Do temples have a financial benefit?

[_UnicornMan]

The Church loves temples. They announce them constantly in conference. They are the pride of our religion. Do you think they have an economic benefit? Given the Church's slant toward temporal success, I can't see these temples being viewed simply as cost centers. I think that in tandem with their perceived spiritual benefits and motives, there HAS to be a financial benefit such as stimulating tithing revenues over and above the base amount of tithing paid in a particular area.

What do you think?

[_Dr. Shades]

I think you're right; that the increase of tithepayers in the region offsets the cost and turns them into for-profit investments.

[_Drifting]

I slightly disagree.

I think the building of temples is designed to increase tithing from existing areas rather than the one where the temple is being built.

Most temples are under utilised. Certainly the new ones, even if they experience an initial burst of activity, dwindle into a refuge for the retired to spend their time. However, the PR message of the Church growing as evidenced by more and more tempes being built throughout the world is seen as a successful way of retaining tithing income from existing areas.

The Church isn't trying to increase tithing, it is trying to arrest the decline in tithing income.

[_subgenius]

The Church loves temples. They announce them constantly in conference. They are the pride of our religion. Do you think they have an economic benefit? Given the Church's slant toward temporal success, I can't see these temples being viewed simply as cost centers. I think that in tandem with their perceived spiritual benefits and motives, there HAS to be a financial benefit such as stimulating tithing revenues over and above the base amount of tithing paid in a particular area.

What do you think?

Highly unlikely, costs of land acquisition, construction and building utility/ maintenance are likely greater than any, if at all, tithing increase realized or "stimulated"....ROI would be incredibly protracted if it did exist. There may be an initial spike in tithing, but insignificant compared to the amount that was already in the area.
Believe it or not, the Church does not always have an interest in making a profit....but rather in making a "prophet".
The likely financial advantage is that the building is an asset on the financial record. It is not an instrument in generating revenue. It serves a greater purpose, a purpose that will always escape the cynical and self-absorbed.

[_Buffalo]

The Church loves temples. They announce them constantly in conference. They are the pride of our religion. Do you think they have an economic benefit? Given the Church's slant toward temporal success, I can't see these temples being viewed simply as cost centers. I think that in tandem with their perceived spiritual benefits and motives, there HAS to be a financial benefit such as stimulating tithing revenues over and above the base amount of tithing paid in a particular area.

What do you think?

Bottom line, temple attendance requires 10% of one's income. Their reasoning must be that greater access to temples will encourage more LDS to hold temple recommends, and thus increase revenue to the Corporation of the President.

[_UnicornMan]

Highly unlikely, costs of land acquisition, construction and building utility/ maintenance are likely greater than any, if at all, tithing increase realized or "stimulated"....ROI would be incredibly protracted if it did exist. There may be an initial spike in tithing, but insignificant compared to the amount that was already in the area.
Believe it or not, the Church does not always have an interest in making a profit....but rather in making a "prophet".

The likely financial advantage is that the building is an asset on the financial record. It is not an instrument in generating revenue. It serves a greater purpose, a purpose that will always escape the cynical and self-absorbed.

Well, when they put a temple in, they don't take it out of Church savings entirely -- they often ask for additional funds, on top of tithes, to go to a temple building fund. So, if you do an investment analysis (NPV, Payback period, rate of return calculation), you might find that on the Church-owned funds invested (prior to the temple buildign fund) the return is substantial.

[_Buffalo]

Highly unlikely, costs of land acquisition, construction and building utility/ maintenance are likely greater than any, if at all, tithing increase realized or "stimulated"....ROI would be incredibly protracted if it did exist. There may be an initial spike in tithing, but insignificant compared to the amount that was already in the area.
Believe it or not, the Church does not always have an interest in making a profit....but rather in making a "prophet".

The likely financial advantage is that the building is an asset on the financial record. It is not an instrument in generating revenue. It serves a greater purpose, a purpose that will always escape the cynical and self-absorbed.

Well, when they put a temple in, they don't take it out of Church savings entirely -- they often ask for additional funds, on top of tithes, to go to a temple building fund. So, if you do an investment analysis (NPV, Payback period, rate of return calculation), you might find that on the Church-owned funds invested (prior to the temple buildign fund) the return is substantial.

If I recall correctly, in the 60s the church had a chapel building policy with financial gain in mind. An "if you build it, they will come" sort of thing.

[_Drifting]

subgenius you may know the answer to this.
Would the asset value of the Church have a material impact on the Church's ability to self-insure and what the financial benefits of self-insuring?

[_moksha]

It was my understanding that Temples outside the Jell-O belt are vastly underutilized. I remember reading that the Oakland Temple was utilized at only 19% capacity.

[_UnicornMan]

It was my understanding that Temples outside the Jell-O belt are vastly underutilized. I remember reading that the Oakland Temple was utilized at only 19% capacity.

Capacity does matter when temples are OVER-UTILIZED. For example, in Utah they had to build extra temples to handle the volume because the Provo Temple couldn't manage it. However, when temples are underutilized, I think what matters is the impact on tithing revenues. For example, there are some who value holding a TR, but don't find the temple experience that fulfilling. They pay, but don't attend. So, as long as the temple is generating revenues, even over a long payback period, I think its existence may well be acceptable to the Church, particularly since they also believe strong in the spiritual benefits. Low attendance is annoying from a spiritual standpoint, but not something that would stop the Church from investing in a temple if the numbers work out...