More Covino Comments Answered-Part XVIII-Fevers

Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website, in discussing the Fevers mentioned in Alma, makes an interesting, though unsupportable claim and ridiculously uninformed statement about Fevers and their cause and cures. He writes:

 “Believe it or not, the single verse that refers to "fevers" in The Book of Mormon has been interpreted by some as "malaria," which only occurs in tropical areas. Therefore, they conclude Book of Mormon lands must have been in Mesoamerica.”

First of all, the idea of malaria has nothing to do with the tropics or with Mesoamerica. It has to do with the scriptural reference to deadly fever, and plants God provided to prevent it. Secondly, let’s dispense with the concept of the Tropics entirely. During the days of classical Rome and Greece, during their greatness, the virulence of malaria was severe. So many died from malaria, that the Romans erected numerous altars and shrines to the goddess of the Fever (Febris). Fortunately, the Romans knew how to cure malaria—they drained the swamps because “Care should be taken where there are swamps in the neighborhood, because certain tiny creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes breed there.” The Romans were quite aware of good hygienic practices and incorporated them into their city planning and public works projects, for example by constructing great sewer systems to funnel waste away, by draining swamps every chance they got, and of course by building many, many bathhouses.

Left: Rome was built on seven hills because the lowlands were swamps; Right: The great sewer systems come in on the West side of the Forum, and the drainage systems that cleared the swamps

Anciently, the months from July to October were considered unsafe in Rome at whatever epoch; which is confirmed by Roman authors advising the population to leave the city during the hot season – which incidentally only the rich could do, with their wonderful country villas awaiting them during such unhealthy months. The populace instead, stuck in the city, died in the thousands each year because of malaria.

However, Rome has what is called a Mediterranean Climate, which is considerably more mild than the tropics, and somewhat like that of Southern California. The average temperature during July to August in Rome is about 72º to 86º Fahrenheit, July being the hottest month.

The point of all this is simple. Malaria is both ancient, and thrives in areas where swamps are common. It is caused by Plasmodium parasites. The parasites are spread to people through the bites of infected Anopheles mosquitos (left), called "malaria vectors", which bite mainly between dusk and dawn. Actually, there are four parasite species that cause malaria in humans: Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, Plasmodium malariae, and Plasmodium ovale, with the first two the most common and the first one the deadlies, whicht is found throughout the world. Ancient Rome found that in draining the swamps, the mosquitos had no habitat and disappeared, as did the disease of fever along with them.

It should also be noted that the minimum temperature for mosquitos and parasites is not tropical, but a surprising 46º to 50º Fahrenheit, with a maximum temperature 104º and an optimum temperature 77º to 80º.

Now Covino poses six of his own questions and then answers them himself, even though inaccurately:

Q. In North America, in what "season" of the year does the "flu season" begin?
A. Winter.

One of the problems with his line of thinking is that the flu season has nothing to do with fevers. At least not the type of fevers that kill. Connected with flu, Respiratory flu has a fever, but intestinal flu does not. And the fever is easily treated, not by plants or herbs, but by aspirin and time.

Q. How many people does it say died from fevers?
A. Some.

“And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land -- but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots which God had prepared to remove the cause of diseases, to which men were subject by the nature of the climate” (Alma 46:40). The scriptural record therefore tells us that some people died from fevers, and that they were frequent in the land, but not as many died (as would otherwise have died) because of the plants God had prepared. It is misleading to say that “some” died and not place it in context. The implication in the scriptural record is obvious—many more would have normally died without the plants God provided.

Q. How many people die today from Malaria?
A. Many.

Malaria infects 300-500 million and kills 1.5-2.7 million people each year, 3000 children a day, making it by far the most serious of the diseases spread by insects. The pathogens causing malaria are four species of Plasmodium and they are transmitted from person to person by mosquitoes of the genus Anopheles—of which there are about 422 species of Anopheles worldwide, many of them sibling species that can only be identified using genetic techniques. Of these, about 70 are malaria vectors but only about 40 are important.

Q. Do we have a cure for Malaria?
A. No.

This is a fallacious answer. Of course we have a cure for malaria—a cure has been known since the 15^th century in Europe and long before that in the Andes of South America. That cure is quinine. Though it has now been synthesized in the lab, quinine occurs naturally in the bark of the cinchona tree—a tree that is indigenous to, and only found in, the Andean area of South America (prior to the Dutch removing it illegally from Peru and transplanting it in Indonesia). The medicinal properties of the cinchona tree were originally discovered by indigenous Andean natives in Peru and Bolivia; later, the Jesuits were the first to bring the cinchona to Europe. Quinine was the first effective treatment for malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum, appearing in therapeutics in the 17th century.

Cinchona or Quina is a genus of about 38 species in the family Rubiaceae, native to the tropical Andes forests of western South America. They are medicinal plants, known as sources for quinine and other compounds

Q. Did they have a cure for their fevers?
A. Yes.

Obviously, since the only cure ever found naturally in plants, etc., is quinine (cinchona tree), and that has only been found to grow in the Andes of South America, one might consider that the Land of Promise was located there.

Q. Does this verse prove Malaria or a tropical climate zone?
A. No, it proves the opposite, it proves they had a cold season like Western New York does.

Again, wrong! The cold season of Western New York provides flu, which causes non-lethal fevers that can be easily treated; however, the fever spoken of in Alma was a deadly fever causing death unless the plants provided by God were used to prevent it.

Even in the United States, two varieties of malaria bearing mosquitoes exist in very large area, with two others found in small areas

Covino sums up  his points with: “It becomes apparent their fevers where climate based alright - ACCORDING TO THE SEASONS OF THE YEAR. This is hardly proof of a tropical climate. It is actually proof of a WINTER SEASON.”

Deadly fevers are based on seasons of the year, not meaning summer, winter, spring or fall, but by what takes place in that season. Around Spring in most climes, ice melts, rivers overflow, lowlands are filled with standing water that turn into swamps as the temperatures rise, providing an aquatic phase in which mosquitos breed. Too much rainfall, or rainfall accompanied by storm conditions can flush away breeding larvae. Rainfall also affects malaria transmission because it increases relative humidity and modifies temperature, and it also affects where and how much mosquito breeding can take place.

While malaria was considered eradicated in the U.S. by 1949, there were still 1505 cases reported in 2007, with New York having 326,  California 157, Texas 136, New Jersey 77, Maryland 67, Virginia 66, etc. Yet, in U.S. controlled tropical areas, such as Guam, Samoa, and Puerto Rico, there were only 2. And there were as many in Alaska as in Hawaii—two each.

It might be of note that Minnesota is one of the heaviest mosquito populated areas in the U.S. Other heavy areas are: Louisiana, Eastern Texas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Virginia, are huge mosquito areas in the U.S., as is Minnesota, because of their numerous lakes which are sprayed annually, and Western Illinois, and southern Oklahoma. Many of these areas I have spent some time in and can testify that in all you don’t go outside without your bug spray and some type of medicsted ointment, such as Chiggerex Plus for protection.

More Covino Comments Answered-Part XVII-Land of Many Waters

Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website, in discussing the Land of Many Waters, makes an interesting, though unsupportable claim. He writes:

The phrase "many waters" is used twice in the geography - once in terms of Jaredite lands (Mosiah 8:7-11) and once in reference to the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:4). Geographers therefore conclude that the two places must be the same or close by. That is incorrect. No one wanted to bury the dead so Cumorah could not have been where people lived. "Many waters" was an expression NOT a location, and was of benefit for the last battle for the ease of travel, i.e. "many water routes."

Limhi’s 43-man expedition “traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel” (Mosiah 8:8). From this we learn:

1) They traveled into the old Jaredite lands

2) They found the ruins, bodies, and armor of the Jaredites

3) They found this in a “land of many waters”

When Mormon moved his army for the final battle, they “did march forth to the land of Cumorah, and we did pitch our tents around about the hill Cumorah; and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains” (Mormon 6:4). It should be noted that, in this case, Mormon is being descriptive. Many waters, including rivers (specific) and fountains (specific). Fountains are springs where water comes up out of the earth, and consequently, form rivers. And since rivers and fountains are stated in the plural, we can see that these fountains formed numerous rivers that spread out over the land, thus causing "many waters."

"And the Lord warned Omer in a dream that he should depart out of the land; wherefore Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed"

Moroni writing about the movement of Omer and the Jaredites, said, “Omer departed out of the land with his family, and traveled many days, and came over and passed by the hill of Shim, and came over by the place where the Nephites were destroyed” (Ether 9:3).

Thus, with the Jaredites occupying the Land Northward, the Nephites being destroyed in the Land Northward, and the Land Northward being a place of many waters, rivers, and fountains, it must be concluded that all of these areas were one of the same.

When Covino says: “No one wanted to bury the dead so Cumorah could not have been where people lived,” is a complete misunderstanding of the situation that existed in those final days of the Jaredite nation. The scriptural record tells us a different reason: “so swift and speedy was the war that there was none left to bury the dead, but they did march forth from the shedding of blood to the shedding of blood, leaving the bodies of both men, women, and children strewed upon the face of the land, to become a prey to the worms of the flesh” (Ether 14:22).

"And so great and lasting had been the war, and so long had been the scene of bloodshed and carnage, that the whole face of the land was covered with the bodies of the dead"

Obviously, no one wanted to bury the dead, because they were running and fighting for their lives. In fact, “the loss of men, women and children on both sides was so great” in this running battle, that both sides decided to stop fighting for a time (Ether 14:31). It should be noted that “they returned to their camp” (Ether 14:31), which should suggest that people were no longer living in their homes, villages or cities, but camped around the battlefields where the fighting was taking place. In fact, from this time on, the war moved to the waters of Ripliancum (Ehter 15:8), where a great battle took place. From there they fled southward (Ether 15:10) until they reached Ogath, where “the army of Coriantumr did pitch their tents by the hill Ramah; and it was that same hill where my father Mormon did hide up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred” (Ether 15:11).

Another great battle took place at this point in which many were killed (Ether 15:15-17). This battle continued through several days until there were only 59 people remaining (Ether 15:25). Finally, the battle ended with Coriantumr the last man standing (Ether 15:31).

"Wherefore, he did pursue them, and on the morrow he did overtake them; and they fought again with the sword. And it came to pass that when they had all fallen by the sword, save it were Coriantumr and Shiz, behold Shiz had fainted with the loss of blood...when Coriantumr had leaned upon his sword, that he rested a little, he smote off the head of Shiz"

The point is, the entire rationale for Covino’s claiming there were two areas referred to as the Land of Many Waters is based upon “No one wanted to bury the dead so Cumorah could not have been where people lived” is fallacious and without merit.

And, too, is his following Statement: “"Many waters" was an expression NOT a location, and was of benefit for the last battle for the ease of travel, i.e. "many water routes."

When Mormon wrote: “and it was in a land of many waters, rivers, and fountains,” is was not a general term. Consider:

1) “in a land” means in it, not about it. It is an expression meaning “within.”

2) It was a land of “many waters.” This could possibly be a general term, but not when you include the additional description of “rivers and fountains.” Each of those terms has a specific, not general, meaning.

• River comes from the Italian word “Riviera” which is from the Latin “rivus/rivulus” meaning “a river with a bank or shore.”

• Fountain means “natural source of water.” It also connotes “the head or source of a river” and ”issuing from the interior of the earth.”

River and fountain are not general terms, but have specific meaning. When used with the overall description of “many waters,” it connotes the meaning of an area of many rivers, lakes, springs—the source of the water itself. That is, an area full of springs that have formed rivers and lakes.

(See the next post, “More Covino Comments Answered-Part XVIII-Fevers,” for more of Covino’s erroneous interpreetations that have led him to claim a Land of Promise in the Great Lakes area)

More Covino Comments Answered-Part XVI- The Narrow Passage

The scriptural record describes a narrow passage: “they did not head them until they had come to the borders of the land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward, yea, by the sea, on the west and on the east” (Alma 50:34), and “Moroni also…sent orders unto him that he should fortify the land Bountiful, and secure the narrow pass which led into the land northward, lest the Lamanites should obtain that point and should have power to harass them on every side: (Alma 52:8-9); and “And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites all the land southward” (Mormon 2:29); and “I did cause my people that they should gather themselves together at the land Desolation, to a city which was in the borders, by the narrow pass which led into the land southward” (Mormon 3:5).

A Narrow Pass, by definition, is narrow, as are these various passes depicted above

From this, we know four things:

1. The pass was narrow

2. The pass ran north and south

3. There was a sea on the west and on the east

4. The pass ran from Bountiful in the Land Southward, to Desolation in the Land Northward

We can also surmise that the pass was narrow enough to afford a strategic military position to guard against an army moving from one land into the other. Lastly, we can understand that the Nephites considered this pass as a last resort in keeping the Lamanites to the south and not allowing them into the Land Northward.

However, Peter Covino sees this quite differently. In his True Book of Mormon Geography website, claims that “the reason it was called the Narrow Passage was because of an inland body of water called the Sea that Divides the Land.

It is interesting that Covino creates an inland sea by this narrow pass. First of all, there is no mention of an inland sea anywhere in the Land of Promise, nor is there any indication of such by hint, suggestion, intimation or reference.

The fact is, one can show the narrow neck and the sea that divides the land without creating another, unknown and unmentioned, body of water, such as an inland sea.

Since the Nephites were on an island, there would have been an East Sea and a West Sea to either side, however, where the Bay of Guayaquil cut far into the land, leaving about 30 miles of land between the Bay and the East Sea, the water could well have been referred to by Mormon as the Sea that Divides the Land, for surely that is what the Bay of Guayaquil did

The problem in interpreting scripture is often in a person already being predisposed to think a certain way. This, then, causes a person to think a scripture is supportive of his idea when it is not. When Covino thinks inland sea, he sees no problem with the sentence: ”they built a great city by the narrow neck of land, by the place where the sea divides the land” (Ether 10:20). This is the only place in the scriptural record that mentions the sea dividing the land.

The question then is, was the word sea mentioned prior to the introduction of the word “sea” in Ether 10:20. And the answer is yes—12 times!

So, when do we use the definite article “the” and when do we use the indefinite article “a”? An article, by the way, is like an adjective, which modify nouns. The word “sea” in this case is a noun, and the word “the,” a definite article, is used in the scriptural record—thus, “the sea divides the land.” In this case, the definite article “the” signifies a specific, or aforementioned, sea, and the definite article “the” signifies a specific, or aforementioned, land. In each of these cases, the word “the” modifies the noun following (sea, land). To modify in this sense means “to limit or restrict the meaning of, especially in a grammatical construction.” Thus, the modifier “the” restricts the meaning of the following noun—sea—to mean the sea that was aforementioned, or previously introduced.

Said differently, “the sea that divides the land” is meant to convey that the word “sea” and the word “land” have been introduced earlier. Had the statement been “a sea that divides the land,” or “a sea that divides a land,” would be significantly different and would, in either case, introduce the “sea” for the first time. However, “a” was not used, but “the” was used. Thus, Ether/Moroni is discussing a sea that is already understood by the reader. And which sea is it? The sea that surrounded the land of Promise—that sea over which the Lord guided the Jaredite barges. Not only did that see make up the North, South, East and West seas, but also was the “sea that divides the land.”

This is the same type of understanding of English that allows us to use the (ellipses) in better understanding the scriptural record. As an example, an ellipses is the omission of a grammatically required word or phrase that can be inferred. From the ancient Greek, elleipsis, meaning omission, it is used to omit from an utterance (by ellipsis) a word or phrase necessary for a complete syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.

As an example, in Alma 22:27, it is written “Land of Nephi bordered on the sea east and the sea west.” Thus, we know this land stretched from sea to sea. Yet, in other statements of this same concept, one or both completed words are omitted:

Alma 22:27:  “borders of Manti, by the head of the river Sidon, running from the east [sea] towards the west [sea]—and thus were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided”

Alma 22:32-33, “the Nephites had inhabited the land Bountiful, even from the east [sea] unto the west sea”

Alma 50:8:  “And the land of Nephi did run in a straight course from the east sea to the west [sea]”

Alma 50:34: “they did not head them until they had come to the boarders of the Land Desolation; and there they did head them, by the narrow pass which led by the sea into the land northward yea, by the sea, on the west and [the sea] on the east.”

Helaman 4:7: “And there they did fortify against the Lamanites, from the west sea, even unto the east [sea]”

It is always helpful to understand what is written before trying to determine its significance to a believed location or model.

(See the next post, "More Covino Comments Answered-Part XVII- Many Waters, Fevers and Liahona,” for more of Covino’s erroneous thinking)

More Covino Comments Answered-Part XV- Width of Bountiful and Desolation

According to Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website, claims that the passage in Alma 22:32, “And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” means that the Land of Bountiful and the Land of Desolation were no wider than the narrow neck and both lands, as well as the narrow neck, could be crossed in a day and a half.

This is confirmed, he tells us, “by the Earliest Text Book of Mormon released by Royal Skousen on 9-9-9. Note the semicolon placement:

“And now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite on the line between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea;

“and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.”

The placing of the semicolon, Covino claims, “makes it clear that the distance applies to the entire width of the land, not just the Narrow Neck.”

Actually it does not. And as long as Covino is going to talk grammatical use of the Book of Mormon language, let us consider the subject of this statement he erroneously claims is a “similar” statement. While a semicolon could be used in that manner, most commonly it is used to link two independent clauses. That is:

1) And now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite on the line between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea.

2) Thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.

Examples of narrow necks of land connecting larger land on either side

Gramatically, these two statements do not have to be related—they can be different from one another, and in fact, are. That is, the first statement about distance is entirely independent from the statement about being surrounded by water.

In this case, the word “thus” is a Conjunctive Adverb, and as such, is used between these clauses to compare or contrast the sequence of events listed, or show the cause and effect between them.

That is, because there was a narrow neck of land (narrow enough to cross in a day and a half) between the Land Bountiful (Land Southward) and the Land Desolation (Land Northward), the land to the south of this neck (Land Southward, i.e., Land of Nephi and Land of Zarahemla) were nearly surrounded by water. The only reason they were not completely surrounded by water was because of the narrow neck of land.

Perhaps a better way of understanding this is to see it written correctly according to the grammatical sense used:

And now it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite on the line between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea. Thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla (to the south of this narrow neck) were nearly surrounded by water, there being this small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward that can be crossed in a day and a half by a Nephite.

There is no mention, nor should there be, of the Land Bountiful and the Land Desolation being the same width—a day and a half journey—as the narrow neck of land between them.

Left: A narrow neck, by definition, would have to be narrow. A neck, by definition, would have to be a small connector. Mormon’s Narrow Neck in the Land of Promise; Right: The same area today, after the rising of the Andes Mountains and eastern South America

In the case of a “narrow neck of land,” we are talking about, according to the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, “a narrow tract of land connecting two larger tracts.” And in this case, a narrow track of land connecting the Land Southward to the Land Northward, or more correctly, the Land Bountiful to the Land Desolation. Therefore, by definition, the narrow neck was narrow and connected two larger tracts, Bountiful and Desolation. Consequently, there is no way possible for Mormon’s description to have meant that Bountiful, the narrow neck, and Desolation were all the same width as Covino claims.

(See the next post: “More Covino Comments Answered-Part XVI- The Narrow Passage, for more differences between the scriptural record and Covino’s interpretation)

More Covino Comments Answered-Part XII-Hagoth’s Shipyards, a Curious View

In one of the most bizarre and imaginative passages, that some might even call whacky, Covino has yet mentioned on his website: True Book of Mormon Geography, is about Hagoth’s shipping enterprise. He writes on a page he labels Errors 6-10, under #7, Narrow Passage – North to South:

“The fact that the people sat and watched Hagoth build ships; then put them forth and sail in a course "northward," with a visibility of 40+ miles it does not allow for any kind of an hour glass isthmus where he was sailing west. More details on the Narrow Passage page."

One can only admire someone who can build an entire scenario out of nothing but his imagination. Perhaps Covino should have taken up fictional writing.

The only place in the entire scriptural record that mentions Hagoth or ships that sailed northward into the West Sea from the narrow neck of land, or anything like it, is found in Alma 63:5-8. Rather than repeat the four verses here, they merely describe Hagoth as a curious man who built ships, people entered into them, took their course northward, and were not heard from again. In addition, there was one ship that sailed to an unknown destination. But for people sitting and watching Hagoth build ships, that they could see for forty-plus miles, and that their view would not allow for an “hour-glass” isthmus, is all made up out of Covino’s imagination.

First of all, we do not know exactly where Hagoth’s shipyard was. We only know they were “on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation,” adjacent to the West Sea, “by the narrow neck which led into the land northward.” Common sense tells us the ships were built in some type of cove, bay, inlet, harbor, etc., that would be protected from the wave movement of the West Sea. We do not know if there was a higher ground somewhere around the shipyards upon which people could sit and watch the construction; we do not know if their view would have allowed them to see the curve of the inlet, the shore of the sea for forty miles, etc. We simply have no idea of the exact or even general appearance of the shipyards, docks, launching ways or pads, or the course the ship could take.

Covino is simply making this up as he goes! Why? Because he wants to prove that the Land of Promise was not shaped like an hourglass! Or more importantly, support his claim that: “The entire width of all Book of Mormon lands, whether in the north or south, were a day and a half wide.”

Nor does his reference to his own  “Narrow Passage page” add any light. On that page, Hagoth is mentioned three times, but nothing adding to the information from which Covino mysteriously draws the scenario mentioned above—no support in that sense to his shape for his Land of Promise.

One would think that the purpose of Mormon including these four verses in his abridgement would be to show 1) The Nephites knew how to build very large ships, which verifies Helaman’s comments (Helaman 3:10, 14); 2) That there was a Land Which Was Northward, evidently beyond the Land Northward; 3) That 5,400 men, plus their women and children (perhaps as much as 20,000 or more), sailed to this northern land, and were basically not heard from more; and 4) That the West Sea was both adjacent to the narrow neck of land, and that it was large enough to provide a path for sailing to another land.

At the same time, it is doubtful that either Alma, or Mormon in his abridgement, thought a future reader would claim it showed the overall shape of the Land of Promise, as Covino claims.

We might also, for the sake of clarity, consider the size of Hagoth’s shipyard. In this shipyard, he built “other ships” besides the first one. And the first one was “exceedingly large.”  The word “exceedingly” in the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, is defined as: “to a very great degree; in a degree beyond what is usual; greatly; going beyond, excelling, excess, superfluity (greater than wanted); great in extent; unusually large.”

In addition, the word “ship” had a very specific meaning in 1828 New England and that was of a 3-masted sailing ship, with a main mast, a fore-mast and a mizzen-mast, each composed of a lower-mast, a top-mast and a top-gallant-mast, and square rigged. What Hagoth’s ships looked like, or how they were rigged, we do not know, but from Joseph Smith’s choice of words he knew, we can conclude two things: 1) the ship was extremely large, and 2) it was along the lines to some degree of what a ship was like in Joseph’s day. That is, it was rigged with sails and had multiple masts. Had it been other than that, Joseph would likely have used the term “vessel,” a common word of his day which meant any type of ship down to as small as “brigs, sloops, schooners, luggers, scows, etc.”

A typical 3-masted sailing ship of Joseph Smith’s day. This is not to say that Hagoth’s ships looked like this, only that the word “ship” meant this type of vessel in Joseph’s day

Thus it seems likely that Hagoth’s ships were very large and could carry a very large number of emigrants. We can also surmise that with the number and size of the ships involved, that Hagoth’s shipyard would have been of considerable size to accommodate such ships. We can also surmize that this was obviously a business for the purpose of making a profit (Helaman 6:8). Thus, the mere size of the yards would seem to preclude anyone from sitting around and seeing over the vast area. In addition, for someone to see out to sea for 40+ miles, one would have to have a considerable height advantage, and even then, a forty-mile-line-of-sight is very far for the human eye to pick up a ship on the sea moving away--impossible in fact!

As an example, when we took a cruise ship out of San Pedro in California to sail south past Baja and to the "Mexican Riviera," we actually sailed due west for 3.2 miles down the San Pedro-Avalon channel and out of the San Pedro Harbor before passing the harbor "breakwater" line and Angel's Gate Light. There we actually "entered" the Pacific Ocean where the Captain turned the ship southward. No one in the cruise line or shipping industry at San Pedro would lay claim to the ship sailing westward, but that it went southward on its voyage. And standing atop the 12-deck cruise ship (equivalent to standing on a 115-foot hill), we could barely make out another similar sized cruise ship sailing ahead of us just three miles furrher out the channel. When it turned north and we turned south, it was out of sight with less than ten miles separation on the open sea.

The San Pedro-Avalon Channel. Note the final southward direction. When we were less than halfway down the channel and the lead ship was turning north, it was not more than a small white speck on the sea (Inset: the cruise ship we were on)

In addition, we cannot be certain from the record, how many ships Hagoth built. We know he built one that took its course northward and later returned. We know he built other ships, emphasis on the plural. We also know that one of these ships went north carrying Corianton, and that another ship sailed to an unknown destination. How many more ships set sail, on what course, and for what destination, we simply do not know.

What we do know is that Covino, and any other writing about Hagoth, can claim more than the simple facts of these three things: 1) The Nephites were involved in building and sailing ships; 2) The Narrow Neck of Land was along the West Sea, and capable of housing a shipyard of some size; and 3) From this shipyard, a ship could set sail a) northward, and b) in another direction, presumably west.

(See the next post, “More Covino Comments Answered-Part XV-Another View of the Narrow Neck of Land”)

More Covino Comments Answered-Part XII-A Different Hill Ramah?

According to Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website, Mormon did not hide the records in the Hill Cumorah, but in the Hill Ramah--another Hill Ramah. As for this other separate Hill Ramah, Covino claims:

1. Covino: “If you travel south from Lake Ontario (Sea North) along the Genesse Gorge (East Sea), there is one very prominent hill where Ether could have safely watched undetected - Highland Park in Rochester. It is located on the eastern side of the Genesee River. Being on the east side of the East Sea, the hill was not used by troops, but was a perfect place for Ether to hide, observe, and to store records. 

Actually, there are two hills, but only one is prominent--Mt. Cobb. Top: An elevation of two hills next to the Genesee River in the Highland Park area of Rochester; Bottom Left: Cobb Hill, about 1.5 miles east of the River, stands at 632-feet; Bottom Right: Nearby is Mt. Hope, which stands at 628 feet, and is closer to the river, but has less of a view of the surrounding area. Both are along Highland Ave

In an earlier statement (see earlier blog) Covino ridiculed my writing about a Sea South to the south of the Land of Nephi, in which he said: “DowDell effectively shifted the Sea South to south of the Land of Nephi where no body of water is ever referenced - neither directly or indirectly.” Yet, Covino here references a land to the east of the Sea East where no land of any kind is ever referenced in the scriptural record—nor is it even implied!

Evidently, it is wrong for someone to claim something existed in the Land of Promise in an area not directly mentioned (even if suggested by the LOP being an island, thus creating a sea to the South of the Land of Nephi—and also described by Mormon when he wrote that the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water except for a narrow neck of land between the Land Southward and the Land Northward). But it is all right for Covino to create a land to the east of the Sea East, a Hill named Ramah there, and for Mormon to have hid all the other records not entrusted to him, and where Moroni found plates to continue his record upon—none of which is in any way implied, suggested, inferred or intimated in the record in any way!

Wow! I guess when you are making up things, you can make them up any way you want to serve your own purposes.

2. Covino: “Contrast that [Hill Ramah] with the Hill Cumorah which was used strategically in the Nephite battle; the Hill Ramah was not used strategically in the Jaredite battle!”

There is no suggestion in the scriptural record that the Hill Cumorah was used strategically in the final battle of the Nephites. Mormon was obviously in the valley around the hill where he and his men were overrun by the Lamanite advance. We do not know where Moroni was, but it is likely he, too, was in the valley, for his 10,000 soldiers were all killed there. And the same is true with the other 21 leaders of their companies of 10,000 each. It would appear that Mormon, Moroni, and the other 22 survivors of the battle escaped onto the high ground of the Hill Cumorah after the battle to spend the night, and in the morning looked out around them at the total destruction of the Nephite nation.  Whether the final battle that saw Mormon and 22 of the survivors of the first day’s battle was fought atop the Hill Cumorah, or whether Mormon and the others went down into the valley below to make their last stand is not recorded. Either way, though, there is no suggestion that the hill was used in any strategic manner.

As the scriptural record tells us: Mormon gathered all his people to the Land of Cumorah (Mormon 6:6). His people, while in the Land of Cumorah, trembled as the Lamanites marched toward them (Mormon 6:7). The battle commenced in the Land of Cumorah (Mormon 6:8-9). Mormon’s company of 10,000 warriors were all killed, and Mormon, wounded, was passed over (Mormon 6:10) as the Lamanites continued with their slaughter of the Nephites (Mormon 10-11). Mormon, Moroni, and twenty-two other Nephites retreated to “the top of the hill Cumorah” where they observed the 230,000 Nephite dead (Mormon 6:11-15). No more is mentioned about this last battle in which all the Nephihtes but Moroni were killed (Mormon 8:1-3). Since all the Captains fell with their men (Mormon 6:13:15), it cannot be said that any Nephite leaders were using the hill for strategic purposes.

3. Covino: “It [Hill Ramah] was also the place where Mormon stored records, and the place where Moroni later found additional plates to write on.”

As has been said several times (see the last post), Mormon hid the records entrusted to him in the Hill Cumorah (Mormon 6:6), which was called Ramah by the Jaredites (Ether 15:11). As for Moroni later finding additional plates to write upon in this other Hill Ramah, that is strictly Covino’s over-active imagination.

4. Covino: “Therefore, the final Jaredite battle occurred around Rochester [Hill Ramah] not Palmyra [Hill Cumorah].”

Again, this is all Covino’s imagination. There is simply nothing in the scriptural record to validate or even support in the minutes manner, his concepts outlined here and elsewhere in this blog.

(See the next post, “Direct Criticisms Answered-Part XIV,” for more errors in his thinking, judgment and understanding of the scriptural record)

More Covino Comments Answered-Part XII-What Records Were Hidden in Cumorah?

According to Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website, Mormon did not hide the records in the Hill Cumorah, but in the Hill Ramah. He writes:

1. Covino: “A common misunderstanding among Book of Mormon enthusiasts is that the final Jaredite battle occurred at the Hill Cumorah, or "where my father Mormon did hide up the records." [Ether 15:11.] That's not what it says. Mormon identified the hill (Verse 11) as "Ramah," and if it was the "Hill Cumorah", he would have said so.”

No, he would not have said so. To have so stated would have been an inaccurate translation of Ether’s record by Moroni. Keep in mind Moroni is not writing to the Nephites who knew the Hill Cumorah. He was translating the Jaredite record. The name of the Hill Cumorah to the Jaredites was “Ramah,” and that was the name Moroni gave it in his interpretive record of Ether. Moroni did let the reader know that it was the same hill as Cumorah, where his father hid the records. But for Covino to claim: “and if it was the "Hill Cumorah", he would have said so” is both arrogant on his part and a disdain for Moroni’s interpretive decision.

No doublt if Moroini had said “the Hill Cumorah” in his interpretation, there would be those who would ridicule his lack of interpretive ability by using a Nephite term instead of a correct Jaredite term. However, what he wrote was the correct way to write an interpreted Jaredite expression, yet at the same time, let the reader know it was the same hill the Nephites called Cumorah.

A depiction of the Hill Cumorah. Note it is high enough to discourage the Lamanites from attacking late in the day so the 24 survivors from the day’s battle could recoup. It is also high enough for those survivors to look down and see the bodies of the dead strewn across the valley below

2. Covino: “They [Book of Mormon enthusiasts] fail to understand that Mormon only hid the records "entrusted to him" at Cumorah, all others where hid at the Hill Ramah, the true place of the Jaredite battle.”

First of all, Covino is incorrect in suggesting the Hill Ramah is different than the Hill Cumorah when Moroni tells us they are the same. Secondly, whatever records the Nephites had in addition to the records in Mormon’s possession, “which had been entrusted to him” by Ammaron (see last post), were deposited or hid up in the Hill Cumorah. Note the following comments about this:

• “President [Heber C.] Kimball talked familiarly to the brethren about Father Smith, [Oliver] Cowdery, and others walking into the hill Cumorah and seeing records upon records piled upon table[s,] they walked from cell to cell and saw the records that were piled up (Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 5 May 1867)

• “President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not return them to the box from whence?] He had Received [them]. But He went [into] a Cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf. In that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates Containing sacred records” (Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 December 1869)

• “Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 17 June 1877)

We have a good idea from Joseph Smith’s report of the size of the repository Moroni buried the Plates in and where; but we do not know how or in what manner or size Mormon hid up the records entrusted to him

• “But the grand repository of all the numerous records of the ancient nations of the western continent, was located in another department of the hill, and its contents put under the charge of holy angels, until the day should come for them to be transferred to the sacred temple of Zion” (Orson Pratt, The Contributor, September 1882)

• "Will these things be brought to light? Yes. The records, now slumbering in the hill Cumorah, will be brought forth by the power of God, to fulfill the words of our text, that 'the knowledge of God shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the great deep.'" 

• Regarding what these records might contain, Elder Pratt taught, "When these plates, now hidden in the hill Cumorah, are brought to light we shall have the history of the Old Testament much more fully, with the addition of a great many prophecies that are not now contained in the record." These additional prophecies are, according to Elder Pratt, "the prophecies of Joseph in Egypt . . . [and of] Neum, a great Prophet who prophesied concerning Christ; also those of Zenos and Zenock, and others of which only bare reference is given." Thus we are to understand that such records will yet serve an important role in the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Orson Pratt discourse delivered at the tabernacle in Ogden on 18 May 1873)

It would seem that, without question, all the records of the Nephites were placed in the Hill Cumorah. Who placed them there is not told to us in the scriptural record, other than what has already been written about Mormon.

(See the next post, “More Covino Comments Answered-Part XII, for more of Covino’s so-called “errors” made by others which, in fact, are errors he makes in the defense of his model. Also, to see where he places the Hill Ramah)