I was thinking about how TSCC could close a number of the GBH money-draining McTemples without alarming their members. They could shut down temples for renovations then after a period of time disclose that building modifications were not viable. Leaders would then announce that a new replacement will be announced at a later date (with no intention of ever building a replacement temple).

I suspect that TSCC is already doing that with a ward in Holladay.

My question is: can TSCC keep the property-tax-free status of a property that is not being used?

Also, I guess they could keep coercing members to maintain the temple grounds and parking lots and outward appearance of the temples, as they deteriorate inside.

I think they'd announce an extensive renovation project and then not say anything more. After a couple of years of it remaining closed, they could simply sell it and no one would think anything of it. "Of course they should sell it. No one ever used it."

Devoted,

Yes, I think they are already doing this. Several in my area have been closed for a long time for "renovations."

Yep. They maintain the illusion of growth by announcing temples they have no intention of building and also building more in Utah. "See! Temples are dotting the landscape! We're growing!"

They did that in California when the Irvine and Redlands temples were opened, the LA one was closed for renovations. Then again, the LA temple is near a couple of active earthquake faults in the area, so it probably did need some retrofitting as it was eventually reopened.