Conversion of jews

[Guest]

Of course, outsourcing to the Philippines itself is, indeed, cheap. The last job I lost was because the India company that I worked for lost their outsourcing contract to the Philippines, who were charging around $3 an hour for Quality Assurance work.

 

Filipinos working in the Philippines are not Filipino Offshore Workers.  They are Filipino Outsource Workers.  In the Philippines, minimum wage is $5/day for unskilled labor (a lot of Call Centers are unskilled workers in the Philippines because the medium of instruction is English - you learn English in grade school).   Skilled labor is twice that.  The US cannot compete with that rate.

 

Filipino Offshore Workers are Filipinos who leave the Philippines to work somewhere else to avail of the higher labor rates in other countries.  I am a Filipino Offshore Worker working in the US.  I am a Computer and Systems Engineer paid US rates which is at least 10x higher than Philippine labor rates.  Because Engineers are not cheap in the US, I am not cheap either.  I pay taxes to both US and Philippines and in accordance with Filipino culture, I send money to the Philippines for my family.  Because of this, Filipino Offshore Workers are important to the Philippine economy and the Philippine government work towards keeping these people safe and free from abuse through good relations with the countries they are working at.  Filipino workers give good quality work because they do not want to be sent home.  Many Offshore Workers to the Middle East - UAE countries, with a good concentration in Dubai - work as Engineers (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical) or Medical (nurses, physical therapists).  There are many household helpers (unskilled work) in France as they have need for them.  The middle eastern countries, just like the US, do not have much need for unskilled workers, so they can't get entry without skill.  Majority of Filipino Offshore Workers in the US are in the medical field.  A Filipino nurse in Florida is paid an average of $30/hour.  A Filipino nurse in the Philippines is paid $30/week.  They try their very best not get fired from their jobs.

[pam]

Can we get back on topic?

[Blackmarch]

My Book of Mormon manual asserts that there will be a mass conversion of Jews before the Jews are gathered back to Israel. Has anyone else heard anything about this? Do you feel this assertion to be correct? Do you feel that Jews will be converted in the future? Do you think this will happen before the Savior returns? Do you feel that the number of Jews returning to Israel will dramatically increase at some point? Can anyone suggest some references? Thank you.

I'm of the thought that such a conversion will happen at or shortly before Christ saves them from Armageddon, and that it's mainly referring to those who are are in the middle east, as well as either a singualr event or series of events that are very close to each other in proximity.

There have been, and are, and will be, many jews who do convert before then however.

[cdowis]

Book of Mormon Student Manual religion 121-122, 2009 by intellectual reserve. Published by the church no isbn number

Pg 70. " 2 nephi 10: 6-8. The scattering and gathering of Isreal is first spiritual and then physical" Bruce r mcconkie clarified the reasons the scattering and gathering of the tribes of Isreal are first spiritual and second physical. Reference is " a new witness for the articles of faith (1985, 515). 

 

I don't understand.

 

What does this have to do with the Jews?  The gathering of Israel is happening at this very moment.  There are separate prophecies about the gathering of the Jews.

(I apologize if someone has already mentioned this)

Edited September 4, 2015 by cdowis

[Sunday21]

On September 4, 2015 at 5:00 PM, cdowis said:

 

I don't understand.

 

What does this have to do with the Jews?  The gathering of Israel is happening at this very moment.  There are separate prophecies about the gathering of the Jews.

(I apologize if someone has already mentioned this)

 

[Blackmarch]

On 8/27/2015 at 5:12 PM, Sunday21 said:

My Book of Mormon manual asserts that there will be a mass conversion of Jews before the Jews are gathered back to Israel. Has anyone else heard anything about this? Do you feel this assertion to be correct? Do you feel that Jews will be converted in the future? Do you think this will happen before the Savior returns? Do you feel that the number of Jews returning to Israel will dramatically increase at some point? Can anyone suggest some references? Thank you.

well yes- Christ is to save them. I imagine when they realise who was crucified on the cross when he saves them at armegeddon that there will be a mass conversion.

[Sunday21]

But the manual says that the conversion will happen before the gathering

[Guest]

Sunday,

I'd encourage you to answer the question that cdowis asked and you repeated.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 8/28/2015 at 11:02 AM, Sunday21 said:

But as Mormon we are required to obey the law of the land.

Not true. We are "required" to obey the law of God.

On 8/28/2015 at 11:02 AM, Sunday21 said:

Surely we would not break the law?

Unless God commands it to be done.

[zil]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not true. We are "required" to obey the law of God.

Unless God commands it to be done.

D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

[Guest]

I would postulate that the D&C revelation was given at a time when laws would not force someone to violate what they knew to be right.

Today, not so much.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I would postulate that the D&C revelation was given at a time when laws would not force someone to violate what they knew to be right.

Today, not so much.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a law that requires us to act immorally in order to uphold it.

[Guest]

I'd have to broaden it to current judicial rulings.  Gay Marriage comes to mind.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd have to broaden it to current judicial rulings.  Gay Marriage comes to mind.

I would argue that we can uphold that law without being forced to act immorally. Since 1973, we have been required to uphold the law of prenatal infanticide. But that does not mean we are required to provide or aid in abortions*.

*Except for doctors and nurses. There have been cases of medical personnel who refused to participate in abortions and who were sanctioned to some degree for that refusal. So far, the law has not upheld that sort of treatment of people when the case comes to court, but I anticipate a not-far-off day when doctors will be required by law (in effect, if not in actual legislation) to murder an unborn child as a necessary part of their education and certification. The pro-abortion agencies such as Planned Parenthood have been insisting on this for decades now, under the guise of "patient care". When that day comes, I'll be on board with you.

[LeSellers]

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

I would argue that we can uphold [same-sex "marriage" laws and rulings] without being forced to act immorally.

When people have tried, they've been fined heavily, and have had to close their businesses.

49 minutes ago, Vort said:

Since 1973, we have been required to uphold the law of prenatal infanticide. But that does not mean we are required to provide or aid in abortions*.

*Except for doctors and nurses. There have been cases of medical personnel who refused to participate in abortions and who were sanctioned to some degree for that refusal. So far, the law has not upheld that sort of treatment of people when the case comes to court, but I anticipate a not-far-off day when doctors will be required by law (in effect, if not in actual legislation) to murder an unborn child as a necessary part of their education and certification. The pro-abortion agencies such as Planned Parenthood have been insisting on this for decades now, under the guise of "patient care". When that day comes, I'll be on board with you.

We pay taxes that force us to support abortion/infanticide. We are forbidden from protesting this within certain perimeters.

Catholic hospitals must allow (and encourage) infanticide, their charities must place children with same-sex "couples".

While the Church is silent on "why", the canneries across the country have stopped "wet-pack" canning after the government imposed excessive regulations on private, not-for-profit entities like our canneries. We can only afford one place that meets these regulations, so now all food is trucked to Salt Lake City, processed, and then trucked back to Florida (for orange juice), Sacramento (for tomatoes), etc.

Food banks and soup kitchens have closed for similar reasons. It seems that only government agencies are "qualified" to feed the poor (unless a charity pays off the bureaucrats).

Lehi

Edited February 18, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

When people have tried, they've been fined heavily, and have had to close their businesses.

Catholic hospitals must allow (and encourage) infanticide, their charities must place children with same-sex "couples".

 

This is why LDS and Catholics really should be good to each other. Socially LDS and Catholics agree on a lot.

I'm pro gay marriage but of course I think a business owner has the right to deny services to whomever they want. Same with me being pro-choice. Of course a Catholic hospital shouldn't have to preform abortions.  

[Guest]

Arizona SB 1318 REQUIRED doctors to tell their abortion patients that the effects of medically-induced abortion may be reversed.  In other words, they must lie. -- This is still in the courts.

And don't worry.  They are working on forcing doctors to perform abortions.

http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/05/14/why-we-need-to-ban-conscientious-objection-in-reproductive-health-care/

Gay marriages forced on wedding chapels.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/18/can-ministers-who-make-a-living-by-conducting-weddings-be-required-to-conduct-same-sex-weddings/

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, zil said:

D&C 58:21 Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Well then what was Nephi on about with all the murdering and stealing stuff?

[LeSellers]

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

what was Nephi on about with all the murdering and stealing stuff?

Nephi did not murder Laban.

Laban had broken the law, and his calling the Lehisons thieves made him liable to the death penalty. Nephi only carried out the sentence.

Lehi

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Nephi did not murder Laban.

Laban had broken the law, and his calling the Lehisons thieves made him liable to the death penalty. Nephi only carried out the sentence.

This is my understanding, that Laban's false witness and attempted murder in effect meant Nephi was justified in acting in self-defense. I don't know enough about ancient Hebrew law to know if that's correct, and even if it is, there is no guarantee that the judges in Jerusalem would have rendered a just verdict. But my understanding is that Nephi's act was not murder under the law of the land.

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Nephi did not murder Laban.

Laban had broken the law, and his calling the Lehisons thieves made him liable to the death penalty. Nephi only carried out the sentence.

Lehi

 

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is my understanding, that Laban's false witness and attempted murder in effect meant Nephi was justified in acting in self-defense. I don't know enough about ancient Hebrew law to know if that's correct, and even if it is, there is no guarantee that the judges in Jerusalem would have rendered a just verdict. But my understanding is that Nephi's act was not murder under the law of the land.

I'm pretty sure cutting off his head while he was drunk in the middle of the night and then dressing up like him to con his way into getting the brass plates was not legitimately legal, regardless of whether it was technically "murder" or not (which was not my point).

Do I really need to come up with other (easy) examples where the laws of men were broken because God commanded it?

Edited February 18, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm pretty sure cutting off his head while he was drunk in the middle of the night and then dressing up like him to con his way into getting the brass plates was not legitimately legal, regardless of whether it was technically "murder" or not (which was not my point).

I'm not. The killing part may well have been legal, which was my point. And to whom did the plates belong? Laban was apparently their keeper, but whose were they by law? We don't have any information. Since Lehi found that he was from the same family as Laban, he (Lehi) may well have been the legitimate heir. Or the plates may have been taken previously from their legitimate owner, and Laban may have been nothing more than a powerful thief -- as he proved himself to be with Lehi's property.

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do I really need to come up with other (easy) examples where the laws of men were broken because God commanded it?

Actually, yes. Maybe I'm being dense, but I can't recall an obvious case where God commanded disobedience to established laws of mortal humans. The only one that springs to mind is Moses, but in that case, we really know nothing at all about the legal standing of the Hebrews in Egypt or what the specifics of the covenant that kept them in the land were. We assume that Pharaoh was an "absolute monarch", despite the fact that such "absolute monarchs" have been quite rare in human history. I am trying to think of a clear-cut case where God said, "Do this thing which is illegal." I'm not thinking of any obvious examples. Nephi and Moses are the two most obvious, and I don't believe either of them stand up to scrutiny.

[LeSellers]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm pretty sure cutting off his head while he was drunk in the middle of the night … was not legitimately legal, regardless of whether it was technically "murder" or not (which was not my point).

Maybe not your point, but your words (which are all we have to go on).

Nonetheless, the Law of Moses was not English Common Law, and its intricacies were such that all you worry about was "legitimately legal". Since Laban had taken the Lehi fortune without giving the plates, he had, in effect stolen the plates, and Nephi's ruse in getting them "back" was not illegal: he owned them (or Lehi did).

Lehi

[LeSellers]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm not. The killing part may well have been legal, which was my point. And to whom did the plates belong? Laban was apparently their keeper, but whose were they by law? We don't have any information. Since Lehi found that he was from the same family as Laban, he (Lehi) may well have been the legitimate heir. Or the plates may have been taken previously from their legitimate owner, and Laban may have been nothing more than a powerful thief -- as he proved himself to be with Lehi's property.

Laban took the offered price for the plates. He did not deliver them. Lehi now owned them.

Lehi

[The Folk Prophet]

This is a complex topic if we really wanted to delve into it because it brings into question what defines legal, who establishes such, etc., as well as other complex variables, many of which we may not know, historically speaking. However, it still strikes me as quite obvious that God's commands are the only that we are required to obey.

The question is not whether this is true or not, but rather whether God would ever command something that was against the law. Certainly polygamy springs to mind.