Neville tries to step it up, trips over his own feet

This humble blog has now been operating for over two-and-a-half years. The stated purpose of the Neville-Neville Land blog is to “refute the errors of Jonathan Neville and the Heartland hoax.” That is, to use a term coined by fighter pilots, a “target-rich environment,” which explains how this is now our 272nd published post.

During this time, Jonathan Neville has largely ignored the Neville Land blog. Occasionally he’s taken some potshots at it, but only once has he deigned to actually respond to any substantive issues that I’ve raised (and that one attempt was easily refuted).

Something must have changed recently, because Neville has suddenly stepped up his passive–aggressive attacks on me. And he’s doubling down on his (bizarre) belief that I’m either Daniel Peterson or in cahoots with him.

Me, apparently.

Neville begins his September 10, 2021, blog post, “Worst LDS apologist/polemicist”—spoiler alert: that’s me—with a 609-word introduction to Latter-day Saint apologists who defend the faith against its critics. He tells us that, for some apologists, “these debates are emotional, not intellectual,” that “their egos (and possibly their careers) are directly tied to the success of their theories,” and that this “affects their rationality and objectivity.” Neville doesn’t bother to give us any actual examples of these supposed irrational and subjective arguments, but that’s been par for the course for anti-Mormon critics for decades now; Neville is just the newest voice in the anti-Mormon chorus.

Next, Neville describes certain logical fallacies, including the fallacy of the ad hominem argument:

The worst fallacy, probably, is the ad hominem fallacy. Ad hominem means “against the man,” and this type of fallacy is sometimes called name calling or the personal attack fallacy. This type of fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.

The ad hominem fallacy is the principal rhetorical tool of a polemicist. Polemicists who resort to ad hominem attacks are admitting that their arguments cannot survive scrutiny.

As I’ve documented numerous times, Jonathan Neville is certainly familiar with the ad hominem fallacy—just not familiar enough to know when he’s the one committing it.

And here’s where we get to the really good part:

Lately, we have an LDS polemicist who not only relies on ad hominem attacks, but his very brand is ad hominem. Even better, he is so unsure of (or embarrassed by) his attacks that he remains anonymous.

I should say, tries to remain anonymous.

This doesn’t make him (or her or them) a bad person. Undoubtedly this is a very nice guy who is just insecure and emotionally involved, whose ego and worldview is threatened by even faithful teachings that he has not been aware of before. His work is full of factual and logical fallacies that are easy to observe. It’s pathetic, really, but we can’t fault the poor guy for trying.

But we can fault the well-known polemicist who promotes his “anonymous” alter ego.

Obviously, I’m not going to name names or provide links. This specific individual (or group) is not the point. Even if one person decided to desist with the polemical ad hominem attacks, it wouldn’t matter because the M2C/SITH citation cartel has plenty of such people who write anonymously, popping up in various fronts of the Potemkin village they inhabit.

There’s so much delicious content to unpack from Neville’s broadside attack. Let’s take these one at a time, shall we?

1. Lately, we have an LDS [sic] polemicist who not only relies on ad hominem attacks, but his very brand is ad hominem.
   
   Oh, my dear sweet summer child. That would be a legitimate assertion if only you would provide some evidence of it. If my 271 previous blog posts have been nothing but ad hominem attacks—to the point where I’ve established a “brand,” as you say—then it should be easy to provide your readers with one or two examples of my supposedly fallacious arguments. You’ve provided none, though, which only demonstrates how your brand is misrepresentation of your opponents and their arguments.
    
2. Even better, he is so unsure of (or embarrassed by) his attacks that he remains anonymous. I should say, tries to remain anonymous.
   
   Well, I must be doing better than just “trying,” because you’re not even close to the mark if you think I’m Daniel Peterson. As I’ve stated repeatedly on this blog, I’m not Peterson. I’m not even in Peterson’s inner circle of close friends and colleagues. I’ll freely admit to having met him a number of times at conferences and so forth, but I am not him.
   
   As far as being “unsure of” or “embarrassed by” my arguments, nothing could be further from the truth. This blog is pseudonymous (not “anonymous”) because I’ve seen the way you go after people with whom you disagree. Your attacks on the character and motivations of good Latter-day Saint scholars are scurrilous, and to be perfectly honest I don’t want to be another name on your enemies list.
   
   Please believe me when I say that I’m nobody. I’ve never worked in academia. I’ve published virtually no scholarly works, and none of any note. If you discovered my real name, your first reaction would be to say, “Who?”
    
3. This doesn’t make him (or her or them) a bad person. Undoubtedly this is a very nice guy who is just insecure and emotionally involved, whose ego and worldview is [sic] threatened by even faithful teachings that he has not been aware of before. His work is full of factual and logical fallacies that are easy to observe. It’s pathetic, really, but we can’t fault the poor guy for trying.
   
   It’s deeply ironic that, after patiently describing to his readers the fallacy of the ad hominem, Neville immediately makes an ad hominem argument. I am, according to his masterful psychoanalysis, “insecure,” “emotionally involved,” and driven by threats to my “ego and worldview.” My “work is full of factual and logical fallacies that are” so “easy to observe” that Neville doesn’t even bother to give his readers a single example of them!
   
   Earlier Neville told us, “[The ad hominem] fallacy occurs when someone attacks the person instead of attacking his or her argument.” Indeed it does, Brother Neville. Indeed it does.
   
   And characterizing your teachings as “faithful” is quite the stretch. (You have been reading my blog, haven’t you?)
    
4. But we can fault the well-known polemicist who promotes his “anonymous” alter ego.
   
   For those at home who are trying to keep up, he’s now referring to Daniel Peterson. I can, without reserve, declare that not once have I asked Peterson to link to this blog. Peterson does so, I imagine, because Jonathan Neville has and continues to attack Peterson’s work and motivations (including in the very blog post I’m reviewing here). That doesn’t make me Peterson’s “alter ego,” merely someone who happens to think that one Daniel Peterson is worth a thousand Jonathan Nevilles when it comes to sustaining and defending the kingdom of God.
    
5. Obviously, I’m not going to name names or provide links.
   
   Obviously. That would give your readers the opportunity to weigh my arguments for themselves instead of filtering them through your distorted lens.
   
   I have linked to Neville’s blogs and books and web pages hundreds of times, and I promise my readers that I will continue to do this so they can evaluate for themselves what he writes.
    
6. This specific individual (or group) is not the point. Even if one person decided to desist with the polemical ad hominem attacks, it wouldn’t matter because the M2C/SITH citation cartel has plenty of such people who write anonymously, popping up in various fronts of the Potemkin village they inhabit.
   
   This is a rather odd comment that, if I didn't know better, betrays a deep-seated paranoia. Neville-Neville Land is, to the the best of my knowledge, the only anonymous pseudonymous blog that criticizes Jonathan Neville’s dishonesty, misrepresentation, and irresponsible scholarship. Yet Neville seems to not only believe that there are “plenty” of anonymous people who are attacking him, but that they are part of some coordinated plot by “the M2C/SITH citation cartel” (a supposed group that exists solely in the mind of Jonathan Neville). Since conspiracy theories are practically a vertical market for Heartlanders, this comes as no surprise.

Neville concludes his blog post with a lengthy quotation from D. Michael Quinn’s second edition of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View in which he (Quinn) attacked FARMS and Daniel Peterson for their “polemical tactics.”

For the sake of time, allow me to give you just one example of how disingenuous the late Quinn was in his assessment of Daniel Peterson:

In [an] issue [of FARMS Review of Books], Peterson had also written a thirty-eight-page defense of the periodical’s use of “insults” and “ad hominem (i.e., ‘against the man’)” statements about authors whose books were being reviewed by FARMS. Peterson even boasted that some FARMS writers were born “with the nastiness gene.”

Quinn was referring to Daniel Peterson’s introduction to FARMS Review of Books 8/1, published in 1996. However, the material Quinn cited in his footnotes did not support the claims he made in his text. (This was a common problem with Quinn’s works after his resignation from BYU in 1988.)

Any honest person who reads Peterson’s introduction to that volume would be hard pressed to conclude that he was “defending” the use of “insults and ad hominem.” On the contrary, Peterson was explaining why an article in previous number of the FARMS Review had brought up the fake ministerial credentials of an anti-Mormon critic and why it was not ad hominem to do so.

As for Peterson’ supposed “boast” that “some FARMS writers were born ‘with the nastiness gene,’” again, Quinn thoroughly misrepresented Peterson. In a footnote in his introduction (no. 98), Peterson playfully explained:

Let me simply say, in passing, that, if we have occasionally been guilty of levity at the expense of some of our critics, this has been because they tempted us with irresistible targets. It isn't our fault. Like most other Americans in the late twentieth century, we are victims. A few of us, indeed, may have been born that way, with the nastiness gene—which is triggered by arrant humbuggery.

It has famously been said that humor is subjective. Daniel Peterson’s trademark dry wit may not be to the taste of Michael Quinn or Jonathan Neville or any of Peterson’s many other critics, but what he wrote in that footnote was unquestionably tongue-in-cheek and certainly not a “boast.”

Neville would, of course, strenuously disagree with Michael Quinn about Joseph Smith’s use of seer stones and magic—which was the entire subject of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View—but Neville uncritically and unquestioningly quotes 726 words from Quinn because he needs Quinn’s stick to beat his (Neville’s) opponents. For Neville to quote Quinn in this manner is either the height of hypocrisy or yet another example of his stunning lack of self-awareness.

Undoubtedly, Neville will take satisfaction—in private or on his blog—that his post elicited this response from me. That’s fine, because I’m not writing for him anyway—I’m documenting his slow, dramatic exit from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the hopes that I can warn some people about his claims—claims which are leading people away from teachings of living prophets and apostles.

—Peter Pan