Let's say, for the purpose of this argument, that temples are just what the church says they are: places to carry out holy ordinances that require sacred spaces. And let's say that there are other benefits as well that the church gains from temples - cultural rallying points that can be used to motivate members, high profile landmarks that build brand recognition with the public, and investments for the church in blue chip real estate.

Now if the sole purpose of the leaders of the church was to acquire high-value real estate, they certainly have achieved their goal with the temple program. But in every other aspect, even as a venue to deliver ordinances, the temples have underperformed other possible options. In fact, temples have robbed the church of enormous potential. Potential, that had it been realized, might have saved both millions of people and the church as well. (This does not address the other massive real estate holding of the church, but those would apply as well.)

In the early days of the church in Utah, temples made sense. With a centralized population burgeoning with immigrants, temples provided a means of assimilating people into their new faith and polygamous society. Large, elegant structures testified to the credibility of the new faith, totems of its power. Travel was slow and costly, and temples had to be as nearby as possible to be accessible. And if one did have to travel any distance to a temple, it became invested with all of the significance of a pilgrimage. Since then however, technology has completely changed the landscape. We can see and converse with anybody anywhere. We can travel to most any place on the globe in hours. By the time ground was broken for the Washington D.C. temple in 1968, it was clear that factors favoring that type of grand structure had disappeared.

Since 1968 when the DC temple was started, the church has built over a hundred other temples. While many of these are small and relatively less costly, the total bill for top tier temples in places like Manhattan, San Diego, Philadelphia, Hong Kong and other pricey locations must be well over a billion dollars.

And what has the church gotten for this massive investment? As noted, they indeed have gotten a lot of pricey dirt and lavish architecture. But have temples proven to be a rallying point to attract and retain members? Are they perceived as concrete manifestations of a growing, dynamic institution? Have they increased the positive profile of the church in the public's eye? Perhaps, but debatable how good the return on investment has been.

We can determine what the church might have otherwise accomplished with the funds that went into temples by comparing the church's performance with what other organizations have accomplished over a similar time period with similar resources. Had the church wanted to demonstrate that it is a world-wide player, giving members a larger sense of purpose, committed to putting into practice the gospel of Jesus Christ, and had the principles, abilities, and spiritual foundation to alter the course of human history for the better, temples were not the best investment. What if the church instead had started something like the Gates Foundation? An organization that sought out and hired the best people, regardless of religion to solve the more intransigent problems crippling humanity? A church that went anywhere, unafraid to reach across social, religious, and national boundaries in order to feed, heal, and shelter people? A church that would attract people who could see the improvements being made and wanted to join in? A church that millions would thank for better health, better education, better lives? But the LDS church is not that church. It has taken its talent and buried it in a field and then covered it with a large, lavish building.

It isn't too late. Future temples could be endowment rooms attached to stake centers. The church could make a big splash to kick off the new orientation by selling the DC (and/or other temples) and replace them with smaller facilities. Ordinances performed in a $1 million temple are just as valid as those performed in a $100 million temple.

President Eisenhower in his "Cross of Iron" speech addressed the opportunity costs to the nation of the arms race, saying that every expenditure on warfare is a lost investment in those priorities that make people happier and healthier. Temples are the "Marble Cross" of Mormonism.

I have a theory that the earth will be indeed dotted with temples but chapels will go the way of all the earth.

LDS Corp will become a "home church" and you can clean your own toilets. Members will invade each other's space and temples will be their old brick and mortar places.

Temples are the ultimate expression of an inward looking church. Controlling, restrictive, limited, secret. The more temples the church builds, the smaller and the tighter the circle will become as those who have other priorities look elsewhere for fulfillment. Those in the circle will feel comforted as long as they don't look outward.

MarkJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Those in the circle will feel
> comforted as long as they don't look outward.

And they don't need a chapel to do it. All they need is meetings in their homes for people in a geography area. Their chapels are (I know this will be contested) even more of a waste than their temples. They are used by small little groups a few days of their week with Sundays having the larger group. If they had a revelation that LDS Corp was a "home church" and got rid of all the chapel and just kept their "Stake Centers" they could control everyone online and have them processed in their Stake Center and pushed to attend and clean their temple weekly.

When I was attending seminary a half-century ago, an instructor mentioned something (a prophecy perhaps?) that predicted that at some point (the millennium?) members would meet in their homes and not in ward chapels.

I'm pretty confident he didn't come up with that on his own, so it must be out there somewhere. Maybe the seed has been planted. Still, I think there are many members who don't believe but continue to attend only because they like socializing in a ward chapel. Then again, perhaps the church would be glad to be rid of that type of member who benefits from membership without necessarily paying tithing. In the Mormon world view nothing is free.

Chapels and temples provide a ready-made two level division in the church, which the church exploits to make the higher level aspirational (at additional cost to the member). Ward chapels are also important in getting children to make the association: attendance - membership - personal identity. If families have home services, kids' testimonies may not survive too many times seeing dad bless the sacrament or deliver a talk in his ratty pajamas.

I can see how a chapel-less church could work in the U.S., however. Going to a consolidated schedule, and then cutting that by time by a third could be steps along the way to a chapel-less church. If that happens it would be a last gasp effort to hold on to members.

In the meantime, temples serve as monuments to the buried talent.

MarkJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ward chapels are
> also important in getting children to make the
> association: attendance - membership - personal
> identity. If families have home services, kids'
> testimonies may not survive too many times seeing
> dad bless the sacrament or deliver a talk in his
> ratty pajamas.

My grandfather was the infamous polygamist Rulon Jeffs and I visited him in his home several times in a Sandy compound.

His home was built to be both a chapel, school, and home for his many posterity.

A model of having the wealthy members open their homes for branches could work well especially in the U.S. where incomes are larger. You could be called to build a house like Rulon's and guarantee yourself a lifetime of leadership.

had all their meetings in members' homes (usually the BP's home).

In some ways, it was more intimate and positive as a shared "spiritual" experience than meeting in a dedicated building. Those small branches were able to participate in bigger stake events several times a year.

Of course, the quality of such smaller gatherings will vary tremendously depending on the people in the small group. One smelly, obnoxious jerk can more easily ruin everything for a small group than they can in a congregation of 200 hundred or so.

If ChurchCo really does move in the direction of home meetings, it will eventually ruin the standardized MacWorship business model that they have so painstakingly built up over generations. Their centralized control over the meeting places gives the bosses at the center a lot of leverage. Aside from the mindless zombie members who will jump off a cliff if an "Apostle" tells them to, I suspect that most Mormons will not take kindly to the leaders giving them detailed commands as to how they are to manage the physical aspects of their own homes.

Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If ChurchCo really does move in the direction of
> home meetings, it will eventually ruin the
> standardized MacWorship business model that they
> have so painstakingly built up over generations.

I think Nelson has already started the home direction. I wouldn't be surprised if chapels become smaller and smaller in the future. When they feel they need to renovate a chapel they could reduce it to a chapel and a few offices. Their auxiliaries could all be "home worship" with the primary and youth groups being reduced to just a weekday meeting at the chapel.

> Their centralized control over the meeting places
> gives the bosses at the center a lot of leverage.

I don't think it does. What does is their central control over the budget. The meeting places are a headache and the temples are where their control is greatest. They desperately want them attended where there is little reason to do so for members while they seem to feel their chapels should be completely member maintained and budgeted for by attendance.

If they got their numbers from just how many family units and individuals are sending in money, the central control would be much easier. All they need to a way to serve sacrament and "sacred" ordinances the cheapest and easiest way while streamlining the tithing inputs and budget outputs.

The only value of temples is to extort money from LDS Church members if they want to be in the exclusive club. It's easier to extort money from people in the the mission field if they are only a couple of hours from the temple. If they have to travel two days to get there they'll let their temple recommends lapse until there is a reason to go. They could do baptisms for the dead in the local baptismal font in their chapels if all they cared about was doing work for their dead relatives. The endowment really doesn't endow you with anything except a smaller savings account balance.

MarkJ.
Congratulations a brilliantly written post!!!

I agree. Great post!

Temples and their parking lots and "grounds" are a good way for LDS, Inc. to keep real estate holdings, tax-free, with free volunteer maintenance, and near-free upgrading, contracted to Mormon relatives. If the LDS, Inc. owns enough land, they can become like a small country, which has always been their dream, to return to the good old days of Brigham Young's polygamous dictatorship, and JS making his own laws, his own bank, wanting to run for President, etc. Not only is LDS, Inc. about money, it's about power, as reflected in its gross architecture.


The various predictions of the future or Mormonism are very interesting, here!

Note that the temples are on the most primo land available. (The Mormons really know how to ruin a great view.)

Mother Who Knows Wrote:
---------------------------------
> Note that the temples are on the most primo land available. (The Mormons really know how to ruin a great view.)

That they do

I agree. Rather than secret doorway codes and always taking the lower road preaching, it could practice Sainthood, Christianity, or sincere neighborliness, though that might make/ help them blend in, or even stand out.

It is an outward "church".
Not an inward faith/ practice.

The temple is a ticket to heaven. SPEEDING! Hell-No insurance. Tale light out.

LDS temples are professed riches.
Symbols of 'soft work'. Sparkles.
Ego signs. Danger signs. Empty signs.

Like Motel-6, but without the assurance or promise of the lights being left on.

Like the Bates motel.
About as scary!

M@t

"Like the Bates motel."

And plenty of dead mother's names inside of them.

What's funny is the church is putting all this focus on being a "christian" church but where did Christ ever mention building temples? He talked about the one in Jerusalem being destroyed and mentioned that our bodies were temples. Temples are part of the law of Moses. You know that old law Christ did away with?

provided in any of the "standard works" (official scriptures) of the LDS Church.

I'm convinced that the whole thing was initially introduced as part of Joe's secret adultery and fornication club (aka spiritual wivery/plural marriage).

It was all a hush-hush, top secret, "members only" affair at the beginning. Hence the need for an "initiation" ritual, secrecy oaths, penalties for spilling the beans outside the temple, etc. It all has a kind of perverse logic to it in that context.

Outside of that context, it's just ridiculous and the only way they've been able to maintain it is due to the intense conditioning of members to make them reflexively obedient to the commands issued by their masters (the "General Authorities), no matter how illogical or poorly explained.

Mark,

Excellent essay.

Your question "But have temples proven to be a rallying point to attract and retain members"

As a new convert the temple was unknown to me and then I heard you had to get special dispensation to go, and also you needed to be a member for at least a year, so that is when I stopped listening. Nothing got rallied for me!

Temples were suppose to be a cultural symbol of a pioneer community. Logan temple had a large auditorium (that stakes still use today) where important community meeting were suppose to be held. Local materials were suppose to be used in the building of these structures. They are suppose to be built of rock by local craftsmen, Everyone in the community was suppose to be working on cutting the stones as they did in old Scotland (where the designs come from).

It's suppose to be a community building reflecting the community spirit. But now they are just the Mormon Mc-Temples of Big'D' construction. Or the temple of Jacobsen. No one gets to participate. No one cares anymore. And they raid amazon rain forests for rare woods that reflecting nothing of the local environment.

anono this week Wrote:

> built of rock by local craftsmen, Everyone in the community was > suppose to be working on cutting the stones

Question: so in the Pioneer days of local stone and everyone working to build it---was everyone allowed in or was it still restricted to full tithe-paying members?

If not, when did they change it to restrict it like it is today?

I always wondered what it cost to dig under the burned-out Provo City Center Temple, prop the thing up on legs, install a basement underneath and then over furnish the honkey tonk interior even with door hinges engraved on the inside.

I heard the photo-op glass building just outside was over $100 million.

Does anyone have the correct figure?

LD$ Inc spent all that money and that particular temple still looks like a glorified county Fair Barn.

MORmON STUPID secret handshake palaces (temples) have NEVER made sense, except as an accessory to SCAM people, which is exactly why LD$ Inc never refers to them as what they really are -MORmON stupid secret handshake palaces.

IT is irritating as HELL that MORmONS LOVE to GENERALLY speak about how critical and indispensable that their STUPID Secret handshake palaces are to maintaining family associations in the next existence. But After all that build up, then MORmONS refuse to divulge any specifics or details about what goes on inside their STUPID secret handshake palaces, just as they have been instructed by MORmON scam artist leaders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i4HC3rZiDo

Can you imagine being a MORmON member 50 or 100 years ago who was based in SOuth America with no way to ever earn enough money to make the journey to the USA with your family to be sealed to them in a MORmON temple? SUch an arrangement SHOULD make a person ask: "God, WHY do you hate me and my family so much????"

Can you imagine so painfully saving money for years to make the trip, while also faithFOOLy paying tithing !!!!! OF COURSE!!!!! to remain temple worthy, and then finally getting to SLC Utah for your temple endowment and sealing only to discover that the thing you have sacrificed so much for to supposedly preserve your family is based on STUPID ASS SECRET HANDSHAKES???

Can you imagine the CRUELTY that it takes to keep running such a blood sucking CRUEL scam that makes such CRUEL demands on people ????

adding new temples (temple inflation), there are a number of fundamental problems at the core of the temple practices/doctrines that cannot withstand scrutiny even from a TBM perspective. (Of course they are patently ridiculous from a non-TBM perspective.)

Examples of some of the problems with the temple belief system:

(1) For each worthy Mormon, there is absolutely no need to go to a temple more than a few times in a lifetime. If it were not for the bizarre practice of doing ordinances for dead people, each Mormon would only go through the temple ONE time for their own endowment and 2 or 3 times maximum for sealings (mainly weddings, but also family sealings for converts). The rest of the time, they would have nothing to do in the temple but be spectators when family members or friends do their own endowments or sealing ordinances. Thus it appears that the dead work is really just busywork.

(2) If not for the dead people, the temples would get probably less than 1% of their current rate of use. Accordingly, it appears that the living are being taxed ("tithed") exorbitant amounts to support the supposed needs of dead people. The dead people never asked for it. You just have to take the word of the leaders of the Church (who collect the tax on behalf of dead people) that this is what the dead people need and want.

(3) That brings us to another nail in the coffin (so to speak) concerning the temple belief system. No justification (in terms of revelation or official policy) has ever been given for the insanely inefficient method of doing ordinances for dead people as currently practiced, which relies on whatever information that members can diligently scrounge from woefully inaccurate and incomplete records of births and deaths that are available around the world, with the result that it is plain to see that doing all the work for all dead people, on an individual name basis, is hopelessly impossible. As mentioned, no justification is given for this inefficient and hopelessly flawed practice and it contradicts the principle of universality established by the atonement.

(4) Jesus did not perform the ordinance of atonement on an individual name basis. He did not hang up there on the cross or bleed and suffer in the Garden of Gethsemane spending countless hours reciting a separate atonement prayer for every person who ever did or would live on earth. "I offer up this atonement for and on behalf of Bertha Snogg Buttons, who will one day be dead and not have the opportunity to be baptized. I offer up this atonement for and on behalf of Gishmael Baalnik, who is dead. I offer up this atonement for and on behalf of...." Even according to believers, nothing like that ever happened. It was a "one time does all" ritual. No reason has ever been given (AFAIK) as to why a universal temple ritual could not have been done for and on behalf of all people who died without having the opportunity to get their butts inside a Mormon temple. The practice of attempting to do ordinances for each individual who ever lived on this planet is beyond stupid. It's not much less realistic than trying to give a unique name to every dog that has ever lived on Earth, while believing that accuracy counts. (The idea that any dead person that gets lost or missed in the process will be taken care of by God separately just underscores the fact that NONE OF IT IS REALLY NECESSARY for anything other than giving busywork to morons.)

(5) The notion of a dedicated temple being the only place and space within which the temple ordinances can be performed is clearly just another example of magical, hocus-pocus thinking. It's of the same mindset as the belief that deals with the Devil have to be made at a specific intersection (the "crossroads").

I'm sure the "Brethren" are fully aware of all of these issues. The fact that they never address any of them speaks volumes.

The Mormon argument is that while Jesus provided humanity with mere salvation, the higher state of exaltation - becoming gods - came through Joseph Smith and temple ordinances. Of course, this diminishes the Atonement as the center of gravity of Christianity and shifts the focus of Mormonism from Christ to "something bigger." Temples are a critical prerequisite to that "something bigger."

Temples are display pieces of what is now called "Prosperity Gospel," the notion that God blesses those whom he loves and if a prescribed code of behavior is followed, material wealth will result. Mormonism goes a good ways further with this concept making the attainment of material wealth the primary definition of success both in this world and the next. For Mormons this life, the "second estate," is given us to obtain physical bodies and to secure all of the other material resources necessary to becoming gods and kings. The expression "building the kingdom" is meant literally in very real terms - more land, more buildings, more crops and herds, more wives, more babies, more servants,and eventually, more worlds. Section 132 in the D&C makes clear the scope of sealing authority in this context:

7. And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power ... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

With the objective of:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

For Mormons, temples and the sealing power they represent are not just applicable to mates and families, but apply as well to "all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations.." And that once all of this is sealed to a man, in the next life he will be resurrected and " shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths..which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever." (Polygamy being essential to obtaining "exaltation and glory" it being the new and everlasting covenant. "New" as in "We've never done this before.")

For Mormons, Jesus is as much or more feudal lord as he is the savior of souls. The Mormon Second Coming is about Jesus arriving in power and majesty to settle accounts. "It isn't personal," you can almost hear the Mormon Messiah say, "It's just business." The mystery, the passion, the boundless universal love of the priceless Atonement are supplanted by a contractual and transactional relation with God - I did what you asked and now you owe me. And what profit a man who gains the world and loses his soul? Well, he still has all that world stuff. If it was sealed to him. In the temple.

to go to the temple more than now and then, if that. Most of my relatives didn't attend the temple more than to get married and go to other marriages. Most of my aunts and uncles on my dad's side didn't get married in the temple. My parents are the only ones who did. The others all got sealed later on.

The more temples they build, the more they feel like just glorified stake centers. They aren't special anymore, but then they never were once you realize what they are like to attend.

Someone on this forum said temples are starting to look like a McDonalds franchise.

So true.