Peter Pan and Slander Dan

Recently during the Q&A after a podcast, a viewer asked if I could have lunch with and be friends with Mike Parker. I don't know Mike Parker; at least, I don't remember ever meeting him. Apparently he claims to be the real person behind the "Peter Pan" pseudonym who writes the blog that Dan Peterson (aka, Slander Dan and Dan the Interpreter) has been touting for years. I have no idea whether Mike Parker is the "real" Peter Pan, nor does that matter, because it is Slander Dan who promotes the blog. Without Slander Dan behind it, no one would know or care about the blog. More on Dan below.*

Back to the blog that, in good Slander Dan fashion, features my last name in its title. Debates about issues can be productive and useful, and I welcome them. But we've seen for years that Dan and other M2C citation cartel members get easily offended and lash out with ad hominem and other logical fallacies that undermine the credibility and usefulness of whatever valuable material they offer. This has puzzled me for a long time, but now Peter Pan unveiled their rationale, as we'll see below.

Back again to the blog. Some time ago someone sent me a link to it. I clicked on it and read an article that was so ridiculous that it was no wonder the author used a pseudonym. 

One thing for sure: the author chose an appropriate name: Peter Pan, the boy who never grows up, as the theme song explains:

I won't grow up.
----I wont grow up
I will never even try
----I will never even try
I will do what Peter tells me
----I will do what Peter tells me
And I'll never ask him why
----And I'll never ask him why

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nydUgAr3xek.

Peter Pan and the Interpreters

The rants on the blog post I read were childish and snarky, consistent with the reputation Slander Dan has accumulated during his career. I figured it was either Dan himself, or one of his admirers/fans, who was writing under the pseudonym.

But now Mike Parker claims to be the author.

Which is fine. Whether or not he's the actual author, I'd be happy to meet Mike for lunch, or have a conversation, or be friends, or whatever. If nothing else, I'm curious about his thought process. 

That leads into this quotation someone sent me from Peter Pan's unveiling:

Jonathan Neville has set forth specific propositions that are at odds with the historical record, at odds with what has been taught by leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and at odds with careful analysis of the data. He’s free to believe whatever he wants to believe, but when he publicly advocates for his beliefs, then he opens himself up to review, criticism, and rebuttal.

I believe that his teachings will destroy faith and confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ and its divinely ordained leaders. As I wrote above, I’m sure that Jonathan Neville is a nice person, but his words are spiritually toxic. The [ ] blog exists to expose and examine his teachings and the erroneous statements of others in the Heartland movement.

I assume this is representative or typical of Mike's work. That would explain why Slander Dan likes it so much. 

Let's go through this.

What are the "specific propositions" I have set forth?

Anyone who has read my books or heard me speak knows that I disagree with the citation cartel because, unlike them, I still believe what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery taught about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

That's it.

Nothing I've said contradicts the teachings of Church leaders, all of whom I fully support, both past and present. (After all, I'm currently a Pathway missionary, I teach two Institute classes online, and I'm first counselor in our Bishopric.) 

People can disagree about the interpretation of historical sources, but the sources themselves are objective facts.

This table summarizes our different approaches. I'm interested in corroborating the teachings of the prophets; Mike and his fellow scholars seek to repudiate those teachings.

Me	Dan Peterson, Mike Parker, Steve Smoot, Jack Welch, Brant Gardner, Royal Skousen, and their followers and 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.
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.
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. M2C 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. M2C is the truth that must be defended against those who still believe the teachings of the prophets.
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).
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).

Summary of the table:

click to enlarge

Back to Mike's post.

He’s free to believe whatever he wants to believe, but when he publicly advocates for his beliefs, then he opens himself up to review, criticism, and rebuttal.

Hence the Peter Pan persona, the blog, and all the rest. 

I'm fine with "review, criticism, and rebuttal," so long as it is honest and clear. However, the citation cartel, as Mike's post quoted above shows, continues to obscure the main point that of disagreement.

I still believe what Joseph and Oliver taught. They don't.

We all look at the same historical sources. Everyone who reads my work can see which sources I consider more credible than others, and that's a fair conversation to have. 

But creating and promoting an ad hominem blog that misrepresents my views is not a serious way to engage the topics. It's simply childish, worthy of the name Peter Pan. 

I've long said I'd be happy to meet in person, do a presentation at a FAIRLDS conference, or a podcast with the Interpreter, or write articles, or do peer reviews, or engage in any other way. Instead, the citation cartel has outright refused. They prefer the sniper attacks and misdirection from an anonymous blog. (Ironically, Dan the Interpreter frequently complains about anonymous bloggers.)

I believe that his teachings will destroy faith and confidence in The Church of Jesus Christ and its divinely ordained leaders. 

This is pure Newspeak (War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength). 

Whereas I seek to corroborate, support and sustain the teachings of the prophets, past and present, Mike and his friends specifically and deliberately seek to persuade Latter-day Saints (and others) that Joseph and Oliver misled everyone about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. They further claim that every subsequent Church leader who has reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught also misled the Church by expressing false personal opinions.

We can all see the impact of the citation cartel with their M2C and SITH theories.

After decades of rapid growth, the rise of the M2C and SITH theories has led to a decline in faith, conversions, and activity, as the data shows us.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

Given that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, it should hardly seem surprising that repudiating the foundation built by Joseph and Oliver regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon has a deleterious impact. 

Yet Peter Pan, Slander Dan, and their like-minded followers (and donors) continue to double-down on their destructive approach.

As I wrote above, I’m sure that Jonathan Neville is a nice person, but his words are spiritually toxic. The [ ] blog exists to expose and examine his teachings and the erroneous statements of others in the Heartland movement.

He's right about one thing. I am a nice person.

:)

Plus, I encourage people to make their own decisions. I offer my interpretations of the facts, which for me and many others are uplifting and useful for building and affirming faith, but I'm also fine with alternatives, including M2C if people want to believe that; i.e., multiple working hypotheses.

"Spiritually toxic" is a fascinating term. The only thing my work is toxic to is the teachings of the scholars who have repudiated what Joseph and Oliver taught. 

There is hardly any need to "expose" (pejorative term) my "teachings" (as if I had any teachings). I'm perfectly open in my blogs, books, interviews, and presentations.

The only way Peter Pan can dupe his readers is by mischaracterizing what I've said and written, with the eager encouragement of Slander Dan.

Whether or not Mike Parker is Peter Pan, and whether or not he sheds the pseudonym, everyone can see for themselves the childish tactics of the citation cartel. 

But sure. Let's do lunch.

You know how to contact me.

_____

*Back when the Maxwell Institute kicked Dan out of FARMS, some of us thought Dan might modify his behavior and become a legitimate apologist. Instead, he took the spirits that followed him and started the Interpreter, an astonishingly arrogant name. There is no more priestcrafty term for an organization than claiming to be the "Interpreters." Co-opting that scriptural term was an unambiguous declaration by Dan and his followers about their stated intentions, which they've fulfilled ever since. It's amazing that any serious (or gospel) scholars participate under such a rubric.