The good stuff 1

I've often said that the Interpreter publishes some good material. People ask me for examples. Here's one:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/moving-beyond-the-historicity-question-or-a-manifesto-for-future-book-of-mormon-research/#more-64352

This is a thoughtful review of the book titled Book of Mormon Studies: An Introduction and Guide. The review does an excellent job summarizing and explaining this important and useful book.

Predictably, the review is a little defensive about the Interpreter. 

There are thirty references from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies in the [Page 307]appendix, but only a single, must-read reference from the Interpreter... Finally, the description of Interpreter in Book of Mormon Studies is far from kind.

Toward the end, the article ironically describes the "Gatekeeper problem."

The Gatekeeper Problem

Another problem with the book and its contents is that it feels somewhat inbred. I greatly admire much of the work done by the authors, but I also admire work done by other scholars not affiliated with the organizations in which the authors exercise gatekeeping power. The authors have been remarkably productive researchers and have made valuable contributions to our understanding of the Book of Mormon, but so have others unaffiliated with the Maxwell Institute, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, the Latter-day Saint Theology Seminar, and the Academy of Book of Mormon Studies. The authors of Book of Mormon Studies complain42 about too restrictive gatekeeping and a lack of openness to alternative perspectives in the FARMS era. Whether those concerns have merit, the authors themselves generally include in their list of contemporary scholarship work primarily done by the authors and others affiliated with the organizations in which they serve as principals. The value of their survey would be greater if their canon of worthwhile research were more open and broader.

The Gatekeeper problem is the primary deficiency in the Interpreter (apart from the arrogant name of the journal). The Editorial Board of the Interpreter would be well served to reconsider their gatekeeping approach.

they want papers that support certain preapproved narratives.

Article in the Wall St. Journal helps explain the Interpreter's editorial bias against alternative faithful narratives.

How ‘Preapproved Narratives’ Corrupt Science

Especially in climate and Covid research, abuse of peer review and self-censorship abound.

By 

Allysia Finley

Oct. 1, 2023

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-preapproved-narratives-corrupt-science-false-studies-covid-climate-change-5bee0844?st=bznj8isxnar1tr3&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Excerpts (emphasis added):

Scientists were aghast last month when Patrick Brown, climate director at the Breakthrough Institute in Berkeley, Calif., acknowledged that he’d censored one of his studies to increase his odds of getting published. Credit to him for being honest about something his peers also do but are loath to admit.

In an essay for the Free Press, Mr. Brown explained that he omitted “key aspects other than climate change” from a paper on California wildfires because such details would “dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.” Editors of scientific journals, he wrote, “have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives.”

Nature’s editor, Magdalena Skipper, denied that the journal has “a preferred narrative.” No doubt the editors at the New York Times and ProPublica would say the same of their own pages.

[As would editors at the Interpreter.]

Mr. Brown’s criticisms aren’t new. In 2005 Stanford epidemiologist John Ioannidis wrote an essay titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” He contended that scientists “may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings.”

“The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true,” Dr. Ioannidis argued. “Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure.”

In addition, many scientists use the peer-review process to suppress findings that challenge their own beliefs, which perpetuates “false dogma.” 

[Exactly what the Interpreter does.]

As Dr. Ioannidis explained, the more scientists there are in a field, the more competition there is to get published and the more likely they are to produce “impressive ‘positive’ results” and “extreme research claims.”

The same dynamic applies to Covid research. A July study in the Journal of the American Medical Association purported to find higher rates of excess deaths among Republican voters in Florida and Ohio after vaccines had been rolled out. Differences in partisan vaccination attitude, the study concluded, may have contributed to the “severity and trajectory of the pandemic.”

But the study lacked information on individuals’ vaccination and cause of death. It also didn’t adjust for confounding variables, such as underlying health conditions and behaviors. Charts buried in the study’s appendix showed excess deaths among older Republicans started to exceed Democrats in mid-2020—well before vaccines were available.

Despite these flaws, the study was published and pumped by left-wing journalists because it promoted their preferred narrative. ...

Journals often don’t compensate peer reviewers, which can result in perfunctory work. The bigger problem is that reviewers often disregard a study’s flaws when its conclusions reinforce their own biases. One result is that “a large share of what is published may not be replicable or is obviously false,” Dr. Ioannidis notes. “Even outright fraud may be becoming more common.”

As scientists struggle to publish against-the-grain research, many are turning to preprint servers—online academic repositories—to debunk studies in mainstream journals. Yet even some of those sites, such as the Social Science Research Network, are blocking studies that don’t fit preapproved narratives.

...

Scientific journals and preprint servers aren’t selective about research quality. They’re selective about the conclusions. If experts want to know why so many Americans don’t trust “science,” they have their answer. Too many scientists no longer care about science.

From Darkness Unto Light review

Readers of this blog may not realize I posted a review of the MacKay/Dirkmaat book here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2022/07/from-darkness-unto-light-omitting.html

SITH origin: Dehlin, Smoot, MacKay, Dirkmaat

 Because this involves an article in the Interpreter, I'm archiving it here from one of my other blogs.

_____

No one has a problem with historians (or anyone else) proposing interpretations of the historical record. We all understand the concept of multiple working hypotheses, and we all agree people can believe whatever they want.

But we expect people to at least be clear about the facts and the assumptions, inferences, and theories that lead to their hypotheses and conclusions. 

When we pursue clarity, charity, and understanding, we start with clarity for a reason. Obfuscation and misdirection don't lead to understanding but to confusion. People can't make informed decisions when they don't have clarity about the facts--and about the difference between facts and assumptions, inferences, etc. When people simply omit facts to persuade others to accept their hypotheses, we all want an explanation for why they omitted those facts. 

IOW, don't just omit relevant facts without at least explaining why. We may or may not agree with your explanation, but we want to know you have one.

_____

In the pursuit of clarity, we've seen previously how M2C originated with a map published in 1917 (and 1918, 1919, and 1923) by an RLDS scholar named L.E. Hills* whose theory that the "real Cumorah/Ramah" was in Mexico was promptly rejected by both RLDS and LDS leaders who reaffirmed what Joseph and Oliver taught. But LDS scholars who rejected what the prophets taught about Cumorah persisted in promoting Hills' M2C theory. They've raised and spent millions of dollars from faithful Latter-day Saints to all but erase the New York Cumorah/Ramah from the collective memory of the Church.

Fortunately, no amount of money can erase what everyone can read right in the Joseph Smith Papers.

And, as always, if anyone thinks I've erred or misstated anything, feel free to email me at lostzarahemla@gmail.com and I'll make the corrections. 

_____

A similar process is underway to establish SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory), particularly by John Dehlin, Stephen O. Smoot, Michael Hubbard MacKay, and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat.

As we'll see, Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat omitted highly relevant facts about SITH and invented an opposite narrative instead that they've promoted heavily. In the pursuit of charity, we can assume they have a good faith reason for doing so, but it's difficult to imagine what that might be. At any rate, they should have disclosed the facts and explained why they omitted them.

Here's the problem. Not only did they publish this false narrative years ago with no pushback from the LDS scholarly community, but as recently as this year--2023--they persuaded Deseret Book to promote the false narrative with additional embellishments--all to establish SITH as the only acceptable explanation for the Book of Mormon.

_____

Some people think SITH became prominent among Latter-day Saints because of Richard Bushman's book Rough Stone Rolling, published in 2007. But Bushman accurately reported the historical accounts. He could/should have clarified a few things and added additional references, as suggested here, https://www.mobom.org/rsr-review, but he didn't change the historical record to promote an agenda. 

John Dehlin's 2013 "Faith Crisis Report" took SITH a step further by claiming SITH was the actual origin of the Book of Mormon and that there was a "gap" between the "true" SITH accounts and the "false" teachings of the Church regarding the Urim and Thummim. Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcast has repeated that theme ever since.

(click to enlarge)

Dehlin's report led to the publication of the Gospel Topics Essays, including the essay on Book of Mormon Translation which adopted Dehlin's narrative. The essay doesn't even quote what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation; instead, it selectively quotes from other sources to promote the Dehlin narrative. For an analysis, see https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2022/09/analysis-gospel-topics-essay-on-book-of.html.

The 2015 book From Darkness Unto Light, by Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, quoted original sources and wove a narrative that further persuaded many Latter-day Saints to accept SITH (the stone-in-the-hat theory). However, without explaining why, the authors omitted original sources that contradicted SITH. Worse, they also falsified the historical record to promote SITH. 

Specifically, they invented a narrative around Jonathan Hadley, who published the first known account of the translation. 

Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat claim Joseph Smith visited Hadley to ask if he would publish the Book of Mormon. They claim Joseph related the SITH account to him. They claim that Hadley was initially amiable toward Joseph Smith, and that Hadley's account should be accepted on its face.

Yet in an account they don't even cite (let alone quote), Hadley himself said it was Martin Harris alone who visited him. Hadley never said Joseph visited him. He never said he ever met Joseph. And he explained that he not only refused to have anything to do with the publication, but that he would "expose" the "whole Mormon gang" if they succeeded in publishing the Book of Mormon.

IOW, Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat claim SITH originated with Joseph Smith, when the historical record shows us that it originated with an avowed antagonist who had never even met Joseph Smith.

Stephen O. Smoot wrote an enthusiastic review in the Interpreter.

But perhaps the most fascinating insight to be found in this section of the book is the discussion of Jonathan A. Hadley’s 1829 account of his visit with Joseph Smith. Printer of the Palmyra Freeman, Hadley reported in August 1829 that the Prophet had recently come to him seeking to contract the publication of the Book of Mormon. Although he contemptuously dismissed his account of the recovery of the plates, Hadley nevertheless reported Joseph’s description to him of the physical dimensions thereof. 

This is the type of "peer approval" at the Interpreter that we've all come to know and love. It's what happens when people rely on what others write without looking at the original sources.

MacKay and Dirkmaat were so enamored with their Hadley narrative that they included it on the first page of their latest book, Let's Talk About the Translation of the Book of Mormon, published in 2023 by Deseret Book.

Consequently, Deseret Book is officially on record for promoting the false narrative that SITH originated with Joseph Smith.

I posted a detailed analysis about all of this. It's an excerpt from the appendix in an upcoming book about LDS apologetics. You can read it here:

http://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2023/08/the-jonathan-hadley-account-and-sith.html 

Here's a brief example of the Smoot/MacKay/Dirkmaat narrative, compared to what Hadley actually said. 

Smoot, MacKay, Dirkmaat

Hadley

Though Hadley's small-time operation could not accommodate the herculean project of printing the Book of Mormon, he went from amiable to incensed after Joseph eventually agreed to terms with the recalcitrant Grandin rather than Hadley's more well-positioned friend in Rochester. Joseph had described to Hadley many of the remarkable events that had let him to the plates and how they were translated. Now Hadley determined to undermine Joseph Smith by relating the fantastical events Joseph had told him.

Soon after the translation was completed, I was one day waited upon by Harris, and offered the printing of the Book of Mormon. This was in the summer of 1829, at which time I was carrying on the printing business at Palmyra. Harris owned a good farm in that town, and offered to mortgage it to secure the expense of printing. Though he was a subscriber to my paper, and had frequently "labored" to convert me to the Mormon faith, I was so sceptical as to utterly refuse to have any "part or lot" in the imposition, telling him at the same time, that if he proceeded with the publication, I should feel it my duty, as the conductor of a faithful public journal, to expose him and the whole Mormon gang. He took the work, however, to the other office in the village, and it was soon put to press. It was then I wrote and published an article, which you may recollect, headed "THE GOLDEN BIBLE," giving a history of the humbug up to that time. This article was extensively copied, it having been the first ever published about the Mormons.

The MacKay/Dirkmaat narrative as it appears on the first page of Let's Talk About:

Smoot promoting SITH in the Interpreter:

_____

*The simulation winked at us by having a guy named "Hills" promote the idea of "two hills Cumorah" or M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory). We should have known all along it was fake news.

A new paper helps explain why the Interpreters (including FAIRLDS, Book of Mormon Central, the Interpreter, Mormon Stories, and the CES Letter) all coalesce around SITH.

These groups all promote the prevailing bias that Joseph Smith didn't really translate anything.

_____

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

"Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias."

Dan Peterson turns a new leaf?

A friend sent me this fine-sounding article:

https://www.ldsliving.com/why-latter-day-saints-need-to-defend-our-beliefs-even-as-we-avoid-contention/s/89635

It's wonderful to see Dan call for no more contention after I started my blog nomorecontention.com.

This could be another breakthrough from the Interpreters. 

Imagine how different the conversation would be if, when speaking or writing about fellow Latter-day Saints with whom they disagree, Dan and the Interpreters changed course and chose to "call upon them to meet you both in public and in private" instead of taking potshots and hiding behind the racist Peter Pan pseudonym to engage?

I would be happy if they ever accepted my invitations to meet and work through differences, but so far they've consistently refused. And I've never declined an invitation from them to meet in private or in public.

_____

Part of this article is an excellent sentiment that everyone should endorse. Avoiding contention is the purpose of the nomorecontention.com site.

But what about the "defending our beliefs" part? 

The very terminology'--"defending"--invokes contention. The King James translators thoughtfully used "answer" instead of "defense" because the passage refers to someone "asking for a reason" for the hope that is in us. This calls for an explanation or an answer, not a defensive assumption that an answer is an attack. 

Framing it as a "defense" implies an accusation. While maybe more technically correct to translate it as "defend" from the Greek, the KJV translators suggested an answer is a non-contentious way to respond when people ask about the hope that is in us. Instead of being defensive, simply answer or explain our reasons in a positive, confident and enthusiastic way.

This involves clarity and understanding, not offensive and defensive posturing.

And what beliefs is Dan defending, anyway?

Certainly Dan is entitled to defend his beliefs, which are squarely in the "Some" category.

Believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed
All	Some	None
Believe what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon	Believe some, but not all, of what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon	Disbelieve what Joseph and Oliver claimed about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon

There's nothing wrong with the "Some" category, but we all need to be crystal clear about what beliefs were are explaining.

Maybe in the future, Dan and the other Interpreters will take his own advice. 

Maybe Dan will come to disavow, discontinue, and discourage the long-standing practice of the Interpreters who continually criticize, mock and belittle fellow Latter-day Saints who disagree with him.

Let's all hope so!

How the Interpreters perpetrated the racist Peter Pan fraud

Apparently Dan has decided to perpetuate the Peter Pan disaster by discussing it on his blog.

Some, probably most, of the readers of the Interpreter have not watched Bill Reel's expose of the Peter Pan fiasco. Here is part of a summary.

At one point, Bill points out that Mike Parker and other Interpreters apparently claimed that Bill would show excerpts from the video Mike did with Robert Boylan. Instead, as anyone can see, Bill played the entire thing. What Bill adds is that it was Mike and Robert who edited out a key part of their recording!

In the since-deleted passage, Mike describes the complicity of the Interpreter magazine and labels the entire episode as a "sort of a joke."

Here is the transcript from the part of the video in which Bill played a portion of the video that Mike and his friends edited out of the one they put up on youtube.

Mike Parker and Robert Boylan talking 

People can watch it starting here: https://youtu.be/Jhu3TSjDHj0?t=9136

2:32:16 Bill Reel: they accused us, they said we were going to cut up clips and take everything out of context. We didn't do that. We played the whole thing. uh I don't think there's anything that we needed to do like I think it's so plain to people who are watching this this obfuscation and dishonesty that I don't have a need to paint a new narrative. 

We're the ones I think who are telling the truth on this issue but it is important to note that they actually did cut out a clip and we'll play that right now.

2:32:46 Mike Parker: but about this same time um Spencer Krause is getting ready to publish his reviews in Interpreter of two of Jonathan Neville's books and he offered as kind of a lighthearted uh sort of humorous thing in his acknowledgments at the bottom that he was going to thank several people and he mentioned me by name you know thanks so-and-so and Mike Parker for this and I also thank the pseudonymous Peter Pan who operates the Neville Neville land blog, you know. 

And so this was kind of a haha sort of a joke but also you know maybe a light way of kind of just throwing people off the scent.

Bill: It's another admittance of throwing people off the scent.

At this point of the video, Bill shows where the Interpreters first invented their racist alter ego for Peter Pan.

on the left hand side you can see

18:08

Robert Bolin at LDS apologist or apologen and he's got an image of

18:15

Brigham Young holding a firearm and he's not it's not even pointing it at uh

18:21

ex-mormons or anti-mormons right which you sort of can get instead he says

18:26

Brigham Young has a message for progmos Progressive Mormons these are believing uh Latter-Day Saints on some level

18:34

and they're active in the church on some level and he's got Brigham Young pointing a firearm at him so if that's

18:40

any indication of the kind of messaging he seems really comfortable with

18:45

uh it's also of note that he has worked closely with Fair Mormon I've got an image of one of the podcasts that they

18:50

did a Sunday special with Robert and he also works closely with The

18:56

Interpreter I'm gonna play the audio of him for the very first time this is the

19:01

very first mention of Richard Nygren uh anything you want to say before we play the video well I just want to say I'm

19:07

friends with a lot of progressive Mormons um very good friends and I when I look at this image

19:14

and I think of the who he wants to have that gun pointed at I'm I find that to be very sad and very

19:20

unchristian yeah it's super absolutely offensive for sure um okay so here uh is that video clip

19:28

and if you'll just give me a thumbs up as it starts to play to let me know if the sound is playing okay and uh we'll

19:34

be good oh I should have mentioned uh loudly

19:40

life into true.blogspot.com and of course there's also Russian migrants blog Neville Neville land a

19:47

Blog critique in Johnson Neville mainly but also other Herbert proponents where he posted a nickname Peter Pan uh

19:54

Richard is one of only a few African-American apologists in the church at the moment and he lives in

19:59

Birmingham Alabama um so be sure to check those out as well in

20:05

the show notes Okay so

20:11

and it's important to note that nowhere else on the internet

20:17

anywhere is is there a uh black believing Latter-Day Saint defending the

20:23

church under the name of Richard Nygren this is the very first time that anyone in the LDS Mormon World heard the name

20:32

Richard Nygren and it comes out of the mouth of Robert Bolin

Purging Mike Parker?

Mike Parker's newfound popularity as the subject of Bill Reel's popular video is shining a light on other Interpreters as well. 

I assume that all of the people associated with the Interpreter are sincere, smart, faithful, and wonderful human beings, including Mike. For some of them, though, apologetics has shaped their worldview contrary to their better judgment, as we see in Bill Reel's video and the ensuing fallout. 

I hope Bill's video will lead to a reformation at the Interpreter in terms of being more inclusive and respectful, at least regarding faithful Latter-day Saints who don't share the positions and "interpretations" enforced by the Interpreter editorial board. 

But realistically, the organization's name--Interpreter Foundation--precludes any sort of traditional or open scholarly inquiry.

The name reflects the mindset of the organization.

Mike's "Peter Pan" fiasco, warmly embraced and promoted by Dan Peterson and other Interpreters, has pulled back the curtain on the darker side of LDS apologetics. As the "Interpreters," the editors and their regular contributors have appointed themselves as gatekeepers. They enforce their own "interpretations" through their system of peer-approval, their closed incestuous citation loop, and their style of apologetics following the Dan Peterson model. 

Purging Mike Parker seems unfair and unnecessary. But also insufficient. After all, his antics didn't occur in a vacuum. It seems unlikely that anyone at the Interpreter was unaware of Mike's "Peter Pan" alter ego, given Dan's frequent and enthusiastic endorsement. From the outside, it looks like Mike is taking the blame for the entire organization. After all, the Interpreter journal itself perpetuated the Peter Pan fraud, as we see in Bill's video.

But now Peter Pan is becoming the public identity of the Interpreter. Already, in less than a week, Bill Reel's video has more youtube views than all but 4 of the Interpreter's youtube videos (and those were released years ago).

Because I haven't watched the Interpreter's Scripture Roundtables or podcasts, I didn't realize Mike was such an integral part of the Interpreter team for so long. 

But now he's omitted from the list of hosts, despite his having hosted numerous podcasts and videos over the years.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/category/interpreter-radio/

Ten years ago Mike was a regular panelist. 

On January 9, 2013, he joined Ben McGuire, Daniel Peterson, and Martin Tanner as panelists for this roundtable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q32DCMK0BJA&list=PLRMn4gyXMWLv0J_LWTAaS-BGIatyJ0tF8&index=6

In December 2013, he joined Stephen Smoot, Mike Parker, Jeffrey Bradshaw, and Martin Tanner. Stephen Smoot, of course, also appears in the Bill Reel video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNw-RlAtokY

Within the last year, while promoting his Peter Pan charade, Mike has hosted several Interpreter podcasts. His co-hosts are still included in the list of "Our Hosts" as we can see above.

Mike has done several shows in the past with Dan Peterson and other Interpreters which anyone can watch or listen to from the Interpreter website.

The only question remaining is how many of the current Interpreters appreciate being tainted by Peter Pan enough to continue with the organization and its tactics?

Rotten apples

Most of the people who work at and contribute to the Interpreter Foundation are serious, respectable, faithful, and diligent scholars. They've made useful contributions to Latter-day Saint scholarship, offered new insights, and provoked thoughtful consideration of important issues. They have earned our respect and gratitude for their work.

Plus, they're nice people (so long as you don't disagree with them in any substantial way.*)

But as the saying goes, a rotten apple spoils the barrel. 

In the "Peter Pan" saga, we have a few "interpreters" who adopted and promoted a false, racist pseudonym that they published in their own journal, as discussed here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/clown-world-m2c-citation-cartel-and.html

In a series of upcoming posts, we'll discuss these "interpreters" in more detail.

_____

*Their intolerance of alternative perspectives may be an inevitable result of them working under the rubric of "Interpreter." As "interpreters," they have a congealed worldview, built on their internally derived consensus, that they seem obsessed with defending at all costs. 

Why honorable scholars choose to identify as "interpreters" this way remains a bit perplexing. First, they ripped the name right out of the scriptures and applied it to themselves as self-appointed "interpreters" of scripture and doctrine for those of us who don't qualify as part of their credentialed class. Then they adopted an editorial bias focused on persuading people that Joseph Smith never used the actual interpreters (the Urim and Thummim) but instead relied on SITH (the stone-in-the-hat), as demonstrated in the journal and in the movie "Witnesses." 

There could not possibly be a more arrogant and offensive name for a group of scholars than "Interpreter," with the possible exception of Pharisee and Sadducee, people who likewise assumed the role of "interpreters" for their respective followers. 

Why Interpreters are so sure of themselves

“It's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves.”
—Franz Kafka, “The Trial”

Peter Pan and the Interpreters

I posted an update on the latest shenanigans from the Interpreter crowd here:

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/2023/04/clown-world-m2c-citation-cartel-and.html

The only reason this latest escapade is in the news is because Dan Peterson promoted it for years. Without his efforts, the ridiculous website and "Peter Pan" persona would have faded into obscurity long ago.

Good work, Dan. I'm sure your followers and donors are proud.

The remaining question is, how many of your fellow "Interpreters" are also proud of your work here?

More coming.

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. 

Monday Meme

Click to enlarge

Dan and M2C rationalization

Some people, including my critics, forget that I, too, fell for the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs (M2C) theory for decades. I read all the stuff from FARMS, attended the conferences, etc. I trusted Jack Welch, John Sorenson, Dan Peterson, et al. At one time, I actually thought "two Cumorahs" made sense.

That's why I don't blame my critics for their opposition to the New York Cumorah and all that entails (although their animosity is less excusable...).

Eventually, I realized I had accepted M2C by default. I had fallen for M2C because the M2Cers never disclosed all the relevant information from Church history and the extrinsic evidence that corroborates the teachings of the prophets about the new York Cumorah. They were (and are still) more obsessed with proving M2C than with pursuing the truth.

Lately, the M2Cers keep posting the same "facts" about Mesoamerica that we've all seen for decades. While it's true that repetition can make ideas seem more plausible, it doesn't work on people who are well informed.

I used to think that scholars, like everyone else, sought to make (and help others make) informed decisions. My interactions with M2Cers (and SITH sayers) has shown me otherwise.

To be clear for the umpteenth time, I'm fine with people believing M2C if they want to. It doesn't matter to me in the least. Lots of people choose to repudiate the teachings of the prophets because of their personal ideas, values, preferences, and programming, so why should the M2Cers be any different? My problem is with the way they enforce M2C through misinformation and censorship.

_____

Now Dan Peterson ( the self-appointed "Interpreter" aka Slander Dan) is trying to justify his decades of promoting M2C. And that's fine. People can believe whatever they want, and it's helpful to see how they think.

In doing so, he offers yet another example of the way he "interprets" reality to rationalize the things he teaches. 

Dan, writing from Israel (as if that matters) explains that the Bible is a limited geography, so John Sorenson was justified in claiming the Book of Mormon must be in the limited area of Mesoamerica.

It's an obvious non sequitur, but let's indulge his point for a moment.

Dan states, "Most of the stories of the Old Testament and the New Testament, after all, take place within a strikingly small area between Dan in the north and Be’er-Sheva (Beersheba), about 136 miles to the south, from the Great Sea (the Mediterranean) to the River Jordan.  Israel is, as I can promise you from actual personal acquaintance with it, a rather tiny country.  At its widest, it’s only about seventy-one miles across."

Notice first that Dan's "promise... from actual personal acquaintance" is a nonsense argument. Such a "promise" is condescending and serves no purpose other than to convey a faux aura of authority, as if by writing from Israel he has some relevant insight, making him and his "promise" a credible "Interpreter" for the rest of us. 

Those of us who have visited Israel (like other Latter-day Saints, I've visited Israel many times, along with Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Lebanon, Turkey, Greece, and Italy) know that being there is useful for lots of reasons, but not for assessing the geographic reach of scripture. Whether you have visited in person or not, you can still read a map. 

And you can read the Bible.

Contrary to what Dan the Interpreter wants his readers to believe, the Bible involves far more territory than the State of Israel. Ancient people were able to travel, and they did travel. 

In the Book of Mormon as well as in the Bible.

While Dan qualified his claim by vaguely saying "most of the stories" take place within Israel, the M2C theory he promotes puts all of the events of the Book of Mormon in the promised land in the limited area of Mesoamerica. 

Two maps from the Gospel Library inform us that the scope of the Bible is far greater than what Dan tries to persuade his followers to believe.

Now, compare the two realities. The purple area is what Dan the Interpreter dupes his followers into thinking by simply omitting relevant biblical information because it doesn't fit his narrative. The red area is what the Bible itself explains.

In the New World, we have a similar comparison. The purple area is what our M2C friends want everyone to believe is the setting for the Book of Mormon. The red area is what so-called Heartlanders generally think.

Many readers of the Book of Mormon find it difficult to believe that a civilization that started by crossing the Arabian peninsula and then the ocean would stick within a small area of Mesoamerica for 1,000 years. Those same readers wonder why the text never mentions volcanoes, pyramids, or the 3 Js: jade, jaguars, and jungles. 

The M2Cers have answers for all of this, of course, but they use the same logical fallacies as Dan did in his discussion of the limited geography of Israel. They omit relevant information, retranslate the text (replacing horses with tapirs) and find "correspondences" with Mayan culture that are attributes of most human societies everywhere. 

All in an effort to persuade Latter-day Saints that the prophets were wrong about Cumorah.

Although I have had many discussions with M2Cers over the years

_____

This topic reminds me that we've discussed before the irrationality of M2Cers looking in the Americas in the first place. I've asked them why they limit their analysis to the Americas. The conversation goes like this.

Me: You claim you rely on the text above all else when it comes to geography. 

M2Cers: Correct.

Me: Why are you looking in the western hemisphere for Book of Mormon events? The text never mentions America, western hemisphere, or any other modern term for geography. The events could have taken place anywhere in the world.

M2Cers: Well, in this case we look beyond the text. We look at what the prophets have taught. 

Me: Which prophets?

M2Cers: All of them, starting with Joseph Smith.

Me: When Moroni visited Joseph, he "gave a general account of the promises made to the fathers, and also gave a history of the aborigenes of this country."

M2Cers: We don't believe that part because Moroni really meant Mesoamerica. Joseph misunderstood, or else Moroni mean "hemisphere" when he said "country."

Me: Moroni "said this history was written and deposited not far from that place," referring to Joseph's home near Palmyra.

M2Cers: We don't believe that part, either. Joseph must have misunderstood because we know that Mormon and Moroni wrote their record in Mesoamerica, not western New York.

Me: How about when Moroni said "that it was our brother’s privilege, if obedient to the commandments of the Lord, to obtain and translate the same by the means of the Urim and Thummim, which were deposited for that purpose with the record."

M2Cers: Nope. That's false, too. We know Joseph didn't use the Urim and Thummim which were deposited with the record because he used a seer stone he found in a well. He didn't even use the plates, for that matter.

Me: You know I could go on with more examples.

M2Cers: Yes, but they're all wrong, because we know Cumorah is not in New York. The prophets have been wrong about that, just like they have been wrong about the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Me: That's been my point all along. Now, make sure your followers are all crystal clear about your position.

M2Cers: Never. We're the gatekeepers. Our followers don't need to know what the prophets have taught, just like they don't need to know about the extrinsic evidence that supports and corroborates what the prophets have taught.

After all, they'll all believe me when I tell them the Bible took place in a small area about the size of Mesoamerica.