Pres. Monson and North America Bom Setting

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

Sorry 

Sorry Duncan,

It’s clear the promised land doesn’t extend into Canada  

you'll change your mind when you eat poutine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or follow Basketball!!!!

[2BizE]

8 hours ago, Duncan said:

you'll change your mind when you eat poutine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or follow Basketball!!!!

I was just kidding.  I lived for about a year in Vancouver. Absolutely love Canada. I’ve had poutine, blueberry pie, and other local foods.  Shopped at London Drug and General Tire and of course Tim Horton’s...

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I was just kidding.  I lived for about a year in Vancouver. Absolutely love Canada. I’ve had poutine, blueberry pie, and other local foods.  Shopped at London Drug and General Tire and of course Tim Horton’s...

oh nice! Vanc. is a great, great city! all of those places Canadian MUSTS

did you roll up the rim to win?!

[2BizE]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

oh nice! Vanc. is a great, great city! all of those places Canadian MUSTS

did you roll up the rim to win?!

No, I never got around to that...

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

No, I never got around to that...

well, the chances of winning are slim to none☹️

[Islander]

On 7/4/2020 at 3:50 PM, InCognitus said:

I always took that "choice land" to mean the entire continent, but that's just me.  And there's that word "captivity" again.  I brought this up in another thread, but 1 Nephi 13 says that one of the main motivations for people going to the new world was to escape the kind of "captivity" described in Ether 2:12:

"And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters". (1 Nephi 13:13)

"And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations".  (1 Nephi 13:19)

Very similar language.

But,  that was not true for Central and South America. Those that came had land grants from the Kings of Spain or Portugal. They were not free to jump on a ship and just sail to the New World as the settlers in the US. Spanish America belonged to the king of Spain until 1821. In fact, the Mexican war of independence came about fortuitously because of Napoleon's invasion of Spain. Iturbide was named "Emperor of Mexico" and it was set up as its own monarchy. The historical and political backgrounds between the US and Mexico couldn't be more different. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, Islander said:

But,  that was not true for Central and South America. Those that came had land grants from the Kings of Spain or Portugal. They were not free to jump on a ship and just sail to the New World as the settlers in the US. Spanish America belonged to the king of Spain until 1821. In fact, the Mexican war of independence came about fortuitously because of Napoleon's invasion of Spain. Iturbide was named "Emperor of Mexico" and it was set up as its own monarchy. The historical and political backgrounds between the US and Mexico couldn't be more different. 

How is that different? The early colonies in the US (including the Mayflower crew) were set up with British permission. The US colonies were also under a monarch until they went independent. That independence was also fostered by French assistance.

[InCognitus]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How is that different? The early colonies in the US (including the Mayflower crew) were set up with British permission. The US colonies were also under a monarch until they went independent. That independence was also fostered by French assistance.

The role of France in these matters is interesting.  I enjoyed the BYU TV documentary on Joan of Arc from a few years ago.  It makes me wonder if France's role would have been different if not for her visions.

[Islander]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How is that different? The early colonies in the US (including the Mayflower crew) were set up with British permission. The US colonies were also under a monarch until they went independent. That independence was also fostered by French assistance.

The "Colonies" were. But remember that there were territories outside of the colonies that did not belong to the king. 

Beyond that, the revolution in Mexico had the objective of maintaining the class structure as an independent monarchy.  So, from 1519 to 1821, the Spanish crown had absolute control over the land and the people in a way that is not contextually similar to the US. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Islander said:

The "Colonies" were. But remember that there were territories outside of the colonies that did not belong to the king. 

Beyond that, the revolution in Mexico had the objective of maintaining the class structure as an independent monarchy.  So, from 1519 to 1821, the Spanish crown had absolute control over the land and the people in a way that is not contextually similar to the US. 

What territories outside the colonies? You mean the disputed zones involving conflicting claims from Spain and France?

The American Revolution was spearheaded by the Colonial aristocrats trying to preserve their way of life because the British were getting too involved in their society. Before the French and Indian War was concluded British troops were a protection. Afterwards they were suddenly a nuisance and, even worse, the British wanted the Colonies to make up for the cost of the war. I still think the Revolution was justifiable but it was very much interested in preserving the existing class structure. In the early days in many states you had to be solidly middle class to vote. They were not seeking to upend their society. They wanted to hold on to it and the government they designed was built to do just that.