During the 2025 April General Conference, Steven D. Shumway continued to push the narrative that church leaders are not paid for their service in the church.
He claims that “we do not receive financial compensation for serving.” This is misleading and exemplifies a glaring transparency issue regarding church leadership and finances. While it is technically true that many callings in the church—such as bishoprics, Relief Society presidencies, and other local roles—are unpaid volunteer positions, this statement becomes disingenuous when applied to General Authorities like Shumway himself.
Let me share three principles that teach how our participation in God’s work blesses and helps us prepare to meet the Savior.
First, as we participate, we progress toward “the measure of [our] creation.” … 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.
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.
Ordinances don’t save us because they fulfill a heavenly checklist. Rather, when we live the covenants connected with these ordinances, we become the kind of person who wants to be in God’s presence. This understanding overcomes hesitations to serve or preferences not to serve. Our preparation to meet Jesus Christ accelerates when we stop asking what God will permit and start asking what God would prefer.
Third, participating in God’s work helps us receive God’s gift of grace and feel His greater love.
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!
Steven D. Shumway, LDS Seventy, Participate to Prepare for Christ’s Return, General Conference, April 2025
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/42shumway
He doesn’t mention that the senior leadership does, in fact, receive pay. He stated in broader terms than most leaders, in that there is no real way to rationalize his comment as anything but a lie. He states, “We do not receive financial compensation for serving.” So, unless the “we” here does not include himself, or any top leaders in the church who DO receive financial compensation for serving, he is lying to the congregation.
The only other possibility is that he might not be aware of the “living stipend” church leadership receives. Is he the only General Authority of the church that doesn’t receive a living stipend and generous reimbursements?
Elder Steven D. Shumway was sustained as a General Authority Seventy of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the April 2024 general conference.
LDS Website > General Authority Seventies > Steven D. Shumway
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/steven-d-shumway
We see from the church website that Shumway is currently a General Authority Seventy, and has been since April 2024. This level of leadership is part of the paid leadership, so by now, he’s collected a full year’s worth of financial compensation.
Top-level church leaders—such as members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—do, in fact, receive substantial financial support in the form of a “living stipend,” which in 2025 is estimated by watchdog group Widows’ Mite to be over $180,000 annually, plus full expense reimbursements for housing, travel, meals, and more. This contradicts common church messaging such as “there is no paid ministry,” “all of the work in the Church is voluntary,” or “no professionally trained and salaried clergy.” These phrases, often used in missionary discussions and General Conference talks, leave the average member with the impression that LDS leaders serve without financial benefit. While technically accurate in reference to local lay leadership, they omit critical information about the institutional compensation structures that benefit senior leadership—resulting in an incomplete and arguably deceptive narrative.
Steven D. Shumway’s use of “financial compensation” is broader than the typical statements from leadership. He can’t possibly obfuscate or exclude the “living allowances” he himself receives from financial compensation. He continues the long-standing pattern in LDS Church leadership to blur the truth with a technicality. Perhaps when he refers to “we,” he only means the general church population and their callings but excludes his more recent calling. This statement is simply not true when considering full-time General Authorities such as himself.
The Reality of General Authority Compensation
According to leaked documents and credible analysis from organizations such as the Widow’s Mite Report, General Authorities receive what the Church terms a “living stipend,” which in recent years is estimated to be over $183,000 annually as of 2025. This does not include generous reimbursements for travel, housing, and other expenses related to their church service. To the average tithe-paying member—especially those struggling to make ends meet—this constitutes a significant financial benefit, no matter what euphemism is used to describe it.
So when Shumway says “we do not receive financial compensation,” he’s either drawing a semantic line between a paycheck and a stipend, or he’s intentionally deflecting from the truth. Either way, it’s misleading—especially in a faith community that has been taught to value financial sacrifice and where transparency around church finances remains minimal.
Trading Financial Honesty for Spiritual Rhetoric
Shumway attempts to pivot the conversation away from financial realities by reframing the “compensation” as “the grace of God”—a clever rhetorical device that substitutes spiritual reward for literal currency. But for church members who sacrifice 10% of their income in tithing—often with the understanding that church leadership serves out of pure spiritual dedication—this kind of messaging feels patronizing.
He continues by saying, “Our abilities or inabilities are not the principal basis for extending or accepting a calling,” using figures like Esther and Peter as examples. While this might resonate on a spiritual level, it again skirts the core issue: Those at the top do receive significant financial support, and many members are beginning to question why this fact is so often denied, deflected, or hidden.
Excusing Joseph Smith and All Leadership of Perfect Performance
Steven D. Shumway does state some honesty though. He clarifies that church leaders are not perfect or exceptional, and even applies this to Joseph Smith, whom he states if perfect performance was required, Joseph “would not be the prophet of the restoration.”
Because of God’s grace, our abilities or inabilities are not the principal basis for extending or accepting a calling. God does not expect perfect performance or exceptional talent to participate in His work. If so, Queen Esther would not have saved her nation, Peter would not have led the early Church, and Joseph Smith would not be the Prophet of the Restoration.
Steven D. Shumway, LDS Seventy, Participate to Prepare for Christ’s Return, General Conference, April 2025
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/42shumway
This portion of the statement is designed to reassure members that flaws, shortcomings, or past mistakes don’t disqualify someone from serving in the Church or being part of God’s work. On its surface, this is an encouraging message—many people can relate to feeling inadequate, and the idea that God uses imperfect people for divine purposes is a long-standing Christian teaching.
However, the inclusion of Joseph Smith in this trio of biblical and religious figures invites further scrutiny—especially given the Church’s long-standing efforts to downplay or sanitize Smith’s controversial actions and character flaws. The comparison implies that Joseph Smith’s imperfections were in line with the human frailties of scriptural heroes. But for many who have looked deeper into Smith’s history, the issues go beyond simple imperfection.
The idea that “God does not expect perfect performance” from His servants raises an important and often unaddressed question: how imperfect can a prophet be and still be considered a prophet?
If Joseph Smith is held up as an example of God’s willingness to work through imperfection, it is vital to examine the extent and nature of those imperfections. Smith’s documented (and undocumented) polygamy—including marriages to teenagers and already-married women—his involvement in treasure digging and folk magic, the dubious translation methods used for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham, and repeated financial scandals (like the Kirtland Safety Society collapse) all challenge the idea of mere human error. These aren’t small slip-ups or character quirks; they’re significant actions with lasting consequences. If these actions can be excused under the banner of divine calling, where is the line? Can a prophet deceive, exploit, and manipulate and still retain his prophetic authority? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse?
This becomes especially problematic when church members are expected to obey and revere prophets whose “imperfections” include behavior that would be morally or even criminally condemned outside a religious context. The standard for prophetic integrity cannot be so low that any action—even deception or abuse—can be brushed aside under the claim of divine purpose. Things like hiding church money in shell companies, cutting a strange first vision account from journals, spouting racist ideas as doctrine from God, and then redacting such ideas as folklore all pale in comparison to the things Joseph Smith did. Church leadership shows that just as Joseph Smith was when he started the church, it is still led by treasure seekers and money diggers, seeking wealth and fame via crafty manipulations and claiming divine authority.
Folly of Using Smith to Justify Leadership Imperfection
Using Smith as a model of “imperfect leadership” is a subtle way to shield modern leaders from accountability. The implication is that if Joseph Smith’s flaws didn’t disqualify him, then current leaders’ actions should also be accepted without question. This is a dangerous precedent—especially in a religious structure where questioning leadership is already discouraged, even when there’s clear evidence of wrongdoing or hypocrisy.
The message becomes: “Yes, we may make mistakes, but so did Joseph Smith, and he was still God’s prophet.” For those trying to reconcile real harm or abuse of power within church leadership, this move is a spiritual guilt trip: forgive, overlook, and keep sustaining—no matter what. This is precisely what leadership wants, this allows them no accountability and freedom from critical attention.
A Call for Honesty
What would be honest and even admirable is a straightforward admission that full-time General Authorities are compensated so they can focus entirely on their church roles—something many members would likely understand and even support. However, denying this reality or framing it as merely “God’s grace” comes across as manipulative and dismissive of the trust placed in church leaders.
Church leadership today reveals an unsettling continuity with its origins. Just as Joseph Smith began his religious career as a treasure seeker, the modern leadership appears similarly preoccupied with accumulating wealth and maintaining control, often through opaque financial dealings and strategic messaging. Despite their claims of divine authority and humble service, these leaders oversee an institution with immense resources, layered corporate structures, and a history of obfuscating both its finances and its past. The pattern echoes its founder: men who mix charisma with craftiness, who seek influence cloaked in religious language, and who pursue worldly success under the banner of spiritual stewardship. For an organization that professes to be led by revelation, transparency and humility seem to be in short supply—while power, wealth, and narrative control remain the prized treasures being sought.
If you’ve wrestled with the false narratives of the church and felt like your concerns were brushed aside in the name of prophetic imperfection, you’re not alone. Telling your story can bring clarity to your experience and help others feel less isolated. Join the conversation at wasmormon.org and help shine a light on the real-life impacts of these messages.
More reading:
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2025/04/42shumway
- https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/steven-d-shumway
- https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1ju6hvz/elder_shumway_we_do_not_receive_financial/
- Are Mormon Church Leaders Paid?
- How Much Are Mormon Church Leaders Compensated?
- Do LDS Mission Presidents Get Paid?
- Mormon Leadership Perfects Priestcrafts
- Analyzing Henry B. Eyring’s Paystub
- The Prosperity Gospel and Tithing
- Does Tithing Break the Poverty Cycle?
- The Tithing … Ellipsis
- Let’s Go Shopping – City Creek Center and Tithing