Daniel Peterson lives rent-free in Jonathan Neville’s head

[Yes, I realize that one could claim that Jonathan Neville lives rent-free in my head. And someone has.]

The origins of the Heartland movement are rooted in the creation of an “enemies list.” About fifteen years ago, Rodney Meldrum began giving public presentations about his theory that the Book of Mormon took place in the American Midwest and that the Nephite city of Zarahemla was on the Mississippi River. In his 2008 DVD presentation, he said:

This is the kind of stuff that the anti-Mormons just love. They love to see our LDS scholars dismissing Joseph Smith because they know, they can see these things that Joseph Smith has written and they’re not being followed by the scholarly community of the church, unfortunately.

Meldrum followed this by quoting Gordon B. Hinckley about those who “disdain” the Prophet Joseph Smith and then falsely implying that President Hinckley was speaking of Latter-day Saint scholars who believe the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica.

Since that time, Heartlanders like Meldrum and Neville have continually and falsely accused good men like Daniel Peterson and the late John Sorenson, and good organizations like The Interpreter Foundation and Book of Mormon Central, of “rejecting the teachings of the prophets” and teaching that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery “misled the Church.”

Daniel Peterson’s reactions and responses to Neville’s accusations has barely risen above the level of bemusement. When Neville recently compared Peterson to Satan, Peterson responded to this slur with his usual self-deprecating humor:

A small coterie of my most obsessive ex- and anti-LDS critics effectively appear to be convinced that I’ve never done a decent deed, thought a humane or honest thought, achieved even the most insignificant competent act, said a civil or charitable thing, been impelled by an honorable motive, behaved other than in the most buffoonish possible way, or breathed a worthy breath. And now Mr. Jonathan Neville seems to have come to a similar conclusion, albeit by a rather different route. In view of such a growing consensus, I find that I myself am almost persuaded.

Commenting on Peterson’s reply, Neville bizarrely claimed that Peterson’s “reputation for taking offense is legendary…and it detracts from his overall message.” (Does anything in Peterson’s puckish response indicate that he was offended?)

To start off the new year, Neville has published on one of his blogs “More thoughts on getting offended.” He writes:

My critics, including Dan [Peterson] and his followers, express great offense because I disagree with them on a few topics and I explain why.

Neville gives us no examples of the supposed “great offense” taken by Peterson. (Probably because there have been none.)

Chill, people. Don’t confuse your opinions with who you are. You can consider what other people think, even (especially) when they think differently from you, without taking personal offense.

Maybe you’ll even learn something new.

Neville’s pretension is on full display here. His arrogant directive, “chill, people,” tells us that he believes Peterson and his followers are in some sort of state of frenzy about what he believes. (Nothing could be further from the truth, of course.)

The concern that scholars have with Heartlanders like Neville isn’t that they “think differently,” it’s that Heartlanders use pseudoscholarship to advance their claims, and that Latter-day Saints who believe their false assertions are likely to suffer damage to their testimonies when they discover that they’ve been misled.

This tweet succinctly explains what’s going on.

Ed Latimore
@EdLatimore

Disagree [sic] only offends you when your perspective is based on feelings rather than fact.

Mr. Latimore’s poor English aside, Neville still hasn’t produced a shred of evidence that Daniel Peterson or anyone connected to him has been “offended.”

Everyone at the Interpreter should realize that, despite the name of their organization and journal, and the arrogant editorial tone of their management and editors, they are not really “Interpreters” for anyone but themselves. People can and do read the same evidence and reach different faithful conclusions.

If anyone is displaying an “arrogant editorial tone,” I would submit that it’s Jonathan Neville, who has falsely insisted—repeatedly now—that people who disagree with him are “offended,” that they should “chill,” and that these people are upset because Neville and his comrades “think differently.”

Neville’s arrogance is also demonstrated in how he has misunderstood the name Interpreter. No one at the Interpreter Foundation has, to the best of my knowledge, ever claimed that they have some special dispensation to “interpret” the scriptures or the gospel for members of the Church. My recommendation would be for Neville to take a step back and ask Daniel Peterson what the name “Interpreter” means and why he chose it.

The Interpreter would be far more effective if it stopped pushing Dan’s ideology with a series of logical and factual fallacies and instead encouraged contributors and readers to share facts and multiple working hypotheses.

As I’ve already pointed out, Neville’s call for “multiple working hypotheses” is a sham designed to get his flat earth-style theories accepted in reputable Latter-day Saint publications.

Beyond that, though, it’s quite audacious for Neville to suggest that others stop “pushing [their] ideology with a series of logical and factual fallacies,” when it’s Heartlanders who, for years, have been pushing fraudulent artifacts (like the Michigan Relics), abusing DNA science, and misrepresenting historical sources.

Sadly, Jonathan Neville appears to lack the self-awareness needed for him to see clearly that the problem lies in what he believes, writes, and teaches and not with his ideological opponents who have suffered his smears and dishonest attacks patiently and charitably.

—Peter Pan