The Noachian Flood, Part Three: Oceans above, below and within


Continued from part two.

Part one and two of this series were published on 12 November 2007 and 8 July 2008, respectively, so nearly six years have passed since the last one.  I began this particular draft in 2008 but decided not to finish it, because there really isn’t much to it, but I recently got a little more scientific information to add, so off it goes for publication.  (Just think of this as me doing some spring cleaning in my draft posts queue.)

Stacked planetary effects

Tim Malone brought up a good point in his (1 March 2008) article, Just where exactly are the lost ten tribes?, concerning the effect on the oceans of a configuration of stacked planets.  Wrote he,

Can you imagine what will happen to the waters of the earth with the attraction of another planet over the North pole? I would hate to live North of any large body of water at that point. Think about it. There will be a worldwide catastrophic inundation as the water from the equatorial regions suddenly rushes to the Northern polar region. Imagine the water in the Gulf of Mexico. Where will it go? How about the water in the Mediterranean? Think of the great devastation that will cause as it travels Northward at a frightening speed.

Where’s Waldo, er, water?

If we believe the scriptures that state that “the earth will be rolled together as a scroll”—meaning that the scattered planets will once again return to their stacked locations, just as scattered Israel will be gathered together again—then with a planet above us and (possibly) a planet below us, the waters of the earth will return to the poles, as conjectured by Malone. If this was their original location—and if they were held there by both gravitational and electrical means, due to the stacked nature of the planetary configuration—then when these planets scattered, the oceans were free to move over the Earth, causing inundations everywhere.

Still, the scientists tell us that there isn’t enough water to cover the Earth entirely. The previous part of this series spoke of the possibility of water being created in the atmosphere due to highly reactive OH production in a high energy, electrical state. But even this may not be enough water to cover everything.

So, where else could the water come from?

Two reports show “oceans” of water inside the Earth

One possibility is from underground “oceans.”

For example, on February 27, 2007, Richard A. Lovett, writing for the National Geographic News, reported in the article Huge Underground “Ocean” Found Beneath Asia that a “blob” of water the size of the Arctic Ocean had been discovered hundreds of miles below. This particular find was of moisture “locked in” to rocks, so it is not a free flowing ocean, however, it at least points to the prospect of there being more water to this planet that we are not aware of.  If this and other underground sources of water were at one time held in polar geographies by the planets found above and below Earth, then when freed, these same waters might have helped to cover the earth in the Noachian Flood and subsequently over time receded, forming our water tables and underground “oceans.”

Revealed: The vast resevoir hidden in the Earth’s crust that holds as much water as ALL of the oceans is the second article, which was published on 12 March 2014.  Here are some quotes:

Scientists have discovered a vast reservoir of water under the Earth’s mantle they say could be larger than all the ocean’s combined.

Hans Keppler, a geologist at the University of Bayreuth in Germany, cautioned against extrapolating the size of the subterranean water find from a single sample of ringwoodite.

And he also said the water was likely to be locked up in specific rocks, in a molecular form called hydroxyl.

‘In some ways it is an ocean in Earth’s interior, as visualised by Jules Verne… although not in the form of liquid water,’ Keppler said in a commentary also published by Nature.

The implications of the discovery are profound, Pearson suggested.

Water under the Earth

Another possibility is that the oceans found on the inner surface of the planet—assuming we live on a hollow orb with polar openings—were likewise held at the poles and so when the plasma “fountains” (columns) were broken, they inundated the outside surface first, before receding to their present inner surface positions.

Concerning the oceans and rivers found on the inside surface of the planet, Olaf Jansen wrote:

About three-fourths of the “inner” surface of the earth is land and about one-fourth water. There are numerous rivers of tremendous size, some flowing in a northerly direction and others southerly. Some of these rivers are thirty miles in width, and it is out of these vast waterways, at the extreme northern and southern parts of the “inside” surface of the earth, in regions where low temperatures are experienced, that freshwater icebergs are formed. They are then pushed out to sea like huge tongues of ice, by the abnormal freshets of turbulent waters that, twice every year, sweep everything before them.

(Quoted from The Smoky God.)

Enough and to spare

As one fourth of the inner surface is covered in water (according to Jansen), if that oceanic water was added to the outer surface amount and to the water found between the two surfaces of the crust of the Earth, and all of that was coupled with the water generated through electrical OH production, it might very well be that there is enough water and to spare to cover the outside surface (and perhaps also the inside surface) of the planet completely, just as is recorded in our current Bibles.

Conclusion

When taking into consideration the evidence for an electrical universe and a stacked planetary configuration, as well as the evidence of all planets being hollow with possible polar openings, the scriptural account of the global Noachian Flood no longer remains outside of the realm of possibility. Mainstream scientists reject the idea of a global Flood because they reject the plasma and hollow planet models, despite the evidence supporting both models. The Noachian Flood “story” is unbelievable when viewed through the mainstream models, but it is believable when viewed through the plasma and hollow planet models, especially when taking into account this new data concerning all the water within the Earth.

I started this series because of the discussions LDS were having (back in 2007), in which they were trying to make the Noachian Flood “fit” into the mainstream scientific models. We no longer need to fit square pegs into rounds holes. There are other models available which allow us to accept our scriptures, and this global Flood story in particular, without hesitation or doubt.

Next Plasma Theology article: The plasma aspects of the First Vision and Moroni’s visit

Previous Plasma Theology article: The Noachian Flood, Part Two: Electrically manufacturing OH

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

A commandment to practice polygamy found in the New Testament


The following has been lifted from this page and was not written by me.  I thought it was interesting enough to put on this blog and allow people to comment on it.  I will insert the scriptures in block quotes for easy reading.

————————————–

 Polygamy Commanded of God in NT?

There absolutely is an example in the Bible, where God actually does command a situation of polygamy —in the New Testament, even.

1_Corinthians 7:10-11 & 27-28.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

—–

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul differentiates when he is making his own “recommendation” (in verses 6, 12, and 25)

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

—–

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

—–

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

and when he is expressing the “commandment of the Lord” (verses 10-11).

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

Indeed, in verses 10-11, Paul clarifies that the instruction in those two verses is the “commandment of the Lord”. (It should therefore also be noted that the other areas in which he clarifies as being only his “recommendation” can NOT be used to otherwise and incorrectly assert that God Himself is creating some sin or doctrine. After all, Paul’s ultimate “recommendation” therein is celibacy!)

With that realized, it is clear for readers of the Bible that Paul makes it emphatically clear that verses 10-11 are different. Namely, verses 10-11, in the exact way in which they are actually written, are the “commandment of God”.

“And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.”  1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

Paul further specifies that that above “commandment of the Lord” was only addressed to believers-married-to-believers. In the next verses (i.e, 12-16), he clarifies that he is subsequently addressing believers-married-to-unbelievers, and that that subsequent instruction is not the Lord’s words, but his own again.

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Verses 10-11 show that, if a believer WIFE leaves her believer HUSBAND, the

  • believer WIFE is commanded of God to either:

remain unmarried, or
be reconciled back to her husband

  • believer HUSBAND is commanded of God to:

not put away any wife, and to
let any departed wife return back to him

The key point is that the HUSBAND is NOT given the same commandments of instruction. Only the WIFE is commanded to remain unmarried, but the HUSBAND is not given that commandment. He is commanded of God to let her be married to him, either way!

Accordingly, the HUSBAND is of course, still free to marry another wife. That fact is further proved by the later verses of 27-28.

“Art thou bound unto a wife?
seek not to be loosed.
Art thou loosed from a wife?
seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned;
and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.”
1 Corinthians 7:27-28.

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men –whether or not the wife has departed.

As such, the married man whose wife is still with him does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another’s wife). And likewise, the married man, whose wife has departed from him, he also does not sin when he marries another wife (who is not another’s wife).

And herein comes the “commandment of the Lord”, of polygamy, as in the following situation.

A believer WIFE departs from her believer HUSBAND. She is commanded of God to remain unmarried, per verses 10-11. Her HUSBAND, however, then subsequently marries another wife (who is not another man’s wife). The HUSBAND and the new wife have not sinned, per verses 27-28. The departed WIFE then seeks to be reconciled back to her HUSBAND.

In that situation, verses 10-11 show the following instruction as the “commandment of the Lord”. The HUSBAND is commanded of God to let the departed wife be reconciled back to him. AND…. he is commanded of God to not put away a wife, including the new wife.

As such, verses 10-11 show that it is an outright “commandment of the Lord” of polygamy for the family in that situation.

1 Corinthians 7:10-11 is indeed a Commandment of God — in the New Testament — that, when a previously-departed believer wife returns, her believer husband and his new (believer) wife (from verse 27-28) MUST let the previous wife be reconciled to her husband.

There truly IS a “commandment of the Lord” for a situation of polygamy to be found in the Bible —and it’s in the New Testament Scriptures, as well!

————————-

Here are the same verses as found in the Joseph Smith Translation, in case anyone wants to do a comparison:

Joseph Smith Translation

—–

6 And now what I speak is by permission, and not by commandment.

—–

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband;

11 But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but let not the husband put away his wife.

—–

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

—–

25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

—–

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh. For I spare you not.

Okay, now for my own comments.  It seems to me that the crux of this argument lies in this statement of his:

The Greek text of verse 27 is clearly only addressing married men –whether or not the wife has departed.

I cannot speak about the Greek text (since I do not know Greek), but it seems to me that the context of the chapter, as translated into English, supports this view.  Namely, that the words “bondage,” “bound,”  and “loosed” do not refer to marriage and divorcement, but to marital togetherness and marital separation.  For example, (and I will use the JST for these scriptures), verse 5 says,

5 Depart ye not one from the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

This “departure” is not referring to marital divorce, but marital separation.  It cannot refer to divorce because two divorced people “coming together again” without getting married would be considered a sin, and Paul would never recommend that people engage in sin.

Next we get verses 10 and 11:

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband;

11 But if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband; but let not the husband put away his wife.

Again, “depart” must mean marital separation, not marital divorce.  Also, “put away” only means marital separation, not marital divorce, for I happen to have done an in-depth study on this very expression years ago, and discovered this very thing.  For example, Moses commanded that after a wife was put away by her husband (which is marital separation) that he give her a writ of divorcement (which is the marital divorce.)

To continue, verses 12-13 state:

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord; If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13 And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

These verses can only be speaking of marital separation or marital union, in which the two are together.  They do not speak of divorce.

Next, there’s verse 15:

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases; but God hath called us to peace.

“Departure” is used in this chapter to indicate marital separation, not marital divorce, and this verses equates “departure” with “not being under bondage,” or in other words, with being “loosed.”  Thus, departure=separation=loosed and reconciliation=togetherness=bound.  The chapter is consistent in its contextual meanings of these terms, so far.

Finally, verses 27 and 28 state:

27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28 But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh. For I spare you not.

Since the context of the chapter reveals that bound means together and loosed means separated (not divorced), we could write verse 27 like this:

27 Art thou together with a wife? seek not to be separated. Art thou separated from a wife? seek not a wife.

With this meaning in mind, then verse 28 does, in fact, allow a man whose wife has separated from him to marry another woman without sinning.  Also, it allows a woman to marry an already married man whose first wife has separated from him, without committing sin.  And, per verses 10-11, if the first wife return to him in reconciliation, the man is commanded to receive her and not put her away.  Or, in other words, this does indeed make a New Testament commandment of the Lord to engage in polygamy.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Should I produce a silver “tithing” coin?


Recently the silver bartering currency has again been on my mind.  Specifically, the production of a “tithing” coin, meaning a silver coin that latter-day saints could use to pay their tithing, instead of using U.S. currency.

Since the production of the first silver bartering currency coin (the 1/2 oz piece) in 2008, until now, I have taken an “if you build it they will come” approach.  I designed and ordered the creation of the first coin and then I essentially sat back to see what would happen.  Not much did happen.  Some people bought coins as part of their silver collection.   One guy promoted the currency by making a secular web site and developing a valuation model for it, but other than getting a few businesses to say they would receive it as payment, no coins circulated.  Also no one, other than myself, was paying tithing using the 1/2-oz coin.  And that was that.

The vision that I had in my head, remained there, mostly unfulfilled.    (Now, that’s okay,  since I like to operate by faith, so this stagnation hasn’t and doesn’t phase me one bit.)

Back in 2012, after pondering the currency and that promoter’s model, I got an idea about producing a very small tithing coin that I saw could jump start the currency and launch it into the stratosphere, allowing me to make all the dies and distribute and circulate the coins potentially around the entire world.  On October 2, 2012, I wrote a comment about it:

I have been tempted, of late, to create a 1/100th ounce silver coin, based on the above design, specifically for people to pay tithing, but I do not know that there would be enough interest in it to sustain the investment in the dies. A 1/100th ounce silver coin would cost around $400 for 100 coins. That is likely within the tithing budget of many LDS couples. (Because silver has gone up in price so much, the 1/2-oz coin is too expensive to purchase 100 coins. You’d need around $2000 for 100 coins.)

The 1/100th oz coin would be specifically for tithing for two reasons: #1, because it will be within the tithing budget of many people and, #2, because it would deal a financial blow to the corporate Church. This is because although you would pay around $4 per coin, the silver content in the coin would only be worth 30+ cents. So, although you would have fulfilled the law of tithing, thus keeping your good standing before the Lord, you would have simultaneously reduced the tithing revenue of the corporate church. How’s this for a campaign?:

Reduce the tithing revenue of the corporate Church by paying your tithing in silver!

(Using the 1/2-oz coin or any other silver coin won’t reduce the tithing revenue much, since the price of the coin so closely matches the value of the silver content.)

If anyone is interested in paying their tithing with such a 1/100th ounce coin, let me know via Wireclub and I will consider making the dies. If enough people decide to make the switch to silver for tithing payment, I will have to create the dies.

One last thing: for those who are currently paying tithing in silver or gold, assuming there is anyone out there doing that, I recommend that you only pay tithing in silver, not fast offerings. Pay your fast offerings in U.S. currency, since that goes to the poor in your ward, and they need all the value they can get.

It has been about a year and a half since I had that “temptation.” No one ended up contacting me about it on Wireclub and I let it drop, although it stayed in the back of my mind ever since.  If it was bona fide inspiration, given of the Spirit, and not just my own idea, there would come a time that it would be used, so I didn’t worry myself about it.

Recently I got that “tithing coin” feeling again, and never one to wait on impressions, I immediately contacted the mint to get the details concerning making a 1/100-oz coin. That’s when I found out that it can’t be done. That is, not for a 1/100th of an ounce coin. But it can be done for a 1/20th-oz coin.  (Now, don’t get me wrong.  I still have a plan in place to produce a 1/100-oz piece.  But that will have to wait.  The expedient coin is the 1/20 ounce.)

The mint has told me that the mold to the original dies for the 1/2-oz coin, which was made in the last quarter of 2008, is still good, and can still be used to make all the other sizes, so that everything matches up perfectly.  It also turns out that there may be some potential distributors who would be willing to invest in purchasing the coins in bulk (100 or more pieces), so that they can sell them to the public individually.

I’ve run the numbers and it looks like if you buy 100 or more pieces, it’ll cost (in total) about $4.25 a coin. So, a distributor would invest around $425. If the distributor turns around and sells them for $5.25 a piece (which is what I recommend), he or she gets a small profit and people get themselves a tithing coin, which potentially could fund the creation of all the dies of the entire currency, in both gold and silver and in both coin conditions and in all languages.

The reason why it could fund everything is that tithing is ten percent and Mormons typically pay it every time they get a paycheck. That is a very steady source of income which, to a potential distributor, reduces the risk of investing in the tithing coin considerably. After selling 425 coins, they would have covered their initial investment money completely, so that there would be no more risk involved, whatsoever.

In the case of a tithe-payer, let’s say he had a minimum wage job and his income was $320 a week, or $640 every two weeks, contributing $64 to tithing every paycheck. If he sent that money to the distributor, instead of directly to his bishop, he could purchase 12 of these 1/20-oz coins (at $5.25 a piece) and then he could give those coins to the church as tithing. As this is tithing, this routine would be repeated every paycheck for as long as he is employed. Multiply that by ten people, all earning minimum wage, and the distributor would sell his entire supply of coins every time within a two-week period. If the tithe-payer is not a minimum wage earner, but makes a lot more money, then the stash gets bought up that much more quickly, allowing die creation to proceed at a much faster rate.

Working after this fashion takes away the need for anyone (other than the distributor) to fork over enough money to purchase 100 coins. Any tithe-payer would be able to convert money into silver for as little as $5 and some change. If enough people started doing this, the church would begin to be starved* and the prophecies** concerning contributing to the church in silver would start to be fulfilled. Also, the bartering currency*** would take off in a big way.

———————–

* Although it is true that the wheat and tares must grow together until they are ripe, at some point there will be a real division and the tares will become angry with the wheat.  For all I know, one of the reasons for this anger will be because the wheat will engage in a monetary practice that does not contribute greatly to the church coffers, such as paying tithing in silver.

** For example:

And all moneys that you receive in your stewardships, by improving upon the properties which I have appointed unto you, in houses, or in lands, or in cattle, or in all things save it be the holy and sacred writings, which I have reserved unto myself for holy and sacred purposes, shall be cast into the treasury as fast as you receive moneys, by hundreds, or by fifties, or by twenties, or by tens, or by fives.

Or in other words, if any man among you obtain five dollars let him cast them into the treasury; or if he obtain ten, or twenty, or fifty, or an hundred, let him do likewise; and let not any among you say that it is his own; for it shall not be called his, nor any part of it. (D&C 104:68-70)

The revelations of Joseph Smith equate “moneys” to “dollars.”  A “dollar” at the time of these revelations was defined as a certain amount of silver.

***  There are also prophecies concerning the great and abominable church of the Gentiles, and the widespread use (and accumulation) of gold and silver:

And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church…And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.  And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.  And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.  (1 Ne. 13:4,6-8)

For all I know, it may be that this prophecy will be fulfilled only when gold and silver are once again used as the medium of exchange.  If so, the bartering currency may the catalyst for its eventual fulfillment.

———————–

Recent blog trends

There have been, for quite some time now, on very many blogs, many negative posts concerning the Church’s use of tithing funds, such as its for-profit investments.  I am concerned about these posts, not that they are not giving accurate information, but that people as a result of this information have been choosing to stop paying tithing and thus are violating their covenants.

My hope is that people will continue to pay their tithing, to the church as they are supposed to, but if they are concerned about all these church expenditures, then starve the Church of money while still contributing silver, as I explained in the quote above. It may be that this reasoning will not be good enough for many latter-day saints who are upset at these things, but perhaps some will accept it.

“Upon my house shall it begin”

We all are familiar with the prophecy concerning the order of God’s judgments, (or at least we should be), namely that they are going to start with God’s people:

Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.   And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; first among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.  (D&C 112:24-26)

This is spoken concerning the judgments of God, but the same principle may also hold true concerning God’s blessings, that they will first be poured out upon the Lord’s people and then go forth to others.  What we latter-day saints do, or do not do, may end up having a world-wide effect, the world mirroring our actions, according to this principle.  Thus, if we start using silver to contribute church offerings or as currency, the world may indeed follow suit.

Checking to see if the time is right

Anyway, the purpose of this post is to find out if anyone wants this church monetary starvation and prophecy fulfillment to happen and so wants to pay their tithing in these silver coins.  If so, please leave a comment and I’ll contact you by email. If one says, “I can buy 10 coins every two weeks” and another says, “I can buy 15 coins on the 1st and the 15th of every month” and so on and so forth and it becomes obvious that a distributor could easily recoup his investment, it should be quite easy to find someone to become a distributor. In fact, if you yourself want to be a distributor, then leave a note about that and I’ll email you, too.

(Please keep in mind that the dies are not yet made for the 1/20th ounce coin. This is just a preliminary “blood pressure” check, to see if the time is right for the introduction of a “tithing” coin…)

Following the example of the corporate Church

Denver Snuffer once wrote the following:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a three-year system for collecting and spending tithes.

In the first year the funds are collected.

In the second year the funds remain invested while a budget is prepared for spending the tithing.

In the third year the funds are spent.

During the time when the funds are collected (first year), they are put to use in investments or deposits which yield a return. Similarly, while they remain invested during the second year, they also yield a return. When the third year arrives, and the funds are being spent on budgeted expenses, until the day they are spent they continue to collect interest or a return.

The amount of tithing collected in the first year is the amount designated “tithing” contributions. This is the amount that is budgeted and spent in the third year. All of the return on tithing yielded in the form of interest or return on investments is treated as “investment income” not tithing.

When the church spends “tithing” on temples, chapels, publications, etc. those monies are confined to the original amount collected as “tithing” only.

When the church spends “investment money” those include the interest, return, etc. collected on the tithing money during the three year cycle from when originally collected until the time it is spent. It also includes the returns on the returns as they accumulate over the years.

Therefore, when the church announces that a project (like the large reconstruction of downtown Salt Lake City) is not “tithing” but is “investment income” of the church, this is the distinction which is being made.

Now, taking this as a pattern, a network of tithing coin distributors can be easily set up.  From January to December, those who wish to distribute the coins to others would set aside their monthly or bi-weekly tithes until they have enough to purchase 100 coins (about $425.)  After they purchase 100 coins, (which is now their tithing), they would list themselves as a distributor, and invest the tithing coins by selling them to others at a $1 profit.  The profit ($1) from these coins is treated as “investment income,” not “tithing,” and is re-invested by buying more coins to distribute.  After 425 coins have been moved in this way, only “investment income” (and not “tithing”) could be used to purchase 100 coins to distribute.  The initial accumulated tithing (of 100 coins) and any other tithing converted into these silver coins afterward, would be considered the tithing to be payed by the distributor to the church at the end of the year (December), or whenever the distributor wanted to pay it during the year.  Also, at the end of the year, the stash of investment returns, in the form of silver coins, could also be tithed, meaning one-tenth of them could be given to the church.

Using this strategy protects the tithing a distributor has set aside at all times, because even if only part of the stash of 100 coins (or however many coins you’ve set aside as your tithing) are sold, and you don’t have enough money to buy another set of 100 coins, you can still pay your tithing, part of which will be in silver coins, and part of which will be in U.S. currency.

That’s all for now.  Let the comments roll.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist