* At least one temple in West Africa had to be shut for years due to political unrest.
* The Hong Kong Temple is probably at risk. There have been protests of a million people or so in an area of around six million, and they have been violent protests. The HKT can't operate fully under these circumstances.
* BYU Jerusalem (not a temple of course) was shut for years due to the start of the Second Intifada or Arab Uprising.
* There are two temples in the UK. Neither of these are tax free since they are not open to the public. I would be interested to know if this mentality applies elsewhere.
* With all the saber rattling between Russia and the west, will a Russian temple last long? Come to think of it, will an Indian temple be attacked by other religious extremists in India such as Hindu fundamentalists?
Other temples have lain in disaster zones, areas controlled by war lords or drug barons...
A large number of temples also lie in areas prone to seismic activity e.g. California, New Zealand, Japan, Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Hawaii... Another problem right there.
maybe all these wars means multiculturalism isn't working out too great. It use to be the situation that the GAs were exorting the converts to gather to Utah Zion. IN the 1800's they sought out white people to come to Utah. But then around 1920s the shift changed and when they started baptizing different races of people the church said they weren't suppose to come to Utah anymore. And instead built temples in other countries, trying to export Utah culture/values to diverse people. And keep Utah homoethnic.
What's the answer? Diversity brings tensions that are difficult to work through. Mormondom and it's racist ideas isn't helping the situation... at all.
I think in the late 20th century it became harder for people to emigrate to the USA, since they had to be screened (a good thing IMHO) but this meant that they couldn't have LDS converts flooding into the USA like they used to.
I'm amazed that the church is still on a temple building binge. I can't imagine spending all of that money on a building, that at least in some cases, is open only by appointment or a few hours a week. Is the church reeling in that much money from members in each temple district? The church obviously still sees temples as profit centers, but at what point does that change, and they start to become a drain on available cash?
I think that having so many temples is already a liability, but we shall see.
Temples provide an excuse to buy prime real estate and not have to pay taxes on it due to religious use. This money laundering also gives the impression that the church is growing.
Money laundering? You do realize the money they bring in is already tax-free. They don't have to spend it on temples to make it tax free.
They build temples because it increases tithing revenue by increasing the number of TR holders. It has nothing to do with money laundering. Nor is it an investment. It's only a real estate investment if you eventually sell the land ata profit. They can't really sell the land a temple is on unless something terrible happens that required permanently closing the temple. That would likely lower the value of the land.
I'm just going to pipe up and point out that the money that "The Church" brings in IS indeed tax free, but getting it into the hands of those who are really in control is what is being meant by using the term "money laundering".
My personal belief is that there is a crew of men, based out of Kirton McConkie and includes the owners of Layton Construction, Okland Construction, Big-D Construction and Jacobsen Construction. Those are the firms that get ALL of the temple contracts and it is the law firm that handles all of the legal work. That's where the money is going to. Not really money laundering per se, but it is definitely a funnel.
You're right, they cannot and will never sell a temple. To do so would signal that they are just about to close the doors. No, they are just churning through the money.
It's just this side of organized crime. They ask for bids for the temple projects, the lowest bid (by one of the aforementioned firms) gets the contract, but then the chruch keeps making changes and the cost of the project skyrockets and the profits for the firms goes up.
My question is why had they not always been in a temple building binge? If temple ordinance are essential for exaltation, then they should be as common as stake centers.
So let's see if I have this right. LDS Inc is spending lavishly on temple construction so they can skim money on construction costs to line their own pockets.
And LDS Inc is skimping on wardhouse construction and doubling and tripling occupancy and even cutting back to a two hour block to avoid building more chapels.
Excuse me, but you can't have it both ways. If they are skimming money off construction, they should be putting up chapels like they were pop corn. They would have private church-owned janitorial firms and skim money off that. None of that is happening.
Meanwhile, LDS Inc is spending its money on a gigantic tree farm in Florida, a downtown housing development in Philadelphia, City Centre Mall, and god knows what other investments. They are clearly not sinking all their money into temple construction. I don't think they are sinking a large chunk of it into temple construction.
They build temples because they generate tithing revenue. That in turn binds people more closely to the church, because they feel they have to justify the sunk costs. I've known people who have contracted construction with LDS Inc. They all said LDS Inc is a pain in the butt to work with.
'temple districts' are a JOKE in a few cases; when I lived in Toledo (OH, not Toledo Washington), TR holders were almost weekly admonished to attend in Columbus rather than in the much closer Detroit temple.
U see, the Mormon God isn't concerned about your time or extra miles on your vehicle!
GNPE1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'temple districts' are a JOKE in a few cases; when > I lived in Toledo (OH, not Toledo Washington), TR > holders were almost weekly admonished to attend in > Columbus rather than in the much closer Detroit > temple. > > U see, the Mormon God isn't concerned about your > time or extra miles on your vehicle!
This is exactly what they do in wards. We used to have a lovely old lady who went to our ward because the bus routes were much easier for her (one direct bus). She got forced to go to the neighboring ward because she was in its boundaries. She would have to take three buses. She stopped going.
They already are; any building requires constant maintenance. Most of us know, or at least suspect, the newer Mac-temples are poorly constructed and under constant repair.
I see temple building as part of the Morg’s bunker mentality— Build them now, meet immediate needs, provide the impression of growth, encourage tithes. But, eventually, they will become even greater liabilities and many of them are underutilized.
Years ago in SLC, older churches were turned into restaurants. Wouldn’t it be fun to go to the Rome temple for Moroni’s (the Italian painter) pasta!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/04/2019 12:29PM by BYU Boner.
The church chooses conspicuous locations when it can. It's to say, "Look at us, we're big and prosperous." But to the rest of the world it says, "Those are preposterous buildings, like something from Oz. Strange people."
Even Mrs. Boner, who rarely says anything not faith-promoting, noted it was a small building trying to look big. Boyd would be proud of his puffed-up mac-temple.