- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
No one can answer this authoritatively, I know. However, I suspect that there IS an economic benefit to having temples close to home. With how easy it is to avoid a TR interview, I can see how living hours upon hours away from a temple would make it less important for people to pay tithing, and get that TR. Having one close by may well increase the immediate value of holding a TR, as would the constant and reasonable (from a driving standpoint) requests to go there for baptisms etcetera. Also, the fact that the Church is willing to put together a new temple patron fund so people can go to the temple FOR THE FIRST TIME ONLY is an indication that accessible temples is something that probably has an economic benefit in getting people to pay tithing.
Also, given the strong temporal focus of the Church, I can’t see them building these lavish buildings, along with a well-above average home for the temple president close by, if somehow, these temples didn’t cause a general boost in tithing revenues.
One thing I feel strongly about was the GBH was “painting a picture” of a Church which is really not all that wealthy in his talk on “Why we do the things we do”. He commented that these buildings are “costly to maintain”. However, I believe he left out the financial benefits of buildings — it wouldn’t surprise me if a nice building the Saints can call their own (meetinghouse or chapel) increases attendance and donations. So, to focus only on the cost of such buildings, without describing their impact on revenues is a misnomer, in my view.
However, I would be interested in what others think.
You hit one of my red hot buttons. Of course I have no proof or statistics but I totally believe temples are revenue producing investments. Maybe not everyone built is, but as a general rule it is well understood that building a temple increases the tithing revenues for the church in the area. I am getting really cynical about this in that I am almost to the point of believing the leaders know this and actually build temples for this reason. The temple is the driving force in Mormonism. It is where it all happens. It is where your exaltation is assured. It is where you get to save your ancestors, and you have to pay money to get in. It is so contrary to anything I would think of as Christ like it troubles me. It is one of the most wasteful structures in the church. A lot of people coming and going. Lots of activity “at times” but nothing really getting accomplished in my mind. I guess I have become to cynical. The temple seems so much like a control mechanism to increase revenue and control behavior I no longer even feel like attempting to attend. Of course I understand also the average TBM sees it totaly different so I need to be understanding of that, but I still think it is for the money.
In my experience, the Church also asks for people to give money over and above their tithing donations to build a temple, so the cost to the Church from its regular revenue streams could be very small. Therefore, the additional tithing revenues only have to cover the increased operating costs to the Church only, plus a return on whatever portion of the cost of the temple the Church has to fund from its own savings (if there is a member donation short-fall for the temple fund). The other thing — they insist that the local membership be “tithing worthy” if they are going to build a temple, which shows the link between temples and revenue streaming as well.
However, the thing that gets me is that if a temple no longer makes money, you have a structure there sitting idle. And I don’t think the Church can realistically sell it or discontinue its use due to member perception/faith issues it would create. The thought of the Church selling a loss-producing temple to an outside organization for some other use (perhaps another church, for example, or maybe a community center — something consistent with the local zoning) is unconscionable –without replacing it with another temple within driving distance. So, after they build one, they are stuck. The exit barriers are very high. This is the downside of building a temple –particularly if the local membership stops paying its tithing or suffers from high, less-activity rates.
And its the only thing that makes me wonder if they really are built for spiritual reasons.
Granted, I wouldn’t have posted this question if I didn’t think that there is a revenue-producing aspect to temples.
At one time, there were very few of them, and they were big, then GBH announced smaller temples closer to home. The financials HAD to be considered in this decision, and the Church seems very excited about building temples worldwide. It wouldn’t surprise me if there is a strong financial benefit to the Church in investing in temples, notwithstanding the financial risks if it doesn’t generate sufficient income after maintenance, insurance and taxes.
I think I mentioned once that I listed all the principles the Church practices with respect to running its operations — debt free, and that spiritual principles and practices also support financial practices. That principle, while implicit, is one that I see everywhere. Perhaps its another thread, but I can’t see them violating it for temples when they are so costly.
I think from the church’s standpoint, the temple is all upside, but it’s not limited to tithing. Consider the other benefits: –
missionary work. If people have seen a temple, they are more likely to know who the Mormons are and to develop a favorable opinion. Open houses and visitor centers bring people in, and because the buildings are beautiful, they can create a draw. –
investment. Members who go to the temple don’t just financially commit, but they also make great personal sacrifices that increase their emotional investment and engagement in the organization. These are the folks who keep the church running. And the bigger the personal sacrifices you make, the more likely you are to stay in the church for the long haul. –
strengthening family ties. Human ties are a strong factor in staying active in the church. Many members talk about the strong family pressures to stay. The temple solidifies the personal need not to be the broken link in the family chain. Being in the temple ties you through family obligation to those living (to be able to participate in weddings and endowments) and those who have died (to do their vicarious work). It’s kind of ingenious as a way to keep people in the church. Yes, I see these items from Hawkgrrl as intangible benefits that also need to be factored into the analysis. In my work in teaching finance courses, even if you have a loss on the investment after taking into account the cost of your capital (and that includes the return you need to satisfy yourself it’s worth it to build a temple) you still might make the investment.
Even if there is a shortfall, you might say “are those intangible benefits WORTH the shortfall?” In other words, can you realistically expect to make up that shortfall through hard-to-measure benefits like the ones Hawkgrrl lists?
I’m sure these are also considered.
If they day ever comes when people stop believing in the temple, I think we would see a huge hit to the Church revenues overall.
[side note]There was a temple president a while ago in my area that drew a financial link between the temple, and missionary work. He commented on how our Stake was doing well on missionary work, but that people weren’t going to the temple. He said it was like your sales are growing but your profits are declining…..The business language disturbed me a bit, as did the mission president in the same meeting who referred to our area as the [enter city name] “market”. I really do think they manage and view Church operations in the back office using the same analysis and thinking that we see in business, tempered by the need to also manage member perception and stay true to core values.
I interviewed a former hard-nut stake president I knew as part of a business course on leadership. He said he runs the Church like one of his businesses, but finds he has to be “more diplomatic”. He said it almost as if it was a hassle to be more diplomatic. No wonder he created an experience that prompted my first faith crisis in the Church [/side note]
I don’t believe the primary reason temples are built is to boost revenue. Do they increase tithing in an area? Probably. Does that increase in tithing cover the cost of building and maintaining them? Probably not – unless, maybe, it’s figured over the course of a very, very long time – and I’m not sure it does so even then.
It’s important to remember in an analysis like this that the only “financial benefit” to the church is the INCREASE in tithing, since what was being paid prior to the temple being built isn’t affected by building the temple.
Seeing these things as consequences of building temples is interesting but I think it’s a bit of a stretch to infer that’s why the temples are being built. I know there are spiritual reasons as well, but I find the spiritual reasons tends to support financial ones simultaneously — at least, in our Church they do. I’m focusing on the financial benefits for now, as they rarely if ever get discussed. It’s just that when the discussion moves in this direction, I see venal motives being ascribed to those making the decisions. As faithless and unbelieving as I am, I still don’t see that sort of motivation in the leadership. I never used to see it that way either..but now I see it as a dual motive given my life’s experiences. In my experience, the Church simply does not regularly make losing investments. Temporal matters are hugely important, with “all things are spiritual” given as the reason for this duality. I think the word venal is a bit more untrustworthy or nefarious than I mean though — I looked it up and it means:
Quote:
Definition of VENAL1: capable of being bought or obtained for money or other valuable consideration : purchasable; especially : open to corrupt influence and especially bribery : mercenary
2: originating in, characterized by, or associated with corrupt bribery
Now, if we substitute venal with strong temporal AND spiritual motives, then I think that describes their motives more accurately. Both are important to them….just as corporations try to put “spiritual” charitable donations in places that help them achieve their “temporal” financial goals simultaneously (like Toys ‘R Us spiritual donating to a children’s hospital for exposure — smart investment in their target market, generating certain temporal marketing and PR benefits).
One reason the Church has survived the financial crises is their ability to couple temporal practices with spiritual motivations, in my view.
I can’t think of many practices in our Church related to money that don’t have both spiritual principles attached to them.
However, as members, we hear only the spiritual ones unless we get into leadership…and then at the local level, it’s normally limited in scope. The business reasons are rarely discussed — perhaps so they don’t hurt the faith of the members?
That’s why I find this discussion about the financial benefits of installing temples interesting — especially given our Church’s enjoyment associated with building them and announcing them. I can’t believe they don’t have some temporal benefits, and are soley profit-neutral or even revenue-neutral — acting only as cost centers. This would cause shrinking of our finances and gradual weakening of the Church if not offset by positive cashflow generated by their presence. Without offsetting/compenssating financial benefits from their individual existence, they would be unsustainable, in my view.
[In an effort to be fair, they did let the local budgets be funded with tithing, when previously, there was a building fund members had to give to. However, I did notice a sharp reduction in funding for social activities at the same time. Also, JR Holland announced the Church would pay a portion of living expenses for senior missionaries recently.)
I see the primary reason that the church builds temples is that they can with the goal of providing those blessings to as many people as possible. Benefits from building temples are nicely summarized by HG above and I don’t have anything else to add to it. If the church couldn’t afford to build temples they wouldn’t and for what it’s worth I don’t see it as a matter of control or manipulation. If the church can generate and sustain a faithful membership then tithing will increase. It’s just part of the deal but not the reason to do it. I don’t know. It’s too idealistic to believe that the Church would invest all that money in cost-centers which don’t provide a sustainable financial return. There HAS to be some kind of financial benefit to them, or they wouldn’t be investing in them with such voracity. Again, we can’t deny the perceived spiritual benefits either. Perhaps I’m just jaded by my skirmishes with the Church on temporal matters in the past, but I think it’s naiive to think the blessings of the temple in the next life for members ALONE drives the whole thing. One can’t cut off one’s nose in spite of one’s face. Quote:It’s too idealistic to believe that the Church would invest all that money in cost-centers which don’t provide a sustainable financial return.
No, it’s not. People provide houses that cost WAY too much and don’t end up providing a sustainable financial return all the time – and it’s out of a sense of trying to be good parents for their chidlren as often as anything else. I think that’s actually a pretty good analogy, even though it has obvious flaws. I think temples are built primarily because the leaders really do beleive in the benefits to the membership AND the Church – and because those leaders believe deeply in what happens in the temples.
If I am answering ONLY the question in the title of the post, my answer would be a simple, “Of course.” I am sure tithing goes up in areas where there are temples, if only because membership tends to go up where there is a temple. However, as I said in my last comment, I don’t think it increases enough in most places where temples are being built to cover the costs of building and maintaining them.
I will use one simple example of where I think it is patently obvious that a temple was built without any economic benefit – and some more where I think it’s easy to see the financial drain that temples constitute:
1) East Germany – I think it’s quite obvious that the temple there was a net drain on the resources of the Church for many years. I can’t think of any way to construct a logical explanation for that temple being built for economic bebefit – unless we allow for prophetic vision of future growth once the work was able to be expanded in that area. That allowance, however, puts missionary work ahead of financial gain – and only works if we then posit that the primary goal of missionary work is economic, as well. I just don’t believe that. I really do think the apostles and Prophets sincerely are trying to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and “save souls” more than they are trying to maximize financial gain (even as I recognize that they are trying to invest wisely and do well for the Church financially).
2) I think the temples in Rome and Payson, UT (where I attended high school) and most of the smaller, local temples are a good example of the Church trying to help the members by using its resources to lessen the financial difficulty of temple attendance in areas where great distance or long, long waits make it hard for members to attend. Again, I know that can be viewed cynically (“If they can’t attend regularly, they’ll stop paying tithing.”) – but that just isn’t my experience and what I read from our history.
Therefore, I’m left believing that, while there are economic benefits to temple building, those benefits aren’t the primary reason for temple building.
If the church wanted to use temples as an economic benefit, the easiest thing for them to do is assign a temple to every Stake Center. At one point in time, I thought I heard that was an idea being circulated. For us in the mission field, the temple was a long range goal that took years to prepare for (spiritually & financially). It was a spiritual mystery that you looked forward to attend. If it became common place, you may see the initial increase in attendance & worthiness. But, overtime, it will probably drift back to what it was or even lower.
On a percapita basis, I would think that’s true.
If you compared church population (for a specific area) with temple attendance adjusting for the random tourists. It would be an interesting metric.
For example, Nauvoo.
Sounds like an Accountant talking.
Mike from Milton.
The problem with the Stake idea is that it erodes the brand of the temple – a premium brand if ever there was one. Temples (like Cathedrals in the middle ages) are a draw precisely because of their beauty and the fact that they are elegant and expensive. But (like the Cathedrals in the middle ages) that’s the point – it symbolizes the aspiration we should have for an eternal reward.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.