Temples Don’t Fit the Narrative

[Anonymous]

I am willing to believe that all the church says and stands for may be true. This is in case I have experiences that reconvince me of this. I have great faith in my own ignorance, biases, and incorrect thinking so in that respect, I leave myself open to my own Road to Damascus or lesser experiences that could change my mind back to orthodoxy.

But I have drawn some conclusions based on my life experiences in the church until such time I change them back to more traditional thinking. Here is my current thinking:

I find the church administration to have a great preoccupation with temporal matters, sometimes at the expense of higher principles or the good of the membership. I, rightly or wrongly, see the church as just like other organizations trying to extract wealth from me, unfortunately, and I see it as a very wealthy machine that really looks hard at its own temporal interests first and foremost. The fact that they own 5% of Florida is a case in point.

But there is one thing that doesn’t fit this narrative or temporal self-interest — temples. I don’t see how they are really a very wise investment, unlike functional chapels and land. I am not sure what they would be good for if not for the original purpose intended. They tend to be in residential areas, not zoned for commercial use (to my knowledge) many of them, and they are expensive. I don’t see them as affordable or built to eventually be cashed in for sale — their purpose is ongoing and timeless. And they don’t serve the same basic purpose of creating a place for day-to-day teaching and training as chapels do. At least chapels can be treated as profit centers, with the expenses generated from each chapel netted against the tithing to produce a profitability figure. Frankly, if you were designing a religion that had temporal goals only, I would leave temples out of the equation completely given their duplication of the teaching focus of chapels, and their cost to maintain.

What are your thoughts on this? Are temples a wise financial investment? If not, does the church’s investment in them (like the 18 new temples announced in Conference) make a point in favor of the Church’s truth claims?

[Anonymous]

First, I think that nothing happens in a vacuum. Everything is a progression of the things that happened before. In this case, I would say that most ancient religions (including Judaism) had special temples to commune with their God(s). JS felt that he was restoring the ancient religion and that included at least one temple.

Second, temples may be seen a smart money moves considering that they are help out as a carrot and motivator for tithing compliance. Without temples there is no temple recommend interview and without the TR interview I hypothesize that tithing would decline.

Third, I absolutely believe that church leaders build temples because they believe in their importance for performing ordinances with eternal consequences. Put simply, the church builds temples because they align with the church’s mission, goals, and values. Church leaders, almost without exception, want me to pay tithing not because they believe my tithing to be needed by the church but because they feel that by not paying tithing that I am disqualifying myself from certain blessings that I need.

IOW, the church can be seen as penny pinching where it concerns things that the church does not place as much emphasis on and ALSO can be seen as very generous on things where it does place a high emphasis. As with people, I believe that we spend money on things that are important to us.

[Anonymous]

Wise financial investment? Yes and no, depending on the perspective of the person answering the question. I don’t mean that flippantly; I believe it is the most accurate answer.

As Roy said, people spend money on their priorities, whatever those priorities are. Right now, the spending priorities appear to be temples (for reasons in multiple areas), service/humanitarian needs, education, missionary work, and some others I am missing. I also will mention a significant increase in spending for mental health services of which I recently became aware.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

Second, temples may be seen a smart money moves considering that they are help out as a carrot and motivator for tithing compliance. Without temples there is no temple recommend interview and without the TR interview I hypothesize that tithing would decline.

That fits the narrative. Makes me wonder what the Return On Investment (ROI) is. One would need to know the difference in tithing donations for areas without a temple, and those with a temple.

[Anonymous]

I take a less cynical approach… okay not less, different. I take a different cynical approach. 😈

I don’t believe that leaders are building more and more temples in an effort to incentivize members to pay tithing with the end goal of increasing tithing revenue. I think it truly is about providing more access to something that’s held up as being the pinnacle of the Mormon experience. We believe the ordinances in the temple are vital to salvation, more temples means more members with access to said ordinances. I think it’s that simple.

Now for my brand of cynicism. :angel:

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I don’t see temples as a financial investment, I see them as satisfying religious goals. That said, I don’t think it has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of truth claims. I do see it as a reflection of sincere belief in truth claims.

GBH used to say that temples were testaments/tributes/monuments to our belief in the eternal life of mankind. We/they build it because we/they believe it.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I take a less cynical approach… okay not less, different. I take a different cynical approach. 😈

Now for my brand of cynicism. :angel:

Leaders don’t know how else to spend the money they’ve accumulated. I think there’s great worry over what cause is “worthy” enough to merit use of consecrated funds. I also think the leaders have answered with, “What’s a more worthy cause than temples?” Again because the ordinances that can only be received in temples are seen as required for salvation, meaning every member needs access to them.

“Redeem the Dead” is listed as the #2 Priority in the missions of the church. I think that is part of it.

I think that temples are used to absorb the funds – because any other investment would be copying another group in one way or another and look less favorable in comparison. I think the Catholics and the Jews got us beat in terms of family connection (as well as a lot of Eastern thinking actually). I think that the Salvation Army and other groups (both religious and not) complete more humanitarian efforts.

Our church structure is shifting to “one-size-fits-all” through correlation and combining HP/EQ groups in a world that is shifting towards small groups and tailoring to the needs of the individuals in the group. We don’t have ministries the way that most churches do (though “Just Serve” is a way to try to create the same functions, I think).

The federal (and state) governments are no longer the enemy they were during the formation of the church, but instead provide services that are needed by individuals. This gets weird in terms of culture. It’s kinda a “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” if you accept government services or not (due to self-reliance issues) – except for some unemployment stuff, and the Republican-party-line-infusion hasn’t helped any. 2nd Coming lore regarding the fall of governments also maintains a wedge between church members and the government, because it’s hard to take serious a government that you are more convinced will fall apart.

nibbler wrote:

I don’t see temples as a financial investment, I see them as satisfying religious goals. That said, I don’t think it has any bearing whatsoever on the validity of truth claims. I do see it as a reflection of sincere belief in truth claims.

The generous side of me sees them as setting up sacred spaces for individuals and God.

However, the older I get, the more “exclusive” rather than “inclusive” these spaces become in my perception, and the “cost of admission” to go to them for the full experience seems higher (and is higher then I am willing to pay).

NOTE: This applies to the other side too. We have to have names (of a sort – “Mrs. So-and-So, wife of Mr. Adam So-and-So) in order to do “the work”. For the majority of the world through the bulk of time, we don’t have names for them. We have virtually nothing in our theology to connect us to these nameless individuals in terms of rituals or well anything. We “assume” that in the next life (or for lucky ones in this life) – we will get the names and family relationships.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I am willing to believe that all the church says and stands for may be true. This is in case I have experiences that reconvince me of this. I have great faith in my own ignorance, biases, and incorrect thinking so in that respect, I leave myself open to my own Road to Damascus or lesser experiences that could change my mind back to orthodoxy.

But I have drawn some conclusions based on my life experiences in the church until such time I change them back to more traditional thinking. Here is my current thinking:

I find the church administration to have a great preoccupation with temporal matters, sometimes at the expense of higher principles or the good of the membership. I, rightly or wrongly, see the church as just like other organizations trying to extract wealth from me, unfortunately, and I see it as a very wealthy machine that really looks hard at its own temporal interests first and foremost. The fact that they own 5% of Florida is a case in point.

But there is one thing that doesn’t fit this narrative or temporal self-interest — temples. I don’t see how they are really a very wise investment, unlike functional chapels and land. I am not sure what they would be good for if not for the original purpose intended. They tend to be in residential areas, not zoned for commercial use (to my knowledge) many of them, and they are expensive. I don’t see them as affordable or built to eventually be cashed in for sale — their purpose is ongoing and timeless. And they don’t serve the same basic purpose of creating a place for day-to-day teaching and training as chapels do. At least chapels can be treated as profit centers, with the expenses generated from each chapel netted against the tithing to produce a profitability figure. Frankly, if you were designing a religion that had temporal goals only, I would leave temples out of the equation completely given their duplication of the teaching focus of chapels, and their cost to maintain.

What are your thoughts on this? Are temples a wise financial investment? If not, does the church’s investment in them (like the 18 new temples announced in Conference) make a point in favor of the Church’s truth claims?

I will provide my point of view and thoughts – knowing by experience that my point of view is hardly shared by others. I grew up in what I have learned to be unique circumstances. My father was raised very poor with 13 other siblings in a 3-bedroom home without indoor plumbing, electricity or central heating – only a cole burning stove. His father-in-law (my other grandfather) was quite wealthy and helped (taught my father the secrets of wealth). Though I grew up in a very wealthy household my father believed that children of rich parents were a blight on society. I grew up thinking we were poor, sharing a single bed (sleeping perpendicular with our feet hanging out) with two older brothers. We raised chickens and rabbits for meat and maintained a garden and fruit trees. We supplemented our meat hunting and fishing. My father seldom spent money on shopping – mostly he invested. (As a side note – I very much dislike fishing or shopping and think such to be a colossal waist of time.)

I grew up with an appreciation of work but a strong dislike of money. I do not like counting or spending money. Most of my life I have not even known what I was being paid for my work. I often had to be told to cash my paychecks. When I married, I let my wife do whatever she wanted with money. I really do not care about money. I am also not attached to things.

If it was up to me – I would gladly give everything I have to the Church and live under the Law of Consecration. I would let the church pay all my taxes – most of which are property taxes. I would gladly live in a much smaller house but my wife likes this place and the neighbors.

I love temples – much more than chapels that are way underused. I think chapels are or can be somewhat selfish, whereas temples are all about sacrifice and service. I believe the greatest revelations of divine things come through sacrifice and service. There are two places I feel always close to G-d – alone deep in the wilderness (usually mountains) and in the temples.

There is one other observation I have discovered about life. The more you give money to someone in need – the more they will hate you and your money. The only way to gain someone’s respect for your help is to provide them and their needs with your blood, sweat and tears – which is what Jesus did. Of all the programs I have encountered for the poor – none appear to be more helpful than the Church charities – especially fast offerings – which I believe to be the very essence of sacrifice and offering – and the only way to end poverty. Any concept of entitlement destroys personal respect.

But then – it is likely my opinions on such things as to why I have never been put in charge of such thing in the Church.

[Anonymous]

It is good to have that view articulated here, watcher. Thank you for sharing.

[Author]

Posts