Refuting the errors of Jonathan Neville and the Heartland hoax

Sunday, September 15, 2019

Those who live in glass houses, pt. 3

(Part three in what appears to becoming a series. See Part 1 and Part 2.)

On September 15, 2019, Jonathan Neville again attacked Daniel Peterson’s publication, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship:
As we’ve seen in several examples on this blog, so-called “peer review” for The Interpreter [sic] is little more than “peer approval.” Otherwise the obvious errors of fact and logic that we’ve observed would not have gotten through to publication.
It take shipping container full of chutzpah for Neville to make this claim, considering the overwhelming errors in fact, logic, exegesis, history, science, and even grammar, spelling, and punctuation that are found in his own publications.

Notable examples of this include his blogs (this site has now published 114 responses to what he’s written online), his book Moroni’s America – Maps Edition (which is full of spelling errors and fantastic leaps of logic), and his coauthored Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon (which Stephen O. Smoot exposed as being full of “forgeries, unprovenanced artifacts, and pseudo-archaeology; misrepresentations of historical sources; parallelomania; unsubstantiated claims and arguments; [and] the abuse of DNA science”).

If you want to find abundant examples of “peer approval,” look no further than the publications produced by Neville and his colleagues in the Heartland Book of Mormon movement. Neither he nor anyone else involved in spreading that hoax have any formal training in the subjects on which they expound, and it shows in the numerous, continual errors in their materials.
Victorian glass house Jonathan Neville’s house, probably.
—Peter Pan

* “M2C” is Jonathan Neville’s acronym for the theory that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and that the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon is not the same hill in New York where Joseph Smith received the plates of Mormon.

1 comment:

  1. Mr. Neville, you wrote "As we've seen in several examples on this blog, so-called "peer review" for The Interpreter is little more than "peer approval." Otherwise the obvious errors of fact and logic that we've observed would not have gotten through to publication."

    The mere fact that you disagree with the viewpoints expressed in some papers published by "Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship" does not logically prove that Interpreter's peer review process is a sham. Furthermore it is apparent that you know nothing of Interpreter's peer review process.

    Deidre Marlowe
    Manager of Peer Review
    Interpreter Foundation

    ReplyDelete

Thoughtful comments are welcome and invited. All comments are moderated.