My first impression would be to say that it’s ridiculous, but I do try to not jump the gun, on these things. Would you care to elaborate on why someone might make such a comparison? * * * ETA: Okay. Now that the question has been further explained, it’s obvious that the individual isn’t familiar with the purpose of temples. The purpose of a temple is to have a place where the Lord can reveal His greatest truths to us, and where we can receive what are sometimes called the “saving ordinances” of the Gospel. Furthermore, the temple is the only place on Earth that *any* ordinances can be performed on behalf of those that didn’t have the opportunity to receive them, during mortality. The point is that a temple is *not* a meetinghouse; in fact, they’re actually closed on Sundays, because everyone’s at Church. Put simply, the temple is the most holy place on Earth, the place where the requisite ordinances can be performed for and on behalf of every person that has ever lived. For that reason, while the money *could* have been used to build hospitals and help needy people (which we also do, though obviously with different funds), those things would be of *extremely* limited usefulness, if we didn’t also build temples. Make sense?

I'll agree with the Otter in asking for more details on how LdS temples can be compared to the palaces built by Saddam. Both classes of building are beautiful from an architectural standpoint.