I don't see another thread on this. Disregard if there is one.

I just heard on the local news here in SE Idaho that the church is building yet another temple, just north of Rexburg. They already have Montpelier and Burly in progress. Idaho Falls already has one. I think they said there are 9 in Idaho now?

Honestly, that seems like a lot for this area. All I can say is people no longer will see them as anything special when they are everywhere like church McDonalds.

As we have discussed a zillion times here, I think the church is trying to pour money into the areas where Mormons need a boost to keep them engaged.

They seem like such a waste of resources. They really can't think of anything else for Mormons to do, apparently.

Take paradise, put up a cult house spot.

Don’t forget it’s mostly Mormon contracting with a 10% + rebate de jur…..

Gotta pa$ on the Gross, ya know…

ChurchCo could request that contractors have programs to get minority & disadvantaged ppl into good paying career paths…

Nah, forget I mentioned that, My Bad

>>ChurchCo could request that contractors have programs to get minority & disadvantaged ppl into good paying career paths…

That is an excellent idea.

On the way back from Utah County early last November I stopped in at the St. George Temple. It's closed for re-molding (yeah, it's not like there's much they can do to get the stink out), and there were a lot of orange and yellow vested workers all around the property.

I parked across the street, on the west side, just as a worker was crossing from the temple lot.  He looked quite Hispanic, so as we passed, I uttered a cheery Spanish greeting.  He announced that he was Apache, and continued on.

When I was leaving, he was sitting on the curb, looking at the temple and smoking a cigarette.  

Much confusion in my mind!

My story relates because it contains 'temple'.  Thank you.

I seem to remember back in the day, people building the temple had to have temple recommends for some parts. I seem to remember some brouhaha about swearing or smoking inside.

They are trying to do it with mirrors.
and THE MIRROR CRACKED!!!
just like the 1980 Elizabeth Taylor movie



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2022 03:51PM by thedesertrat1.

I’ve said this before (but I have been known to repeat myself). When I went on my mission in 1976, there were only 16 temples in the entire world. For most members, a visit to a temple was a rare experience that required planning and saving. Now…how does anyone get excited about McTemples?

When I was even younger- around 1962- one of my Primary mates said he heard from somebody who heard from somebody else that a sure sign of Jesus' return would be when the church built a sixteenth temple.

Another factor is the drive by Rusty to establish his prophetic superiority. As in his ego.

Ah, the good(?) old days when almost anything was a sign that Christ was returning soon.

The church really has to walk a fine line. Building temples generates tithing revenue in the areas they're built. But build too many temples and they lose their specialness. I think the church may have crossed a line and it's building too many. But what else can it do with its money? Feed the hungry and clothe the naked? Surely not.

When a financial enterprise, as opposed to an operational business, grows to a certain size, it inevitably becomes a real estate business because real estate is the only asset class large enough to absorb huge amounts of money.

For the church, the temples aren't as important as the underlying land. You can write off the buildings as a marginal loss and still own the productive, and generally appreciating, real estate. Hence the constant feverish announcement of new temples, which impress most members even if they undermine the scarcity value to local communities.

Another thing we can glean from this is that the church is far, far wealthier than the $100 billion that had us all so exercised when the Ensign Peak data was leaked. Judging from its investment strategy, the corporation is probably worth 10 or 15 times that.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> For the church, the temples aren't as important as
> the underlying land. You can write off the
> buildings as a marginal loss and still own the
> productive, and generally appreciating, real
> estate. Hence the constant feverish announcement
> of new temples, which impress most members even if
> they undermine the scarcity value to local
> communities.


ChurchCo itself is not a profit & loss operation, Not subject to taxation; how could any religiously purposed asset be 'written off'?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2022 05:53PM by GNPE.

You miss my point. I don't mean "writing off" as in tax credits; I mean writing the structures off of the church's own books as poor investments.

The real investment is the real estate. The temple structure is a marketing expense.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2022 06:07PM by Lot's Wife.

has ChurchCo ever sold a temple?

It doesn't matter. The question is whether they want to recognize a loss in their internal accounts.

it matters to me, Yours isn't the only perspective.

I'm sure you can look up the answer all by yourself.

My Point is that even as much as we detest what ChurchCo does financially & with people/members / abusive members & leaders, they don't need to resort to accounting shortcuts - tricks to achieve what they do.

That said, the accounting & legal strategies & tactics in use every day are written by lawyers & accountants to protect - encourage special interests, it's just that ChurchCo doesn't need them.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My Point is that even as much as we detest what
> ChurchCo does financially & with people/members /
> abusive members & leaders, they don't need to
> resort to accounting shortcuts - tricks to achieve
> what they do.

GNPE, it's not an accounting trick. Every business invests in both substantial assets and in PR, and they write off the PR advertising on their taxes if possible and in any case on their internal books.

We are missing the point if we focus on the temples themselves as the investment. Sometimes real estate companies buy a property with houses in the knowledge that they are going to tear down the houses and build something else. Sometimes they'll even build a structure on the property if necessary for tax reasons or for public prestige knowing full well that in a few years they'll tear it down and build something else--or simply to hold the empty property as an asset that appreciates with time.

That's what the church is doing. They buy real estate, put a temple on it so they can claim the church is growing, and then wait. In rare cases the temples may pay for themselves through greater tithing revenues but in most cases they'll operate at a loss. To a savvy investor the short-term losses don't matter. Given a modest rate of appreciation over an extended period of time, the value of any depreciating structure will approach zero while the plot itself steadily gains value.

The temple is in effect a loss leader. What the church is really interested in is the land and the accompanying opportunities for commercial investments.

They sold the nauvoo temple on the way out of town.

Nelson announced it in the Oct 2021 GC. Since it's Rexburg, they could move quickly on it.

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2397218

They do have BYU-I as a captive audience. I can see (if they don't already) TSCC mandating temple activity as a strict condition of keeping students' ecclesiastical endorsements current.

I vaguely remember them announcing it, but there hasn't been a bunch of hub-bub in the press about it here since. Like with the recently finished Pocatello temple, they seem to have a well scripted roll out for the process for press to feed us.

Today they news announced the name of the temple- Teton River Something. The news said it would be north of Rexburg but they do not have the exact location. Then they showed a picture of the proposed building. Of course the church knows the location. Like with the recent Pocatello build, everyone will speculate and hype it up, while certain investor types with the church move to control the developing area.

Darn it, the news was just stopping the yammer about the Pocatello temple (...youth volunteers planted flowers at the LDS temple today...it's open house at the LDS temple today...the temple is open today...).

Apparently it will be across the street from a Walmart

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/teton-river-idaho-temple/news/

"n Rexburg on the presumed site of the Rexburg North Idaho Temple, now listed as the Teton River Idaho Temple on the official Church website. A garage and outbuilding remain. The one-acre parcel is part of a much larger property owned by the Church including over 100 acres of farmland south of the Teton River. It is located northwest of the intersection of 2nd East and 2000 North (Moody Road) across from the Walmart Supercenter, just off the North Rexburg Exit (#337) of US Highway 20."

Also this:

"No details of the project have been released, but the mayor of Rexburg says that the Church is planning some commercial development next to the temple."

> "No details of the project have been released, but
> the mayor of Rexburg says that the Church is
> planning some commercial development next to the
> temple."

There it is again: the temple as marketing expense for a bigger investments in commercial real estate.

Bingo.

Exactly.

Teton River Temple. OK.

"The Teton River… drains through the Teton Valley along the west side of the Teton Range along the Idaho-Wyoming border at the eastern end of the Snake River Plain. Its location along the western flank of the Tetons provides the river with more rainfall than many other rivers of the region."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_River_(Idaho)


So the river was likely named due to its proximity to the Teton Range. Is the church aware of the etymology of Teton?

"In terms of etymology for the mountain's naming, the most common explanation is that 'Grand Teton' means 'large teat' or 'large nipple' in French (téton), named by either French-Canadian or Iroquois members of an expedition led by Donald McKenzie of the North West Company."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton


"However, French explorers saw something different in the mountains when they stumbled upon the range while trudging across the frozen tundra of Western Wyoming. Tired and famished, possibly daydreaming of the comforts of home, they quickly came to name the iconic mountains 'Les Trois Tetons', or 'The Three Breasts'. To top it off, they literally named the Grand Teton, the tallest mountain in the Teton Range and the third tallest in Wyoming, 'the big tit'. Les Trois Tétons somehow stuck."

https://www.davehansenwhitewater.com/how-the-tetons-got-their-name


So the church is unwittingly calling their new House of the Lord the "Boob River Temple" or "Nipple River Temple." How salacious!

LOL. I'm calling it tit temple.

They bless your junk in the temple and tell you to have lot’s of sex and make lot’s of babies in the sealing ceremony. What better symbol for eternal marriage with numerous hot goddesses than a big juicy tit? Them explorers were in the wilderness too long. The big horn sheep certainly weren’t safe.

Anyways they need to build a big white tin with a golden bpnipple on top. It will look great from Wal-Mart all lit up.

The Teton area is a great (seasonal?) place to see & hear Western Meadowlarks, they draw lots of bird-watching tourists similar to how loons draw tourists to Minnesota & nearby locations.

Their song can be heard online, it’s among my favs.

about spots on my apples, just give some brand new Gs.

:-) You're good.

They took all the GAs
Put 'em in a GA museum
And they charged all the people an arm and a leg just to see 'em

In my opinion the Temples ultimately serve two purposes regardless of location. The first one is to generate more tithing, once they put one is place, then the temple district gets hammered by talks and lectures about being temple worthy, and now there is one close by, thus no excuse to not have a recommend.

Secondly which came out by way of the local news was when they were going to build a Temple in Erda, Utah. There was a church farm where the temple was going and LDS Corp. came out with a development plan to the city that surrounded the temple with homes and a small park or two, of course all owned and to be built by a for profit arm of the church. Needless to say, it would have brought in huge amounts of dollars, since it was small lots and townhomes. The local area went up in arms, because local covenants restricted lot size to no smaller than 1 acre. So the church simply moved the temple to Tooele to accomplish the development returns, with donated land.

So to me, the numerous temples are about housing developments that bring in big returns to add to their war chest. And of course the side benefit is more tithing, and image.

Yep. They appear to be controlling and designing areas around in their fiefdom to maximize their property value and keep Mormon areas prosperous. That in itself yields more tithing.

And just like McDonalds - where you often find you could have had a REAL meal at a REAL restaurant for what you paid - MoronicPriesthood, inc costs a small fortune to get into the Temples.

So let’s see, two in west Idaho, two in south central Idaho, a zillion in east Idaho, and none north of Rexburg. Is that about right? Will there ever be a Coeur d’Alene temple?

I think the Missoula MT temple will cover some of that area. Mormons are not a huge thing up there like they are here in Utah's armpit.

Coeur d'Alene is 35 miles from Spokane, so unlikely unless a lot more mormons move there.

Right. I forgot about Spokane so close.

In eastern ID, Rexburg is the last city of any size, headed north. Ashton and St Anthony are bumps in the road, and not very far from north Rex.

As for Coeur d’Alene, there is a temple in Spokane, just a few miles away. The only urban area I can think of in Idaho that doesn’t have a temple nearby would be Lewiston/Moscow/Clarkston/Pullman. I bet one of those is next.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only urban area I can think of in Idaho that doesn’t have a
> temple nearby would be
> Lewiston/Moscow/Clarkston/Pullman. I bet one of
> those is next.

That makes sense - thanks. So you’re saying you don’t think a Sun Valley/Ketchum temple is going to be announced any time soon. (I joke)

Looking at a map I realized that except for Montpelier, which is practically in Utah, all of the temples are (relatively) along the Snake River. I guess that makes sense.

Rusty: I've got a fever and the only cure is More Temples!

Those are the last days so Idaho needs to do temple work.

I thought that on the last days the Saints will travel to Missouri.

Why are we talking about Idaho Missouri is where the Saints will gather. Anyone please explain it to me why isn't there more talk about Missouri?

When I grew up in the church, we talked about Missouri all the time. Even back then, I wondered if they should save all their money for building Zion in Missouri instead of building stuff all over. Those were the days when they stressed that Jebus was coming sooner than later. Some of my mom's generation had blessings that said they would be alive when Jebus comes and the move to Missouri would happen. They would help build the end days temple, yada, yada.

Now it's obvious to everyone that the entire world Mormon population cannot physically congregate in Missouri and they want that to go down the memory hole. No one wants to think they will be left out if Jebus shows up there probably. I guess He's going to have to go on tour to all the zillions of temples everywhere now. I really don't know what spin they have for that whole plan nowadays.

So you’re saying the Missouri thingee was just a Red Herring?
Well Bust My Buttons ;)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2022 12:25AM by GNPE.

I remember Sunday School teachers waxing on about the imminent trek to Missouri all the time. Maybe the leaders wised up that they can't keep harping on it because when Jesus doesn't show up year after year it loses any sense of immediacy.

I, for one, would love to see ChurchCo announce in General Conference that everyone needs to pack up, buy a handcart, and head out with their 6 months of wheat. First impact: the number of "believing" Mormons who would waffle or outright refuse to go; true believers would convince themselves the tares were being separated from the wheat, but the Church would lose a huge chunk of its formerly-dedicated members. Second impact: the shitshow at the Temple Lot when thousands of LDS Mormons show up and claim rightful ownership from the Temple Lot Mormons while the Community of Christ Mormons try to mediate. But that's exactly why it will never happen.

I think it,s a cunning ploy with the state to shift focus away from the over taxation in the state that has produced another 1.4. Billion budget surplus. Second year in z row.

I'm not so sure it is over taxation as much as incompetent management of what tax payers should be getting.

Idaho is among the lowest in resources spent per child in schools. I could give many examples of things in disarray that need tax dollars to fix. But no, our governor wants to give refunds to look like he is doing something for the people while he harps about lowering taxes. Funny how when he refunds money, he doesn't complain about it causing inflation.

Dagny, when the average price of a gallon of gas in Idaho is anywhere from 60 to 70 cents per gallon above the national average (the last comparison I saw on TV news) and the tax on food continues at the same rate, I call that over taxation.

True.
I read once that the price of gas is higher in places that are more remote due to transport costs. I doubt that is true. Idaho has somewhere around the 13th highest rate of taxes on gas, so I can agree with you. I'm not against high taxes on gas if the tax is used to do things like improve roads or fund alternate energy or schools.

But no, Idaho is busy paying for law suits about trans kids birth certificates and women's rights. It's infuriating that they use millions of tax dollars for political hot topics.

Also, the gas situation is a whole different animal to me than just taxation, since it is a global, environmental and war issue. I hope Idaho will not push back on trying to wean ourselves off so much oil.

I think they want the subliminal value of having their minions forced to stare at the temple each and every time they drive "home."

To me, many of them are positioned that way, especially where you see a new temple with new housing popping around it.

One neighborhood in specific, I'll have to remember the name of the city, and edit that in. But, it's obvious, homeowners have the big ugly thing looming when they step outside their door, and driving home, the thing appears larger and larger, the closer they get to their houses.

They want to imprint us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2022 10:14AM by Kathleen.

That route has tons of tourists headed up to the National Parks all the time. The temples are positioned on display along the way to make sure everyone knows the church is dominant like a dog that pees to mark territory.

Temples make Plenty of $$$$$for ChurchCo, no need or benefit to any 'write down'.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Temples make Plenty of $$$$$for ChurchCo, . . .

You don't know that. You have no idea what the net revenue of a new temple is.


-------------------
> . . . no need or benefit to any 'write down'.

Whoosh.

- we Know ChurchCo loves $$$

- we Know temples cost lost of $$$

- people have to Pay $$$ to attend the temple

- ChurchCo tells members (and other interested ppl) that 'getting their endowment' is necessary for them to attain the CK / 'live with HF - their families in the hereafter

-If ChurchCo wasn't making $$$ by building temples, they'd stop in a heartbeat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2022 09:24PM by GNPE.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the church's financial accounting.

And your calculation of the church's business decisions is flawed. If the church needs temples to keep the membership happy, they will build them at a loss. They have almost certainly already started doing that.

As I said, they are, or will become, "loss leaders."

ChurchCo decision makers aren't Dummies, they know which side of their bread is buttered.

LW's original stmnt with that the costs can be 'written off', I haven't seen any data or logic to support that statement, None.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2022 10:36PM by GNPE.

> LW's original stmnt with that the costs can be
> 'written off', I haven't seen any data or logic to
> support that statement, None.

Oh, you've seen it. You just didn't understand it.

well, I have a degree in Business including a few credit hours in accounting, I still remember some of the basic terms & the concept of writing down an asset.

the idea of writing down an asset is so that the books reflect a reduction to the actual or more realistic value as reported to managers, owners & gov't. In the case of ChurchCo owners/managers, there is no practical benefit to writing down their temples or any of their assets.

So, I do understand the most common use of the term and I don't see how it applies to ChurchCo...

A loss leader is a marketing ploy to draw customers to a product that makes money for the company by PR / advertising, I don't think that applies to ChurchCo or to this situation