Oversimplification again
|
Tags: Church leadership, Dishonesty, Hill Cumorah, Historical sources, Logical fallacies, Misrepresentation, Responsible scholarship
Perhaps the greatest flaw in Jonathan Neville’s writings is his continual habit of misrepresenting those with whom he disagrees. He seeks to frame the debate in such a way that it appears that he agrees with the leaders of the Church while those who differ with him “reject the teachings of the prophets” (a phrase he has used over 120 times).
The latest of example of this reprehensible behavior can be found in his February 12, 2021, blog post, “Simplicity again,” in which he writes:
No one on the “M2C” side has ever claimed that “the prophets were wrong.” This very phrase completely misrepresents their views—and Jonathan Neville knows it does.
There are several important truths here that Neville is burying, including:
Jonathan Neville battling M2C. (B&W, 2021)
So, far from being “a very simple discussion,” the matter of the location of the Nephite hill Cumorah is both complex and messy.
Jonathan Neville, of course, needs for it to be simple, because such a simple, manifestly obvious point benefits his monomaniacal cause. But because the matter is not simple, he’s been forced to oversimplify it. In doing so, he has done a grave injustice to the prophets and the historical record and has taken advantage of the ignorance of his believing readers.
—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.
The latest of example of this reprehensible behavior can be found in his February 12, 2021, blog post, “Simplicity again,” in which he writes:
Some time ago I discussed the principle of simplicity as it relates to Book of Mormon historicity.No, Brother Neville, we can’t “all agree on that.” Your framing of the debate, here and in many of your other writings, is simply scurrilous.
Most debates merge toward two opposing sides, and in this case, the debate is between New York Cumorah vs. non-New York Cumorah. Usually this is framed as M2C* vs Heartland.
Our M2C scholars honestly believe the prophets were wrong. The Heartlanders honestly believe they were correct.
This is a very simple discussion.
I don’t discuss this as a right/wrong situation. It’s a matter of personal preference. I hope we can all agree on that, at least.
No one on the “M2C” side has ever claimed that “the prophets were wrong.” This very phrase completely misrepresents their views—and Jonathan Neville knows it does.
There are several important truths here that Neville is burying, including:
- Prophets are human beings who receive the Lord’s word. To them, the Lord reveals his will on some subjects; on others, he is silent. When he is silent, prophets are free to offer their beliefs and opinions on these matters. Sometimes their beliefs are based on good and accurate information; other times their beliefs are based on assumptions and speculation.
- There has been no revelation from the Lord indicating that the New York hill is the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon nor on the real-world locations of any other Book of Mormon places.
- Neville’s attempts to claim that the name of the New York hill has been revealed are all drawn from late, secondhand sources. For example, Neville tries to use comments made in passing by Lucy Mack Smith and Parley P. Pratt—both written decades after the events they described—to claim that Joseph “had to have learned the name [Cumorah] from Moroni or Nephi.” It is irresponsible for someone who claims to be a historian to hang so much weight on such flimsy evidence.
- Although Neville is certainly correct that most prophets and apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have believed that the New York hill was the same hill where the Jaredites and the Nephites fought their final battles, and that they have expressed this belief in General Conference and in other settings, it is not correct for him to imply that that these men have been univocal on this point. (In this he commits the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.) As I’ve previously demonstrated, Elder Anthony W. Ivins, Elder John A. Widtsoe, President Harold B. Lee (1, 2) and Elder Robert D. Hales have all directly or indirectly questioned whether the hill near Joseph Smith’s home is the same hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon.
Jonathan Neville battling M2C. (B&W, 2021)
Jonathan Neville, of course, needs for it to be simple, because such a simple, manifestly obvious point benefits his monomaniacal cause. But because the matter is not simple, he’s been forced to oversimplify it. In doing so, he has done a grave injustice to the prophets and the historical record and has taken advantage of the ignorance of his believing readers.
—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.
Posts
The good news is that only 19 people have bothered to read his post - and two of those peeps are writing this comment - so there are a mere 17 people in the blogosphere who really care about his diminishing opinion.
ReplyDeleteForgot about this blog until I heard some new podcast Johnathon and Rod Meldrum are doing. I see I've missed a bunch of posts. It's sad that Johnathon Neville is being so abrasive and close-minded, even against church leaders. That's disturbing. Not a good place to be.
ReplyDeletePeter if you don't mind me asking, what inspired you to start this blog? Why do you keep writing against Neville here? I'm just wondering if you knew him personally and there was some offense or falling out between the 2 of you. I've never seen someone so active in pointing out someone's opinions before. Again, honestly asking.
Thanks for asking, Andrew. You can read about my motivations in the 𝘈𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 link at the top of the page.
DeleteI’ve seen too many good people led away from the Church by false teachers who claim that the Church and its leaders are “out of the way.” I once heard someone call Heartlanderism a “gateway drug” into fundamentalist cults like the ones around Denver Snuffer and Alan Rock Waterman; I agree with that assessment.
If I can prevent even one person from being led astray by Neville, Rod Meldrum, the Stoddards, Rian Nelson, Wayne May, and others in their circle, then I’ll have considered this blog successful.
Thanks for the honest reply. I appreciate it.
DeleteI understand your drive, and I would certainly agree that patiently and lovingly pointing out concerns such as these are worthwhile. I only bring all this up because I can't help but wonder if many of us are going about it the wrong way. I have observed this debate within Church circles now for 15 years, and the more time goes on the worse it seems to get. It is a BIG worry to me, and should not be this divisive.
As a longer-than-desired-preface (I must do this so I will not be misunderstood), let me state that I have been on both sides of the BOM Geography argument. I was a mesoamerican supporter for 20 years, and then (VERY briefly) investigated the heartland model. Only went to one conference about 11 or 12 years ago at BYU. While I was intrigued by all these ideas I had never considered, after speaking to Rod Meldrum (in person and later looking at his research) it became clear that he had cherry picked data while coming to his DNA conclusions. Other facts were distorted, and red flags appeared after I would read his material. I have not taken him seriously since. As of right now I’ve been visiting and tinkering with the great lakes model, poking holes or trying to fill them :) and looking at a more Asian connection to central America and some other aspects, but I’m comfortably in the middle. Neither with Mesoamerican or the Heartland crowd.
I've read 1 of Johnathan's books and 1 or 2 written by Wayne May. I've met Wayne as well, and while he seems to be more approachable and reasonable than the other 2 (just gauging by my own interactions with all of them) in the end he was not open to reconsidering his support of certain artifacts which have clearly been proven as fakes. The Kinderhook plates are the biggest example of this, and his continued support of them only damages his image and work. In the end, I had to conclude that these men like many others, tend to ignore citations and other sources that contradict their claims. They also rely on spurious data (like Wayne's 2nd hand source, a letter about James Talmage supposedly doing a mineral survey near the hill Cumorah) despite no other documentation. Of most concern are the statements made by Neville against Church leaders. When you put yourself in a position to “steady the ark” you are on dangerous ground.
But here is the point I really want to make here today. I think we all need to do a better job with pride, enmity, and our default feelings of tribalism that we can so easily get wrapped up in. I think we need a reminder from President Benson that pride is the universal sin. We ALL have it, and we all need to work on it. Boy heaven knows I need too. I see pride from both sides of this coin. I have experienced contention and condescension from both sides (from Neville himself, Rod, and from Matt Roper and Chris Heimerdinger). What is most sad to me is that good relationships don’t have to end just because of a disagreement of this sort, and yet I have seen it and been though it. While we need to (rightly) warn others if they start speaking out against the Lord’s anointed, let’s try it with more love and understanding. We don’t need to churn out pride as we compose our comments in support or opposition to anything. If we are full of contempt and pride while we call out Johnathan Neville for his behavior, I don’t think we should except anything different in return. As much as we disagree with them, they are still our brothers.
Anyway, sorry for being longwinded, but this is something that has been impressed upon me more and more in the last year. I see it coming to a head one day, and I am fearful that many in the church will suffer in some way for it. Let’s righteously correct errors and encourage others (like John) to consider his rhetoric. But let’s do it lovingly, and without haughtiness, without guile, without pride and condescension, as the Savior would. Thanks again everyone and have a great day.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Andrew. You’ve spoken honestly, and I appreciate the time you took to compose your message.
DeleteMy personal issue with Jonathan Neville isn’t Book of Mormon geography, per se. It’s entirely possible that the Book of Mormon took place in the American Heartland, and if good evidence were to present itself, I think many Latter-day Saint scholars in the Mesoamerican camp would chase after it. As you pointed out, though, the evidence that Heartlanders have brought forth up until now has been extremely poor, with a good percentage of it being simply fraudulent.
So my real issue is more about their use of fake or fraudulent artifacts (like the Michigan Relics, which Elder James E. Talmage himself declared to be fakes in the Church’s official magazine), unreliable historical accounts (like the third-hand stories of the cave in the New York hill Cumorah), and questionable interpretations of scripture (like resting on D&C 125:3 for the location of Zarahemla).
Even worse than those, though, are the Heartlanders’ use of jingoistic American patriotism to sell their theories (to the point of racist and unkind representations of Latin Americans), their spreading of malicious and untrue conspiracy theories, and their continued insistence that THEY are on the side of “the prophets,” while those who don’t believe in Heartlanderism “reject the teachings of the prophets.” These things are despicable and deserved to be condemned in the strongest language possible.
I truly hope I don’t come across as prideful. I know of myself that my understanding is limited; in doctrinal matters, I personally try to be careful to discern between what is definitely known and established and what is conjecture and hypothesis. But Jonathan Neville and his associates are never that cautious, and so what they teach and sell are dangerous to the long-term faith of the Saints.
When I write—as I have many times on this blog—that I expect the Heartland movement to openly declare the Church to be “out of the way” and to break off and form its own religious movement, I’m not exaggerating or joking. Here’s just one recent example of that sort of spirit:
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021/01/heartland-research-director-church-is-off-course.html
And there is much more brewing within the Heartland movement, some of which I’m not at liberty to disclose at this time. They are moving in a disturbing direction. The Saints need to be warned.
Thanks for your intellectually honesty here. It's refreshing to read, and I think I understand better the purpose of this blog. Consider me a new follower! :)
DeleteIndeed there are many in the heartland movement that spout a disturbing mantra. I agree completely. The one thing I failed to bring up in my last post (that we should remember) is that not all heartlanders are like Neville. Obviously no one group is completely homogenous. For example, I have 2 family members and probably 4 or 5 friends that subscribe to the geographical theory, but they aren't really active in absorbing any new material from Rod or John. They certainly don't use rhetoric like those 2, and the ones I have spoken to recently have been aghast at Neville's outspoken venom towards church leadership (after I showed it to them). Thankfully there are many that may lean towards the geography, but if exposed to the documented verbal brimstone from John and Rod, they will quickly disassociate themselves from them.
I bring this up because about 8/9 years ago, (sorry more background) I decided to shift gears from mesoamerica (reading Sorenson's books among others) and started looking further North. Now there's not much to go off of, because virtually no research/scholarship has been done in the United States, a fact Hugh Nibley once lamented in passing to someone I knew (many years ago of course). I basically put a pin on a map in upstate New York (on the Hill Cumorah obviously) and said "Well...this is what we know." :) Meaning this is where the plates were buried aaaaand that's all we know. Over the years I have tried to discuss different matters and theories with many people in various settings (and more prominently, Kirk Magleby, Chris Heimerdinger, and Matt Roper). I quickly noticed that, most of the time, as soon as I would mention the great lakes or surrounding area, I was denounced as a heartlander and derided/dismissed, sometimes even insulted. I got private and public messages calling me to repent and stop fighting the leadership of the Church.
Simply put, I tend to get lumped in with heartlanders because I'm currently investigating an Eastern US/Southern Canada setting. It's frustrating and disheartening beyond belief, because few will discuss anything on the subject with me, even heartlanders themselves haha (I don't buy the theory of Zarahemla being across from Nauvoo at all, but good luck digging I say). There are a few I know like me, that feel ANY possibility of getting more scholarship done in the states has been destroyed because of Rod and his movement. It's sad.
I guess my point here, is that not ALL heartlanders have the same axe to grind, and the same manic personality as Meldrum or Neville. I know, MANY do but there are many exceptions as well. :) BUT, even so I think it's more important than ever to expose followers to what their leaders are saying. The geography is not at issue like you said, the rumblings towards the church are first and foremost. People need to know what Neville and his associates are saying. I'll keep reading for now and I thank you again for this lovely dialogue Peter.
𝘐 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘱 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘱𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 (𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘏𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘊𝘶𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘩 𝘰𝘣𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 "𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭...𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸." :) 𝘔𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘢𝘢𝘢𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸.
DeleteThis is where Mesoamericanists diverge with Heartlanders and Great Lakers. Just because the plates were buried in that hill doesn’t mean that hill was 𝘵𝘩𝘦 hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. In fact, Mormon 6:6 directly states that the plates of Mormon were 𝘯𝘰𝘵 buried in the hill Cumorah, and Moroni’s decades of wandering to get away from the Lamanites (Moroni 1) make it extremely unlikely that he would have returned to the land where the final battle between the Nephites and Lamanites was fought. Add to that the significant discrepancies between the description of the hill in the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon lands and the geography of western New York State, and it’s fairly evident (at least to some, myself included) that the book did not take place there. The New York hill may be named after or in remembrance of the hill in the Book of Mormon, but the two hills are not the same.
Oh yes my apologies, I was not implying it was the SAME hill where the battle took place. Only that that hill in NY is where the plates were actually buried. As for whether it is the same hill, I don't know, could be, could not be. Either Moroni walked 2500 miles to get there from somewhere else, or he wandered for 36 years and came back to that land, possibly being familiar with it, to bury the plates.
DeleteThe thing about me, is I try not to get TOO attached to old geographical models or location assumptions that have been (in some cases) tacitly accepted by many for too long, even with the high amount of scholarship used in coming to said theory. Sorenson and others have put down a lot of theories and models that will keep us busy for years, but I believe it's never a bad idea to look at everything we have and sometimes say "you know what, we have no data so it could all be wrong." Until actual data comes in (which we may never get :) it's all in the hypothesis stage.
I'm the guy (currently) hacking away at the premise of the argument. If the premise is wrong, everything else after it is wrong as well, no matter how hard we want to hold onto it (tried to convince Wayne May of this about Zarahemla-in-Iowa, with NO luck). Not to toot my own horn, but 10-15-ish years ago, while finishing my B.S., I did a lot of classwork on research methods and statistics. I had one professor who drove this point into our heads. He said "NEVER let the hypothesis weigh more than the DATA. If your hypothesis gets proven wrong by the data, you need to let go of your hubris and make a new hypothesis."
Not saying any one theory is wrong here (I try not to do that as a rule anymore), But we have no data, i.e no actual evidence of Book of Mormon locations. So until we have data, we are all stuck debating theory and speculation. I realized for myself, that I was stuck on mesoamerica and had been for 20 years without reexamining my premise. So I decided to throw out all premises and start anew. It's actually quite refreshing. I've looked at Mexico and Guatemala, baja California, Panama and Columbia, and the Great Lakes and Southern Ontario. It's all before me, and to be honest I don't think we should get too focused on one area. Since we have no data, all possibilities must be considered.
Oh crap I pontificated again...sorry I am long winded! :)