanding basis for describing the Church as having an “unpaid ministry.”

If you read the talk, he is definitely talking generally imo.

Quote

This is why I admire you covenant-keeping disciples, including our dear missionaries, who set aside your desires and challenges to serve God by serving His children. God “delights to honor [you for serving Him] in righteousness.” He promises, “Great shall be [your] reward and eternal shall be [your] glory.” When we say yes to serving, we are saying yes to Jesus Christ. And when we say yes to Christ, we are saying yes to the most abundant life possible.

Quote

Callings do not determine or validate a person’s worth or worthiness. Rather, as we labor with God in whatever way He asks, we grow into the measure of our own creation.

Quote

Second, serving elevates our homes and churches into holy places where we can practice covenant living.

For example, our covenant to always remember Christ is made individually, but this covenant is lived as we serve others. Callings surround us with opportunities to “bear … one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” When we serve because we love God and want to live our covenants, service that seems dutiful and draining becomes joyful and transformative.

He is talking to the audience as one community of which he is part.