Church's 2023 Expenditures in Philanthropic/Humanitarian Relief

[Rain]

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I can opine about that.  We don't want to turn into the Church of Christ.  Or any other Protestant/Evangelical church run by a board, who structure their finances in ways to maximize their tithing intake.  Here's a sad and tragic page where the CoC is basically apologizing to it's members for the recent sale of church assets.  Trying to smooth ruffled feathers and calm upset hearts.  They have so many needs (and scriptural mandates), and not nearly enough funds to meet the needs.  Plus they need to spin their numbers in ways that don't upset people and keep them donating.  This is what Analytics and Teancum and SeekingUnderstanding would turn our church into.  

No, this is not what they are saying should happen. 

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

You are proposing we take the 1st presidency and Qo12, with their claims of being led by revelation, and sort of replacing them with some sort of democratic rule by it's members.   No thank you.  We're the CoJCoLDS.  Either our church was restored by, and is run by Christ, or it's not. 

President Nelson thought the idea of good information making for good inspiration was true enough that he quoted it in conference. 

The church already can and does gather info through surveys, interviews, reading newspapers etc so they can have good info helping them get good inspiration/revelation. I know of no reason why financial things would need to be excluded from this info gathering.

29 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The word "authoritarian" doesn't really fit.  It's sort of a word describing human politics and governments.  And authoritarian governments are largely ruled by various nasty forms of force or coercion.  My last 15 or so tithing settlement appointments with the Bishop, he didn't even look at the numbers.

Heh - you know what?  I just checked:  This Wikipedia page keeps changing.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_religious_organizations  Not 6 months ago, it had the CoJCoLDS listed 2rd - behind (and dwarfed by) the Greek Orthodox.  Heh.  There has been Catholic activism afoot in Wikipedialand!  LDS Wikieditors, to arms!  Fight the Wikibattle for a more accurate public perception!   (Here's an archived version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wealthiest_religious_organizations&oldid=1129411784.   Boy is it interesting reading through the Wiki revisions pages!  )

 

 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

am determined the defend the Church against unreasoned, unreasonable, undue, unfair, etc. criticisms.

I acknowledge that I don't like critics of my faith using humanitarian aid as a brickbat.  I don't think such things ought to be weaponized and used as a pretext for justifying endless efforts to cast the Church in a bad light, to impute to it terrible motives, to characterize it mostly or entirely by its flaws (with little or no acknowledgment of its virtues, efforts, successes, etc.).

Smac old buddy. You take this all to seriously. This is a little old obscure message board. With what, maybe 20 or so regular participants? Maybe  there are lurkers but I doubt there are many.  Lighten up dude.  Life is short.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

This is what Analytics and Teancum and SeekingUnderstanding would turn our church into.  

Not seeing the connection again. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Taken to a logical extreme, you are proposing we take the 1st presidency and Qo12, with their claims of being led by revelation, and sort of replacing them with some sort of democratic rule by it's members

Not really, because she isn’t saying to take it to the extreme but to only repeat what has been done before, but just in the area of humanitarian help…..unless you think we are actually already there, which in my view would be an illogical and unreasonable conclusion, so I assume you aren’t making it. 

I have participated in a couple of surveys done by the Church where I was asked to give my input on certain subjects, one was the website, can’t remember the others.  Just because they could survey for ideas on the next humanitarian projects for the Church to get into, doesn’t mean they have to use those ideas as is or at all if they find the ideas aren’t workable or even useful at all. 
 

added:  I see Rain already addressed this

Edited March 26, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Either our church was restored by, and is run by Christ, or it's not. 

Christ is at the head, but he isn’t filling all the callings. It’s not so black and white.  Church leaders add their own perspectives of what is important and what isn’t. Thank goodness, because it wouldn’t be right that just because anyone accepted a calling as a general authority God turned them into his puppets so he could be running the whole show on his own. 

[bluebell]

@LoudmouthMormon and @Rain

I think both of you make great points.

In these discussions I do think it's paramount for people to remember that according to our beliefs, the church is more than a humanitarian organization run by well-meaning but imperfect men.  We do believe that it is Christ's church on the earth run via revelation through a prophet and apostles, with goals and divine mandates that are sometimes (often?) not going to make sense to our "lower ways" (to imply a quote of the "my ways are not your ways" scripture). 

Critics, especially atheists, are not going to see the value in some of the things that we view as being the most valuable and so there is always going to be a gap between what critics think we should be doing and what we think we should be doing. Our two groups do not ultimately have the same agenda.

The existence of the gap isn't immoral in and of itself.  Wanting the church and members to think and behave like a nonbeliever on this issue isn't any more reasonable than latter-day saints holding nonbeliever's in contempt for not thinking and behaving like us.  There's got to be some acknowledgment of these different perspectives and belief systems in this discussion or it becomes about arguing who's right rather than what's best.

However, like Rain said, just because we believe that this is Christ's church led by a prophet, doesn't mean that there isn't room for the voices and ideas of mere mortals. We don't have to abandon our beliefs in the divine origins of the church to admit change or improvements could be needed.

Edited March 26, 2024 by bluebell

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

@LoudmouthMormon and @Rain

I think both of you make great points.

In these discussions I do think it's paramount for people to remember that according to our beliefs, the church is more than a humanitarian organization run by well-meaning but imperfect men.  We do believe that it is Christ's church on the earth run via revelation through a prophet and apostles, with goals and divine mandates that are sometimes (often?) not going to make sense to our "lower ways" (to imply a quote of the "my ways are not your ways" scripture). 

Critics, especially atheists, are not going to see the value in some of the things that we view as being the most valuable and so there is always going to be a gap between what critics think we should be doing and what we think we should be doing. Our two groups do not ultimately have the same agenda.

The existence of the gap isn't immoral in and of itself.  Wanting the church and members to think and behave like a nonbeliever on this issue isn't any more reasonable than latter-day saints holding nonbeliever's in contempt for not thinking and behaving like us.  There's got to be some acknowledgment of these different perspectives and belief systems in this discussion or it becomes about arguing who's right rather than what's best.

However, like Rain said, just because we believe that this is Christ's church led by a prophet, doesn't mean that there isn't room for the voices and ideas of mere mortals. We don't have to abandon our beliefs in the divine origins of the church to admit change or improvements could be needed.

 Very well said (out of points).  
 

Christ being at the helm (which is a description I prefer as it implies he has others managing other parts of the ship that is the Church) is why I am able to trust that the Church as a whole is not hoarding (I allow for someone hoarding in a small way in their particular calling/job, but don’t believe it is system wide) without seeing financial data that would prove it. It is not the only reason, but the main one. 

Edited March 26, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I would have no objection to this.  I'm not sure how much good it would do.  Most Latter-day Saints aren't really situated to speak intelligently and advisedly about international humanitarian efforts.  

I think most Latter-day Saints want the Church to do "more," but would not have much input as to the particulars, and they likely would not be conversant in the the logistical and practical issues in this arena.  In addition to the corruption, malfeasance and corruption that riddles the "humanitarian work" industry, I have previously quoted this article at length and its various statements regarding the unintended harmful effects humanitarian efforts can have.  Some excerpts:

• "{F}ood aid is, in fact, detrimental in the long run because it suppresses local food production, making it harder for poor or conflict-ridden countries to feed themselves."
• "{S}tudies have found that direct cash transfers are a much more efficient and effective method to alleviate hardship and improve the overall welfare of beneficiary communities."
• "{A}id became a political tool in Somalia that was manipulated by both the donors and the recipient country."
• "{F}ood aid to Somalia may have actually prolonged the civil war in the country."
• "'{A}id could be worse than incompetent and inadvertently destructive. It could be positively evil.'"
• "{T}raditionally, Somalis never relied on food aid, even during droughts."
• "Aid essentially destroyed a centuries-old system that built resilience and sustained communities during periods of hardship."
• "Food aid also suppresses local food production. Many Somali farmers have reported that NGOs working with WFP are notorious for bringing in food aid just before the harvest, which brings down the price of local food."
• "{F}ood aid is big business and extremely beneficial to those donating it."
• "US food aid often distorts local markets and disrupts agricultural activity in recipient countries."
• "As earthquake relief, the US rushed 27,000 metric tons of wheat to Guatemala. The US gift knocked the bottom out of the local grain markets and depressed food prices so much that it was harder for villagers to recover."
• "One of the most evident distortions caused by food aid (apart from the fact that farmers have no incentive to grow food when the market is flooded with free food) is the temptation to steal it."
• "WFP’s international staff usually do not distribute food directly in conflict or disaster zones; instead they hire local NGOs to do the work. Many of these NGOs are not vetted."
• "{A}bout two-thirds of the food went missing."
• "Aid thus became a profitable source of income for criminal elements within Somalia."
• "Maren believes that international aid not only sustained the dictator’s regime but also facilitated the unravelling of Somali society."
• "{I}t was not just the warlords who profited from food aid; corrupt NGO cartels also benefitted."
• "When an international humanitarian agency comes in to provide food to starving people, bad governments are let off the hook, and are allowed to continue with their bad policies that can lead to more famines in the future."
• "In a world that is being ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, increasing xenophobia, racism and sexism, a global recession and climate change (all of which threaten peace and security), couldn’t the Committee have picked a more worthy candidate?"

I think most Latter-day Saints are not aware of these things.  I also think most of us are only generally aware of the Church's humanitarian efforts, and trust that the Brethren are attuned to such things.

I also think most conversant and observant Latter-day Saints prefer to take a supportive and encouraging, rather that adversarial and critical, approach to matters of church governance.  This tends to manifest more quietly than the adversarial/critical/pugnacious types, such that the latter tends to come across as more numerically significant and influential than they really are.

"Untouchable?"  What do you mean by that?

Could you elaborate?  I'm not sure this is accurate.

The "early church" was appreciably smaller than it is now:

 

 

Any large organization must organize itself in sensible ways.  A 19th-century church with a few hundred or few thousand members congregated mostly together is situated quite differently from a 21-century church with many millions of members in tens of thousands of congregations throughout the world.

In any event, it is my understanding that the Church does poll its members.  I have participated in two in the last several years.  Moreover, General Authorities and Area Authorities are constantly traveling and meeting with everyday members.  

The Brethren of today are far less "authoritarian" than, say, Brigham Young.  He sent my great-great-grandfather to St. George, then to Mesa, then to the Mexican Colonies.  He also called my GGF and his son to leave their families and serve a mission in Scotland, with essentially no advance notice.  There are countless examples of early members of the Church being called up on to move here or there, to go on missions, etc.  Moreover, there was a lot more church/state entanglement back in the day.  Nothing like this happens now.  The Church and its leaders wields no political power.  The Church doesn't ask members to uproot themselves and move hither and yon.  It doesn't abruptly and unilaterally call members to serve missions.  And so on.

I don't think you are fairly or accurately characterizing the Church, either in its early days or now.

Okay.  I look forward to reading it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your time replying. 😊

What started my train of thought was the podcast below that I mentioned in my first comment. If you care to listen. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-peter-bleakley/id1682941294?i=1000649113076

About surveys or polls, I'm aware the church does that on a regular basis.

In it they mention the leaders were held accountable to members at one time and even spoke about it often. And they mention talks by leaders in recent talks and how it is much less than say, the 1980's and 1990's.

I thought of something I'd like done, would it be possible to help fight the Ukraine war? Since if we don't, it might be the world's demise.

And I will say, since organizations through the Catholic church have figured out good ways to do humanitarian things, I'm glad the church helps them and other organizations.

What I meant by untouchable, I mean only a few people actually meet with the upper leaders so untouchable for say...me and most members. 😄

And in the early church there seemed to be more common consent, mentioned in the podcast.

But maybe as you've put forth, the church is so much larger now but maybe they can figure out a way somehow. 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you for your time replying. 😊

What started my train of thought was the podcast below that I mentioned in my first comment. If you care to listen. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-peter-bleakley/id1682941294?i=1000649113076

Thanks, but no.  I rarely listen to podcasts.  And based on Mr. Bleakley's Reddit comments, I do not think he is speaking seriously or in good faith.  People who want to be taken seriously when discussing weighty matters don't wear "Apostasy" hats.  I also question his sincerity in wanting to help the Church.  

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

About surveys or polls, I'm aware the church does that on a regular basis.

Then criticizing the Brethren for not listening to the membership seems less-than-apropos.

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In it they mention the leaders were held accountable to members at one time and even spoke about it often. And they mention talks by leaders in recent talks and how it is much less than say, the 1980's and 1990's.

I thought of something I'd like done, would it be possible to help fight the Ukraine war? Since if we don't, it might be the world's demise.

You want the Church to "help fight the Ukraine war"?  Could you elaborate on your reasoning here?

I want the Church to fulfill its mandates.  Participating in armed conflicts is not one of them. 

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I will say, since organizations through the Catholic church have figured out good ways to do humanitarian things, I'm glad the church helps them and other organizations.

So am I.  And yet, in the end, I do not expect or want the Church to be "primarily a humanitarian organization."

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What I meant by untouchable, I mean only a few people actually meet with the upper leaders so untouchable for say...me and most members. 😄

Well, there are many many millions of us, and less than 100 General Authorities.  The ratio works out to about 1 GA per 178,947 Latter-day Saints.  Nevertheless, GAs are constantly traveling and meeting with individual Latter-day Saints.

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And in the early church there seemed to be more common consent, mentioned in the podcast.

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.  I think common consent is working just fine in the Church.  The concept was never intended to enable some sort of heckler's veto or tyranny of the minority in the Church.  We can sustain, or not sustain, the leaders of the Church.  We can raise concerns with local leaders.  For those who are disciplined, there is an appeal process.  

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But maybe as you've put forth, the church is so much larger now but maybe they can figure out a way somehow. 

Could you elaborate?  "A way" to do what?  What is the Church not doing that you think it ought to be doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

would it be possible to help fight the Ukraine war?

Political, so no. Can’t join sides in a war. That would likely harm members living in the country the Church was helping to fight.  Even in a righteous cause…which will be debatable if it is fully that (there may be corrupt leaders that some will point to). Plus while some members may be okay with supplying weapons, my guess is most will not be and that includes leaders.

Sending humanitarian aid would certainly be possible and I believe has already been done by members quite a bit (I have seen several drives to collect things or money to send to Ukraine).

Edited March 26, 2024 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

Eureka!  I might have had a thought worthy of thinking this morning.

So, 5%, right?  Managers of massive piles of assets (endowments, hedge funds, etc) can spend 5% of that pile yearly, pretty much in perpetuity, yes?  This is a pretty widely-known state of affairs amongst holders of such piles, those who administrate them, those who legislate them, and those who are somehow employed to watchdog them.  Yes?   

Ok - hear me out.

Look at that beautiful exponential, logarithmic growth in temple construction.  Not only are we building more and more, but the rate at which we construct them is climbing as well. 

I did a little research on where our temples are.  I wondered how easily the members in the areas served by the temples are able to pay for them.  I wondered if we primarily build them in wealthy countries with high GDPs.  So I did a little research.  Most of the temples are in the US, and the US is a fabulously top tier GDP powerhouse.  But what about temples outside of the US?

Well, here's a chart I made to shed some light on an answer:

The church sticks an awful lot of temples in poor areas that couldn't hope to support the cost of one. Looking at my spreadsheet data, half of our temples (including those in the US) reside in nations with a GDP higher than ~42k per person per yr.  The other half are in poorer nations.   131 of them in extremely, soul-crushingly poor nations with a GDP of less than $10k.

So, temple construction costs of ~40-$120 million, per temple.  Yearly operating costs of another $X million per year.   My point is, the church is building temples that spend far more than the tithing costs of the members it serves, and the church is doing that more and more, at an exponential rate. 

Ok.  So, exponential growth can't go forever, obviously.  The only question is when will the church stop experiencing exponential growth in temple construction.  My brilliant thought that I had this morning:  I bet it'll level off once yearly construction and operating costs, plus it's billion-and-growing charitable spend, equal that magic 5% number y'all are so hot about.

So there you go.  You want us to spend more?  We're building temples and buildings in areas where the members can't afford it.  And we'll keep the money flowing to keep 'em operating in perpetuity.  I'm thinking my idea might have something to it.  It seems to fit in the following ways: 

- The church, operated by smart folks who are wise in the ways of capital allocation, already knows this 5% number, and is building towards it.  Mature and good temporal stewardship.

- The church will be fulfilling it's mission of perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy, from a financially advantageous position.  It'll be able to spend billions in some of the poorest areas in the world, to bless the lives of the lost and the least.

- Y'all critics will still be mad and call foul, because although we'll have reached your magic 5% number, we won't be spending it on Analytics "proper" 

 

[pogi]

DeJa'Vu

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

... I thought of something I'd like done, would it be possible to help fight the Ukraine war? Since if we don't, it might be the world's demise. ...

Nothing at all stops you from contributing to causes that you believe are worthy, and you are welcome to do so: 
 

Quote

 

Doctrine and Covenants 58

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

 

 

[OGHoosier]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I thought of something I'd like done, would it be possible to help fight the Ukraine war? Since if we don't, it might be the world's demise.

Humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians would be possible under a variety of initiatives, but the actual warfighting is well beyond the Church's capabilities or reasonable remit. The law constrains private actors from involvement in the military supplies pipeline or "foreign adventurism." This one has to be left to the governments. 

[Tacenda]

On 3/24/2024 at 3:41 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um that’s my real picture there. If you can’t find me, you aren’t that good (if that’s you, PM me and I’ll give you my name - there are only two in the world that share it so hopefully you can make it from there). But as you like to say the comparison isn’t apt, because I’m not asking for donations and tax exempt status. But yes, I know as you’ve argued before, unless I give my banking login credentials I have no standing to criticize 😂🙄

Only because of whistleblowers and government action. Otherwise they’d still be very hidden. 

 

In this day and age it's a smart thing not to put your name and pic on here. Crazies galore out there. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

 Very well said (out of points).  
 

Christ being at the helm (which is a description I prefer as it implies he has others managing other parts of the ship that is the Church) is why I am able to trust that the Church as a whole is not hoarding (I allow for someone hoarding in a small way in their particular calling/job, but don’t believe it is system wide) without seeing financial data that would prove it. It is not the only reason, but the main one. 

I always liked the analogy, "we are His hands", or something like that.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians would be possible under a variety of initiatives, but the actual warfighting is well beyond the Church's capabilities or reasonable remit. The law constrains private actors from involvement in the military supplies pipeline or "foreign adventurism." This one has to be left to the governments. 

Just funding the prevention of what could happen. I feel it's a rainy day. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

feel it's a rainy day. 

Anyone else get that line “It’s raining all over the world” from ELO’s Showdown popping into their head?

Great song, playing it now.  May get up and dance in a bit even.

Edited March 27, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anyone else get that line “It’s raining all over the world” from ELO’s Showdown popping into their head?

Great song, playing it now.  May get up and dance in a bit even.

That could fit!! I haven't danced in so long. I wish I was the kind to dance and not be embarrassed.  Thanks for the short time to revisit past memories of ELO music!

Lyrics: She cried to the southern wind About a love that was sure to end Every dream in her heart was gone Headin' for a Showdown Bad dreamer, what's your name Looks like we're ridin' on the same train Looks as through there'll be more pain There's gonna be a Showdown And it's rainin' all over the world It's raining all over the world Tonight, the longest night She came to me like a friend She blew in on a southern wind Now my heart is turned to stone again There's gonna be a Showdown Save me, oh save me It's unreal, the suffering There's gonna be a Showdown And it's rainin' all over the world It's raining all over the world Tonight, the longest night

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

wish I was the kind to dance and not be embarrassed.

I dance all the time, but always behind closed doors with only myself as a partner, lol

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Eureka!  I might have had a thought worthy of thinking this morning.

So, 5%, right?  Managers of massive piles of assets (endowments, hedge funds, etc) can spend 5% of that pile yearly, pretty much in perpetuity, yes?  This is a pretty widely-known state of affairs amongst holders of such piles, those who administrate them, those who legislate them, and those who are somehow employed to watchdog them.  Yes?   

Ok - hear me out.

Look at that beautiful exponential, logarithmic growth in temple construction.  Not only are we building more and more, but the rate at which we construct them is climbing as well. 

I did a little research on where our temples are.  I wondered how easily the members in the areas served by the temples are able to pay for them.  I wondered if we primarily build them in wealthy countries with high GDPs.  So I did a little research.  Most of the temples are in the US, and the US is a fabulously top tier GDP powerhouse.  But what about temples outside of the US?

Well, here's a chart I made to shed some light on an answer:

The church sticks an awful lot of temples in poor areas that couldn't hope to support the cost of one. Looking at my spreadsheet data, half of our temples (including those in the US) reside in nations with a GDP higher than ~42k per person per yr.  The other half are in poorer nations.   131 of them in extremely, soul-crushingly poor nations with a GDP of less than $10k.

So, temple construction costs of ~40-$120 million, per temple.  Yearly operating costs of another $X million per year.   My point is, the church is building temples that spend far more than the tithing costs of the members it serves, and the church is doing that more and more, at an exponential rate. 

Ok.  So, exponential growth can't go forever, obviously.  The only question is when will the church stop experiencing exponential growth in temple construction.  My brilliant thought that I had this morning:  I bet it'll level off once yearly construction and operating costs, plus it's billion-and-growing charitable spend, equal that magic 5% number y'all are so hot about.

So there you go.  You want us to spend more?  We're building temples and buildings in areas where the members can't afford it.  And we'll keep the money flowing to keep 'em operating in perpetuity.  I'm thinking my idea might have something to it.  It seems to fit in the following ways: 

- The church, operated by smart folks who are wise in the ways of capital allocation, already knows this 5% number, and is building towards it.  Mature and good temporal stewardship.

- The church will be fulfilling it's mission of perfecting the saints, proclaiming the gospel, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy, from a financially advantageous position.  It'll be able to spend billions in some of the poorest areas in the world, to bless the lives of the lost and the least.

- Y'all critics will still be mad and call foul, because although we'll have reached your magic 5% number, we won't be spending it on Analytics "proper" 

 

Actually, I like your idea. If you review what I’ve talked about, as far as I can recall I’ve never criticized the Church for spending money on anything. Using the money to fund temples sounds great. Let’s model it out.

 Here are the assumptions I’m making:

1. The maintenance of all of the temples that currently exist will continue to be funded by tithing revenue.
2. The Church will discontinue President Hinckley’s “fixed principle” of saving money for a rainy day and will instead spend 100% of tithing revenue every year.  
3. EPA will set aside a cool $100 billion for a fund to finance the construction and maintenance of all new temples. This will leave something like $50B for a “rainy day"
4. The $100B temple fund is invested conservatively and earns 5% per year.
5. The total number of temples grows at an exponential rate of 5.6% per year (this is the rate of growth of temples from 1980 to 2023).
6. On average, new temples cost $60,000,000 each.
7. 4% of that total ($2,400,000) will be spent on each temple each year in order to maintain it in pristine condition.
8. Each temple will have 30 full-time employees making an average salary of $50,000 per year, so that there is $1,500,000 in salary per temple.
9. So, operating the new temples will cost $3,900,000 per temple per year.

Forecasting this out, the maintenance cost on these new temples will eventually catch up to the investment income earned on the fund, and new temple construction will be forced to stop. 

In my model, this will happen in the year 2067. At that time, the temple fund will have about $200,000,000,000 in it, and will generate an annual revenue of $10,000,000,000. The Church will build about 150 temples that year, bringing the total of new temples up to about 2,500. Costing about $4 million per temple per year to operate, that will land in equilibrium where the cost of operating the new temples will equal the investment income. 
 

Edited March 27, 2024 by Analytics

[LoudmouthMormon]

And just like that, peace broke out on the topic?   Cool!

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In my model, this will happen in the year 2067. At that time, the temple fund will have about $200,000,000,000 in it, and will generate an annual revenue of $10,000,000,000.

Cool.  What percent of the temples did you estimate would be built in poorer countries (say, less than ~$20k per capita GDP)?  I'm struck by the thought that all the widows mites in the world wouldn't be enough to build and operate a single temple.  But I'm a novice at modeling such things.  

2500 temples producing $10 bil/yr tithing is $4 mil per temple.  No problem for America, but quite a stretch for Brazil or Mexico, where folks make maybe $10 grand a year.  And there are way more poor nations than rich ones.

Edited March 27, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And just like that, peace broke out on the topic?   Cool!

Cool.  What percent of the temples did you estimate would be built in poorer countries (say, less than ~$20k per capita GDP)?  I'm struck by the thought that all the widows mites in the world wouldn't be enough to build and operate a single temple.  But I'm a novice at modeling such things.

I’m assuming 100% of them will be built in poor countries, and that the locals won’t pay a dime to build or operate them. From the “temple fund,” EPA will pour $3.9 million per temple per year into the local third-world economies to operate them.

Edited March 27, 2024 by Analytics

[SeekingUnderstanding]

24 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

And just like that, peace broke out on the topic?   Cool!

I’m with analytics. It’s the fact that your church’s biggest goal appears to be “grow the size of our financial endowment” that brings into question whether it should enjoy tax advantaged status as well as whether it makes sense to donate incremental dollars to it. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Ah - your 'annual revenue' is interest on the temple fund.

Well, @Analytics shown me something I didn't believe was possible.  A feasible and desirable future scenario where my church is off engaged in it's work, and a critic is happy about it.

The year ~2067, and ~2500 temples?  I'll be in my '90's.   But Imma continue to track that "exponential growth in temple construction" chart for as long as I can, and should it start leveling off in ~40 years, Imma find this thread and post on it.

Edited March 27, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon