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 yesterday at 12:20 AM 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 Monday at 08:51 PM 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 yesterday at 12:42 AM 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.  

[Navidad]

Well, I may be the only person on this forum who has actually pastored and who has received a housing allowance and/or parsonage for my ministry. What the LDS do is what virtually all denominations or churches do regarding clergy compensation. It is a bit complex, but not overly complicated. One must distinguish between income tax and self-employment tax (for social security purposes). This IRS rule is for ordained ministers regardless of faith affiliation. A church or denomination may provide a church-owned parsonage for their minister. The church may pay utilities and grass cutting, and even furnish the house. The value of this each year must be claimed by the minister for social security tax purposes. There are three formulas for calculating the amount of this "housing allowance." In the absence of a parsonage, the church may declare in advance (key concept) how much of a pastor's compensation is paid in housing allowance and how much in salary, if any. The salary is fully taxed for social security and for income tax. The amount of housing allowance is only taxed for social security. Some pastors don't pay into social security and usually (those who I know) have regretted that upon retirement. I spent some time as the director of a church owned retirement center. I was ordained in that church. I often spoke in chapel services and did counseling with the residents. The IRS will decide on an individual basis of the role of the minister meets that intended by the law. Ditto for an ordained professor teaching in a church university. The value of the housing allowance may not and should not exceed the actual cost of the housing, including everything from repairs, lawn maintenance, utilities, etc. It also may not exceed the amount designated “in advance” by the church or religious organization. I have no knowledge if an LDS bishop as an ordained minister is paid a housing allowance by the LDS or not. I have never been a bishop. It also could be up to the individual bishop whether to go that route, just as it is for any other minister of any other church. In addition, the minister can deduct his expenses in his ministry, just like any business or self-employed person can. It is not honest for any minister of any church to claim they have no income for their service if they accept any form of housing allowance. It also is not correct to simply say that housing allowance is not taxed. The only way it is not taxed is if the minister does not pay into social security, which is a possibility. I hope this helps. I once pastored in northern New Jersey; I lived in a church owned parsonage. I never could have afforded to rent or buy a house there. It was a blessing to have a nice (not fancy—but nice) home in which to live. When I moved on of course, I lost that benefit. Take care all.  

[MustardSeed]

Not a lie.  The word lie suggests hiding.  Context matters.  
That said, let’s be honest, splitting hairs to differentiate between a living wage and payment for services at the rate of 100k? I mean, arent most of us working and collecting basically enough for a living wage, and many just under 100? who cares what we label it. GAs get money.  It’s their money to accept or reject.  We are talking church policy here. 
 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well, I may be the only person on this forum who has actually pastored and who has received a housing allowance and/or parsonage for my ministry. What the LDS do is what virtually all denominations or churches do regarding clergy compensation. It is a bit complex, but not overly complicated. One must distinguish between income tax and self-employment tax (for social security purposes). This IRS rule is for ordained ministers regardless of faith affiliation. A church or denomination may provide a church-owned parsonage for their minister. The church may pay utilities and grass cutting, and even furnish the house. The value of this each year must be claimed by the minister for social security tax purposes. There are three formulas for calculating the amount of this "housing allowance." In the absence of a parsonage, the church may declare in advance (key concept) how much of a pastor's compensation is paid in housing allowance and how much in salary, if any. The salary is fully taxed for social security and for income tax. The amount of housing allowance is only taxed for social security. Some pastors don't pay into social security and usually (those who I know) have regretted that upon retirement. I spent some time as the director of a church owned retirement center. I was ordained in that church. I often spoke in chapel services and did counseling with the residents. The IRS will decide on an individual basis of the role of the minister meets that intended by the law. Ditto for an ordained professor teaching in a church university. The value of the housing allowance may not and should not exceed the actual cost of the housing, including everything from repairs, lawn maintenance, utilities, etc. It also may not exceed the amount designated “in advance” by the church or religious organization. I have no knowledge if an LDS bishop as an ordained minister is paid a housing allowance by the LDS or not. I have never been a bishop. It also could be up to the individual bishop whether to go that route, just as it is for any other minister of any other church. In addition, the minister can deduct his expenses in his ministry, just like any business or self-employed person can. It is not honest for any minister of any church to claim they have no income for their service if they accept any form of housing allowance. It also is not correct to simply say that housing allowance is not taxed. The only way it is not taxed is if the minister does not pay into social security, which is a possibility. I hope this helps. I once pastored in northern New Jersey; I lived in a church owned parsonage. I never could have afforded to rent or buy a house there. It was a blessing to have a nice (not fancy—but nice) home in which to live. When I moved on of course, I lost that benefit. Take care all.  

No bishops receive any money or allowances (housing or otherwise).  Same for stake presidents and all local leadership.  It doesn't exist for anyone in those callings, no matter their circumstances because they are not expected to leave their jobs to fulfill their callings (and also, it wouldn't work very well since most will only serve in these callings for 5-10 years and then will be released through no decision of their own).

Too often latter-day saints have had a snooty attitude about "paid clergy" but if someone is doing it as a full time job then it just makes sense.  It's good for members to know that even though the vast majority of our clergy is unpaid, we also have paid clergy and so we can get off of our high horses about it.

Edited 13 hours ago by bluebell

[bluebell]

This is what it says on the church's website concerning General Authorities, for anyone interested:

General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they are given a living allowance which enables them to focus all of their time on serving in the Church.

This practice allows for far more church members on a worldwide basis to be considered for a calling to serve as a General Authority, rather than limiting considerations to only those who may be financially independent. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments.

[Navidad]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is what it says on the church's website concerning General Authorities, for anyone interested:

General Authorities leave their careers when they are called into full time Church service. When they do so, they are given a living allowance which enables them to focus all of their time on serving in the Church.

This practice allows for far more church members on a worldwide basis to be considered for a calling to serve as a General Authority, rather than limiting considerations to only those who may be financially independent. The living allowance is uniform for all General Authorities. None of the funds for this living allowance come from the tithing of Church members, but instead from proceeds of the Church's financial investments.

Thanks for this. I wonder what the word "uniform" means? Does it mean the same amount, or for the same specific expenses, which could vary widely across the world? In my mind, uniform might mean a list of things for which they are paid: mortgage payment, rent, utilities, repairs, and ongoing maintenance. Or it could mean $10,000 a month for everyone. In that case, the general authority would have to prove with documents that they spent the money on its intended use (housing expenses) and nothing else. Travel expenses, could not come out of that, for example. They could deduct travel expenses for their ministry but not out of housing allowance. If the Church pays their travel expense (on a church credit card, for example), they would have to follow Church travel policy for travel expenses, whatever that might be. It might be $80 per night maximum or $100 per day for meals. Or only fly coach, or, or, or. I once worked for the Marriott corporation. They had fairly strict travel expense rules. I know that has nothing to do with the Church. So, if a GA has his house paid off, he would not be allowed to have a housing allowance that included any mortgage or rent purposes. I don't know if general authorities collect social security, but they would have to pay into that as does everyone. I don't think age matters, but I really don't know. Furthermore, I am no longer receiving any funds from a ministry allowance. Oh, and as an aside, I remember flying home from a conference in Boise (love the Bacon Restaurant in downtown Boise). I was in line, and two general authorities got in line behind me for the same flight. One, I believe, was Elder Cornish of the First Seventy. So I can testify that general authorities fly Southwest!! I would also suggest that a "living allowance" that doesn't follow the IRS rules for clergypersons, is a salary and taxable income, any way you slice it. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

For the record, I do think general authority should be paid. As should seminary teachers. :)

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for this. I wonder what the word "uniform" means? Does it mean the same amount, or for the same specific expenses, which could vary widely across the world? In my mind, uniform might mean a list of things for which they are paid: mortgage payment, rent, utilities, repairs, and ongoing maintenance. Or it could mean $10,000 a month for everyone. In that case, the general authority would have to prove with documents that they spent the money on its intended use (housing expenses) and nothing else. Travel expenses, could not come out of that, for example. They could deduct travel expenses for their ministry but not out of housing allowance. If the Church pays their travel expense (on a church credit card, for example), they would have to follow Church travel policy for travel expenses, whatever that might be. It might be $80 per night maximum or $100 per day for meals. Or only fly coach, or, or, or. I once worked for the Marriott corporation. They had fairly strict travel expense rules. I know that has nothing to do with the Church. So, if a GA has his house paid off, he would not be allowed to have a housing allowance that included any mortgage or rent purposes. I don't know if general authorities collect social security, but they would have to pay into that as does everyone. I don't think age matters, but I really don't know. Furthermore, I am no longer receiving any funds from a ministry allowance. Oh, and as an aside, I remember flying home from a conference in Boise (love the Bacon Restaurant in downtown Boise). I was in line, and two general authorities got in line behind me for the same flight. One, I believe, was Elder Cornish of the First Seventy. So I can testify that general authorities fly Southwest!! I would also suggest that a "living allowance" that doesn't follow the IRS rules for clergypersons, is a salary and taxable income, any way you slice it. 

From what I understand it means that they all receive the same amount.  I would guess that that is true even for the prophet and apostles (that they receive the same dollar amount as any other GA), but I do think that the prophet at least also receives a place to live next to temple square (and that the 15 get health care too, but that's just my assumption).

I've also heard that plane tickets and those kinds of expenses are covered (not reimbursed but paid for outright) but that they fly business and never first class.  When traveling they used to stay with the local leaders so rarely a need for a hotel room but I'm sure not sure if that's true anymore or not.  Again though, I couldn't say how accurate the information is.  

[Rain]

59 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

For the record, I do think general authority should be paid. As should seminary teachers.

Technically, seminary teachers do, or at least did, get paid. This was quite a few years ago, so things may have changed, but my mom was called in to the bishop, similar to a calling, and asked to apply for the position.  She got paid a very small amount, so small it was probably called something else rather than pay. Expense reimbursement was separate from that.

Edited 11 hours ago by Rain

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From what I understand it means that they all receive the same amount.  I would guess that that is true even for the prophet and apostles (that they receive the same dollar amount as any other GA), but I do think that the prophet at least also receives a place to live next to temple square (and that the 15 get health care too, but that's just my assumption).

I know of at least one prophet (we knew his bishop) who lived in his own house for quite a few years. They wanted him to move to the place by Temple Square, but he wanted to live at home.  They may have changed in later years. The prophet before him did live there though.

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've also heard that plane tickets and those kinds of expenses are covered (not reimbursed but paid for outright) but that they fly business and never first class.  When traveling they used to stay with the local leaders so rarely a need for a hotel room but I'm sure not sure if that's true anymore or not.  Again though, I couldn't say how accurate the information is.  

 

[Navidad]

FWIW, Most Mennonite bishops are also pastors of a church. They do get paid for their pastoral work and for travel expenses as a bishop (they may cover several states) as in the southeast USA. Moravian bishops don't receive any salary for the positions but get travel expenses paid as well. Every few years there is a worldwide meeting of Moravian bishops. Do the LDS bishops or stake presidents ever get together in a big Bishopric Conference somewhere? I knew many Southern Baptist pastors who were "bi-vocational." They held full-time jobs and pastored a church for very little, if any salary. I was a music and youth pastor in several Baptist churches. I received a small salary and in two cases, lots of vegetables and beef from the local Texas Baptist farmers in the churches. We ate well! I also was the English pastor of a Mandarin Baptist Chuch. My wife and I learned how to make awesome (he says humbly) Chinese food! 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I know of at least one prophet (we knew his bishop) who lived in his own house for quite a few years. They wanted him to move to the place by Temple Square, but he wanted to live at home.  They may have changed in later years. The prophet before him did live there though.

 

It makes sense that it would be at the prophet’s discretion and that not all would want to move into a new home just because. 

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

For the record, I do think general authority should be paid. As should seminary teachers.

Agreed- they just need to be careful when they say "WE" have no paid clergy when clearly "WE" do have some paid clergy especially when the person who is actually saying it gets a paycheck from the church every two weeks.

This is similar to a commander I worked for in Iraq who never once stepped outside the wire and went on a combat mission. In fact, to my knowledge he had never personally engaged in combat in his entire career. He would routinely brag about how "WE" were kicking AQI butt on a daily basis despite taking hundreds of casualties in the process. He wasn't wrong about "WE" meaning "US" because "WE" were kicking butt. He wasn't involved in it so it would have been much more accurate to say "you guys" or some such thing. 

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Notatbm