An open reply to Jonathan Neville, part 2

The following is my reply to an email I received from Jonathan Neville on April 5, 2023. See my earlier response for context.

Brother Neville:

Hi “Peter.” Thanks for answering. I’ve been traveling and just got onto this email account.

It’s no problem whatsoever. I completely understand that you and I have lives beyond our online activities. I hope your travels were enjoyable.

If you don’t want to meet, that’s fine, but the offer remains open because it’s a rare chance to bring more mutual understanding to these topics.

I appreciate that. I’m open to meeting with you, but I have just one condition, and that’s that neither you nor I engage in name-calling or profaning the temple endowment. I have never called you names (like “Joker Jonny” or “Nutty Neville”), and I expect the same from you. If you’re willing to remove from your blogs instances where you’ve referred to my friend Daniel Peterson as “Slander Dan” and used phrases from the endowment to imply that he is like Satan, that would be a good-faith gesture, and I would be happy to to meet at a time and place that is convenient for both of us.

One of the problems with these discussions is your ongoing ad hominem site, which I read only once but ignore as I do all ad hominem sites.

If you’ll forgive me for asking a pointed question: If you don’t read my blog, how do you know that I use ad hominem arguments?

Additionally, I want to be certain that you know what an ad hominem argument is, because it’s not just “he said mean things about me”—it’s a specific type of logically fallacious argument. I don’t believe I’ve done either of those things, but I’m certainly willing to correct any place in my blog where I may have. If you find any such instances, please let me know.

I appreciate your input on the table. I like the way you try to nuance your position. With your permission, I’d be happy to post it on my blog in the interest of clarity and accuracy.

Please feel free to do so. I consider all of our communications to be subject to public posting, unless you specifically tell me otherwise.

But it is evident that the bottom line remains that you claim Oliver was wrong, isn’t it?

I cannot accept that summary of my beliefs because it uses loaded terminology to create a rhetorical trap that you expect me to fall into. (“Mike Parker believes Oliver Cowdery was wrong! He rejects the teachings of the prophets!”)

The truth is that you and I both believe that Oliver Cowdery was wrong about some things. I think you would agree with me that he was wrong when he insinuated that Joseph Smith was guilty of adultery. I think you would also agree that he was mistaken (or at least overlooked certain facts) in Letter III and Letter IV when he claimed that Joseph Smith’s confusion about which church to join led to the visit of Moroni, not to the First Vision.

Statements made by Oliver Cowdery—and anyone else, for that matter—need to be weighed and given context. When you insist that Oliver was “right” about something that is important to your personal beliefs and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you believes he was “wrong,” you’re not doing history—you’re weaponizing Oliver and his words in an ideological war against your opponents. (This weaponization goes back to the birth of the Heartland movement, when Rod Meldrum twisted President Hinckley’s words to assert that Latter-day Saint scholars “disdain” the Prophet Joseph Smith by arguing that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica.)

We both accept that the gospel is true, that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by divine means, and that the Book of Mormon is a real history of real ancient people. We may disagree over how best to understand and interpret some of the finer points of those beliefs, but when you insist that those who don’t interpret those points the same way you do are “rejecting the prophets” or whatever, you are only causing division and contention.

All the best,

Jonathan Neville

And to you,

—Mike Parker [“Peter Pan”]
 

An open reply to Jonathan Neville

On March 31, 2023, I received the following email from Jonathan Neville:

Hi Mike. People have been sending me excerpts from your blog. Seems like it would make more sense to communicate directly. As you know, when I was on Kerry’s podcast [see here—ed.] someone asked if you and I would have lunch and be friends, despite our different views. I’m happy to do that if you are. It turns out, I’ll be in Southern Utah ████ ██████ (███ ██).

I remembered that about 6 years ago you wrote to me suggesting a correction to one of my charts.

I want to accurately represent the position of the M2C/SITH believers. Could you let me know if there is anything in the table below that is incorrect?

Thanks in advance.

All the best,

Jonathan

At the bottom of his email was a table with a side-by-side comparison of his beliefs with his version of the beliefs of those who disagree with him about the location of the hill Cumorah and the means of translating the Book of Mormon. (I’ve included his table below, with my corrections.)

I was happy to have a discussion with him—this is, until I saw what he posted on his “Interpreter Peer Reviews” blog the same day. I have my differences with Jonathan Neville, but I have never called him names as he did by referring to Daniel Peterson—twelve times, no less!—as “Slander Dan.” Likewise, he again stooped to using language from the temple endowment to imply that Peterson is somehow like Satan. (This is a repeat of the same reprehensible behavior he engaged in last December.)

So, after reading his blog post, I’m afraid lunch won’t be possible. If he wants to engage in a free and open dialog, it must be done without name-calling, misrepresentation, and disrespectful use of the temple to disparage those he disagrees with.

Regarding the feedback he requested: I’m being as charitable as possible when I say that the second column in his comparison table grossly misrepresents the views of the people he names at the top of column two. His degree of misrepresentation is so extreme that the second column could only have been written in ignorance or in bad faith.

His comparison table is an example of dichotomous thinking that he regularly appeals to. Framing the debate as “Joseph and Oliver either told the truth or they didn’t tell the truth” leaves no room for complexity, nuance, or ambiguity. In doing so, he has cast aside critical analysis and replaced it with the logical fallacy of the false dilemma (“either A or B only”). By characterizing others’ beliefs in the worst light possible—something he does regularly—he can dismiss anyone who disagrees with him as being unfaithful and motivated by prestige, status, or money. This is not an honest or considerate way to approach any debate or discussion.

My suggested corrections to what he wrote in the second column (in red) can be found in the third column (in blue) below. I can’t speak for the other people named in the heading to the second column; I only speak for myself. (Please also note that Stephen Smoot has never used the abbreviated name “Steve.”)

Jonathan Neville	Jonathan Neville’s synopsis of Dan Peterson, Mike Parker, Steve Smoot, Jack Welch, Royal Skousen, and their followers and donors	Mike Parker (who has neither followers nor donors)
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery told the truth about the Hill Cumorah in New York. Extrinsic evidence corroborates their teachings.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did not tell the truth about the Hill Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon. Oliver Cowdery invented the New York Cumorah, but he was speculating and was wrong. Joseph Smith passively adopted Oliver’s false theory about Cumorah.	There has been no divine revelation that identifies the hill near Joseph Smith’s home as the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon. Claims that Moroni called the New York hill Cumorah are late and secondhand and should therefore be treated with caution. Early Latter-day Saints believed that the two hills were the same. That belief was based on assumption, and we cannot and should not fault them for coming to that conclusion. They, of course, did not realize their own assumptions, which is an extremely common human tendency. Extrinsic evidence does not confirm that the New York hill was the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, and internal evidence from the text also strongly suggests that it was not.
Their faithful contemporaries and successors in Church leadership reaffirmed the truth about Cumorah in New York, including members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference.	Their faithful contemporaries and successors in Church leadership, like Joseph Smith, passively adopted Oliver Cowdery’s false theory about Cumorah and thereby misled everyone for decades until the scholars found the truth.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery’s contemporaries and successors shared the same assumptions about the text that they did, and they taught and testified in good faith based on these assumptions. These assumptions became traditions, but just because something is traditional does not make it true (as has been seen in the Church’s recent disavowal of theories that for over a century were used to explain the priesthood ban). The location of the hill Cumorah is not a matter that pertains in any way to salvation; therefore, no one has been “misled” by general authorities who expressed their belief that the hill in New York is the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon.
Origin of M2C. Scholars starting with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills, and continuing with LDS scholars Sorenson, Welch, Peterson, et al, decided JS, OC and their successors were wrong about Cumorah. Instead, these scholars determined that the real Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico (Mesoamerica). Hence the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C, which repudiates the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah and is merely the speculation of intellectuals.	Origin of M2C. Scholars starting with RLDS scholars Stebbins and Hills, and continuing with LDS scholars Sorenson, Welch, Peterson, et al, decided JS, OC and their successors were wrong about Cumorah. Instead, these scholars determined that the real Cumorah is somewhere in southern Mexico (Mesoamerica). Hence the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory, or M2C, which repudiates the mere false speculation of the prophets about Cumorah and is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.	Framing the issue as “scholars decided the prophets were wrong about Cumorah” both dishonestly misrepresents the people involved and unfairly accuses them of “repudiating the teachings of the prophets.” No one began or ended with the conclusion that “the prophets were wrong” about anything. Since there has been no revelation about Book of Mormon geography—including the location of the hill Cumorah—the question has been entirely one of finding a location in the Western Hemisphere that best fits, geographically and anthropologically, the descriptions given in the Book of Mormon. Beginning in the late 19th century, careful readers of the Book of Mormon began to realize that the action it describes could not have taken place across the entire Western Hemisphere and must have happened in a much more limited area. Latter-day Saints and members of the Reorganized Church were working along parallel lines (similar to how Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both independently discovered calculus), but there is no evidence that Saints in Utah were aware of RLDS publications. In 1880, Latter-day Saint George Reynolds proposed the first limited geography model, with Desolation—the land where the hill Cumorah was—located in Central America. (This was published by the Church in their periodical The Juvenile Instructor.) The anonymous 1886 Latter-day Saint publication Plain Facts for Students of the Book of Mormon situated the entire text of the book in northern South America and Central America. In 1909 Elder B.H. Roberts wrote, “The question of Book of Mormon geography is more than ever recognized as an open one by students of the Book,” and that the lands of the Book of Mormon might “be found between Mexico and Yucatan with the isthmus of Tehuantepec between.” During the 20th century, many Latter-day Saint scholars and students of the Book of Mormon developed and refined several competing Mesoamerican Book of Mormon geographical models. (Daniel Peterson and John W. Welch are not key individuals in this and haven’t published any independent research on Book of Mormon geography.) None of these scholars and students has ever written or spoken anything resembling the assertion that a Cumorah in Mesoamerica “is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.” Those who favor a Mesoamerican geography remain open to serious, reliable evidence that it took place elsewhere. The fraudulent artifacts and implausible geographical models proposed by followers of the Heartland movement fail in every way to meet that standard.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both told the truth about the translation of the Book of Mormon; i.e., that Joseph translated the plates with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates.	Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery both intentionally misled everyone about the translation because in fact, Joseph never used the plates or the Urim and Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon (at least the text we have today).	Framing the issue as “Joseph and Oliver intentionally misled people” dishonestly misrepresents the views of those who accept that Joseph also used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Martin Harris—Joseph’s first scribe in translating the Book of Mormon—testified that Joseph used both the Nephite interpreters and a seer stone in the process. The historical record suggests that early Latter-day Saints referred to both items as “Urim and Thummim.” And it’s more than a little disingenuous for Jonathan Neville to accuse others of claiming Joseph Smith “intentionally misled everyone about the translation” when he himself has used his “demonstration theory” to argue that Joseph Smith did exactly that. (See below.)
Witnesses who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, such as David Whitmer and Emma Smith, are less credible than what Joseph and Oliver (and their successors) said, so even if Joseph Smith dictated words while looking at the stone in the hat (SITH), this was a demonstration, not the translation of the Book of Mormon.	Witnesses who rejected the leadership of Brigham Young, such as David Whitmer and Emma Smith, are more credible than what Joseph and Oliver (and their successors) said, so we know that, instead of using the U&T and the plates, Joseph Smith merely read words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH).	What eyewitnesses to the translation of the Book of Mormon believed about succession in the presidency of the Church is immaterial to their credibility as witnesses of the translation process. (The same principle applies in the law: A witness to a crime cannot be ignored or rejected just because he is a communist, a MAGA Trump supporter, or a flat-earther.) Not one single eyewitness to the translation process ever denied that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to translate the Book of Mormon. The witnesses—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, David Whitmer, and others—are equally credible, and their statements must be examined and understood in the context of when, how, and why they were made. Dismissing an eyewitness’s testimony because the content of that testimony does not fit one’s hypothesis is a fatal error that reflects a biased, prejudiced methodology. No one who accepts the overwhelming number of eyewitness testimonies that Joseph did use a seer stone to translate has ever claimed that Joseph “merely read words that appeared” to him; rather, Joseph’s early revelations clearly indicate that the translation process also required study, prayer, and spiritual confirmation, as described by the revelation to the Prophet Joseph in D&C 9. Also, no one is claiming that the seer stone was not a sacred consecrated object at the time the Book of Mormon was translated, nor is anyone asserting that the translation could have been accomplished without the gift of seership from God. On the contrary, both the interpreters and other seer stones worked through the gift and power of God. No firsthand eyewitnesses or secondhand accounts (or any later Church leaders, for that matter) have ever suggested that Joseph Smith “demonstrated” the translation process to curious individuals by using a seer stone in a hat. Jonathan Neville’s claim that Joseph did this is an ad hoc hypothesis, completely lacking in any evidence whatsoever and invented solely to resolve the problem of the multitude of eyewitness statements that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon in Harmony and in Fayette.

Jonathan Neville claims to want to “accurately represent the position of the M2C/SITH believers.” It will be interesting to see if and how he modifies the table in his blog post based on my feedback.

—Peter Pan (Mike Parker)
 

Another response to Rian Nelson of the FIRM Foundation

This is a response to Rian Nelson’s comment on my December 20, 2022, blog post.

I don’t believe we will ever agree on the Fantasy Map idea so lets [sic] move on after a short comment. The way the map is, you should have simply shown any shape and just listed the order of the cities from bottom (Where Lehi landed) to the top where (hill Cumorah is located). In other words your fantasy map could be called instead, an “accurate list of Book of Mormon cities from landing place to extinction place.”

Your description of the BYU Book of Mormon Conceptual Map reveals that you haven’t given it any consideration or study. I have used it in my Book of Mormon study for the last five years and have found it to be thoroughly consistent with the descriptions and directions given in the text of the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon Conceptual Map is far more internally consistent than Moroni’s America – Maps Edition, which is radically at odds with the Book of Mormon, logic, and common sense. (I have critiqued elements of your book here, here, and here.)

If anything fits the description of a “fantasy map,” it’s Moroni’s America – Maps Edition. Yet I will still give you the courtesy of referring to your book by its actual title. If you wish to continue smearing those you disagree with by using pejorative labels, that’s up to you. It’s certainly not in keeping with common courtesy and respect for opposing views, though.

We know the purpose of the scriptures is to teach truth. I will never believe David, Emma, and Martin over the the two first hand witnesses, Joseph and Oliver, nor over the scriptures. The scriptures say what instruments came with the plates, and that they were used to translate. No need to add conjecture.

Emma Smith, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer were firsthand eyewitnesses to the translation, Rian. For heaven’ sake, Emma and Martin were scribes for Joseph Smith in the translation of the Book of Mormon before Oliver Cowdery even met the Prophet, and the translation was completed in the Whitmer home, where David and his entire family witnessed the translation.

The earliest published account of the translation of the Book of Mormon—printed in 1829 by Jonathan Hadley—reported that “By placing the Spectacles in a hat, and looking into it, [Joseph] Smith could (he said so, at least,) interpret these characters.” This report was given in August 1829 after Joseph met with Hadley, publisher of the Palmyra Freeman, about printing the Book of Mormon. Another non-Mormon, Richard McNemar, who heard Oliver Cowdery preach in Ohio in November 1830, wrote in his diary in January 1831, “There is said to have been in the box with the plates two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro[ugh] which the translator looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.”

In short, the number of eyewitness and and secondhand sources that claim Joseph Smith translated while looking at a seer stone or the Nephite interpreters in hat is simply overwhelming. You’re cherry-picking a very limited number of specific sources and interpreting them so that they support your beliefs. That’s completely irresponsible, and it demonstrates the desperate lengths Heartlanders go to when making their case.

I really don’t have a problem with your opinions as you are free to have them.

Quite clearly you do have a problem with them, since, according to your and your fellows, I and other people who disagree with you are “rejecting the teachings of the prophets,” promoting anti-Mormon claims, causing a loss of faith leading to apostasy among members, and are responsible for a decline in growth of Church membership.

As long as you continue to make such claims, your own statements belie your assertion that you don’t have a problem with alternative opinions.

The Book of Mormon speaks to a specific land, not Greenland, not, Guatemala and not Peru. I Nephi 13 is obviously speaking of the United States. The Church approved header to Chapter 13 says, “Nephi sees in vision the church of the devil set up among the Gentiles, the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the resultant state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture, and the building up of Zion.”

I think you’re misreading the heading to that chapter. It doesn’t say “the discovery and colonizing of the United States of America”; it says, “the discovery and colonizing of America.” America refers to the entire continent of North and South America, which Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Hyrum Smith, Ezra Taft Benson, and Mark E. Peterson testified is “the land of Zion” and “a choice land.”

1 Nephi 13 speaks of events that took place in what would become the United States, but it’s also a prophecy of many other things, including the voyages of Christopher Columbus, who never set foot on the North American continent.

The “choice land” Nephi saw includes the United States, Greenland, Guatemala, Peru, and the rest of the American continent.

This statement above and common sense says, I will stick with my quote of, “I know The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon, as the Lord chose it. He did not choose it because those who live here are better people, or because it is a more beautiful place than other parts of the world, but He chose it to be the place of the Restoration of the Gospel in the Latter-days. Why? Because He chose it!” It’s what I believe.

You may believe it, but it’s still circular reasoning. And it conflicts with the statements of the prophets mentioned above who testified that the entire North and South American continent is the choice land mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The United States was the place chosen for the restoration of the gospel, and that gospel has gone forth to the peoples in Latin America. These people are the descendants of the Lamanites, a truth that has been believed and taught by many Church leaders, including Oliver Cowdery, Brigham Young, Anthony W. Ivins, Marion G. Romney, and most recently Gerrit W. Gong and President Russell M. Nelson.

No need to respond as we have agreed to disagree. May the Lord bless you.

Well, I decided to respond anyway. I wish you and your family a very merry Christmas.

—Peter Pan
 

My reply to Rian Nelson of the FIRM Foundation

On December 18, 2022, Rian Nelson published a post about me on the FIRM Foundation blog. I responded to his post the next day with an open letter. Rian replied with a comment on this blog. The following is my reply to his comment.

Mr. Pan, I appreciate you responding to by blog. Just a few responses.

There’s no need for formalities. Please, call me Peter.

Calling the CES Map a “Fantasy Map” is accurate. It does not relate to any current geography in the world.

Come now, Rian; be honest. You use that term as a derogatory label. We both know it.

The name of the BYU Book of Mormon Conceptual Map explains its purpose and goal, and its website informs us that it was designed and prepared to give “a basic idea of approximate directions and theoretical relationships between various geographical features mentioned in the stories.” It is not a “fantasy map” like the one of Middle-earth created for J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Calling it a “fantasy map” misrepresents the intent of the project. This is similar to how you and Jonathan Neville use terms like “SITH,” which has sinister origins. It’s an unfair practice that demonstrates that you and your associates are not acting in good faith.

I have always referred to your book, Moroni’s America – Maps Edition, by its full title. The least you can do is refer to the Book of Mormon Conceptual Map by its proper name.

There is not one scriptural quote about Joseph using a stone in a hat to translate, and there are at least 4 or 5 scriptures that say he used the two stones fastened to a breastplate.

Your argument is a non sequitur. There are many events in Church history that happened but are not mentioned in the scriptures. For example, Joseph Smith began the translation of the Book of Mormon in Harmony, Pennsylvania, where he and Emma and Oliver Cowdery struggled financially. David Whitmer invited them to come to his father’s home in Fayette, New York, where they would receive free room and board and also assistance with writing while Joseph translated. Joseph took David up on his offer, and they moved there in early June 1829. There is nothing about any of that in the scriptures—not in the Book of Mormon, not in Joseph’s revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, not in the canonized portion of Joseph’s 1838 history that’s in the Pearl of Great Price. Therefore, according to your logic, Joseph either never moved to Fayette or he was not authorized by the Lord to do so.

Joseph, of course, did use the Nephite interpreters/Urim and Thummim to translate portions of the Book of Mormon, but he also used a seer stone. Martin Harris—who was Joseph’s scribe for a time, an eyewitness to the translation process, and one of the Three Witnesses—said that “the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.” Either Martin was correct, or he was mistaken, or he was lying. The fact that so many other eyewitnesses to the translation (including Emma Smith, David Whitmer, Joseph Knight Sr., Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery, and others) also reported that Joseph used a seer stone indicates that Martin was neither mistaken nor lying. (Jonathan Neville’s “demonstration hypothesis” is nothing more than an ad hoc way to dismiss the overwhelming eyewitness testimony that doesn’t fit with his beliefs.)

There are many things that are not in the scriptures but are nonetheless true.

I have no problem with those of you who believe differently in the geography and the translation than I do, as we all have that freedom.

But you and your associates clearly do have “a problem with those of [us] who believe differently,” because you keep claiming that if we don’t agree with your beliefs, then we’re “rejecting the teachings of the prophets,” promoting anti-Mormon claims, causing a loss of faith leading to apostasy among members, and are responsible for a decline in growth of Church membership.

Until you and your collaborators stop making these false assertions, please don’t claim that you “have no problem” with those who don’t agree with you.

When people say we are a hoax, or an apostate sect, or we are critical of the Brethren, or say we think we are racially superior to some, those are incorrect and small statements.

I disagree. Jonathan Neville has repeatedly claimed that Church leaders and Church employees are censoring Church history, misleading members, and publishing anti-Mormon arguments. These statements (among many others) are clear evidence that he is promoting an apostate form of the restored gospel that is critical of the Brethren.

Your own racially charged statements about the people of Latin America are directly at odds with what the prophets have taught.

I think the evidence demonstrates that my assertions are correct. And as long as Jonathan Neville can claim that “M2C” is a hoax, then I think it’s only reasonable that I can make the same claim about the Heartland movement.

Let me rephrase when I called you a “small person”, and say your comments are small minded.

Thank you for rephrasing that.

I know The United States is the promised land foretold in the Book of Mormon, as the Lord chose it. He did not chose it because those who live here are better people, or because it is a more beautiful place than other parts of the world, but He chose it to be the place of the Restoration of the Gospel in the Latter-days. Why? Because He chose it!

First, your statement is an example of circular reasoning and is thefore logically fallacious.

Second, I also believe that the United States was set apart by God to be the cradle of the Restoration—not because the Book of Mormon teaches that but because Joseph Smith’s revelations do.

Certain statements in the Book of Mormon can be interpreted to be references to the United States, but most of them are so nonspecific that they could refer to other nations as well. For example, the prophecy of the “mighty nation” that would scatter Lehi’s descendants (1 Nephi 22:7–8) cannot refer to the United States because that scattering was prophesied to take place before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and the expulsion of the American Indian tribes from the Eastern United States didn’t take place until after the Book of Mormon had already been published. (I wrote about this here.) Likewise, President Ezra Taft Benson and Elder Mark E. Peterson both declared that the “choice land” prophecy in Ether 2:9–12 refers to the entire Western Hemisphere, not just the United States.

May the Lord bless you in sharing the love of Christ, as I will try and do a better job of doing so as well.

Thank you! I also hope the Lord blesses you in your righteous endeavors. I also pray that he will hinder me, you, and anyone else who tries to lead people away from the truth of the restored gospel and the teachings and authority of living prophets.

—Peter Pan 

Jonathan Neville shills for anti-Mormons (again)

“Stuff You Missed in Sunday School” is an online meme page that tries to point out supposed contradictions in Latter-day Saint beliefs. I’m not going to provide them a link—you can look them up online yourself, if you’re so inclined—but their content lacks even a modest level of depth or understanding. Their modus operandi is to take advantage of the low level of knowledge many Saints have about difficult or complex issues involving Church history and doctrine.

Considering his willingness to freely use and even defend anti-Mormon resources, it’s not at all surprising that Jonathan Neville posted this “Stuff You Missed in Sunday School” meme to his “Book of Mormon Central America” blog on November 29, 2022:

Neville followed up with this statement:

One quotation is from an anonymous essay written by scholars who promoted their own theories and never bothered to quote what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said on the topic.

The other is from a President of the Church who served as an apostle for 62 years and 2 months, second only to David O. McKay (63 years and 9 months). He also served as Church historian for nearly 50 years.

The meme and Neville’s commentary overlook the long and complex history of how Latter-day Saint historians have treated the many eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon and receive revelations. Many historians have accepted these accounts, and their eyewitness testimonies have been printed in Church-published books and newspapers in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. A very small number of historians have rejected these eyewitness testimonies, Joseph Fielding Smith being the most prominent example.

In his comments, Neville has employed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority: Insisting that a claim must be true simply because someone important said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. In this case, he has appealed to Joseph Fielding Smith, who “personally [did] not believe” that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Neville argues, fallaciously, that Joseph Fielding Smith’s view is correct because he was an apostle and served as Church historian; serving in those two positions does not make him infallible, however, and Neville himself would certainly disagree with some of the views he held.

In summary, “Stuff You Missed in Sunday School” has tried to pit the current official stance of the Church concerning a historical matter against the personal stance of a prophet who has been dead for over fifty years. Joseph Fielding Smith wasn’t correct in the first place, so his personal views are inconsequential. What’s worse, though, is that Jonathan Neville has decided, once again, to use the “any stick with which to beat them” approach to dealing with those who disagree with him, to the point of being willing to repost anti-Mormon claims that are designed to destroy the testimonies of the spiritually weak and historically unaware.

Neville should be ashamed of his actions, but my guess is that he’s not.

—Peter Pan
 

Jonathan Neville sinks to new lows of character assassination

It’s no secret that Jonathan Neville really dislikes Daniel Peterson. Neville has attacked Peterson dozens of times in writing, accusing Peterson of being polemical, mean, and the living embodiment of everything that’s supposedly wrong with Latter-day Saint scholarship and apologetics.

In short, Daniel Peterson is Doctor Evil to Jonathan Neville’s Austin Powers.

But this is a new low, even for Neville: According to him, Daniel Peterson is a bad person because an anonymous person called an anti-Mormon podcast and complained that he was treated poorly by Peterson and Louis Midgley in the comments on one of Peterson’s blogs. The caller did not say what his question or concern was. He gave no specifics about what Peterson or Midgley supposedly said to him. He provided no information that would allow us to read the conversation and judge for ourselves if he was mistreated.

Based on this unsourced, unconfirmed, anonymous claim, Neville tells us:

Dan’s defenders will object to me citing an “anti-Mormon” podcast, but the experience related by this caller is not uncommon. Active members of the Church have related similar experiences to me. They stay in the Church despite Dan because they reject Dan’s mode of apologetics and the SITH/M2C narrative he promotes.

Why does Neville refer to the Mormon Discussion Inc. podcast as “anti-Mormon,” in quotes? Clearly it is an anti-Mormon endeavor. Despite his facile attempt to dismiss those who would object, the fact that Neville is ready, willing, and eager turn to anonymous anti-Mormon sources to attack a fellow Latter-day Saint speaks volumes. (As I’ve demonstrated, Neville and other Heartlanders have a weirdly comfortable relationship with anti-Mormons.)

In addition to the anonymous anti-Mormon caller, Neville tells us that “active members of the Church”—plural—“have related similar experiences” to him. These supposed people are also anonymous.

Both the podcast caller’s assertion and Neville’s claim are classic examples of the logical fallacy of appeal to anonymous authority:

Not only is Neville once again employing a logical fallacy, he’s also stooped to the level of gross character assassination. Any other person would be ashamed of himself, but after three-and-a-half years and 311 blog posts, I’ve come to the conclusions that Jonathan Neville has no shame.

—Peter Pan
 

Jonathan Neville reacts to Spencer Kraus’s reviews

In the wake of Spencer Kraus’s reviews of A Man that Can Translate and Infinite Goodness, Jonathan Neville has been flailing about, vainly hoping to land a blow against Kraus, or me, or Book of Mormon Central, or Daniel Peterson, or Jack Welch, or apparently anyone who opposes him.

Neville has begun a series of responses to Kraus that he runs under the noisome title “Under the Banner of the Interpreter,” apparently in a feeble attempt to connect anyone and anything that’s critical of his work to the loathesome anti-Mormon book and streaming television series Under the Banner of Heaven. That’s par for the course for Neville, who for years has implied that anyone who doesn’t agree with his eccentric views—including general authorities—is leading the Church and its members astray.

Meanwhile, beneath the title “Under the Banner of the Interpreter,” Neville obtusely protests that none of what he writes “is an ‘ad hominem’ argument” for “we focus on the merits” of his opponents’ arguments. Let’s see how well he lives up to that claim, shall we?

Neville writes:

Most Latter-day Saints ignore these foolish antics of the apologists in the citation cartel. We go about our business, helping our fellow Latter-day Saints and our local communities, attending the temple, teaching classes and serving missions, and generally rejoicing in living the gospel on a daily basis. We support our Church leaders and still believe what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said.

That’s only the second paragraph after Neville promised to “focus on the merits,” and he’s already descended into ad hominem and appealed to the self-righteousness fallacy: People who disagree with Neville are guilty of “foolish antics,” while sincere, righteous Heartlanders help others, attend the temple, teach and serve, live the gospel, and support Church leaders.

I’m sure that there are many Heartlanders who are sincere and righteous. That does not, however, make Neville’s views correct or immune from critical review.

In their view, if you disagree with them (especially if you offer a faithful interpretation of Church history that supports and corroborates what Joseph and Oliver taught instead of M2C and SITH), you are an apostate—according to them.

This is a strawman argument: Spencer Kraus wrote a critical analysis of Neville’s use of history and historical sources. Neither he nor the Interpreter Foundation accused Neville of apostasy.

As far as I’m aware, I’m the only “apologist” who has accused Neville of flirting with apostasy. My basis for this claim has nothing to do with Neville’s interpretations or views and everything to do with the way he continually implies—or sometimes even states outright—that today’s leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are ignorant, are leading the Saints astray, are covering up historical facts, and are not teaching the truth.

Later in his blog post, Neville asserts that “the citation cartel aggressively attacks faithful Latter-day Saints who don’t accept either their style or their substance.” But the real issue here isn’t about “style” or “substance”; it’s about how Neville is guilty of evil-speaking of the Lord’s anointed leaders. He should repent and change his approach.

Since the inception of the Interpreter and Book of Mormon Central, the growth of the Church has steadily declined.

Correlation is not necessarily causation, of course, and there are many factors involved with Church growth, but anyone who is active on social media (particularly English-language social media) knows that LDS apologists are flailing in comparison to the critics.

Neville has a penchant for using meaningless charts like this, then denying that correlation equals causation while simultaneously implying via his charts that correlation really does equal causation. One could just as easily claim that the declining growth rate of the Church correlates to the rise of Heartlanderism. (And I have, tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)

Apparently it has not occurred to Neville that the decline in Church growth rates would have been greater if it were not for the efforts of Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter Foundation, and other organizations that stand up for modern leaders of the Church instead of disparaging them and spreading pernicious conspiracy theories about them.

Undoubtedly, Brother [Spencer] Kraus…is a fine, devout, committed Latter-day Saint, a great person, etc. Nevertheless, as a research associate with Book of Mormon Central, Brother Kraus naturally (and necessarily) follows the direction of his leaders in the organization, as is evident from his articles. His bio doesn’t reveal whether he is a volunteer or paid employee, but either way, he has to toe the party line or he couldn’t work there.

Statements like this make me wonder if Jonathan Neville really understands what an ad hominem argument is, because he just crafted a perfect example of such: According to Neville, Kraus has only been critical of Neville’s writings because Kraus’s job depends on it. If Kraus didn’t “toe the party line” at Book of Mormon Central, Neville claims, then Kraus “couldn’t work there.”

Nowhere does Neville grant that Kraus may have written his reviews of A Man that Can Translate and Infinite Goodness merely because Kraus himself disagrees with Neville’s methods and conclusions. Nowhere does he grant that Kraus may have written his review without the knowledge or approval of those who manage Book of Mormon Central. According to Neville, Kraus cannot possibly be anything more than an errand-boy for the Powers that Be at the M2C Citation Cartel.

Ad hominem itself blushes in the face of Jonathan Neville.

I’m hearing complaints about Brother Kraus, but we can’t blame him.

This is perhaps the strangest statement of all in Neville’s blog post. Complaints? Complaints about what? And from whom? Neville doesn’t tell us, but that’s because he doesn’t really have anything on Spencer Kraus; instead, he’s simply trying to poison the well against a good young scholar who has obviously struck a nerve.

Being that Neville was once a lawyer, it’s a shame that he doesn’t seems to understand the legal concept of libel.

Peter Pan is a good example of the worst of LDS apologetics, which may explain why he’s also a favorite of Dan Peterson’s. He’s basically Dan’s alter ego, given how frequently Dan refers his readers to Peter’s work.

I’ve had people tell me Peter Pan’s identity, but I respect his wish to remain anonymous because what better better [sic] epitome could there be of the worst of LDS apologetics than an individual (or group) so ashamed by his (their) work that he (they) remains anonymous while publishing a blog named after their chosen nemesis? Even better, that blog is a tutorial on logical and factual fallacies.

It’s not often the Jonathan Neville acknowledges my existence, so I suppose I should be flattered just to be mentioned.

Neville claims that “people” (plural) have told him my identity. I have very good reasons to doubt that he’s telling the truth. (Among them is the fact that he can’t make his mind if I’m one person or multiple people.) Unless he’s willing to go public with my identity—and please, Brother Neville, you have my permission to do so, so go right ahead—I think he’s “blowing smoke,” as they say.

The disappointing thing here is that Neville didn’t even make an attempt to respond to anything I’ve written. He simply accused me of using “logical and factual fallacies” (something he’s claimed repeatedly) without bothering to tell his readers where and how I’ve done so. Meanwhile, this is this blog’s 308th published post that has quoted what he’s written and provided evidence of why he’s wrong. His accusation against me isn’t exactly a textbook example of ad hominem, but it’s certainly avoiding the argument.

Finally, Neville incorrectly assumes that I operate under a pseudonym because I’m deeply “ashamed” of my work. I confess that I laughed out loud at this. The truth is that I operate under the pseudonyum “Peter Pan” for three reasons:

1. I want to avoid being personally attacked by Jonathan Neville. (Seeing his attempt to start a whisper campaign concerning supposed “complaints” about Spencer Kraus, I think this has been a wise move.)
2. It’s in keeping with the playful name of the blog to use the names of characters from J.M. Barrie’s children’s books.
3. It annoys Jonathan Neville, and I take a small amount of perverse pleasure in that.

At least Neville seems to have given up on the (incorrect) belief that I’m secretly Daniel Peterson.

Second star to the right and straight on ’til morning!

—Peter Pan
 

Spencer Kraus’s trenchant review of Jonathan Neville’s Infinite Goodness

Following on the heels of last week’s review of A Man that Can Translate, Spencer Kraus has delivered his second knockout blow, this time to Neville’s most recent book, Infinite Goodness: Joseph Smith, Jonathan Edwards, and the Book of Mormon.

You can read his review, “Jonathan Edwards’s Unique Role in an Imagined Church History,” on the website of The Interpreter Foundation. Here is the abstract:

In Infinite Goodness, Neville claims that Joseph Smith’s vocabulary and translation of the Book of Mormon were deeply influenced by the famous Protestant minister Jonathan Edwards. Neville cites various words or ideas that he believes originate with Edwards as the original source for the Book of Mormon’s language. However, most of Neville’s findings regarding Edwards and other non-biblical sources are superficial and weak, and many of his findings have a more plausible common source: the language used by the King James Bible. Neville attempts to make Joseph a literary prodigy, able to read and reformulate eight volumes of Edwards’s sermons — with enough genius to do so, but not enough genius to learn the words without Edwards’s help. This scenario contradicts the historical record, and Neville uses sources disingenuously to impose his idiosyncratic and wholly modern worldview onto Joseph Smith and his contemporaries.

Kraus also recently published a blog post that’s a companion to his two reviews: “Joseph in the Hands of an Angry Pseudo-scholar,” which I enthusiastically recommend to all my readers.

Kraus has truly done yeoman’s work in the field of Neville Studies. His reviews are what I myself would have written, if I had the time and the patience to do so.

Meanwhile, Jonathan Neville has fired back at Kraus’s first review, delivering little gems like this nonsensical strawman argument:

According to the Interpreter, because I still believe Joseph translated the plates, I’m the one who “fails to deal with the historical record seriously or faithfully.”

What Neville’s personal beliefs have to do with his inability to engage in responsible scholarship is beyond me. Apparently, it’s beyond him as well.

—Peter Pan
 

Another of Jonathan Neville’s specious comparisons

One consistent aspect of Jonathan Neville’s arguments is that they sound or appear plausible at first, but on further examination they quickly begin to fall apart.

Some examples of this can be found in his April 29, 2022, blog post, “M2C NPCs”:

Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has brought out the differences of opinion about “free speech.” Here’s an [sic] summary from a Twitter user:

Perhaps what is happening here is that the left doesn’t want to engage in any debate because they know that they can’t win the argument if the other side is allowed to speak.

The parallels to the M2C and SITH citation cartels are apparent.

They’re only “apparent” if you buy Neville’s false claim that Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter Foundation, and BYU Studies Quarterly don’t publish Heartland research because these organizations “reject the teachings of the prophets” about the location of the hill Cumorah. The truth is that these organizations don’t publish research by Heartlanders because—as I’ve documented on this blog—they continually use irresponsible scholarly methods, continually appeal to conspiracy theories, continually treat fraudulent artifacts as genuine, and continually misrepresent the arguments of those who disagree with them (including, in at least one instance, comparing people who disagree with them to Satan).

But just because these organizations don’t publish Heartland research doesn’t mean they don’t “want to engage in any debate because they know that they can’t win the argument if the other side is allowed to speak.” Heartlanders have many websites and blogs through which they disseminate their views. (Neville himself has, as of the date of this writing, thirty-one blogs that he maintains.) Book of Mormon Central and the Interpreter Foundation have reviewed Heartland publications (see here and here), and BYU Studies has published a favorable examination of the New York Cumorah (see here), so any claim that they are refusing to “engage in debate” is simply false. Finally, Heartland publications and conferences don’t promote opposing views; does that mean that Heartlanders aren’t “allowing the other side to speak”? Of course not.

Neville’s comparison of debate among Latter-day Saints over issues of importance to Heartlanders to Twitter’s controversial practice of banning users is therefore inaccurate, bordering on ludicrous.

In the same blog post, Neville complains that he “keep[s] hearing the same tired, ridiculous arguments from M2Cers,” including this example:

Q. The Book of Mormon doesn’t mention snow (except as a metaphor), so how could it have taken place in the Midwestern states through New York where it snows annually?

A. The New Testament doesn’t mention snow (except as a metaphor), so how could it have taken place in Israel, Turkey, etc., where it snows annually?

Neither the Book of Mormon nor the New Testament related weather reports.

This is a not just a bad comparison, it’s also a dodge—and not a clever one. By comparing the extensive historical narratives in the Book of Mormon to the much more limited narratives in the New Testament, he’s employed the logical fallacy of the False Equivalence—an “apples and oranges” argument.

While it’s true that the New Testament only mentions snow three times—and each time only as a metaphor (see Matthew 28:3; Mark 9:3; Revelation 1:14)—the New Testament doesn’t contain anything like the broad, sweeping narrative histories that make up much of the Book of Mormon, including the Book of Mormon’s lengthy explanations of the migrations of groups of people and large-scale military operations. It would be more legitimate to compare the Book of Mormon to the Old Testament, which does mention snow in the land of Israel (e.g., 2 Samuel 23:20/1 Chronicles 11:22; Job 9:30; Job 24:19; Psalms 148:8; Jeremiah 18:14).

Deep drifts of snow in central Illinois, which the Nephites never mentioned in their record.

But even comparing the experience of the Israelites in the Old Testament to the experience of the people of Lehi in the Book of Mormon is still not entirely legitimate, because the Mediterranean climate of Israel is mild in comparison to the climate of the American Midwest. In Israel, temperatures are mild at the coast and hot in the inland deserts, and snow is only seen at elevations above 2,500 feet. The American Midwest, on the other hand, is wet and cold in the winter, with significant snowfall throughout the entire region. Modern Illinois—the purported site of “the plains of the Nephites”—typically receives 14 inches of snowfall annually in the south and 38 inches in the north. Anyone who is familiar with Latter-day Saint history knows how bitterly cold and snowy the winters were in New York and Ohio (which receive lake-effect snowstorms due to their proximity to the Great Lakes), as well as the horrific conditions the Saints experienced in Missouri in the winter of 1838/1839 and in Iowa in the winters of 1846/1847 and 1847/1848. The light dusting of snow seen occasionally in the hill country of Jerusalem simply doesn’t compare to the blizzard conditions regularly seen the American Midwest and Northeast.

The Book of Mormon always describes the Lamanites and the Gadianton robbers wearing next to no clothing (Enos 1:20; Mosiah 10:8; Alma 3:5; Alma 43:20; Alma 44:18; 3 Nephi 4:7). The only time individuals are described as wearing thick or heavy clothing was for defensive reasons, not for warmth (Alma 43:19; Alma 49:6). The text only uses the word snow once (metaphorically, by Nephi who was raised in the area near Jerusalem—1 Nephi 11:8) and the word cold is also only used once (also by Nephi to describe “the cold and silent grave”—2 Nephi 1:14).

The New Testament doesn’t mention snow because it has very little historical narrative and snow was not that common in the area around Israel. The Old Testament mentions snow occasionally because it has more historical narrative and snow did occasionally fall at lower elevations. The Book of Mormon doesn’t mention snow anywhere in its extensive historical narrative, despite the fact that (according to Heartlanders) it supposedly took place in a region where snow is frequent, common, and often deep.

Neville’s comparison of the Book of Mormon to the New Testament is both specious and disingenuous.

—Peter Pan
 

“If we start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right.”

In his powerful King Follett Sermon, Joseph Smith taught, “If we start right, it is very easy for us to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, it is hard to get right.”

Jonathan Neville’s fundamental claims “start wrong,” which is one of the reasons why his arguments so often fail to convince informed people. Here’s a recent example of his thinking:

President Oliver Cowdery said it was a fact that the final battles of the Jaredites and Nephites took place at the Hill Cumorah in western New York (Letter VII).…

Of course, it’s not only Oliver Cowdery who was wrong or correct. The New York Cumorah has been taught by every prophet/apostle who has addressed the topic of Cumorah. But Oliver takes the blame/credit for putting it into print (even though historical evidence shows Joseph taught it even before he got the plates, which he means he learned about Cumorah from Moroni.)

Book of Mormon Central (BMC) and the rest of the M2C citation cartel assume Oliver was wrong, and everything they produce flows from their obsession with offering evidence to oppose what Oliver taught. Their employees and followers amplify the message.

BMC employees know perfectly well that M2C is based on the assumption the prophets were wrong and have misled the Church. You can see them on the Internet trying try to justify their position. As good employees, they promote the BMC message and pretend their M2C theory is “evidence driven.”

Neville himself purports to know what participants in the “M2C citation cartel” have “assumed,” yet he’s seemingly unaware of the assumptions he himself makes. Let’s review five flawed assumptions he made in the quote above.

Neville’s faulty assumption #1: Oliver Cowdery’s “fact”

Oliver Cowdery wrote in Letter VII of “the fact, that here, between these hills, the entire power and national strength of both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed.” Neville assumes that Oliver was making a claim based on revealed knowledge and not inference or supposition.

Because the plates of Mormon were retrieved from a hill not far from Joseph Smith’s home and because the angel Moroni told Joseph that they contained “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent,” it would have been natural and understandable for early Latter-day Saints, including Oliver Cowdery, to assume that the final battle described in Mormon 6 took place at the same hill where the plates were retrieved. However, the Book of Mormon doesn’t doesn’t state—or even imply—that Moroni buried the plates in the same hill where his people met their end, and Mormon 6:6 explicitly says that Mormon buried all the records he had in the hill Cumorah “save [i.e., except] it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.”

(Neville seems to understand this, which is why he tries to bolster his claim by citing Lucy Mack Smith’s late reminiscences that refer to the New York hill as “Cumorah” as evidence that “Joseph taught it even before he got the plates” and therefore “he learned about Cumorah from Moroni.” As I pointed out almost three years ago, it’s a misuse of Lucy’s memoirs to place that much evidentiary weight on them.)

Just because Oliver used the term “fact” in Letter VII doesn’t necessarily mean that he knew it to be a fact, for many people, then and now, use that word for things they believe are true. (Merriam–Webster’s dictionary includes “a piece of information presented as having objective reality” as one definition of fact.) Neville also fails to mention the historical errors in Oliver’s letters, possibly because he knows that would undercut the authority of Letter VII and its supposed statement of “fact” concerning the New York hill Cumorah.

Neville’s faulty assumption #2: Prophetic and apostolic teaching about Cumorah

Neville is correct that most prophets and apostles since Oliver Cowdery’s time who have said something about the location of the hill Cumorah have affirmed that it is the same hill in New York that we call Cumorah today. He’s incorrect, though, in claiming that “every prophet/apostle who has addressed the topic of Cumorah” has affirmed this; as I’ve pointed out before, apostle John A. Widtsoe, in an article about Book of Mormon geography in the July 1950 issue of the Improvement Era noted that there was doubt concerning this matter:

There are also examples of prophets and apostles (including Elder Harold B. Lee) publicly and privately questioning if the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon and the hill Cumorah in New York are the same hill.

Ultimately, this—like Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII—comes down down to the question of whether the prophets and apostles who affirmed a New York Cumorah did so based on revelation or on conventional wisdom. Since there is a complete lack of any revelation or official statement from the First Presidency about the location of Cumorah, that question remains unresolved and is open for research, discussion, and debate.

Neville’s faulty assumption #3: “M2C” means “the prophets were wrong”

Neville’s persistent, key assertion is that if the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon wasn’t in New York, then the prophets who claimed it was (including Oliver Cowdery) were “wrong.”

But Neville is simply begging the question here: He assumes that prophets cannot be wrong without undercutting their prophetic authority. His assumption is incorrect, though: For example, several explanations for the priesthood ban were used by Church leaders and members for over 100 years; the Church declares now that “none of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.” (In 2006 Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said that “almost all of [these explanations] were inadequate and/or wrong.”) One ancient example of a prophet being wrong is when Nathan told David to build a temple, declaring to the king “the Lᴏʀᴅ is with thee,” only to have the Lord tell Nathan that night that he authorized no such project. (See 2 Samuel 7.)

So, prophets can be and have been wrong on occasion about some matters. Since the location of the hill Cumorah has no bearing whatsoever on salvation or on faith in the Book of Mormon—including faith in it as a historical record—it’s certainly within the realm of possibility that prophets and apostles who affirmed the New York location for this hill were honestly mistaken. Today the Church affirms that its “only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.” (Because that statement casts doubt on Neville’s central thesis, he’s done his level best to cast doubt on its authority.)

Neville’s faulty assumption #4: Book of Mormon Central and others “assume Oliver was wrong” and are “obsessed” with “opposing what he taught”

Those who argue that the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon was in Mesoamerica don’t “assume Oliver [Cowdery] was wrong,” neither do they “oppose” his passing remark in Letter VII. The truth is the reverse: It is Neville and his comrades in the Heartland movement who are “obsessed” with Letter VII; Neville appears to be projecting back his own obsession onto those who disagree with him, supposing that they must be as obsessed about their opinion about Book of Mormon geography as he is about his.

The truth is that scholars and informed lay people who believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the hill Cumorah don’t really spend any time thinking or worrying about Oliver Cowdery’s passing remark. His statement in Letter VII is interesting and informative from a historical perspective, but it’s not remotely as important as what the Book of Mormon itself has to say about its geography. The text itself is always going to be infinitely more illuminating than what its readers have had to say about it.

Neville’s faulty assumption #5: Book of Mormon Central employees “know perfectly well that M2C is based on the assumption the prophets were wrong and have misled the Church”

This is probably the worst of Neville’s assumptions, because it’s yet another example of his intimated ability to read the minds of those who disagree with him.

Here, Neville claims to know the thoughts of the people who work for Book of Mormon Central. Through this amazing power, he has learned that they know and actively believe that Church leaders were wrong and these Church leaders have misled members of the Church. This is a breathtaking claim, not only because extrasensory perception has never been shown to be a real ability, but also because Neville himself regularly and continually accuses Church leaders of misleading the Saints! (Here are four examples of that; there are many more under this blog’s Church leadership tag.)

The truth is that legitimate Latter-day Saint scholars (of whom Jonathan Neville is not one) rightly divide between revealed and/or authoritative statements made by Church leaders and passing remarks and statements of personal belief made by Church leaders. I don’t work for Book of Mormon Central, but I can guarantee you that no one affiliated with them believes that “the prophets were wrong and have misled the Church”; rather, they carefully examine the text of the Book of Mormon for clues about its geographical setting and use the best possible evidence to craft a plausible—but, lacking a revealed solution, still tenuous—explanation of where it may have taken place.

…

Six years ago, Jonathan Neville started on the path he is on now by deceiving Matthew Roper about his intentions when they met at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. In Joseph Smith’s words, he “started wrong,” and so it’s been hard for him since that time to “get right.”

—Peter Pan
 

The fraud behind Jonathan Neville’s “multiple working hypotheses”

Jonathan Neville doesn’t like the fact that Book of Mormon Central, Interpreter, BYU Studies, and other scholarly Latter-day Saint outlets don’t take his work seriously. He regularly accuses these organizations of “censoring” Heartlander claims. The alternative framework he prefers is one of “multiple working hypotheses,” which means that every theory should be be given equal weight, allowing readers to decide for themselves which one is accurate.

“Multiple working hypotheses,” however, is a fraud. It’s the same tactic used by young-earth creationists and flat-earthers who insist that their ideas should be taught in public schools alongside proven scientific theories. “Teach the controversy” is the slogan crafted by the Discovery Institute, an organization that advances the pseudoscientific claims of intelligent design. (The National Center for Science Education has responded to the Discovery Institute, and Amorphia Apparel has cleverly mocked their slogan.)

What’s particularly bad about Jonathan Neville’s “multiple working hypotheses” claim is how hypocritical it is of him to advance it. For example, in his September 15, 2021, blog post about Book of Mormon geography, he writes:

I often refer to “multiple working hypotheses.” The concept means a variety of interpretations of the same facts. I’m all in favor of different ideas. What I don’t favor is censorship, omitting facts, and conflating facts with assumptions, opinion, inferences, hearsay, etc.

I’ve emphasized the last portion of that quote because it’s a stunning claim, considering that Jonathan Neville regularly does exactly what he says he doesn’t favor. Probably the most egregious example of this is his “demonstration” theory, which he’s been advancing for a couple of years now.

Faced with the overwhelming numbers of eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon by means of a seer stone, Neville has claimed that when Joseph used a stone in his hat he was only demonstrating how the translation process worked. The problems with this claim are twofold:

1. There is not a shred of evidence to support it. Not a single person who knew or was acquainted with Joseph Smith ever even so much as suggested that he might have been just demonstrating the translation method when he used a stone. There is a total lack of any contemporary or late testimony that backs up Neville’s theory.
2. It’s not falsifiable. Because there’s not even one eyewitness who said anything about a demonstration, pro or con, Neville can put forth this claim and then challenge his critics to prove he’s wrong. Real history and real science don’t work that way, of course; the onus is on Neville to provide evidence that he’s right instead of simply creating an ad hoc theory to resolve problems inherent with his insistence that Joseph Smith used only the Nephite interpreters—the Urim and Thummim—to translate the Book of Mormon.

In short, Neville is pulling the same fast one that the Discovery Institute does: Create an alternative explanation that is based on flawed analysis, a lack of evidence, and/or an abuse of the scientific method, then complain that one’s theory is being “censored” or “suppressed” when it’s rejected by mainstream scholars, instructors, and academic organizations. (“Teach the controversy!”)

Another tactic regularly employed by Jonathan Neville is poisoning the well, a logical fallacy in which one commits “a preemptive ad hominem (abusive) attack against an opponent” by “prim[ing] the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable.” A clear example of this tactic shows up in Neville’s September 15th blog post:

One resource that presents multiple working hypotheses is here:

https://bookofmormon.online/map

This is one of the best sites I’m aware of for info about the Book of Mormon.

I’m told that Book of Mormon Central acquired the site, which may explain the editorial bias evident throughout. (Yes, I realize that one could argue this site contradicts my claim that BMC doesn’t want people to consider multiple working hypotheses, but the site had these maps before BMC acquired it.)…

The “Mesoamerican” map description uses the typical appeal to authority fallacy: “subscribed to by most mainstream LDS scholars at BYU and the Maxwell Institute.” In reality, the Maxwell Institute takes no position on the question, there has never been a poll of “mainstream LDS scholars at BYU,” many of whom don’t accept Mesoamerica, and this appeal to authority boils down to the efforts of a handful of scholars in the M2C citation cartel—including the ones who own this website. Book of Mormon Central insists people must accept M2C to even participate in their efforts to share the Book of Mormon with the world.

There are many problems with Neville’s statement, but the one I’ve emphasized is the well-poisoning example. Neville has been “told” that Book of Mormon Central acquired BookOfMormon.online, but he doesn’t tell us who told him this information or where he learned it so that we can assess how accurate his claim is.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that the ownership claim is true, Neville then implies that Book of Mormon Central has changed the site’s content since acquiring it, and that explains the “editorial bias evident throughout” the site. He provides no evidence whatsoever that the site has been modified in any way by Book of Mormon Central (who may or may not own it), but that doesn’t stop him from (once again) insinuating that there’s a grand conspiracy to keep Latter-day Saints from “consider[ing] multiple working hypotheses.”

Since he’s on a roll with claims that lack any demonstrable evidence, he also tells his readers that “Book of Mormon Central insists people must accept M2C to even participate in their efforts to share the Book of Mormon with the world.” Where did any representative from Book of Mormon Central say or write this? How does he know this to be true? He doesn’t tell us because it isn’t true.

As I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, Jonathan Neville has a problem telling the truth. The reason that mainstream organizations like Book of Mormon Central, Interpreter, and BYU Studies don’t publish his and other Heartlander materials isn’t because of some weird fetish with “M2C”; it’s because Neville and his comrades make claims without supporting evidence, irresponsibly distort the historic and scientific record, and regularly accuse those who disagree with them of acting in bad faith.

If you want into the Real Scholars Club®, Brother Neville, you’re going to need to play nice and not make stuff up. It’s really just that simple.

—Peter Pan