Not only that, MG 2.0 was also wrong about what Brigham Young said. He is putting a prophesy in Brigham Young’s mouth. This is what Young said
We never yet commenced to lay the foundation of a temple but what all hell was in arms against us.
Well done.
MG is trying to bamboozle us with crooked lines and falsely representing a notorious/infamous former church President who is known for his hatred and racism against the African race. I wonder if MG feels the same way towards black people as did Brigham Young? Or perhaps MG is more progressive and rejects Young's hatred? I would hope so! Suppose MG was the Church President back in the day, would he have allowed blacks to enter the temples? I doubt it.
Ensign Peak and other investments generate $80 million a day. That’s $30 billion a year. To put that in perspective, the church could bulldoze every single chapel, temple, and stake center on the planet today and rebuild them tomorrow without breaking a sweat and not even come close to touching the principal. For the church, a worldwide construction spree isn't a budget item, it’s rounding error. At this point, they aren't saving for a rainy day, they're just hoarding.
Which is not what a religion should be doing and in my view it constitutes a real threat and potential showdown in which the government will have to get involved in deciding what the church can and can't do with those funds. Mormonism with all that money is a threat to society. Bad things can happen when people have that kind of money.
IHQ's insistence on binary conclusions and pressing them to the nth degree is why I do not interact with him at all anymore. Same with a couple or three other posters. Binary conclusions...from history...are almost always open to interpretive analysis that can lead one direction or another.
I hope that includes me because I sure as hell don't want to talk to you, MG. I will take advantage and interrupt and disrupt your threads as often as I feel like it. So take that!
... That people still distrust the Church’s motives suggests Mormons have done a spectacularly bad job over the last 150 years of explaining to the world what temples are for.
For members in the Western world, the attraction of a temple coming into their area isn’t the improved convenience of its location, it is an anticipation of improved real estate values. I’ve heard that many times for different temple announcements.
To be fair, IHQ, it could be that Mormons have not done a spectacularly bad job of explaining to the world what temples are for. It could also be that, even with a clear explanation, people still do not want Mormon temples in their neighbourhood.
That's a good point. Although most modern objections are about light pollution and temples being an aesthetic eyesore and/or blocking views. People really aren't that bothered about what goes on inside, especially when told the admission cost.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
IHQ's insistence on binary conclusions and pressing them to the nth degree is why I do not interact with him at all anymore. Same with a couple or three other posters. Binary conclusions...from history...are almost always open to interpretive analysis that can lead one direction or another.
I hope that includes me because I sure as hell don't want to talk to you, MG. I will take advantage and interrupt and disrupt your threads as often as I feel like it. So take that!
Let me be the troll!
You are my hero, Shulem. Keep fighting the good fight.
You are my hero, Shulem. Keep fighting the good fight.
I learned all about how to eat trolls for breakfast, lunch, and dinner during all those endless hours of working in the temple doing all those silly rituals.
Here are some excellent graphics showing LDS temples around the world. When I served my mission there were 18 temples if I remember correctly. Sometimes we might hear critics talk about the money grubbing leaders of the church. As if their mission were to enrich the church and/or themselves. As one looks at all these temples and their locations it might not be too difficult to imagine the amount of resources that go into temple operations throughout the world. This is something that couldn't have been considered at any other time in earth's history.
Scroll to bottom link where it says:
See 6 maps showing locations around the world of the Church’s 383 temples.
Those of us that are getting a little older, believers or not, who were around decades ago can't help be be amazed, at least to some degree, at the rolling forth of the work of building temples. Sure, you can go hither and thither on why the church invests so much of its resources in building Houses of the Lord, but nonetheless, it's quite the thing when you take the time to consider it.
Whatever one thinks, it is an interesting fact that so many people in so many places in the world now have the opportunity...from their perspective...to make and keep covenants of the Lord made in His Holy House.
Any other church 'rolling forth' its sacred edifices (other than meeting houses) like this?
Some would say that the Lord (God) is speedily moving forth His work and that no unhallowed hand can stop it.
If you like looking at maps, you'll enjoy these.
Regards,
MG
Here’s the problem with your premise that the Church’s temple building programme is somehow special. There are significantly more mosques and Islamic centres being built across the globe than SLC LDS chapels and temples. And Christianity is spending far more money on its global Cathedral and Basilica programme. So in answer to your question “Any other church 'rolling forth' its sacred edifices like this?”* The answer is a resounding yes. In fact they are doing so in a more widespread fashion, and spending more money.
*I’ve removed your nefarious attempt at focusing at only one specific strand of a religions building programme, that I suspect you tried to foist upon us because you thought that was the best line on your SLC LDS Top Trumps card.
Last edited by I Have Questions on Wed Jan 14, 2026 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Any other church 'rolling forth' its sacred edifices (other than meeting houses) like this?
What difference does it make just because the Latter-day Saint movement has shown to venture forth in a successful manner? It makes absolutely no difference as to whether the message is true or not. It simply means the Mormons have enjoyed a great measure of success and have been able to secure a great deal of funds in the process -- as money makers. But does this somehow make the explanations of Facsimile No. 3 true? How hardly! You see, no matter how much success the church experiences in making converts and building temples, it makes no difference because the Mormons are simply lying about a great many things.
Any other church 'rolling forth' its sacred edifices (other than meeting houses) like this?
What difference does it make just because the Latter-day Saint movement has shown to venture forth in a successful manner?
Shulem, in what way is the SLC LDS temple programme “successful”?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
