I got an e-mail from a guy I'd baptized on my mission in France last night.
He had run into a member of the branch there, and they chatted briefly. He said the member started going on about what a waste of money the Paris temple was, and that he went there a couple of weeks ago and it was practically empty -- 8 people in a Saturday session. He was griping about spending all that money on a temple nobody's using, while the local branch still meets in an old, run-down, tiny building.

My former convert (he left the church about three years after my mission ended!) found it very amusing that this TBM was griping about the empty temple and the waste of money, and then right after that made a pitch for my friend to come back to the church. :)

Sounds like the Paris temple hasn't been the "blessing" the leaders thought it would be!

I continue to be amused and surprised that there are French members. But I know one of them, who is a church employee, and he participated in the temple open house.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sounds like the Paris temple hasn't been the
> "blessing" the leaders thought it would be!

It probably has increased tithing revenue from the existing members. Those members that rarely held a recommend since they rarely bothered to go through the hassle of attending a temple in another country, are now guilted into having one.

What? Waste of money? No, the Paris temple is a necessity. What else will Mormons do when they go there on vacation?

There are to my thinking two major reasons TSCC builds temples:

1) To increase revenue (they call it "tithing faithfulness" in their reports). Building a temple cretes "recommend envy" which generates tithing.

2) To project a grand presence in a high profile location. read Rome, Paris, etc.

This to me was a case of the second reason.

I especially think your #2 is dead on, left4good. When any business entity is failing, one of the first strategies employed is to make every effort to give the illusion that the opposite is true.

This attempt by the gerontocracy to show they are big players in the world domination of religion just seems like a dying gasp to me, although, I'm afraid nothing can kill this wannabe behemoth.

left4good Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2) To project a grand presence in a high profile
> location. read Rome, Paris, etc.

TSCC in fact lies about the locations of these temples since most are really in the suburbs. And the mainstream media is, as always, complicent, in that they never bring up the falsehoods.

Indiana's new temple isn't really in Indianapolis. Chicago's isn't in Chicago. Raleigh's isn't in Raleigh. Minnesota's isn't in Ramsey County much less St. Paul. Atlanta's isn't in Atlanta. Wasington's mammoth House of Handshakes is really in Maryland. You get the idea.

Where I'm from the gulf of hate between big city and suburbs is legendary and longstsnding, and TSCC exploits it elsewhere to make it look important in the eyes of nevermo society.

Agnes Broomhead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TSCC in fact lies about the locations of these
> temples since most are really in the suburbs.

Absolutely right, and in this particular case also true :)

The "Paris" temple is in Le Chesnay, which is essentially Versailles. It's also right near the "Paris Stake" center, which is in Versailles itself, and near the mission home in Le Vesinet. It's a good 10 miles from Paris itself :)

I had no idea about he city name borrowing. So Mormon. Everything is about the facade. Gotta keep Heavenly Father's image up.

True. The Memphis temple is not in Memphis. Most people who have lived here all their lives have never heard of it and even when I explain where it is, they've driven past there a hundred times and never really noticed it. There are too many mega churches in that area that dwarf it. And there are rarely more than a handful of cars in the parking lot during the week.

Isn't the Memphis McTemple being "closed for renovations," NormaRae?

They weren't hardly open as is, there has been so little interest.

Will anybody in the Bartlett/Memphis area even notice that it is "closed for renovations"?


I've been in there times when the only non-temple workers were me and my husband, which meant we were the witness couple.

Made for an interesting prayer circle

Hmmm. I don't keep up with those things, I'll have to ask my co-worker. I wonder what kind of renovations they could possibly need to do that would cause them to close it. It's less than 20 years old and hardly used.

There are 2 stakes in the Memphis "area" but that area takes in parts of North Mississippi, Western Arkansas, and Southern Kentucky.

Just to be fair, while true the Indianapolis Temple is not inside the city of Indianapolis city limits, its really only a few miles from the city line. It is very much in the middle of the metro Indianapolis area.

Now if one would like to gripe about the church planting it in the middle of the most expensive and exclusive real estate in the State of Indiana then there is a lot that can be said there.

Just googled it. It is about a mile from the Indy city limits.

The Indy temple is exactly 20 blocks into the next county, Hamilton, and the city is Carmel, Indiana. Carmel is in one of the wealthiest counties in Indiana.

Hoosier Pete are you a TBM or an ex-mo?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2017 08:43PM by cutekitty.

temple, is actually in a suburb named Zollikofen.

Doesn't-quite-have-the-same-ring-does-it-ly yrs,

S

The "Seattle" temple is in Bellevue, WA, across Lk. Washington from Seattle.

There is actually a 3rd reason.

I have a distant cousin who is a member in Finland. When I visited there years ago, he mentioned they had a pile of money tied up (tithing) and were trying to figure out what to do with it. They could not ship all the money to the US. Of course charity is not part of any planning. They decided to build a temple in Helsinki. I believe it is rarely used as well.

I lived in Espoo as a missionary. It is the equivalent of a US suburb though it feels it is a part of Helsinki. You are right, but it is called the Helsinki temple.

Yes to #2.. I saw a chart somewhere recently that shows the huge decline in membership in TSCC corresponding with a huge rise in temples built.. indicating that TSCC is now more than ever, focused on building temples worldwide to SHOW they are growing and expanding when in fact the opposite is true. Just another lie.

It's a good investment for a realty development and a tax write off for the corporate church.

When the market goes bust, real estate especially in a lucrative market like Paree, retains value. A lot of value!

It is so good to read this... I hope the Rome temple will have the same fate.

I think the reasons for building temples that have been mentioned on the thread are certainly valid - temples bring in revenue and help with retention, indoctrination, image, presence, membership development, etc. But I think we need to look at it from a theological perspective because the theology is really what drives temple building - at least from what I remember being taught.

I remember being taught that LDS temples are THE major tool in the fight against the forces of Satan and every temple built on the earth has a diminishing effect on Satan's power. Do you all remember these teachings? I don't think this teaching has changed although it may not be stated as such anymore. I have been detached from ChurchCo for over 15 years so I don't know how this teaching is portrayed these days.

Doctrine is for little people. Tax free real estate is the best money laundering scheme ever.

The temples are located in affluent areas. The Portland, OR temple is in Lake Oswego, OR. The Seattle temple is in Bellevue, WA. These two particular cities are known for people who have money.

Yes it is amazing when you think how much is spent on temples and the areas where they are built. My wife and I decided to go check out the Draper Utah temple. I was shocked when I drove into the neighborhood in which it is located. Up the street is a "house" called the Draper Castle. I believe that it cost more then $10 million to build. What is the public supposed to think about the Church when it decides to build a mutli-million dollar structure in a neighborhood of millionaires? It is a shame that an organization with such resources does not fund and support JC's actual teachings regarding feeding the hungry, etc.

During my transition out, I have to come to realize that I used the Church as a crutch and excuse not to get out there and "do" Christianity. I am struggling in trying to get out my habits and stop being so selfish.

NW Girl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The temples are located in affluent areas.

Same for Versailles/Le Chesnay.
Which is also why the mission headquarters is there...

Let's pause for a moment and honor the vital role that France plays in creating a disproportionate # of exmormons. I'm so glad I served my mission there--the French taught me exponentially more than I could have ever dreamed of teaching them!

Vive la France!

Amen! And I'm eternally grateful I had the good fortune not to convert anyone when I was there as a missionary.

The LDS temple is not located in Paris. It's not even in one of the three arrondissements that surround Paris. It's in the leafy Yvelines, and there may be only ten miles between the Temple and the Paris city limits, but to the French, it's a world away. If they had been asked to give it a name, they would have called it the Le Chesnay Temple, or maybe, just maybe, the Versailles Temple, but Paris? Mais non!

Just to tell you that what works in SLC doesn't always work elsewhere. It's little things that show the craziness of mormonism sometimes. Little things like this: their total inability to respect local culture.

Well, it 's all about sounding impressive to American, and in particular, Utah TBMs. They need the names to be easily identifiable to THEM, certainly not the locals!

I think that it's important to the Mormon church to have temples in some of the famed capital cities of the world. They must surely know that the attendance at these temples will not be stellar. But having a temple in Paris or Rome makes the church seem to be bigger and more important than it is.

I think at this point, temples are more about demonstrating presence (appearance) and having diverse (tax subsidized, appreciating) real estate investments.

I'm guessing they really don't care if there are any people inside. Heck, the church could probably maintain itself just off investment income. The members just provide the illusion that they are a religion.

The great cathedrals in Europe were meant to impress the masses who had never seen or been inside of any large building- Fast forward to Utah, the church did managed to impress members during the 1900's with deep carpets and expensive buildings but now the awe is gone. God's own mall just across the street is nicer than his temple. People are hard to impress with a nice building anymore. Members could easily say "I liked the Bellagio better".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2017 09:42PM by druid.

I remember being impressed by the mission home when I was first converted at age 12. In those days few of us had homes with dense wall-to-wall carpeting and air conditioning. I remember the mission home even had white carpeting which would have been unthinkable during my childhood as impossible to keep clean. When we walked in from the hot and humid midwestern summer heat, it was instantly cool and very ornately decorated.

The last time I was in any mission home it was similarly decorated and I remember thinking it was outdated and claustrophobic. The windows were over draped (like in temples) and the furniture looked like something from the 50's, and I don't mean mid-century modern. Everything was like you'd find it in a standard Utah TBM grandparent's home.

Funny how everything Mormon has that Utah feel no matter where you are in the world.

With all these smaller and less conspicuous temples, they seem to be going the way of the Masons after their heyday in the 19th century when they began their long decline.

Many small American towns have Masonic Halls or former Masonic Halls, sometimes right on Main Street, but you can pass by them for years without even knowing what they are unless you look up at the insignia which may be way up near the roof. Often the buildings get converted to offices or retail. And that's the end of it! Ending with a whimper rather than a bang.

As migrants continue to pour into EU that temple will be turned into a mosque.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As migrants continue to pour into EU that temple
> will be turned into a mosque.


Kinda like what happened to this place . . .

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/turkey/istanbul-hagia-sophia

... claiming that many of our temples are 'nearly empty.' But remember, even a solid block of granite is 99.999999% empty space. So there's that."

--Anonymous Mormon apologist-chemist

The London Temple is 40 miles from central London, takes over an hour to drive there. It is 9 miles from Gatwick Airport, so should more accurately be described as the Gatwick Airport Temple.

And of course the Preston Temple in the UK is actually in Chorley, a totally different town.

Big ugly laundry mats for laundering the money.

M@t