Skip to main content

Haitian Temple

This last week was the LDS General Conference. In every conference, Church leaders like to go over statistics of the Church: numbers of members, numbers of full-time missionaries, lists of new missions opening up and the number of operating temples. I'm sure I'm missing some of the stats. The leaders also like to announce how many temples are currently under construction and whether there are new temples to be built. In the case of this conference, there were 3 new temples announced: Ivory Coast, Thailand and Haiti. 

In an article on mormonnewsroom.org, in an article entitled "The Process of Building a Temple" they "explain" what it takes to bring one of these buildings to fruition"It's important to note that Mormon temples are built using Church funds set aside for that purpose and that the Church pays for the costs without a mortgage or other financing.... and temple sites are generally located in areas with enough members to warrant construction."  Typical of the Church, they don't actually detail where these "set aside" Church funds come from. These funds are gleaned from the populace in the form of tithing. A temple will only be built in an area where there are enough full tithe paying members to justify building a temple. Initially, especially if your a member of the Church, one is inclined to think that this is a wonderful thing; members all over the globe are willing to part with 10% of their income to support the Church, it's missionary work and humanitarian aide? How wonderful! But we need to look at the bigger picture here. 


Out of the three countries where new temples will be built, Thailand is the most economically stable. While this doesn't speak for the strength of it's Church membership, it does speak volumes on how the country will be able to support the financing and upkeep of the proposed temple. But what about Ivory Coast and Haiti? In defense of Ivory Coast, despite it being classified as a developing country, it does have a very sound infrastructure and a growing economy. For the region, it has a relatively high income per capita and it plays a key role in transit trade for neighboring, land-locked countries. However, with this being said, they have a very high rate of illiteracy and many children between the ages of 6 and 10 are not enrolled in school. 

By far and away, Haiti is the poorest of the three proposed countries, and it is the poorest country in the America's. Poverty, corruption and poor access to education are among Haiti's most serious disadvantages. It's similar to Ivory Coast in that it has a very low percentage of literacy, a fact that was exacerbated further by the massive earthquake that struck in 2010. 

The LDS church frequently comes under attack by those that say that the Church spends more money on furthering their business endeavors than on charity work. Despite the Church flat out denying this and it able to continue doing so because they do not publish they're monetary intake or spending like most other churches do, their humanitarian aide is severely lacking in comparison to the amount of money that they make each year from tithing alone. What is disgusting to me, in light of Haiti acquiring a temple, is the fact that the large sum of money that goes into not only building, but maintaining the temple structure and grounds, would be better used to provide better food, better education, better structures, and a safer environment for the people of Haiti. Furthering the welfare of ALL the Haitians versus the "spiritual" growth of a small minority of Haitian LDS members seems to be the better, and more obvious, and dare I say, moral choice. The same goes for Ivory Coast, and while I no longer think building temples is an awesome endeavor, Thailand will be able to at least continue to support it's citizens despite the presence of a money grubbing temple. 

The only reason citizens of countries like Haiti and Ivory Coast continue to pay tithing, despite the majority of them being unable to support their own families, is because they are a highly superstitious people, which is a direct effect of being woefully uneducated. They believe wholeheartedly in religions promising that their lives will be better by turning to god and by paying for the furthering of the work because the vast majority of them have never learned to fully think for themselves or to recognize when they are being taken for a ride. 

I attempted to find how much money the average LDS temple costs to build, but as usual, the LDS church is very good at keeping exact numbers hidden from the public. What estimates I could find from outside sources, some even from contractors and land/building estimators, ranged from $14 million to $40 million. This is just to build the temple. This doesn't include the ongoing upkeep of the temple and its grounds. Obviously the cost of building depends on the size of the temple, and I'm guessing that neither Ivory coast nor Haiti will be getting a very large building, but imagine what $14 million would do to stimulate the economy of Haiti? 

Another aspect of this proposed site for a new temple that I find distasteful is the quality of the temple versus the quality of the surrounding area, especially in Haiti. Once the decision is made to build a temple in a certain area, and the government approves, the First Presidency of the Church will then "prayerfully" choose a precise spot on which to build. Basically a representative travels to various sites  in the country and settles on one "that would have prominence, be in an attractive neighborhood, a neighborhood that would withstand the test of time." Now I wont pretend to know a lot about Haiti, but I think it's a pretty safe guess to think that the temple will be in Port-au-Prince, the capital of Haiti. This is, as far as I can tell anyway, where the better looking structures are located. With that being said though, the surrounding area will still be incredibly run down. Just Google images of Haiti's cities. Church members believe that any temple will be a beautiful addition to the community, and while I wont deny that the LDS temples are indeed beautiful (with the exception of the Provo temple, perhaps), I will say that a pretty building to look at won't solve any of the economic or social issues that the Haitians are facing. 

The beauty of the Haitian temple is the only thing that every individual who chances to see it will be able to experience. LDS temples are not places where just anyone can walk in and listen to a religious service or participate in the "saving" ordinances. You have to be a card carrying member of the Church, which requires one to remain a full-tithe payer, in order to enter through the doors. I ask again, how will limiting entrants to these "sacred" grounds legitimately help ALL of Haiti? It wont! Even the members cries of Spiritual Growth, Health and Enlightenment aren't good enough reasons to waste money on an unnecessary structure with limited resources for the general public. The LDS church wants everyone to focus on the "amazing life" that they will have after they die rather than focus on making their actual life, their ONLY life, better. This is the only way they can get away with helping humanity as little as they do here on earth, because they claim that they are helping humanity get to a better place in "heaven". 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Response to Mr. Greg Trimble

(Apologies for another long post) In a perusal of my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across a lovely article that a neighbor of my parents shared entitled “So…You Think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud” . Mr. Trimble, who authored this lovely article, uses the typical Mormon circular reasoning that states that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet; and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same Church that Christ established while he was on Earth. So in the Mormon mind, it all comes down to whether the BOM is true or not, and for this, they rely on warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that the Book is in fact, true. Mr. Trimble states that he noticed that most of the people who criticize the Book of Mormon the loudest, have not actually read it. While this may be true, I don’t think a person needs to read a book fully to understand whether it’s true or not. That’s what research is for. Reading the Book of Morm

The War in Heaven; Part 2

                I suggest that the extreme horribleness of hell, as portrayed by priests and nuns, is inflated to compensate for its implausibility. If hell were plausible, it would only have to be moderately unpleasant in order to deter. Given that it is so unlikely to be true, it has to be advertised as very scar indeed, to balance its implausibility and retain some deterrence value.                                 Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, pg. 361  I began the first part of this post because of a comment on Facebook and the article that it linked to. I was frustrated by both because they contradict the doctrine I was taught throughout my relation with the Church and they blatantly ignore that it was the same for every member up to the publishing of this article. Not only this, but they make it sound as though the members who believe that we had a choice in heaven between Satan and Jesus (almost every single member) misinterpreted these lessons, and they are the ones at fau

I'm Not a Fan of Matt Walsh: Part 2

Matt Walsh is an Idiot: Why “Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally” is not effective. I am a glutton for punishment where Matt Walsh is concerned. He is a pompous ass, and reading his articles makes my blood boil, and not just because he writes for Glen Beck’s network and we don’t share the same opinions. Bottom line is that he is not a great writer. If he were to turn one of his articles into any of my University English professors, he would not have fared well. Even my 11 th grade English teacher would have ripped him a new one. Why: Because he cannot write an argumentative paper. Not a single one of his articles I have read has contained any semblance of argumentation. He likes to say things like, first and second, as if he’s actually introducing solid reasons to support his opinion, but they end up being wordy and condescending with an overabundance of analogies that don’t actually provide support. The article listed in the title of my post is one of Walsh’s more recent