More Covino Comments Answered-Part II

According to Peter Covino in his True Book of Mormon Geography website:

“[There are a] Trinity of Book of Mormon Errors. A model should minimally have three characteristics: 1) SEA SOUTH - Every model we looked at either ignores this body of water, or has misplaced it. It lies south of the (Jaredite) Land Northward. 2) SEA NORTH - Borders on the (Jaredite) Land Northward (where the Mulekites landed) and connects with the Great Deep, and 3) CITY BOUNTIFUL - Must be on the west side. If a model lacks just one of these characteristics, it is wrong.”

While this is both arrogant and self-serving on Covino's part, let’s take a look at these three points:

1. Sea South. There is no indication that the Sea South lies to the south of the Jaredite lands.This has been answered time and again on this blog (see two posts before this one, “Direct Criticisms Answered-Part III.” In addition it should be kept in mind that the Hebrews/Jews had a tendency to call seas by their direction bearing. Thus we have a Sea North, a Sea West a Sea East, and a Sea South. However, Covino would have us believe that, for some reason, the Sea South should be placed north of the Land Southward, in the middle of the seas to the West and East.

Covino would place a direction sea name (Sea South) out of context with the direction seas of the Land of Promise

And if so, then what would they have called the sea far to the south of the Land of Promise? The Sea South-South? Nor can Covino and others claim there was no sea to the south of the Land of Nephi, for Mormon tells us the Land of Nephi and the Land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water  except for “a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward” (Alma 22:32). Thus, we see, there was no land south of the Land of Nephi, just water—which should eliminate all references to the Land of Promise being an isthmus with land to the north and to the south, as Covino and most others do.

A proper understanding of the seas mentioned in the Book of Mormon connected to the Land of Promise, including “the Sea that Divided the Land”

This all, of course, means that nobody’s map is going to be accurate in Covino’s mind unless they agree with his erroneous interpretation. That is pretty arrogant.

2. Sea North. Covino is accurate in there being a Sea North bordering to the north of the Land Northward; however, he is wrong in stating “where the Mulekites landed.” He is also wrong in saying this Sea North connected to the Great Deep. It was part of the Great Deep, or the deep water ocean. As has already been pointed out in this blog in numerous posts, the Land of Promise was an island! Jocob so stated, and Nephi recorded, that “we have been driven out of the land of our inheritance; but we have been led to a better land, for the Lord has made the sea our path, and we are upon an isle of the sea” (2 Npehih 10:20).

For we are upon an isle of the sea! The sea is the Great Deep. The Lord has made the sea our path! As Nephi said, the Lord led them across the Great Deep to the Land of Promise (2 Nephi 4:20). Keep in mind that the only sea voyage Nephi ever took of which is recorded, was from the Sea of Irreantum to the Land of Promise—he thus crossed the Great Deep—the sea over which the Lord led them—to the Land of Promise which is an island in the Sea.

One would think this is irrefutable, but not to Covino who, forever tries to cloud the issue of the “plain and simple language” Nephi so loved (2 Nephi 25:4).

3. City of Bountiful. According to Covino, the City of Bountiful must be on the West side. Assumedly, that means along tne West Sea or near the west seashore.

We know that the Land Bountiful stretched from the east to the West Sea (Alma 22:33). We also know that the land of Jershon, was on the east by the sea, and joined the land Bountiful on the south (Alma 27:22), which does not preclude Bouintiful from stretching to the east seashore. Also, there was a land northward of Bountiful (Alma 50:11), presumably that meant the Land of Desolation and old Jaredite lands beyond the narrow neck of land. In addition, when the Lamanites were attacking the east seashore cities (Lehi, Nephihah, Mulek, Gid, Omner, Morianton, etc.), they continued on northward to the borders of the land Bountiful (Alma 5`1:28), with the intent of taking possession of the land Bountiful and also the land northward (Alma 51:30). This land Bountiful was very near the east seashore, if not right upon it (Alma 51:32). The land Bountiful directly bordered the narrow pass that led into the land northward (Alma 52:9).

Teancum, who was last mentioned in the east by the seashore is said to have retreated from these eastern cities to the city of Bountiful (Alma 52:17), which might place the city of Bountiful near the east seashore. In addition, once Moroni reaches the city of Bountiful and holds a council of war with Teancum for him to attack the city of Mulek, which is on the east seashore, and after much stratagem, Teancum lures the Lamanites out of the city of Mulek and is chased back near the city of Bountiful (Alma 52:27), which shows that both cities were within marching distance of one another—with Mulek along the east seashore, to which they turned from near the city of Bountiful to race back to the city of Mulek (Alma 52:28).

One could go on with these events, but they show a very close relationship in distance between the city of Bountiful and the city of Mulek, which we know was along the east seashore.

It should also be noted, that following these events, we learn of Hagoth who “built him an exceedingly large ship, on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth into the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward” (Alma 63:5). Yet, even though by the West Sea, there is no mention of this being near the City of Bountiful, only in the land Bountiful.

All of this should show that 1) We are not sure where the city of Bountiful was located exactly, but can see where it was near the city of Mulek, which was located on the east seashore, and 2) Covino’s three points of necessity for a model of the Land of Promise simply do not meet any requirements in the scriptural record.

While Covino can say, “If a model lacks just one of these characteristics, it is wrong,” however, it might be more accurate to say if a model does meet any of Covino's three points, it is most likely wrong!

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