Jonathan Neville is a critic of the Church

Jonathan Neville is a critic of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When we think of critics of the Church, we often imagine non-members—evangelical Christians who disagree with the doctrines of the restored gospel or atheists who openly mock all religious beliefs. But there are also critics within the Church who are baptized members. Many of them have been very faithful most to their lives, only to run into some principle, practice, or historical fact that caused them to question their faith and allegiance.

Broadly speaking, today’s critics inside the Church fall into one of two camps: progressives (liberals) and fundamentalists (conservatives).

Progressive critics of the Church of Jesus Christ hold modern, fashionable political and social views that are counter to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For example, many progressive critics within the Church believe that First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve should normalize homosexual relationships and permit gay marriages in our meetinghouses and temples. These individuals have embraced the suddenly popular view that same-sex attraction is natural, that our gay brothers and lesbian sisters are “born that way,” and therefore Church leaders are backward and “homophobic” by continuing to teach that acting on feelings of same-sex attraction is a sin.

Fundamentalist critics of the Church of Jesus Christ are on the other side of the political and social spectrum from progressive critics. In their view, Church leaders have gone too far in accommodating popular beliefs, and they believe that the Church should return to earlier forms belief and practice. Perhaps the best-known example of fundamentalist critics are those individuals who have falsely come to believe that Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith’s actions to end the practice of plural marriage were wrong and that practice should be restored.

Both types of critics insist that the Church and its leaders are “out of the way” and need to be corrected. They use social media or private meetings to spread their beliefs and to try to convince others that they are right and the Church’s leaders are wrong. They aim to put pressure on Church leaders to conform to their ideas.

Quite often, after rallying people to their cause and becoming a public spectacle, they end up being excommunicated for apostasy or other sins. Just as often they end up leaving the Church of their own free will, having experienced frustration at not being able to convince leaders and members that they are right and the Church is wrong.

Jonathan Neville is a fundamentalist critic. While he ascribes sincere motives to Church leaders, employees, and teachers, he has been repeatedly and continually claiming for several years now that they are engaged in “censorship,” that they are rejecting and repudiating “the teachings of the prophets,” and that they are misleading Church members—especially youth and new converts—by not affirming his belief that the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is the same hill in New York where Joseph Smith received the gold plates.

Jonathan Neville believes that it’s his role to “steady the ark.” If the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles can’t or won’t fix the M2C* “disaster,” then it’s up to Jonathan Neville to step in and save the Church!

And how does he go about this? Does he follow the steps outlined in the law of the Church, revealed by the Lord to Joseph Smith in 1831, that these things are to be done privately, one-on-one with those he accuses, and “not before the world”? (D&C 42:88–89) No. He blogs incessantly about it, day after day, month after month, year after year, complaining about this supposed conspiracy.

And what has been the result of his course of action? Jonathan Neville is sowing doubt and destroying faith in the leaders of Christ’s Church.

You think I’m exaggerating? Here’s just one recent example: Earlier this month Rian Nelson, a Heartlander and frequent colleague and collaborator with Neville, reposted specific criticisms Neville had leveled at Saints, the Church’s published history. (The original post was on Neville’s blog, Saints Review, dated August 29, 2019; Rian Nelson reposted it under his own name on his BofM.blog on September 6, 2019.) The blog post charges that the authors of Saints have “rewrit[ten] D&C 28 to accommodate M2C.” After reading it, one person (whom I’ve left anonymous) expressed serious concerns about what he had read on a Facebook group about Book of Mormon archaeology:

“If the prophet is deceived on this, what else could he be deceived on?”

That should be the subtitle of every one of Jonathan Neville’s sixty-six blogs. He believes he’s building up faith in the Book of Mormon; what he’s really doing is destroying faith in the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

How long will it be before Jonathan Neville is excommunicated for repeatedly and publicly criticizing Church leaders (a form of apostasy) or leaves the Church to form or join his own little cult of Heartlanders who believe they are the Lord’s true church?

Not long, I fear.

—Peter Pan

* “M2C” is Jonathan Neville’s acronym for the theory that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and that the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon is not the same hill in New York where Joseph Smith received the plates of Mormon.