Are temples Net Revenue producing structures?

[Thinking]

For the sake of this discussion, Revenue = Money Coming In (Tithing).

It can be argued that temples do not produce revenue because there is nobody standing at the entrance collecting an entrance fee.

Hopefully we can all agree that it's not that simple. In order to qualify to enter the temple, a member has to be in good standing. Part of that good standing is paying a full tithe.

For the purpose of this discussion, Net Revenue = (Revenue With Temple) - (Revenue Without Temple) - (Cost to Operate Temple).

Is there anybody on this board that can shed light on the change in revenue in an area before and after a temple is built.

If there is a difference, is it large enough to offset the cost of operating the temple?

Curious.

Thanks.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

For the sake of this discussion, Revenue = Money Coming In (Tithing).

It can be argued that temples do not produce revenue because there is nobody standing at the entrance collecting an entrance fee.

Hopefully we can all agree that it's not that simple. In order to qualify to enter the temple, a member has to be in good standing. Part of that good standing is paying a full tithe.

For the purpose of this discussion, Net Revenue = (Revenue With Temple) - (Revenue Without Temple) - (Cost to Operate Temple).

Is there anybody on this board that can shed light on the change in revenue in an area before and after a temple is built.

If there is a difference, is it large enough to offset the cost of operating the temple?

Curious.

Thanks.

Why would the revenue change just because a temple is built in the area?

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, Thinking said:

For the sake of this discussion, Revenue = Money Coming In (Tithing).

It can be argued that temples do not produce revenue because there is nobody standing at the entrance collecting an entrance fee.

Hopefully we can all agree that it's not that simple. In order to qualify to enter the temple, a member has to be in good standing. Part of that good standing is paying a full tithe.

For the purpose of this discussion, Net Revenue = (Revenue With Temple) - (Revenue Without Temple) - (Cost to Operate Temple).

Is there anybody on this board that can shed light on the change in revenue in an area before and after a temple is built.

If there is a difference, is it large enough to offset the cost of operating the temple?

Curious.

Thanks.

Are you hypothesizing here that because a temple is built in an area that more people will pay tithing and thus the church will see and increase in gross tithing receipts for the area?

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, Thinking said:

For the sake of this discussion, Revenue = Money Coming In (Tithing).

It can be argued that temples do not produce revenue because there is nobody standing at the entrance collecting an entrance fee.

Hopefully we can all agree that it's not that simple. In order to qualify to enter the temple, a member has to be in good standing. Part of that good standing is paying a full tithe.

For the purpose of this discussion, Net Revenue = (Revenue With Temple) - (Revenue Without Temple) - (Cost to Operate Temple).

Is there anybody on this board that can shed light on the change in revenue in an area before and after a temple is built.

If there is a difference, is it large enough to offset the cost of operating the temple?

Curious.

Thanks.

It seems to make reasonable sense that a new presence of a temple may inspire new attendees, and if they are answering the questions honestly, that would indicate an increase in tithing donations coming to the Church from that temple district (muatis mutandis). I would guess a small temple would cost $300,000 - 600,000 annually to operate (maintenance, utilities, repairs, grounds, custodial work, equipment maintenance and depreciation, etc.) and that sems like pretty much a break-even for say 100 newly tithe-paying attendees, and  quite a great loss if including the cost of building the temple in the first place (+/- $30M; that would render $3M annually for let's say ten years before another $3 - 6M for a renovation; land value, etc. would not keep up).

Edited June 1, 2023 by CV75

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would guess a small temple would cost $300,000 - 600,000 annually to operate

 

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

hat sems like pretty much a break-even for say 100 newly tithe-paying attendees,

So using 450,000 as cost, that would mean that each of the new tithe payers would need to average $4500 in tithing paid, so and income of around $45,000/year.  While this is certainly feasible in the US/Canada/Europe area I don't think it will work once you start looking at undeveloped countries.

What is the average income of a person in Brazil or the Philippines? 

[Thinking]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would the revenue change just because a temple is built in the area?

I'm confident that not all members are at the same faithfulness level. Some members will pay a full tithe no matter what. Others might need a push (so to speak) like temple privileges to get them to pay tithing.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Thinking said:

I'm confident that not all members are at the same faithfulness level. Some members will pay a full tithe no matter what. Others might need a push (so to speak) like temple privileges to get them to pay tithing.

That would make sense.  

But I thought the church has said in the past that it takes into account full tithe payers in a temple district before it makes a decision on whether or not to build a temple in that area.  So while the number of tithed members might increase some after a temple is built, it sounds like (if what I think I'm remembering is correct) that the church's experience is that tithe payers need to be in place before a temple is built.  They can't be expected to increase a large amount after the temple is there.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So using 450,000 as cost, that would mean that each of the new tithe payers would need to average $4500 in tithing paid, so and income of around $45,000/year.  While this is certainly feasible in the US/Canada/Europe area I don't think it will work once you start looking at undeveloped countries.

What is the average income of a person in Brazil or the Philippines? 

Far, far lower than US/Canada; not enough in my estimation to offset arguably lower construction and operational costs.

But even in the US and Canada, I'm seeing quite a great loss if including the cost of building the temple in the first place (+/- $30M; that would render $3M annually for let's say ten years before another $3 - 6M for a renovation; land value, etc. would not keep up).

Edited June 1, 2023 by CV75

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But I thought the church has said in the past that it takes into account full tithe payers in a temple district before it makes a decision on whether or not to build a temple in that area.  So while the number of tithed members might increase some after a temple is built, it sounds like (if what I think I'm remembering is correct) that the church's experience is that tithe payers need to be in place before a temple is built.  They can't be expected to increase a large amount after the temple is there.

I've heard this before as well.

[Pyreaux]

From the Church, its a prime piece of commercial real-estate wasted because its used for a non-commercial purpose, has a ton of upkeep cost, and tithing in many places outside the US don't actually cover the costs. Most of those covering the costs aren't actually personally getting to enjoy the actual fruit of what they pay. This is probably where investments could be subsidizing costs, and having a nest egg becomes important to have to continue covering it.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

For the sake of this discussion, Revenue = Money Coming In (Tithing).

It can be argued that temples do not produce revenue because there is nobody standing at the entrance collecting an entrance fee.

Hopefully we can all agree that it's not that simple. In order to qualify to enter the temple, a member has to be in good standing. Part of that good standing is paying a full tithe.

For the purpose of this discussion, Net Revenue = (Revenue With Temple) - (Revenue Without Temple) - (Cost to Operate Temple).

Is there anybody on this board that can shed light on the change in revenue in an area before and after a temple is built.

If there is a difference, is it large enough to offset the cost of operating the temple?

Curious.

Thanks.

A few thoughts:

1. If paying tithing was the sine qua non of admission to the temple, I think we might have a better shot at discussing this. However, temple attendance is also conditioned on obedience to several further doctrinal and behavioral requirements.  So I think it is difficult to create a causal or revenue "bridge" between payment of tithes and expenses associated with temples.  

2. If the numbers bandied about in recent years are true, with the Church collecting $6-7 billion annually in tithes, then this amount plainly vastly exceeds the construction / maintenance / operating costs of the temples (which costs are, I understand, part of the operating costs of the Church, with the excess amounts going to EPA for investment).

3. There are plenty of observant Latter-day Saints who, as a practical matter, pay very little tithing due to their level of income.

4. There are plenty of observant Latter-day Saints who, for various reasons, do not regularly attend the temple, and yet remain active and pay tithing.

5. I think there are plenty of temples in the world that, as a practical matter, will never - regardless of how we crunch the numbers - be "Net Revenue producing" facilities.  That is, the initial construction costs, along with ongoing maintenance / operating costs, will never be matched by the "area's" tithes.  For example:

• The Church operates a temple in Aba, Abia, Nigeria, with three more announced (Benin City, Eket and Lagos). 
• Nigeria has about 221,172 in total membership. 
• Per Wikipedia, about 45% of the population are of working age (20 to 69). 
• Per this website, the  unemployment rate in Nigeria is 33%, "over 60% of Nigerians live in extreme poverty," and "the average salary in Nigeria in 2023 is 71,185 naira per month, which corresponds to $155" (or $1,860 per year).
• This blog article from 2011 suggested that the activity rate in Nigeria was 50%.  If we assume that holds for 2023, that would put us at about 110,000 active Latter-day Saints in Nigeria. 
• If we assume the demographic spread above, 45% of Nigerian members are of working age, or about 49,500 members.
• If we assume the unemployment rate (33%) holds for active Latter-day Saints, such members would be exempt from paying tithing.  That would reduce the number of Nigerian Latter-day Saints in Nigeria who are active and have a source of income (and, hence, can pay tithing) by 16,335, to 33,165 members.
• If we keep the foregoing assumptions, and if we also assume the above average income ($1,860) for these 33,165 Nigerian members, and if we assume each and every one of them is paying a 10% tithe on the average income of ($186), we arrive at an estimated total annual tithing contribution of $6,168,690.00.  
• Notwithstanding these fiscal realities, the Church - as noted above - has announced the construction of three more temples in Nigeria.

Are the Saints in Nigeria financially self-sufficient?  I doubt it.  I suspect the Church puts far more financial means into that country than it receives in tithes.  

6. I suspect the foregoing analysis, when extrapolated across all of the Church's temples, would show comparable results.

7. The Church is building temples all over the world in places that will likely never be able to cover the costs via tithes from local members.  This militates against the notion that the temples are intended as revenue-generating mechanisms.

8. Tithes are used for all sorts of things, one of which is the temple.  So it's hard to formulate an apples-to-apples comparison of tithes-to-temples.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1, 2023 by smac97

[Pyreaux]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. If paying tithing was the sine qua non of admission to the temple, I think we might have a better shot at discussing this. However, temple attendance is also conditioned on obedience to several doctrinal and behavioral requirements.  So I think it is difficult to create a causal or revenue "bridge" between payment of tithes and expenses associated with temples.  

2. If the numbers bandied about in recent years are true, with the Church collecting $6-7 billion annually in tithes, then this amount plainly vastly exceeds the construction / maintenance / operating costs of the temples.

3. There are plenty of observant Latter-day Saints who, as a practical matter, pay very little tithing due to their level of income.

4. There are plenty of observant Latter-day Saints who, for various reasons, do not regularly attend the temple, and yet remain active and pay tithing.

5. I think there are plenty of temples in the world that, as a practical matter, will never be "Net Revenue producing" facilities.  That is, the initial construction costs, along with ongoing maintenance / operating costs, will never be matched by the "area's" tithes.  For example:

• The Church operates a temple in Aba, Abia, Nigeria, with three more announced (Benin City, Eket and Lagos). 
• Nigeria has about 221,172 in total membership. 
• Per Wikipedia, about 45% of the population are of working age (20 to 69). 
• Per this website, the  unemployment rate in Nigeria is 33%, "over 60% of Nigerians live in extreme poverty," and "the average salary in Nigeria in 2023 is 71,185 naira per month, which corresponds to $155" (or $1,860 per year).
• This blog article from 2011 suggested that the activity rate in Nigeria was 50%.  If we assume that holds for 2023, that would put us at about 110,000 active Latter-day Saints in Nigeria. 
• If we assume the demographic spread above, 45% of Nigerian members are of working age, or about 49,500 members.
• If we assume the unemployment rate (33%) holds for active Latter-day Saints, such members would be exempt from paying tithing.  That would reduce the number of Nigerian Latter-day Saints in Nigeria who are active and have a source of income (and, hence, can pay tithing) by 16,335, to 33,165 members.
• If we keep the foregoing assumptions, and if we also assume the above average income ($1,860) for these 33,165 Nigerian members, and if we assume each and every one of them is paying a 10% tithe on the average income of ($186), we arrive at an estimated total annual tithing contribution of $6,168,690.00.  

Are the Saints in Nigeria financially self-sufficient?  I doubt it.  I suspect the Church puts far more financial means into that country than it receives in tithes.  

6. I suspect the foregoing analysis, when extrapolated across all of the Church's temples, would show comparable results.

7. The Church is building temples all over the world in places that will likely never be able to cover the costs via tithes from local members.  This militates against the notion that the temples are intended as revenue-generating mechanisms.

8. Tithes are used for all sorts of things, one of which is the temple.  So it's hard to formulate an apples-to-apples comparison of tithes-to-temples.

Thanks,

-Smac

You said it better. Many temples are run at a deficit.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But I thought the church has said in the past that it takes into account full tithe payers in a temple district before it makes a decision on whether or not to build a temple in that area. 

I think that has more to do with assessing prospective attendance and such.

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So while the number of tithed members might increase some after a temple is built, it sounds like (if what I think I'm remembering is correct) that the church's experience is that tithe payers need to be in place before a temple is built.  They can't be expected to increase a large amount after the temple is there.

I think the Church was previously more parsimonious than it is now.  It kind of had to be, as its finances were in disarray prior to the arrival of N. Eldon Tanner.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

During the late 1950s, the church embarked on an aggressive international building program. The church was growing fast. Worldwide membership increased by 50% to nearly 1.7 million members from 1950-60. President Henry D. Moyle, first counselor to President David O. McKay in the First Presidency, believed it could grow faster by building meetinghouses to draw and support new converts.

President Clark was reticent. President McKay pressed forward, according to Quinn. The church built more than 1,000 new meetinghouses. It also built temples in Switzerland and England when Europe didn’t have a single Latter-day Saint stake, the church term for a grouping of strong congregations, said Oman, the William & Mary business law professor.

“In a sense, they were both right,” Oman said. “President Clark is right that the spending that President McKay begins and that’s carried forward with President Moyle is not sustainable given the church’s income.

“President McKay is right in that he saw the possibility of global Mormonism, this massive wave of convert growth that he envisioned as a possibility and that the church was going to work toward.”

Tithing revenue surged as church membership grew, according to Quinn, but President Moyle resumed deficit spending to fund construction. The church spent $32 million more than it received in 1962. President McKay took back financial oversight as losses mounted again in 1963. In October, he handed the role to President N. Eldon Tanner, making the Canadian business executive his first counselor after President Moyle’s death.

“President Clark ends up being right about the finances and President McKay ends up being right about the convert baptisms,” Oman said.

“The synthesis of those two positions is N. Eldon Tanner.”

President Tanner vigorously enforced austerity. He had a ready answer when his five children asked why they couldn’t have items they couldn’t afford.

“I can give you three reasons,” he’d say. “The first is, we can’t afford it. The other two don’t matter.”

President Tanner called for a review of all financial practices and imposed revolutionary modifications. He installed modern principles of scientific financial management. He also systematized the church’s investments, according to historians.

First, he instituted a building moratorium. It was awkward. On the land just north of church leaders’ offices, they had started construction of a sky-scraping Church Office Building. Work began with a subterranean parking garage in 1962. When that was complete in 1964, President Tanner halted the project.

In 1966, he informed a committee that “funds had not been allowed in this year’s budget to begin construction on the General Office Building.” For a total of five years, church leaders could use the stand-alone parking garage and look out their windows at the top of the idle ground.

Finally, work began again in 1969 — when the church’s deficits had turned into a $29.5 million surplus, according to Quinn. The 28-story building opened in 1972.

“The basic answer to the story of how the church went from financial difficulty to this world today where it has enormous surpluses is N. Eldon Tanner,” Oman said.

“N. Eldon Tanner controls costs, and leaders put in place the requirement that the operating expenses of the church will always be met out of annual tithing revenue — so there will be no debt, there will be no liquidation of assets to pay for operating costs, and some portion of tithing revenues are going to be set aside against future expenses,” Oman said.

President Tanner’s biographer said that until he arrived, the church budget had been “‘a halfway thing,’ with many activities not even included. Now a strict, comprehensive budget was established requiring individual departments and the organizations as a whole to live within its income.”

By way of example, my ward is housed in a building that was largely funded by the local members back in the sixties.  In fact, there are three identical houses along the same street where the Church is located which were constructed by the local members to raise funds for the church building.  I think this became less feasible as the Church grew, as the practical effects were, for lack of a better term, "unfair."  I am glad the Church has adapted its policies on this point.

Back in 1996, Sis. Virginia Pearce, then the First Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency, observed that "Sunday School, priesthood, Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, seminary, and institute classes may be held in dedicated buildings, under a tree, or in a home."  So the Church has the capacity to do without "dedicated buildings" owned by the Church for these purposes.  Temples, on the other hand, are a bit more involved.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 1, 2023 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

The temple doesn't have an impact on revenue.  Revenue has impact on the temple.

Purpose of the church is to grow and convert the whole world.  When a local area has a sufficient long-term base of active tithe-paying families that can support the high costs of operating a temple, it gets a temple.  From a purely financial perspective, temples are expensive money pits that continually need more money poured into them just to keep them functional.   Our leadership has tried to stretch the buck and bring temples to less-wealthy areas with the so-called 'mini temples', and I'm pretty sure some impoverished areas get temples even though the folks it serves aren't 100% financially supporting it.   But yeah, this is why you can stand on that certain intersection in SLC and see 5 different temples.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The temple doesn't have an impact on revenue.  Revenue has impact on the temple.

Purpose of the church is to grow and convert the whole world.  When a local area has a sufficient long-term base of active tithe-paying families that can support the high costs of operating a temple, it gets a temple.  From a purely financial perspective, temples are expensive money pits that continually need more money poured into them just to keep them functional.   Our leadership has tried to stretch the buck and bring temples to less-wealthy areas with the so-called 'mini temples', and I'm pretty sure some impoverished areas get temples even though the folks it serves aren't 100% financially supporting it.   But yeah, this is why you can stand on that certain intersection in SLC and see 5 different temples.

Years ago I visited Colonia Juarez, one of the colonies established by members of the Church during the polygamy troubles.  My dad's parents were both from there.  During our visit we hired a local to drive us around, and he mentioned that years prior he had chauffeured Pres. Hinckley around the colony during a visit, and that it was his (the driver's) recollection that Pres. Hinckley came up with the idea of "smaller" temples during this visit.  He (Pres. Hinckley) felt that such temples could be scaled down to serve the needs of faithful Saints who are far from a temple.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

I really doubt that the increase in tithe payers in an area due to a temple being nearby would come close to paying for a temple unless you extrapolate that increase for a LONG time into the future.

If the church shut down all the temples to save money I think tithing would plummet but that would have less to do with not having a temple nearby and more with “Okay, where did all the ordinances go????”

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, CV75 said:

It seems to make reasonable sense that a new presence of a temple may inspire new attendees, and if they are answering the questions honestly, that would indicate an increase in tithing donations coming to the Church from that temple district (muatis mutandis). I would guess a small temple would cost $300,000 - 600,000 annually to operate (maintenance, utilities, repairs, grounds, custodial work, equipment maintenance and depreciation, etc.) and that sems like pretty much a break-even for say 100 newly tithe-paying attendees, and  quite a great loss if including the cost of building the temple in the first place (+/- $30M; that would render $3M annually for let's say ten years before another $3 - 6M for a renovation; land value, etc. would not keep up).

I doubt that people would start paying 1/10 of their income because the temple is now close to home.

I can't even imagine it. It's not break even by any assessment imo.  They pay none of the maintenance costs directly anyway

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, ksfisher said:

So using 450,000 as cost, that would mean that each of the new tithe payers would need to average $4500 in tithing paid, so and income of around $45,000/year.  While this is certainly feasible in the US/Canada/Europe area I don't think it will work once you start looking at undeveloped countries.

But the amount of tithing paid doesn't vary woth the distance traveled.  500 miles or 2 blocks, the tithing is the same.

[Rain]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I doubt that people would start paying 1/10 of their income because the temple is now close to home.

I can't even imagine it. It's not break even by any assessment imo.  They pay none of the maintenance costs directly anyway

It costs a huge amount for some to travel to a far away temple. They may save for years and years just to go one time as the amount is many times their income. If their temple is only 2 blocks it will cost them nothing to travel so they may begin to start paying tithing so they can go.

Of course that doesn't mean the temple would now break even, but it may be a reason for increases in tithing.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Rain said:

It costs a huge amount for some to travel to a far away temple. They may save for years and years just to go one time as the amount is many times their income. If their temple is only 2 blocks it will cost them nothing to travel so they may begin to start paying tithing so they can go.

Of course that doesn't mean the temple would now break even, but it may be a reason for increases in tithing.

Good point, but I think that is very rare, that traveling to the temple might equal perhaps two tithes or more, in cases of extreme poverty.  The question for me is how often the scenario you suggest would actually happen, and if its frequency would actually make a significant dent in temple cost.

But yes I am sure it could be a factor at least in very poor countries.

Technically I think VERY small temples, maybe 2,000 sq ft, could be built, with smaller instruction rooms and very limited schedules might be an option; maybe only open 1 day a week for own Endowments, and a couple of shifts per week for the dead- something like that might be feasible.

The huge LA temple is only open Wed-thru Sat now, with appointments recommended, and limited sessions 

Edited June 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Rain]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good point, but I think that is very rare, that traveling to the temple might equal perhaps two tithes or more, in cases of extreme poverty.  The question for me is how often the scenario you suggest would actually happen, and if its frequency would actually make a significant dent in temple cost.

I just looked at Vanuatu where my parents served their mission.  The dedication of their temple was in April, but it looks like it might be closed currently because of a hurricane.

Before the dedication the members went to New Zealand for the temple - my husband went with my father-in-law to one of these sealings.  Looking just now the lowest price I saw was about $350 for the 23 hour plane ride (it can take quite a bit less time, but then the price doubled), but that's going to vary on which island you live on.  Then there is the cost of lodging.  I'm not aware if it requires a visa or passport, but most likely does. If you are getting sealed to someone living you have to at a minimum double that so $700 plus lodging, and government IDs. The average monthly income in Vanuatu is $270. 

Obviously not a problem for everyone as you pointed out, but with my experience working with people from around the world I think it is probably not as rare as you might think it is.

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But yes I am sure it could be a factor at least in very poor countries.

Technically I think VERY small temples, maybe 2,000 sq ft, could be built, with smaller instruction rooms and very limited schedules might be an option; maybe only open 1 day a week for own Endowments, and a couple of shifts per week for the dead- something like that might be feasible.

Yes, definitely an option and works much better for families like the ones my husband met while there. But again this often means that tithing will increase in those areas because the temple is much more accessible.  Obviously some will pay whether they go or not, but for some there is a greater incentive to go. Since the OP brought it up In curious now at what percentage that increases of tithing 

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The huge LA temple is only open Wed-thru Sat now, with appointments recommended, and limited sessions 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I just looked at Vanuatu where my parents served their mission.  The dedication of their temple was in April, but it looks like it might be closed currently because of a hurricane.

If I may ask, when did your parents serve there?  My sister served her mission in Vanuatu, and she and her family just returned to the States after having lived there for five years or so.  She has some wonderful stories of that place.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Technically I think VERY small temples, maybe 2,000 sq ft, could be built, with smaller instruction rooms and very limited schedules might be an option; maybe only open 1 day a week for own Endowments, and a couple of shifts per week for the dead- something like that might be feasible.

Smallest so far are Chihuahua Mexico (6800) and Yigo Guan (6861). The latter has convertible ordinance rooms, so I could definitely see a situation where there was only a single ordinance room, and ordinance is based on the day of the week.

On 6/2/2023 at 3:07 AM, bluebell said:

But I thought the church has said in the past that it takes into account full tithe payers in a temple district

Based on what I've heard in leadership training (GA was present) they look at (among other things): Full tithe payers, number of temple recommend holders, and level of family history work being done.

Essentially they want to make sure that if they build one it can actually be run and will actually be used.

 

[jkwilliams]

My pure speculation: the church may think (with good reason, perhaps) that members who complete temple ordinances are more likely to stay committed to the church. Thus, even in a place where there are few members, having a local temple may anchor the membership and provide a base upon which to grow. 

[rpn]

I just find this question awful.   The tithing requirement for temple participation isn't about money.   It is about protecting members from taking on covenants to give their ALL, when they can't even let God have His ten percent.   It can't be a revenue producing asset in any sense of those words.

If the question is whether or not temples help members improve their discipleship, I wouldn't expect it to for those who cannot yet live the law of tithing. 

Edited June 4, 2023 by rpn