Saturday, August 11, 2012

More Covino Comments Answered-Part VI-An Island in the Great Deep

According to Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website, in agreeing that the Land of Promise was an island, makes the following unsupportable statement:

As stated, Nephi believed they were on an island, therefore, their land must have been VERY SMALL: And thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water” (Alma 22:32). Geographers must show how the land in their model was surrounded by water, not salt water of the "great deep," AND, how it was small FROM EYE LEVEL - so small the inhabitants thought they were on an ISLAND. No other modelers even acknowledge this mindset, let alone have models surrounded by water.”

It is interesting that while Covino takes the time to rebut my model and information, he fails to understand the most primary point of my work and that the Land of Promise was an island!

So let’s take his mindset:

1. Geographers must show how the land in their model was surrounded by water, not salt water of the "great deep.”

Again, Covino has his own way of interpreting the scriptural record, especially in making claims that are not in the record at all or even implied. Jacob said, “the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Nephi 10:20).  Yes, they were on an island, and it was located on the very sea they crossed once they set sail to get to it. Where Covino comes up with the idea that the sea—the path over which they sailed to get to the Land of Promise—was not salt water is beyond imagination.

Perhaps a little nautical understanding is in order. Take any ocean—once away from shore some distance, that ocean has a depth that is “very deep.” We would call it “the great deep,” in biblical times, but today we call it “deep water” or sometimes “blue water,” like in a “blue water navy,” (as opposed to coastal or lake navies) which means one that sails the oceans. However, when that water is near land, it is not referred to as “deep water,” or “blue water,” but merely the ocean or sea. 

Consequently, when one sails across an ocean—the sea—one travels near land, out into the great deep, and then near land again. So when Covino tries to say of the “Great Deep,” or “Waters of the Great Deep,” or “Across the Deep” as he so frequently does, that “at no  point in time however are these terms used to describe the waters that border Book of Mormon lands,” it should be clearly understood that at no point would the “Great Deep” be described around land period!

Lehi's voyage across the Great Deep, or deep ocean, which would be anywhere away from land in the oceans of the world.

The term “Deep” in association with oceans—seas—has to do with the “depth” of the water. And next to land the oceans—seas—are not deep! They grow shallow! So when the scriptural record talks about crossing the “Great Deep,” we should understand that the ship sailed AWAY from land, out into the ocean, where the water is very deep!

Notice that in a cross-section of the land and ocean, the deep ocean, or Great Deep, begins once the continental rise ends and the ocean floor basically levels out

And, though it needs not be mentioned with anyone but Covino, the ocean—sea—near land where it is shallow, and out in the deep where it has great depth, is still salt water!

And to cross from the Irreantum Sea (which was an ocean) to the Land of Promise by sea, and to land on an island of that sea, means that the Lehi Colony sailed across the ocean—sea, which was obviously salt water, and landed on an island in that sea, which means the island was surrounded by salt water!

“The Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” is hard to misinterpret, but Covino manages to do just that, and then tell us that everyone else’s model is wrong because it is in a salt sea!

Now if that doesn’t show Covino’s deductive reasoning a few grapes short of a salad, take la look at this next statement:

“The promise that a New Jerusalem would be built upon Book of Mormon lands was already fulfilled with the Albany Plan of Union by Benjamin Franklin and the Iroquois Nation. The idea that one would be built in Missouri because Joseph said so has no bearing on this fact.”

For those who are unfamiliar with the Plan of Union, it came about in 1754, as a result of England defeating France in the French-Indian Wars in the eastern U.S. and Canada. Aware of the strains that war would put on the colonies, English officials suggested a "union between ye Royal, Proprietary & Charter Governments." They appointed Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania to draft the “plan of union.”

The Preamble of the Albany Plan of Union reads: “It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows,” then goes on to list: That the said general government be administered by a President-General, to be appointed and supported by the crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their respective assemblies.” The plan was not acceptable to the English Crown, and nothing came of this.

First of all, the scriptural statement regarding a New Jerusalem is: “And that it was the place of the New Jerusalem, which should come down out of heaven, and the holy sanctuary of the Lord” (Ether 13:3).

Jerusalem is not just a city, but it is the “seat of the Lord’s government!” The Lord’s government, where the government of the Priesthood resides. Did Ben Franklin, for all his accomplishments have the Priesthood? Did the English Crown have the Priesthood or the power to create a Union that was meant to be the seat of Priesthood power on Earth? Did the Albany Plan of Union “Come down out of heaven?” If so, why did it fail to become enacted?

The idea is beyond being ludicrous.

As for the other statement about the Iroquois Nation, the Haudenosaunee, The people of the Six Nations, also known by the French term, Iroquois, was a Confederacy that called themselves the Hau de no sau nee, meaning People Building a Long House. Located in the northeastern region of North America, they were the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Senecas, and later also the Tuscaroras. This “League” was embodied in the Grand Council, an assembly of fifty hereditary sachems, but those Iroquian peoples living along the St. Lawrence River, around the Great Lakes and in the American southeast, were not part of the Haudenosaunee and often competed and warred with them.

However, did the Iroquois nation, descendants of the Lamanites, possess the Priesthood? How would it be possible for the Iroquois or the British and American Colonies to create a New Jerusalem.

And isn’t it interesting that Covino thinks “The idea that one [New Jerusalem] would be built in Missouri because Joseph said so has no bearing on this fact.” It doesn’t even seem worthwhile to comment on such a statement!

(See the next post, “More Covino Comments Answered-Part VII, for more of Covino’s so-called “errors” of other people's models which, in fact, are errors he makes in the defense of his model)

No comments:

Post a Comment