“Stewards” and “stewardships” are a matter that needs addressing. These words are thrown around and used in the church in ways that go precisely against their definitions, causing a shit storm of confusion that has ripple effects into our understanding of the Lord’s economy. This isn’t to say these words are always used incorrectly. Sometimes they are used properly, which then further creates confusion as the correct and incorrect versions battle for primacy, and get saddled with ridiculous contextual nuances that were never meant to exist.
For example, the word “steward” is often treated as synonymous to “leader” in Mormonism, specifically as one who delegates out duties to others as their “stewardships.” But then “leader” is also deemed synonymous with “master,” as those “leaders” and “stewards” at the top are taught to be infallible (e.g. Official Declaration 1; The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], p.533). They are to be obeyed in all things, even if those things are wrong (e.g. Conference Report, October 1960, p.78). Never mind that Joseph Smith and the scriptures teach precisely the opposite (e.g. TPJS, pp. 237-238; 2 Nephi 28:31). So we find ourselves saddled with steward/leader/masters who sit at the top, enjoying the titles of “stewards,” but the lifestyles of “masters” (Luke 22:25). This is the type of doublethink which currently afflicts the Gentile LDS church.
Understanding of what “stewardship” means is varied, from a set of duties, to a body of people ruled over by a “steward,” to a collection of property owned or cared for by a “steward.” Some such stewardships are treated as “belonging” to the steward who takes care of them, while others are not. In LDS doublethink, the term is simultaneously taught as being only applicable in a model that follows the Law of Consecration (“Doctrine and Covenants 72: More on Stewardships and the Duties of a Bishop,” D&C and Church History Student Study Guide, LDS.org), and as being applicable any time someone is given a responsibility (Priesthood Manual, Lesson 22, LDS.org).
When defining a stewardship as “property,” the doublethink simultaneously teaches that the property belongs to the Lord while we are just caretakers (Priesthood Manual, Lesson 22, LDS.org), and conversely that we are the actual, private owners of the property (“True Disciples and Faithful Stewards Lesson 18,” Doctrine and Covenants Instructor’s Guide: Religion 324-325, LDS.org). “Steward” is apparently synonymous with “owner,” except when it isn’t at all.
Further, stewardships of property largely entail maintaining the quality of the property, above seeing that the property is used in its designed purposes: to fulfill actual needs. For example, kitchens in churches cannot be used to actually cook food, and the space in the cultural hall cannot be used to shelter the homeless, due to concerns about damage to the property and ultimately damage to the Church’s bottom line through insurance liability concerns. That which has no life definitively receives priority (Mormon 8:37-39).
In tandem with this misunderstanding and misapplication of these two terms, we use the term “accountability” like it’s going out of style. Accountability is a correct and true principle, but we focus far more on accountability to men—fellow stewards—rather than to God, the Master of the stewards. We demonstrate this whenever a steward seeks to fulfill the responsibilities of their stewardship according to scriptural instructions which conflict with Church Handbook instructions. Man’s Handbook trumps God’s Handbook (the scriptures) every time, to the point where you may lose not only your stewardship, but your good standing and even membership in the Church. Truly, the stewards have supplanted their Master in His own house, lip-service to the contrary aside.
WHAT STEWARDS AND STEWARDSHIPS REALLY ARE
So let’s try and sort out what “stewards” and “stewardships” really are, and how we ought to understand them. First, look up the word “steward” in the dictionary, any dictionary. I’m going to use the 1828 Webster’s, as that gives us the clearest idea of the understanding Joseph Smith and his contemporaries had at the time they were receiving revelations concerning “stewards” and “stewardships”. (Joseph didn’t operate according to fabricated, cultural, exclusively-Mormon definitions of words; no such things were created yet. He used English, the language he spoke.) The 1828 Webster’s dictionary gives many variations on a single, clear idea. Definitions include “butler” and “chamberlain”; one employed to manage the affairs and accounts of great families; officers in service to the state or an institution, especially those in charge of tending to the food and provisional needs of others… Do you see the theme?
A steward is a servant, answerable to a master. They have no inherent power or authority in the execution of their duties. Their power and authority is derived entirely from their Master, who may strip them of it at any time for unfaithfulness. When a steward sees themselves as a ruler or an owner, rather than a servant to a master who holds those titles, they forget their place.
A steward also understands that it is their master—not the stewards “above” them—to whom they are ultimately accountable. A wise steward will obey the master, even if it means disobeying the steward who oversees them. Only an unfaithful steward would require or engage in loyalty to another steward over loyalty to their master, and such stewards deserve to be removed from their position in the Master’s house.
A “stewardship” is the office one fills as a steward. For example, a man might fill the office of “butler.” He receives the title “butler” while filling that stewardship as a steward. But that office, the “stewardship,” doesn’t belong to the steward. It belongs to the master, who fills it by appointment. This is why the master can strip a steward of their stewardship without becoming a thief.
Now, a stewardship can evidently also be described in terms of what powers, responsibilities, properties, etc. fall under the umbrella of that stewardship. For example, when the Lord appoints men of the United Firm to stewardships in D&C 104, He refers to stewardships in terms such as “the tannery” and “the printing office.” But as they are stewards, these are not gifts for them to do with as they please. They come with the expectation that those properties will be used in accordance with the Master’s will. He expects the tannery to tan skins, and the printing office to print, in accordance with His desires to bless the people with leather and books. Should they fail, the Lord is theoretically free to fire the steward and strip him of his stewardship, and appoint another in his stead. Such things could never occur where the stewards were in fact owners, rather than stewards.
The differences may seem subtle (though I don’t know how), but its precisely the confusion of subtleties that create the necessary disarray which opens the door for abuse of power and other wickedness. It is important to understand and use the correct definitions of words or else edification between parties is impossible, because they understand the same vocabulary as having different meanings. If the scriptures rely on one definition of a term, but a person or church uses another, can the person or church claim to be in actual harmony with scripture? If they are not in harmony with scripture, can the Lord be pleased?
Let’s finish with some very clear words on the part of the Lord, concerning stewards and any claims to ownership.
“I the Lord stretched out the heavens, & builded the earth as a verry handy work, & all things therein are mine, & it is my business to provide for my saints, for all things are mine; but it must needs be done in mine own way: & behold, this is the way that I the Lord hath decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted in that the rich are made low…And again, a commandment I give unto you concerning your Stewardship which I have appointed unto you, behold, all these properties are mine, or else, your faith is vain, & ye are found hypocrites, & the covenants which you have made unto me are broken, & if these properties are mine, then, ye are stewards, otherwise ye are no stewards. But, verily, I say unto you, I have appointed unto you to be Stewards over mine house, even stewards indeed” - D&C 104:14-16, 54-57 (emphasis added)
I don’t think the Lord could be any more direct in declaring His thoughts concerning who owns the property we use, and our place in relation to such property. It’s all His stuff (e.g. Psalms 24:1). But He appoints men to be stewards, in roles known as stewardships, which may involve men holding and using His stuff, with the expectation they do so according to His will.
But being stewards—servants—isn’t the end of the one for us. The faithful move on from being mere stewards, becoming “friends” (John 15:15; D&C 93:45-46), and even sons and daughters and “joint-heirs” with Christ (Moses 6:27, 68; Romans 8:17). But until a person has received such blessings and promises from the Lord, it is good to remember we are stewards, and should serve faithfully in that calling.
