More fan mail

I welcome all comments, especially ones that disagree with something I’ve written.

My only rule is that comments must be thoughtful. I don’t publish “drive-by” comments.

So, while I won’t be publishing the following comment, I do wish to demonstrate to “pahoran421” that I don’t censor, obviously or otherwise:

Jonathan Neville insists that “those who accept the New York Cumorah are happy to discuss their reasoning and are confident, not defensive.”

pahoran421’s comment doesn’t seem to be a good representative of his assertion.

Observation: your heading and comments are very snarky and seemed to be obsessed with Jonathan N., a historian.

Well, snark is certainly preferrable to smarm. Some people’s views are so false and/or dangerous that they deserve some snark.

Also, calling Jonathan Neville “a historian” is bit of a stretch. He’s more of a propagandist.

Readers don’t like that sneaky gotcha approach.

My viewer stats indicate that my approach appeals to at least some of my readers.

It reeks of contention and you know who that comes from.

You’re referring to 3 Nephi 11:28–30. The Savior’s instruction to the Nephites was that there shall be no “disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine.” Certainly he didn’t mean to imply that no one should ever contend for the truth—he and his apostles contended with those who spoke falsely. Not all contention is evil; sometimes contending is at least necessary. (See Jude 1:3; Words of Mormon 1:14; Mosiah 10:19; Alma 2:31; Alma 17:34; D&C 18:20; D&C 112:5; D&C 117:13.)

The sad fact is that I contend for President Russell M. Nelson’s teachings as the living prophet, while Neville contends for his heterodox reading of the words of dead prophets.

You may be from the progressive Leonard Arrington wing of historians some of whom are still at BYU who spoke often of how they want to bring LDS history into the secular progressive era.

I checked, and in my personal library of 597 books on religion—139 of which are on Mormon history—I found five that were authored or coauthored by the late Leonard J. Arrington. So, I wouldn’t exactly consider myself part of some sort of cult of Arrington.

This assertion—which has recently come into fashion thanks to a wretched book full of conspiracy theories by Hanna and James Stoddard—is deeply troubling. The Church History Department is overseen by a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (currently that’s Elder LeGrand R. Curtis Jr.) who reports to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Last year, Neville attacked an article written by Elder Curtis that was published in the Ensign. This kind of conspiracy-mindedness among Heartlanders is disturbing, to say the least.

The time of the separating of the wheat and tares is beginning…suggest you reconsider you[r] blogging approach and attitude so you can end up on the wheat side. At this point you are not.

Let me get this straight: “pahoran421” believes that my defense of the Church and its leaders against the scurrilous attacks against them being made by Jonathan Neville, perhaps along with my rejection of the false doctrines of “Heartlanders,” makes me a “tare” in the Savior’s famous parable—a tare that will be burned at the second coming of Jesus Christ.

I’m afraid we’re only now beginning to see how deep the psychosis of many Heartlanders really is.

—Peter Pan