Do temples have a financial benefit?

[_subgenius]

This isn't the right kind of analysis subgenius....I teach courses in management accounting, and also dabble in real estate. ..

i disagree, but i admitted that my analysis was simplified.
As for actual money out of pocket, i would consider the DC temple, which in 1974 had a construction cost of about 15 million, with only 6 million be raised by member donation, thus leaving the church with the remaining 9 million.
With the fiji temple i would gather, considering the average income of fiji, that a large percentage of the cost was borne by the church and not member donations.
The overall, and obvious, point is that the numbers will not work as being a viable / lucrative financial investment for the church. At best, one could argue that it is an expense of "branding".
As for the other "motives" you touch upon, they are all well and good, but are contrary to the issue raised by the OP. I never suggested that the temples were "money pits", just that they are not a good means for the church to "make money", nor is that their intention, as was the premise of the OP.

[_subgenius]

Your analysis was pretty conservative,

actually it was pretty liberal, given that i did not discount the population of children and i assumed that 100% of tithing would go to the temple.

and you chose one of the poorest areas as an example, and still showed that the church will realize net profit on the investment in under 15 years.

likely it will be even longer

Considering the useful operating life of temples, I'd say it's a good investment

which is why my money is safe from you.
i'd say otherwise, especially considering the expense of the future and necessary renovation which will occur about the time any profit could be "realized".

and perhaps less risky than CDs given the economic climate. Note that the church builds most of its temples in wealthier areas.

and in poor areas, which defies the logic of the OP.

Note also that the board of directors of the Corporation of the President hedge against risk via a broad portfolio of investments, only one of which is temples.

there has been no evidence that temples are intended as an "investment" in the manner by which you are suggesting.

[_Buffalo]

there has been no evidence that temples are intended as an "investment" in the manner by which you are suggesting.

You provided the evidence yourself. It's appreciated. :)

[_harmony]

and perhaps less risky than CDs given the economic climate. Note that the church builds most of its temples in wealthier areas.

and in poor areas, which defies the logic of the OP.

Where are these "poor areas" you mention located?

[_UnicornMan]

This isn't the right kind of analysis subgenius....I teach courses in management accounting, and also dabble in real estate. ..

i disagree, but i admitted that my analysis was simplified.
As for actual money out of pocket, i would consider the DC temple, which in 1974 had a construction cost of about 15 million, with only 6 million be raised by member donation, thus leaving the church with the remaining 9 million.
With the fiji temple i would gather, considering the average income of fiji, that a large percentage of the cost was borne by the church and not member donations.
The overall, and obvious, point is that the numbers will not work as being a viable / lucrative financial investment for the church. At best, one could argue that it is an expense of "branding".
As for the other "motives" you touch upon, they are all well and good, but are contrary to the issue raised by the OP. I never suggested that the temples were "money pits", just that they are not a good means for the church to "make money", nor is that their intention, as was the premise of the OP.

Then we agree that the actual investment for the Church is less than the total amount given the building fund donations which top off the kitty. This will shorten the payback period, and also increase ROI. If you factor that into your Fiji analysis, you might get an even shorter payback period. Also, if they pay off at all, they are a good deal, because the "planning horizon" for temples is extremely long-term -- unlike business investments which I see are normally only 3 to 10 years or so.

You are right, you never suggested that the temples are money pits, but GBH did in the article "Why we do the things we do". He claimed the Church is not all that wealthy because the assets of the Church are "costly to maintain" -- ignoring the revenue impact of buildings.

[_subgenius]

Where are these "poor areas" you mention located?

previous poster suggested that Fiji was a "poor" area...and with a GDP per capita of $4k as compared to GDP per capita in USA of over $40k, likely not a stretch.....as they say "relatively" speaking.

[_harmony]

Where are these "poor areas" you mention located?

previous poster suggested that Fiji was a "poor" area...and with a GDP per capita of $4k as compared to GDP per capita in USA of over $40k, likely not a stretch.....as they say "relatively" speaking.

How does the area in which the temple is built compare to the surrounding area? (comparing to US is comparing apples to star fruit)

[_logjamislds]

Not being an accountant or money manager . . . my wife does our checkbook and banking, thank God, I might offer a couple other ways to view this problem. First: temples are built to perform ordinance work vital to the salvation of the human race, both living and dead. It was the goal of the First Presidency a few years back to have temples within easy travel distance of all members, thus eliminating the ordeal that some had to go through to get to a temple. Further, the temple work performed has a more immediate and relevant value than just the eternal sealing of families, though that in itself is no small potato. The Second Coming of Christ is immanent: the people we send through the temple by proxy are on track to become "Kings and Priests" in His kingdom. They will come with Him to minister and administer in this broken world. Can't happen soon enough for me.

I believe the accelerating temple work is a sign that things on the other side are "gearing up" for this event. These considerations far outweigh any money-making reasons we short-sighted and narrow-minded humans can come up with. God, simply, has bigger fish to fry than making a cynical return on a spiritual investment.

Another thought: if temples really were a good investment financially speaking, don't you think many other religions and even businesses would have thought of it, or wound up copying our example? In this world, anything that turns a decent profit is quickly picked up by imitators who also want to cash in. At this point, I see no one imitating our example, which for me is evidence enough against the "temples for profit" argument.

[_subgenius]

Where are these "poor areas" you mention located?

Reference already posted GDP data for Fiji, for example

[_subgenius]

How does the area in which the temple is built compare to the surrounding area? (comparing to US is comparing apples to star fruit)

Temple construction is temple construction, its not like the temple in Fiji is made of clay and hay. Poverty is not "relative" in this respect.