Jonathan Neville can stop this. But will he?

Last week, Daniel Peterson—a man who needs no introduction—linked to one of my blog posts on his own blog over at Patheos, Sic et Non. In his July 12, 2019, post, “I’m sincerely worried, and I hope that this will stop,” Brother Peterson quoted the Prophet Joseph on the subject of those who criticize the Church and its leaders from within. These quotes support what I have been arguing for some time: Jonathan Neville’s continual criticism of Church employees, Church teachers, Church historians, and Church missionaries is putting him on a path that will lead to apostasy.

On July 13, Neville responded in a comment on Peterson’s blog (using the too-clever-by-half pseudonym “B Winchester”). He then followed up on July 15 in a blog post (cross-posted here and here) entitled, “I hope that this will stop.”

The following is my response to Neville’s July 15 blog post. I will quote the salient portion in full, with commentary. Boldface and italics in the quoted portions are Neville’s.

Now, let’s consider the title of this post: “I hope that this will stop.” That’s a great title for what I hope will stop; i.e., the ongoing censorship of any facts or ideas that contradict M2C.*

Neville’s continual claim of “censorship” is, in fact, the problem. He disagrees with Church historians and curriculum writers on which historical documents and claims should be given weight and precedence over others. Because Church historians and curriculum writers prefer sources that Neville doesn’t like and omit sources that he does like, he accuses them of “censorship.” That’s complete nonsense. Much of writing history involves choosing which sources to rely on and which to ignore, which to give weight to and which to discount.

Beyond that, it’s not even clear what many of Neville’s criticisms have to do with “M2C” in the first place. For example, he’s recently all but accused Church missionaries who work at the Palmyra, New York, visitors center of lying about Mary Whitmer’s encounter with an angel. Whether he’s right or wrong about the historical facts (or the appropriateness of the way he’s chosen to express his concerns), what does that have to do with the Mesoamerican model of Book of Mormon geography? According to Neville, everything the Church does that he disagrees with is part of the “M2C” conspiracy.

The title [of my blog post] comes from a post by one of our favorite M2C intellectuals, the wonderful brother Dan Peterson, a BYU professor, former FARMS principle, current head of the Interpreter Foundation, etc. He’s a great guy who has written lots of useful and important material. However…

If he’s a “wonderful brother” and “great guy,” then please stop calling him (and anyone else) an “M2C intellectual,” Brother Neville. Your term is pejorative, not descriptive. I think you know this and are doing it on purpose; in case you don’t know it, please stop it.

There’s always a downside of calling attention to an otherwise obscure corner of the Internet, but in this case, it’s a chance for people to see how the M2C intellectuals operate. That upside outweighs the downside, so here goes.

It’s most curious to me that Neville would refer to Daniel Peterson’s blog as “obscure,” since Patheos is the highest-traffic religious web site on the Internet, with around 8 million viewers and 13 million pageviews per month with a curated list of bloggers (of whom Peterson is one). Neville’s blogs, by comparison, have considerably less traffic: about 1,400 viewers and 3,200 pageviews per month (for MoronisAmerica.com) and about 3,700 viewers and 8,200 pageviews per month (for BookofMormonCentralAmerica.com), at least some of whom are the same people visiting both sites. Who is “obscure” here?

Now, truth isn’t decided by popular vote. Daniel Peterson may have many more readers than Jonathan Neville but still be wrong. Fair enough. But that wasn’t Neville’s reason for calling Peterson’s blog “obscure.” He did it so that he can dismiss Peterson’s views before even engaging with them. Who cares what Peterson writes on his “obscure” blog, amirite?

That’s childish and unprofessional, and it’s the main reason why this blog exists: To throw a light on Neville’s shameless behavior. (More on that in a bit.)

Apparently for a while now, brother Dan has used his blog to link to an anonymous troll who has been criticizing my ideas. I can see why Dan would refer people to this troll; the troll’s arguments are so irrational that they make Dan’s look good by comparison.

If you didn’t pick up on it, the “anonymous troll” is this blog.

Once again, we see Neville dismissing anything critical of his views by labeling it with a term that tells his readers that it’s not worth their time even considering it. Don’t engage. Don’t respond. Just ridicule it and tell people to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

For the record, this blog is not “anonymous,” nor are Captain Hook and I “trolls.”

First, we are not “anonymous”; we are pseudonymous. We want the argument to be about Jonathan Neville’s claims and tactics, not personalities. Many of Neville’s criticisms of the Church center around his “M2C” conspiracy theory and, while neither one of us are that well-connected within the Church, we don’t want to be part of Neville’s Enemies List of people who are supposedly to blame for the “censorship” and other terrible things that are supposedly going on.

Second, we are not “trolls.” Internet trolls post inflammatory, off-topic messages in order to sow discord and provoke emotional responses for the troll’s amusement or benefit. The purpose of trolling is simply to make people angry and then sit back and enjoy the fray. That is as far from what we want to accomplish as it is possible to get. Rather, we desire to lay bare Jonathan Neville’s tactics—the irresponsible ways he uses historical sources, the shocking ways he misrepresents those who disagree with him, the truly disturbing ways in which he accuses Church leaders and employees of lying and supposedly “rejecting the prophets.” That’s not trolling.

But still.

The whole thing is bizarre, really; brother Dan could contact me directly if he has a problem. I’ve tried to meet with him but he refuses.

I can’t speak for Brother Peterson, but after the way Neville treated Matthew Roper, if I were Peterson, I’d be wary of dealing with Neville in person.

The tactic I want to point out is this: if you disagree with M2C intellectuals, they’ll quickly play the “apostate” card, just as brother Dan did here.

That’s standard totalitarian tactics. It fits with the actions of the M2C citation cartel over the last few decades.

By contrast, I’ve made it clear that I don’t care what anyone else thinks. People are entitled to believe whatever they want, and that doesn’t make them apostates.

This is a jaw-dropping claim. Jonathan Neville regularly accuses Church employees and missionaries of “censorship” and “rejecting the prophets”—of purposely distorting the historical record and being unfaithful to leaders of the Church. He may not use the word “apostate,” but he clearly and obviously implies it on nearly a daily basis on his numerous blogs. His protest, “I don’t care what anyone else thinks,” is clearly, obviously, undeniably false—his daily criticisms of the Church amply demonstrate that he does care about the thoughts and beliefs of the people who are responsible for Church history, Church curriculum, and the content on the Church’s website.

The issue that brother Dan is worked up about is this: do we accept or reject what the prophets have taught about the New York Cumorah?

According to M2C dogma, members of the Church are supposed to reject what the prophets have taught about Cumorah. That’s how the M2C intellectuals justify censoring those teachings. That’s how they justify teaching CES and BYU students that the prophets are wrong.

FALSE. This is not about “rejecting the prophets.” It’s about discerning between what is Church doctrine and what is the opinions of Church leaders.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson and the Church’s Newsroom have both declared that, “The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him” and that “doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” while “not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine.” In other words, just because a Church leader (or even multiple leaders) said something does not make it doctrine.

Doctrine comes by revelation and council, not by an important person publishing something Jonathan Neville (or anyone else) happens to agree with. Letter VII does not establish Church doctrine. The testimony of President Marion G. Romney does not establish Church doctrine. No matter how many testimonies of Church leaders Neville could produce declaring the New York Cumorah to be the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon, it would not be Church doctrine. Neville may choose to believe those testimonies, but it is not “rejecting the prophets” to disagree with statements of leaders that are not the doctrine of the Church.

Instead, you’re supposed to believe Cumorah is in southern Mexico (or in BYU’s fantasy world) and if you don’t believe that, you’re an apostate.

FALSE. You’re free to believe anything you want about the location of the hill Cumorah, Brother Neville—that it’s in New York, or in southern Mexico, or in South America, or anywhere else. None of those beliefs make you “an apostate.”

What makes one an apostate is claiming to know the truth while the leaders of the Church are wrong, and attempting to publicly correct them. That is what you are doing daily on your blogs, Brother Neville. And it’s leading directly toward apostasy. That’s why you need to stop.

I think that’s a mistake, for all the reasons I’ve explained. In my view, M2C is a false tradition that not only contradicts the teachings of the prophets, but contradicts the text and everything known about ancient Central America.

That’s a view you’re certainly free to hold. You’re just not free to accuse Church leaders and the organizations they oversee of “rejecting the prophets” because they disagree with you—at least, not without repercussions.

But these are merely differences of interpretation and opinion. None of this is personal, from my perspective. I have no problem with those who believe M2C. I don’t think they are apostates; I readily agree that they are faithful members of the Church, wonderful in every way.

If none of this is personal, then please stop making it personal by accusing those you disagree with of “censorship” and “rejecting the prophets.” Stop calling people you disagree with pejorative names like “the M2C citation cartel” and “M2C intellectuals.” Stop misrepresenting the arguments of those who disagree with you. And, if it’s all “merely differences of interpretation and opinion,” stop accusing people on the other side of bad faith and nefarious intent.

I only think the M2C citation cartel should follow the Church’s policy of neutrality and allow members of the Church (and investigators) to learn about alternative ideas that support the teachings of the prophets about Cumorah.

Basically, I oppose censorship of the teachings of the prophets and I support the Church’s position of neutrality. That’s why I freely recommend that people read the M2C material for comparison.

As I’ve explained before on this blog, the Church doesn’t have a “policy of neutrality” on Book of Mormon geography, nor are they under any obligation to give your views and opinions a platform. You’re certainly free to publish your views in print and online and to try to persuade people to believe that your “alternative views” are right, but the Church isn’t required to put them in any curricula or link to any of your sites.

Brother Dan is one of the most prominent censors. Before he was belatedly terminated from FARMS (after FARMS merged into the Maxwell Institute), FARMS had what I consider a well-deserved reputation for thin skin and ad hominem attacks. FARMS eventually disintegrated, but brother Dan took his donors and followers and created a new vehicle for his brand of rhetoric: The Interpreter Foundation.

There are many good articles on the Interpreter, interspersed with M2C apologetics and attacks on those who dare to question M2C. You can get a flavor for it here:
http://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/

Wow. Just…wow. After calling Daniel Peterson a “wonderful brother” and “great guy,” Neville unleashes this most unkind and uncharitable (as well as factually-incorrect) statement. Peterson’s (unjust and politically-motivated) termination from the Maxwell Institute was “belated”? (Late, coming after its useful time.) So, he should have been fired sooner? “Thin skin and ad hominem attacks”?

For over twenty-five years, FARMS defended the Church, the gospel, and the Book of Mormon against its critics, as well as doing some of the best research on the Book of Mormon in our time or any time, and this is how Jonathan Neville curb-stomps Daniel Peterson for his efforts?

If anyone has a “thin skin,” it’s Jonathan Neville, who apparently can’t distinguish between legitimate academic criticism and “ad hominem” attacks. Heartland publications and arguments have, indeed, been challenged by the Maxwell Institute under Daniel Peterson and by the Interpreter Foundation. Unlike Jonathan Neville’s wild-eyed conspiracy theories and accusations of “rejecting the prophets,” those published articles have been measured, well-researched, and (sadly, for Jonathan Neville) devastating to the Heartland position. (See, for example, Gregory L. Smith’s review of Neville’s claim about chiasmus in Alma 22.)

The sad apparent truth is that Jonathan Neville is not self-aware enough to understand how his rhetoric is perceived by others. He views himself as being on a righteous mission to get people to “accept the teachings of the prophets” that he considers to be divinely inspired, but his name-calling, his accusations of unfaithfulness, and his misrepresentation of the beliefs and arguments of those with whom he disagrees is the root cause of this entire conflict.

—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.

Two answers for Heartlanders

This is a response to Jonathan Neville’s August 6, 2019, blog post “2 questions for the M2C citation cartel.”* (Neville persists in using the disparaging—and inaccurate—term “citation cartel” to refer to those scholars and writers who don’t agree with him and his comrades who advocate for the Heartlander Book of Mormon theory.)

Neville’s post wasn’t addressed to anyone in particular, but it appears to be based on material that has appeared on this humble blog, so your corespondent thought it would be appropriate to respond.

Neville writes:

Some of the M2C intellectuals complain when I observe that they are repudiating the teachings of the prophets.

Complain is too strong a word. I simply submit that his use of the term repudiate is loaded and inaccurate (as I’ll get into in a moment).

They say they don't care about "dead prophets" (an unbelievably disrespectful term they use often), but only about the living prophets, who (according to the intellectuals) agree with them.

I don’t know who the “they” are, but I’ve never claimed to “not care about ‘dead prophets.’” Rather, I’ve claimed that Neville and other Heartlanders cling to the words of dead prophets and rationalize their disbelief in the teachings of living prophets. (Neville himself does the latter in the very blog post I’m reviewing, as you’ll see below.)

Neville repeatedly cites the writings and sermons of Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E. Petersen, Marion G. Romney, and other long-dead prophets and apostles who made statements that he agrees with and which he believes prove his beliefs to be correct. Rarely does he cite the statements and teachings of living prophets and apostles—probably because not one of them has made unequivocal statements about the location of the hill Cumorah. Spencer W. Kimball warned about that kind of behavior:

“Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism….

“They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones. They return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present.… They allege love for the gospel and the Church but charge that leaders are a little ‘off the beam’! … Next they say that while the gospel and the Church are divine, the leaders are fallen. Up to this time it may be a passive thing, but now it becomes an active resistance, and frequently the blooming apostate begins to air his views and to crusade.… He now begins to expect persecution and adopts a martyr complex, and when finally excommunication comes he associates himself with other apostates to develop and strengthen cults. At this stage he is likely to claim revelation for himself, revelations from the Lord directing him in his interpretations and his actions. These manifestations are superior to anything from living leaders, he claims.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 462.)

(I trust that Neville will forgive President Kimball for using the “unbelievably disrespectful” term dead prophets.)

The words in boldface type in President Kimball’s statement reflect where Neville is at this stage of his advocacy for the Heartland hoax. His (dozens of) blogs are filled his disparagement of the modern direction of the Church in its curriculum, its visitors centers, its missionary program, its published histories, and its website. He believes that, in not affirming that the hill Cumorah is the same hill in New York, the Church is “a little off the beam”, led by “M2C intellectuals” who (purportedly) withhold information deliberately from the Brethren. He justifies his criticisms of the modern Church by using selected teachings of long-dead leaders that have never been accepted as revealed doctrine of the Church.

In fact, they claim the living prophets have hired them, these intellectuals, to guide the Church.

Who are the “they” here, Brother Neville? You’ve repeatedly made this claim, and yet you never provide any citations to back up it up. The one person you have fingered, Daniel C. Peterson, has specifically denied that he has ever said or written any such thing, writing that your assertion “is flatly and unequivocally false. Neither I nor anybody I know has ever made such an arrogant and ridiculous claim.”

So, it’s time to “put up or shut up,” Brother Neville: Who said this, when, and in what context?

Here are two questions we'll keep in mind this week.

1. What is the correct term to use when an intellectual says the prophets are wrong?

I reject Neville’s question, based entirely on its loaded terminology. No believing Latter-day Saint “intellectual” asserts that “the prophets are wrong.” Rather, Church leaders, scholars, and (most) members understand that there is a difference between revelation and personal belief, between inspired declarations of doctrine and statements based on assumption and widespread interpretation. (Elder D. Todd Christofferson taught about this in April 2012 general conference.) Statements by previous church leaders—including Oliver Cowdery and other early saints—that the hill Cumorah is the same hill in New York where Joseph Smith received the plates are not based on revelation.

The M2C intellectuals try to frame their position nicely by claiming all the prophets who have taught the New York Cumorah were merely expressing their opinions. Unfortunately, they were wrong because they, the M2C intellectuals, know that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is somewhere in Mesoamerica.

This is clearly an overstatement. I could just as easily claim that Heartlanders try to frame their position nicely by claiming all the prophets who have taught the New York Cumorah were speaking from inspired, authoritative revelation. They must have been right because they, the Heartlanders, know that the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York.

No one who ascribes to a Mesoamerican geographical setting for the Book of Mormon “knows” that the hill Cumorah was there. It’s a theory based on the internal and external evidence. Lacking any revealed information on the location of Book of Mormon lands, the descriptions of the lands and cultures in the text appear to most closely match the lands and ancient civilizations found in southern Mexico and Guatemala. If a better candidate location presented itself, scholarly attention would turn to that location.

Here's the google [sic] definition of repudiate.

re·pu·di·ate
/rəˈpyo͞odēˌāt/

verb

refuse to accept or be associated with.
"she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders"
synonyms: reject, renounce, abandon, forswear, give up, turn one's back on, have nothing more to do with, wash one's hands of, have no more truck with, abjure, disavow, recant, desert, discard, disown, cast off, lay aside, cut off, rebuff; More

deny the truth or validity of.
"the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses"
synonyms: deny, refute, contradict, rebut, dispute, disclaim, disavow; More

The definition precisely fits the position of these M2C intellectuals. When it comes to the New York Cumorah, they reject, renounce, disavow, disown, deny, refute, contradict, and every other synonym.

Repudiate is another loaded term. The New York Cumorah is Jonathan Neville’s Fourteenth Article of Faith; therefore, anyone who disagrees with him is, from his point of view, “repudiating the prophets.”

I would assert, rather, that one cannot repudiate a belief that was never accepted as a revealed truth in the first place.

If there's another term that better reflects the position of the M2C intellectuals about the New York Cumorah, I'd like someone to tell me. If it makes sense, then I'll use that term instead of repudiate.

But until then, it seems obvious to me and everyone who reads their writings that the M2C intellectuals at FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, etc., outright repudiate the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

Respectfully disagree would be a better phrase, but Neville would likely still twist it to claim that “M2C intellectuals disagree with the prophets!” As I described above, there’s a larger issue here of discerning when the teachings of prophets are to be accepted as the will and mind of the Lord and when they’re speaking as men. In the absence of any revelation or official statement from the Brethren on the location of the hill Cumorah, it’s safe to respectfully hold a view that’s different than some of past prophets and apostles have held.

Next we get into Neville’s self-justification for rejecting the Church’s current position on Book of Mormon geography:

2. What is the significance of the anonymous Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Geography?

There are two features of the Gospel Topics Essays generally that put them in a strange category, but this particular one on geography is in a category of its own.

1. The essays are anonymous. This means no one takes responsibility for them. They were written by a committee, which is obvious (as I'll discuss below). Once approved, the essays are just posted on churchofjesuschrist.org and everyone is supposed to think they are authoritative, but in what sense?

Please note that Neville falsely claims that “no one takes responsibility” for the essays. Also note that he skirts right over the key point at issue here: Approved by whom?

The introduction to the Gospel Topics essays answers this question:

“Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. The purpose of these essays, which have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, has been to gather accurate information from many different sources and publications and place it in the Gospel Topics section of LDS.org, where the material can more easily be accessed and studied by Church members and other interested parties.”

This is far from Neville’s claim that “no one takes responsibility for them”! It is certainly true that the essays were written by individuals or groups who were selected by Church leaders, and what they wrote went through a process of review and rewriting, but the final product, as published on the Church’s website, was approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Presumably they fall somewhere short of the scriptures (although some contradict the scriptures in important ways). Are they more or less authoritative than General Conference addresses? What about General Conference addresses by members of the First Presidency? Do these essays override everything ever spoken or written prior to their undated posting on the Church's web page?

The First Presidency has never produced such a “ranking” of authoritative sources. Rather, the Church’s position has been that the teachings of modern prophets supersede anything written by previous prophets. Elder James E. Faust taught in October 1994 general conference:

“The scriptures and doctrines of the Church are not, as Peter warned, ‘of any private interpretation.’ Great temporal and spiritual strength flows from following those who have the keys of the kingdom of God in our time. Personal strength and power result from obedience to eternal principles taught by the living legates of the Lord. May the Spirit of God rest upon us as we follow the living oracles.”

There are literally no answers to these questions that I can find anywhere. If someone knows of an official framework that prioritizes these essays over the scriptures, over General Conference addresses, or puts them in any sort of category that we can make sense of them, I'd like to know about it.

The answers are there; Jonathan Neville just chooses to ignore them because they conflict with his deeply-held personal beliefs. His cognitive bias is preventing him from accepting new information.

This is important because our M2C intellectuals cite the geography essay for the purpose of overriding all prior teachings about the New York Cumorah--even though the essay doesn't even mention Cumorah. They specifically confer more authority on the essay than they do on General Conference addresses.

Do you see the self-justification that Neville has ginned up? The Gospel Topics essay on Book of Mormon geography flatly states, “The Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events in the ancient Americas.” It gives no exceptions or exemptions. Neville responds, “Well, the essay doesn’t mention Cumorah!” So what? It doesn’t mention the cities of Zarahemla, Nephi, or Bountiful either, nor the river Sidon, nor the narrow neck of land. Why should Neville get to carve out an exception to the blanket just because it’s important to his theology?

I frequently hear from readers who have questions about the essays generally, and about this one specifically. I respond that, from what I can gather, they are intended as guidance but have no priority over the scriptures or General Conference addresses. Hence, these essays are a framework for further discussion and analysis, with individuals reaching their own conclusions. They were never intended to enable certain intellectuals to claim official endorsement of their positions that contradict the teachings of the prophets.

But, since the essays are “approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” they are “the teachings of the prophets.” They have priority over Neville’s (and everyone else’s) interpretation of the scriptures and previous prophets. Certainly there can be “further discussion and analysis,” but that doesn’t mean that Neville can simply brush them aside with a wave of his hand and muttered complaints about committees.

But again, I could be wrong. Maybe these anonymous essays are the most official of all Church doctrine, with everything else subservient. I just can't tell from any official source.

This statement is a perfect example of the logical fallacy of the False Dilemma. “Either,” Neville tells us, “they’re for guidance only and have no priority or they are the most official of all Church doctrine.” There are, of course, other alternatives between those two extremes, but Neville is unwilling or unable to consider them.

My personal view is that the Gospel Topics essays represent the position of the Church, as approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, in the absence of specific revelation on the subjects they cover. Without a specific revelation, they are, of course, subject to revision as new information becomes available. Which bring us to Neville’s next point:

2. The essays are subject to change at any time without notice. As I've shown in the links below, this geography essay has already been substantially changed once without notice and could be changed again at any moment. Other essays have also been modified without notice.

What does this say for the authority of the essay?

In my view, the susceptibility to change makes these essays useful only as a starting place for discussion. How could they be authoritative if they can be changed at any time, especially without explanation?

Nothing published by the Church is set in stone; everything is subject to revision as new truths are discovered, either by revelation through the Holy Spirit or by human learning (which is the result of the light of Christ). Joseph Smith even revised the Book of Mormon for the second (1837) and third (1840) editions, and he revised his published revelations between the 1833 Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Revision does not compromise authority.

The Church’s handbook for stake presidents and bishops (Handbook 1) is continually revised to deal with new issues and better handle old ones. Is the handbook “not authoritative” because it’s subject to change? Can bishops simply ignore it, considering it just “a starting place for discussion”? Of course not.

The change to the first version of the geography essay corrected some obvious mistakes and misleading information, but the revision retained some of the mistakes. Such a process is an inevitable result of an anonymous committee writing the essay with input from only one point-of-view, that of the M2C intellectuals who have long since repudiated the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

And here we see Neville once again implying that the members First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are easily-manipulated victims of conspirators operating inside Church Headquarters. If we take his statement above at face value, the Brethren must be uneducated, uninformed men who simply rubber-stamp whatever is put in front of them.

That is, of course, nonsense. The Brethren are quite well-informed and the Gospel Topics essays represent many hours of discussion and revision to strike the right balance.

The geography essay purports to establish an official position of neutrality. I've discussed how the so-called policy of "neutrality" is actually implemented and enforced to mean the Church is neutral about where in Mesoamerica the events took place. There is no evidence of any neutrality that even acknowledges, let alone accommodates, the consistent and persistent teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

FALSE. I’ve debunked Neville’s “neutrality” claim now several times, but he persists in telling this untruth because it suits his narrative.

We could discuss other essays as well. The original objective, as I understood it, was to set out some facts and arguments regarding topics that have been discussed for many years without any official acknowledgement of the issues. In that sense, the essays are useful.

The problem is, the essays have taken one point of view and presented it as the "correct" interpretation. That creates all kinds of problems.

Neville’s understanding of the Gospel Topics essays is completely at odds with the First Presidency’s description of what role they serve. If he would only take the time to read the introduction to the essays (quoted above), it would clear up his misunderstanding.

I suspect that he knows that he’s mistaken, but his cognitive bias is preventing him from accepting this fact because of the implications it would have for his assertion that the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in New York.

—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.

Jonathan Neville’s broken scriptural allegory

Following up on his implied claim that Latter-day Saints who disagree with him are followers of Satan, in a December 2, 2019, blog post, “Voice of the people,” Jonathan Neville accused those who don’t believe that the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in western New York of rejecting the Lord.

Let that sink in for a moment before reading further.

Here’s what he wrote:

For over 150 years, the prophets and apostles have consistently taught that the Hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 (the one and only Hill Cumorah) is in western New York. This includes not only Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (Letter VII) and their contemporaries, but members of the First Presidency speaking in General Conference, such as President Romney’s detailed address.

Neville continues to beg the question by not addressing his unspoken presumption that all these statements were based on revelation instead of common belief that became tradition. There is no revelation from the Lord on the location of any Book of Mormon lands, so Neville has elevated the statements and writings of prophets and apostles (at least the ones he agrees with) to infallible scripture. (And Letter VII is not nearly as strong of a piece of evidence as he assets, as Stephen Smoot has explained.)

No prophet or apostle has ever repudiated the teachings of his predecessors about the New York Cumorah.

Church leaders rarely, if ever, “repudiate” the incorrect statements of their predecessors, probably out of respect for great men who erred but are no longer around to correct what they said or wrote. Instead, the historical precedent has been for Church leaders to simply stop teaching incorrect principles and replace them with correct ones. (See, for example, how Church leaders have handled statements made prior to 1978 about black men and the priesthood.)

But many scholars and their followers have rejected those teachings.

How many times does this blog have to demonstrate that claim is false before Neville stops repeating it? It’s becoming his equivalent of the große Lüge.

M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorah’s [sic] theory) is based on the claim that the prophets are wrong because the Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is actually somewhere in southern Mexico.

Actually, as stated here repeatedly, it’s based on the claim that the description of the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon doesn’t match the characteristics and features of the hill in western New York and that the area in southern Mexico is a better match geographically and culturally. It in no way claims that “the prophets are wrong” because, as stated here repeatedly, the location of the hill Cumorah hasn’t been revealed by the Lord to any modern prophet.

And then comes Neville’s shocking accusation:

There are indications that many, if not most, members of the Church are following the M2C scholars instead of the teachings of the prophets.

How can we explain this?

This is hardly the first time the people have preferred intellectuals over the prophets. Here’s one example to consider:

6 ¶ But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
(1 Samuel 8:6–7)

The Lord told Samuel to do what the people wanted because the people had rejected Him in favor of their desire for a king.

In our day, the M2C intellectuals have rejected the teachings of the prophets on this topic.

Here’s why Neville’s scriptural allegory doesn’t work:

In the time of 1 Samuel chapter 8, Samuel was the living prophet of the Lord. Samuel received the Lord’s word and interceded with the Lord on behalf of the people of Israel. The Lord had given Samuel strict counsel regarding a king, but the people rejected that counsel, which “displeased Samuel.”

In our day we have a living prophet—Russell M. Nelson. He receives the Lord’s word and intercedes with the Lord on behalf of the Saints. The Lord has said nothing to Russell M. Nelson—or any other modern prophet—about the location of the hill Cumorah, let alone made correct belief in its location an article of faith.

If any scriptural example applies here, it’s this one from the time when King David of Israel brought the ark of the covenant from Gibeah to Jerusalem. Along the way:

David and all the house of Israel played before the Lord on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. And when they came to Nachon’s threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. (2 Samuel 6:5–7)

Jonathan Neville is an ark-steadier. He continually claims that he knows what the prophets meant and what’s important for today’s Latter-day Saints to believe regarding Cumorah—despite the fact that none of today’s prophets and apostles are teaching what he claims is so important to believe and profess and even though President Nelson himself has recently taught publicly what Neville asserts is falsehoods cooked up by a conspiracy of intellectuals within the Church.

—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.

Jonathan Neville spins like a top

It’s honestly hard to know if Jonathan Neville sincerely believes the stuff the stuff writes or if he knows he’s not telling the truth but justifies this somehow in his mind. As I’ve written before, I don’t want to fall into the trap of claiming that Neville must be either “stupid or evil,” but it’s exceptionally difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt when he writes things that simply are not true and have no basis in reality.

His latest opprobrious blog post is from April 26, 2019, entitled “Illusion of scholarship – Mantle vs. Intellect.” Here are some of the whoppers he lets loose in this commentary:

Everyone acknowledges that M2C* constitutes a repudiation of the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

No, Brother Neville, “everyone” does not “acknowledge” that—that’s your twisted version of the differences of belief that many faithful Latter-day Saints (including general authorities) have had on your pet issue.

“Repudiation” implies rejection with disapproval or condemnation, and there are no Latter-day Saint scholars that believe in a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon who disapprove of or condemn the statements of prophets who have taught that the New York hill is the site of final battle of the Nephites. They may respectfully have a difference of opinion, but that’s not anywhere close to repudiation.

By definition, M2C means the prophets were wrong.
This is no secret. Supporters of M2C freely and openly acknowledge this.

I’ve done a fair amount of reading on the Book of Mormon as a Mesoamerican text, and I’ve never read nor heard a single Book of Mormon scholar claim “the prophets were wrong,” either openly or in private. Yet Neville practically claims that they’re making t-shirts with this statement on it.

Once again, respectful differences of opinion are not the same thing as Neville’s blunt and distorted version of events.

Employees at CES, BYU and COB openly teach that the “real” Cumorah is in Mexico (or in a fantasy land), while the “hill in New York” was incorrectly named “Cumorah” by early members of the Church who were ignorant speculators.

Can you see Neville’s spin, dear readers? He begins with a somewhat-accurate statement—some (certainly not all) teachers do present the view that the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in Mesoamerica—but then twists it into telling us that they also believe “early members of the Church…were ignorant speculators.” Ignorant speculators is Neville’s ugly and distorted version; the truth is closer to something like “intelligent and well-meaning saints who simply misinterpreted the text.”

You see, Neville cannot grant that those who disagree with him are well-intentioned because he believes his opponents are all part of a massive conspiracy to keep the truth from the leaders and members of the Church. Conspirators, by nature, can’t have kindness and charity for opposing views in their hearts, therefore (according to the Neville worldview), they must believe that those who disagree with them are “ignorant speculators” instead of good people who simply have a different point of view.

That’s the real ugliness of Jonathan Neville’s writings—the way he disparages those who don’t agree with him. Hence his pejorative terms like “M2C citation cartel”:

The M2C citation cartel and their followers and employees claim that all Church leaders who taught that Cumorah was in New York misled the Church.

Again, Neville employs loaded language to frame the debate his way. Mesoamericanist Book of Mormon scholars do not believe that Church leaders who have taught a New York setting for Cumorah have “misled the Church.” The word “misled” implies leading astray, but it’s impossible to lead the Church astray by teaching the hill Cumorah is in New York because…[wait for it]…the real location of the hill Cumorah has no bearing on our salvation, the truth of the Book of Mormon, or the truth of the restored gospel. That the Book of Mormon is an actual historical text is a vitally important truth, but “the Church’s only position is that the events the Book of Mormon describes took place in the ancient Americas.”

No Church leader has ever “misled the Church” by teaching that the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in New York.

If you read FairMormon, Book of Mormon Central, BYU Studies, the Interpreter, Meridian Magazine, and other members of the M2C citation cartel, you know they (and their predecessors) have been teaching this for a long time.

To support M2C, all of these intellectuals uniformly reject the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah.

I’d like to pause for a moment and give Neville credit for using the actual names of these organizations instead of his usual childish and pejorative terms like “FairlyMormon” and “Book of Mormon Central Censor.”

Despite that, here we see Neville again using a loaded term: “reject the teachings of the prophets.” People who think differently than he does cannot simply disagree or have a difference of opinion; they must be rejecting what Neville (incorrectly) believes is revealed truth.

These M2C intellectuals claim these prophets were ignorant, lacked credentials, and were merely expressing their own opinions as uninformed men.

No, Brother Neville, no one is claiming that. Not a single Mesoamericanist Book of Mormon scholar believes or has taught that. Shame on you for distorting their words and impugning their character.

The remainder of Neville’s April 26th blog post is a series of quotations from Elder Boyd K. Packer’s August 22, 1981, address to Church educators, “The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect.”

(It’s in no small way ironic that this talk was first published in BYU Studies, which Neville believes is part of the “M2C” conspiracy to undermine the prophets. Apparently the editors of that journal missed the memo.)

Elder Packer’s message was a repudiation of secular-leaning Church educators who “lose their testimonies and yield their faith as the price for academic achievement,” and then “capitulate, cross over the line, and forsake the things of the Spirit,” thereafter “judg[ing] the church, the doctrine, and the leadership by the standards of their academic profession.”

Neville believes that Elder Packer’s message “applies to those who claim the prophets are wrong about the New York Cumorah.” But, yet again, he’s got it all wrong. Unlike the secularist educators Elder Packer warned and was warning about, Mesoamericanist Book of Mormon scholars support the leaders of the Church, firmly believe that the Book of Mormon is a historical document of a historical people, believe that the resurrected prophet Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith in 1823, and believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. They do not believe or teach that “the prophets are wrong” or “have misled the Church”; rather, they understand (as the First Presidency has recently stated) that there is no revealed geography of the Book of Mormon—including the location of the hill Cumorah—and respect those Church leaders who have a different view on where Cumorah might be.

If anything, Elder Packer’s warning about those who “judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and leadership, present and past, by the principles of their own profession” could just as well apply to Jonathan Neville, who is critical of Church leaders and Church organizations and believe they’re conspiring to suppress the truth about the hill Cumorah.

I fear that Neville’s spin on the Mesoamericanist viewpoint is so hard that the g-forces may cause his readers to black out.

—Peter

* “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.

Jonathan Neville’s fatuousness continues to astonish

In what may be Jonathan Neville’s most stunning example of a total lack of self-awareness, he published a blog post on June 3, 2019, that he called “one of the most important I’ve made because it addresses a fundamental issue that affects all of us throughout our lives.”

Informing us that “researchers have conducted neurological experiments to understand how political partisans respond to information” (something he read about here), he then proceeds to tell us why he believes this research “explains why the teachings of the prophets about the Hill Cumorah are being systematically censored and removed from the historical record.” He explains:

When people are contending over something such as M2C,* they usually think they are using facts and logic, but they are actually just responding to biochemistry.

When our brains detect an unpleasant conflict between data and what we want to believe, they use biochemistry and faulty reasoning to reduce distress. This is a biological description of bias confirmation.

This statement is not incorrect. It’s well-known and understood in academic studies that virtually all people look for evidence that reinforces their preexisting beliefs. It’s why it’s so hard for people who have different views to convince each other of their positions—or even have a discussion that doesn’t result in an argument.

He continues:

People believe they are thinking rationally, based on facts, but their brains are simply engaged in self-defense. Their brains perceive confirmation of the M2C bias as pleasurable, while criticism of M2C is painful.

Nowhere does he express any belief in or awareness of the possibility that, while he believes he is thinking rationally, his brain is “simply engaged in self-defense,” that he receives pleasurable stimuli when he thinks of Heartland bias and pain when he encounters criticisms of it. (He does admit to neurochemical stimuli affecting Heartlanders, but he twists it to support his beliefs; we’ll get to that in a moment.)

Having believed M2C for decades, but now realizing it’s a hoax, it’s easier for me to recognize the biochemistry involved than it is for those still within the M2C bubble.

It’s hard not to notice Neville’s self-ascribed intellectual superiority when he smacks you across the face with it. He understands the biochemistry because he’s moved on from the false beliefs he used to hold, while others are still trapped in a “bubble” of false faith.

This is identical to the claim made by ex-Mormon atheists. They’re smart. They’ve seen through the lies of “Mormonism.” They’ve managed to escape the Church and now observe it dispassionately from the outside. Smugly arrogant and self-satisfied, Neville now knows “the truth” that the rest of us are too blinded by brain chemistry to see.

It’s also why none of this is personal or upsetting to me. I really don’t care what anyone else believes, and I’m not trying to persuade anyone. I just want people to make informed decisions, and understanding neurochemistry is part of that.

If Neville truly didn’t care what others believe and wasn’t trying to persuade anyone, he wouldn’t be blogging daily (on just one of over sixty blogs) and working on what will be his tenth book on the same narrow subject. If it wasn’t personal to him, he wouldn’t be engaging in childish name-calling of his opponents—calling Book of Mormon Central “Book of Mormon Central Censor,” calling FairMormon “FairlyMormon,” referring to scholars who disagree with him as a “cartel,” calling BMC’s KnoWhy articles “No-Wise,” and praising scholars who disagree with him for their great work and then, in the very next sentence, accusing them of “rejecting the prophets,” deceiving the Brethren, and leading members of the Church astray.

The fact that Jonathan Neville is unable to see how bizarre his claims are to others is evidence that he himself is steeped in confirmation bias.

Every time an M2C follower sees a map of Mesoamerica with Cumorah in southern Mexico, his/her brain generates a positive response.

Every time an M2C follower sees a map of Cumorah in New York, his/her brain generates a negative response.

The psychological problem for M2C followers is that their brain normally generates positive responses to the teachings of the prophets. For example, they accept almost everything President Oliver Cowdery taught. Same with the other prophets who have reaffirmed the New York Cumorah.

But they can’t accept what President Cowdery and the other prophets have said about the New York Cumorah.

This is patently absurd. It has nothing to do with “accepting” what Oliver Cowdery or Marion G. Romney or any other prophet or apostle has said; it has everything to do with the fact that not one of their statements on the New York location of Cumorah has been submitted to and accepted by the Church as a revelation. Neville believes that the Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is the hill in New York, so he accepts these statements as inspired and authoritative, but that’s not how revelation works or has ever worked in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Now, observe Neville’s incredible sleight-of-hand when he explains what happens in Heartlander brains:

We see the exact opposite brain chemistry among those Church members who still believe the teachings of the prophets about the New York Cumorah. They get positive rewards when they read those teachings, just as they get positive rewards from reading all the teachings of the prophets. They get a similar positive reward from seeing proposed geographies that affirm the New York Cumorah.

They get negative rewards when they see material that repudiates the teachings of the prophets.

Notice what he does here? Heartlanders get positive and negative rewards, not when they see things they agree or disagree with, but when they read “the teachings of the prophets.” And which teachings are those? The ones they agree with! The ones that they believe are revealed and inspired—despite not being declared and submitted and accepted as revelations.

In other words: “New York Cumorah good, ‘M2C’ bad.”

But it gets even worse:

It also explains why the M2C citation cartel continues to censor material that contradicts M2C. It’s not so much that they want to keep members of the Church ignorant. It’s more that they want to avoid giving their readers the psychological pain they feel whenever they see something that contradicts M2C or supports the New York Cumorah.

Upon reading this preposterous statement, my jaw simply fell slack. I can guarantee you that neither I, nor Captain Hook, nor anyone else who rejects the Heartland hoax feels any “pain,” psychological or otherwise, when we read Heartlander arguments. The strongest emotional reaction we feel is stunned incredulity that any rational individual could make such mindless, irresponsible claims, let alone be gullible enough to accept them.

This also explain[s] why the Gospel Topics Essay [on Book of Mormon geography] doesn’t want anyone talking about this at Church. Because there is such a stark difference of opinion, no matter which side is represented, someone will feel pain while someone else will feel happiness.

No, Brother Neville, the Gospel Topics Essay doesn’t tell anyone not to talk about Book of Mormon geography at church. That’s not what the essay says at all; rather, it informs us:

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.>

Do you see the difference? The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have asked leaders and members to not “advocate those personal theories” about Book of Mormon geography that “imply either prophetic or Church support.” The essay is directly addressed to Heartlanders like you, Brother Neville, who claim that the prophets support their views. So when Neville writes…

That’s why it is essential that the Gospel Topics Essay be actually implemented, starting by getting rid of the M2C materials in the curriculum and media.

…he’s completing missing the real point and intent of the Gospel Topics Essay: To implement the essay would require Heartlanders to stop making their false claims of prophetic support for their views in church settings.

—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.

Is the Church neutral or not, Jonathan Neville?

Jonathan Neville can’t seem to make up his mind on whether or not the Church is neutral about where the events of the Book of Mormon took place.

Back in 2019, I documented how Neville has been critical of Church leaders for not being neutral. He’s snarked that “this position of ‘neutrality’ really means nothing more than ‘neutrality’ about where in Central America the Book of Mormon took place,” and he’s criticized the Church for posting a video lecture of Dr. Mark Wright explaining how the Book of Mormon fits into a Mesoamerican setting.

Now he’s claiming that the Church does, in fact, have a position of neutrality that it upholds:

Most Latter-day Saints accept the Church’s position of neutrality regarding Book of Mormon geography, which recognizes multiple working hypotheses. We think that position best promotes harmony and unity in the Church.

I question whether “most Latter-day Saints” are even aware of the Church’s position on Book of Mormon geography, but one thing is certain: The Church is not neutral on Book of Mormon geography, nor does it recognize “multiple working hypotheses.” That is Neville’s tortured reading of the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon geography. As I pointed out in 2019:

Although “the Church does not take a position on the specific geographic locations of Book of Mormon events,” that does not mean that the Church may not or should not use representations of ancient structures found in the Americas, nor does it prevent individuals from expressing “their own opinions regarding Book of Mormon geography,” even in Church settings, as Dr. Wright did.

What the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have actually said is that Church leaders and members should not “advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories.” In other words, it’s perfectly fine to discuss different geographic theories in Church settings, only one should not state or imply that either revelation or the Church support one particular theory over another.

The real problem for Jonathan Neville, of course, is that “M2C* intellectuals” (as he calls them) are following the Brethren’s counsel while he and the Heartlanders are not. Dr. Wright, in his presentation, never claims that the prophets or the Church have declared that his Mesoamerican view of Book of Mormon geography is correct. For Neville and other Heartlanders, however, cherry-picked statements of dead prophets form the entire foundation of their claim that the Heartland hoax is the Lord’s revealed Book of Mormon geography.

One should also take note of Neville’s continued use of passive-aggressive language: In his latest blog post he claims that “We [i.e., Heartlanders] accept the teachings of the prophets that the hill Cumorah of Mormon 6:6 is in New York,” which he says is “only one working hypothesis.” Of course, by (mis-) characterizing his view as being the one held by prophets, he’s really implying that it’s the only acceptable hypothesis. Meanwhile, he informs us:

Other Latter-day Saints insist that the only possible setting for the Book of Mormon is in Mesoamerica. They teach that the prophets were wrong about the New York Cumorah because they have decided that the “real Cumorah” of Mormon 6:6 is in Mexico. This is the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory (M2C).

We recognize M2C as a working hypothesis and we are fine with people believing M2C if they want to. We hope they are engaged learners and not merely lazy learners whose beliefs are assigned to them by scholars.

Not only does Neville continue to straight-up lie when he claims his opponents “teach that the prophets were wrong,” he also continues to disingenuously assert that “we”—I assume by we he’s referring to other Heartlanders—“are fine with people believing M2C if they want to.”

So, Neville is “fine” with other Latter-day Saints “rejecting the teachings of the prophets” on what he believes is one of the most important doctrines of the Restoration, which he believes is leading to mass defection within the Church, especially among youth and new converts? Of course he’s not “fine” with that; he’s just playing a dishonest rhetorical trick to appear as if he’s fair and open-minded.

I’m honestly not sure which is worse: That Neville tries to hide his true beliefs behind amiable prose or that some of his readers actually believe what he writes.

—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.
 

Jonathan Neville, Chief Captain of the Double Standard

I’ve spent no small amount of time discussing the hypocritical way Jonathan Neville treats the views he’s opposed to—which he calls “M2C” and “SITH”—compared to how he approaches the claims of the Heartland movement. He regularly applies different standards to his opponents’ arguments than he does to those he accepts.

A shockingly tumid example of this can be found in his October 30, 2021, blog post, “BYU Studies strikes again—Part 2.” This is the second post Neville has written about his problems with Andrew Hedges’ BYU Studies Quarterly article about Book of Mormon geography.

I won’t test my readers’ patience by reviewing every line of his blog post. Briefly, he (of course) criticizes Hedges from the assumption that the hill Cumorah in New York has been identified conclusively and by revelation as the hill Cumorah in the Book of Mormon. I think I’ve thoroughly debunked that argument, so I’ll simply refer you to my other posts on that subject and also about his claims concerning Oliver Cowdery’s Letter VII, the Zelph incident, and the cave of plates story. I’ll limit this post to examining the numerous double standards Neville uses as he compares his beliefs with those of mainstream Book of Mormon scholars.

¶3 Critics claim the [Book of Mormon] is fiction, and their arguments are bolstered when the faithful disagree among themselves about where the events took place.

Neville asserts that critics’ arguments are helped when faithful Saints disagree about Book of Mormon geography. His implication, of course, is that it is people on the side of “M2C” who are the ones who are disagreeing and are therefore the problem. Neville doesn’t stop to consider that his aggressive, continual attacks on faithful Latter-day Saint scholars, Church employees, and Church publications contribute as much or more to this.

¶7 The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion, and Cumorah is the keystone of Book of Mormon historicity. It’s an either/or question; either the prophets were correct about the New York Cumorah, or they were not. There is no middle ground.

The double standard here is Neville’s insistence on an either/or about “the prophets [being] correct” about the location of Cumorah while he ignores or overlooks prophets’ statements that he disagrees with.

For example, many prophets—including the living prophet, Russell M. Nelson—have taught that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Neville rejects that historical claim, yet he doesn’t hold to a strict either/or when prophets teach it. Likewise, President Nelson has taught that the Book of Mormon took place in Central and South America, but Neville doesn’t insist that either the prophet is correct about this or he is not; he simply avoids the issue altogether.

¶12 Critics say [BYU/CES teachers and the FARMS scholars] (and, by extension, the Church) “hide” historical information they don’t like. While I disagree with the critics on many of their assertions, it is undeniable that the M2C scholars and their citation cartel, including BYU Studies, have been far from forthright.

Again, that’s quite a bold statement, considering how Neville and his colleagues “have been far from forthright” about the teachings of the prophets about seer stones, Book of Mormon geography, and many other subjects. Covering up historical information is something Neville is well acquainted with.

¶21 We’re faced with M2C scholars who use their private, subjective interpretations of the text to justify rejecting the teachings of the prophets. Hence, the confusion that reigns.

Here again Neville points his finger at his ideological opponents without recognizing—or perhaps without admitting—that he and his comrades also engage in “private, subjective interpretations of the text” and many other things.

Neville himself has invented claims about Benjamin Winchester supposedly being responsible for the 1842 Times and Seasons articles about Mesoamerican ruins (this despite what wordprint studies indicate) and Joseph Smith supposedly using a seer stone only as a “demonstration” of the Book of Mormon translation process.

He also interprets Oliver Cowdery’s statement in Letter VII, “when one reflects on the fact, that here, between these hills,…both the Jaredites and Nephites were destroyed," to mean that Cowdery knew by revelation that it was a fact and that he wasn’t just stating what he believed to be true.

Texts do not interpret themselves. Everyone engages in “private, subjective interpretations” of texts, including Heartlanders. Neville admits this truth in paragraph 35, but he fails to apply it equally to himself as well as his opponents.

¶40 Mormon’s Codex, the book cited in the article as the “ultimate expression” of M2C, is a hodgepodge of speculation about illusory “correspondences” that no mainstream historian, scientist or archaeologist finds in the least persuasive or even relevant. Had anyone actually familiar with the Heartland model been involved with peer review of this article, the voluminous citations in Heartland literature to non-LDS historians, scientists and archaeologists would have been featured, not ignored.

Neville’s claims here are shockingly hypocritical. He asserts that trained non-Mormon archaeologists are not convinced by John Sorenson’s evidence in Mormon’s Codex, but he completely sidesteps the inconvenient fact that non-Mormon archaeologists are even less convinced by Heartlanders’ claims, which rely heavily on forged and unprovenanced artifacts.

Neville also trumpets “the voluminous citations in Heartland literature to non-LDS historians, scientists and archaeologists,” but he doesn’t tell his readers that these citations are almost exclusively from 19th- and early 20th-century sources that have long since been superceded or disproven. Most Heartland views and claims do not withstand scientific or historical scrutiny, yet Neville casually neglects to deal with that in his broadside at Dr. John Sorenson.

Neville is also ignoring the fact that so-called “M2C” scholars also cite extensively from much more up-to-date scholarship from non-Latter-day-Saint scholarship. In doing so, he is employing a coy bait-and-switch, where the standard for “M2C” scholarship is acceptance by non-Latter-day Saint scholars, while the standard for Heartlanders is just citing non-Latter-day Saint scholars. A truly absurd double standard, if ever there was one.

¶46 [Book of Mormon Central’s] employees patrol the Internet to aggressively attack criticism of its M2C (and SITH) ideologies, at one point insisting that any criticism of BMC’s scholars constitutes criticism of Church leaders because Church leaders have hired these scholars to guide Church members. They regularly label those who don’t accept M2C as “apostates.”

Neville provides no citations for any of his claims in this paragraph, so it’s difficult for me to assess if he’s being truthful or not. Needless to say, I have serious doubts about his claim that BMC employees have insisted that “any criticism of BMC’s scholars constitutes criticism of Church leaders because Church leaders have hired these scholars to guide Church members.”

Likewise his claim that BMC employees “regularly label those who don’t accept M2C as ‘apostates’” doesn’t withstand scrutiny. This blog is the only source I’m aware of that has leveled the charge of apostasy at Jonathan Neville. But, once again, Neville looks the other way and fails to notice how he regularly and continually claims that “M2C scholars” and Church employees are repeating anti-Mormon arguments and leading members of the Church astray. He also neglects to inform his readers that charges of apostasy against faithful Latter-day Saint scholars were first leveled by his friend and colleague Rod Meldrum in 2008 and have not ceased since that time. Neville should clean his own house before telling others how dirty theirs are.

¶47 BMC has an M2C-driven scripture app (ScripturePlus) that directly competes with the Church’s own Gospel Library app, using the donations from Latter-day Saints to lure unsuspecting Church members away from the Gospel Library by glamorizing M2C with attractive videos and links to its “Kno-Whys” that promote M2C.

If Book of Mormon Central’s ScripturePlus app “competes with the Church’s Gospel Library,” then what does Neville believe that the Heartland Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon does? Would he admit that their attractive, expensive volume “lures unsuspecting Church members” away from scripture editions published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? I suspect not.

¶48 BMC’s donors finance the M2C-promoting “Come Follow Me” series that features BYU professors and, in many wards around the Church, has become the curriculum for the Come Follow Me classes. People are watching these indoctrination videos instead of engaging in interpersonal, local involvement and discussion in families and wards.

Pray tell, what does Jonathan Neville think about Rod Meldrum’s weekly “Gospel Doctrine Answers” video podcast, in which Neville himself has participated? The very title of Meldrum’s podcast indicates that he intends for it to be used in Come, Follow Me Sunday School classes. Do Heartlanders “watch these indoctrination videos instead of engaging in interpersonal, local involvement and discussion in families and wards”? How is Meldrum’s effort any different than Book of Mormon Central’s? This is a massive double standard that Neville simply evades.

¶57 I’m fine with people believing whatever they want. Not everyone will reach the same conclusions even when looking at the same evidence. But it is inexcusable to hide, censor, or even obscure relevant evidence.

You mean in the same way that Neville has repeatedly hidden, censored, and obscured evidence?

In addition to his many other methodological faults, Jonathan Neville is guilty of rank hypocrisy.

—Peter Pan
 

A modern apostle repudiates the teachings of the prophets!

Jonathan Neville has recently published a series of blog posts that explicitly reject the historical claim that Joseph Smith ever used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. (These blog posts are, apparently, a prelude to a book that he plans to publish on the translation of the Book of Mormon.)

Neville claims that the idea that Joseph Smith used a seer stone, which he placed into a hat, in the translation process was a fabrication created by the 1834 anti-Mormon book Mormonism Unvailed and repeated by early Mormon apostate William McLellin. He rejects the testimonies of participants and eyewitnesses to the translation process—including Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith—as being confused by Joseph’s use of a stone “to demonstrate how the translation worked,” while he actually only translated with the Urim and Thummim (also called the Nephite Interpreters).

Neville goes even further to claim that Church historians, teachers, and employees who have written recent histories, magazine articles, and curriculum published by the Church have “embraced the old, discredited peep stone narrative over the accounts [of the translation process] by Joseph and Oliver” and “created a false historical narrative present to justify their interpretation.”

(Notice how, without a shred of awareness of his own hypocrisy, Neville refers to Joseph’s seer stone by the anti-Mormon pejorative “peep stone”?)

All of this, Neville argues, illegitimately “overrides the teachings of the prophets,” as he understands them. Neville alone stands against the tide by proclaiming these heretical teachings to be false and a betrayal of the testimonies of the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

But I’m curious to know how Neville explains this statement from Elder Quinten L. Cook, whom I’m fairly certain he sustains as a “prophet, seer, and revelator”:

I recently viewed a first edition of the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith completed the translation when he was 23 years old. We know something of the process and instruments he used in that translation. In that first 1830 printing, Joseph included a short preface and simply and clearly declared it was translated “by the gift and power of God.” What about the aids to translation—the Urim and Thummim, the seer stones? Were they essential, or were they like the training wheels on a bicycle until Joseph could exercise the faith necessary to receive more direct revelation? Just as repetition and consistent effort are required to gain physical or mental capacity, the same is true in spiritual matters.

(Quentin L. Cook, “Foundations of Faith,” April 2017 General Conference; emphasis added)

Has Elder Cook “embraced the old, discredited peep stone narrative” and accepted the “false historical narrative” of the “peep stone”? Has Elder Cook “overridden the teachings of the prophets”? Is Elder Cook falling into error and siding with discredited anti-Mormon sources?

Furthermore, how does Neville explain the teaching by modern apostles Russell M. Nelson (in 1992) and Neal A. Maxwell (in 1997) that Joseph used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon? Was Elder Maxwell led down the path into error? Has President Russell M. Nelson, president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, bought into the “false historical narrative”?

This is why I’m entirely serious when I claim that Jonathan Neville prefers the teachings of dead prophets over living prophets. He is doing exactly what then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks warned the students at BYU about in 1992:

A desire to follow a prophet is surely a great and appropriate strength, but even this has its potentially dangerous manifestations. I have heard of more than one group who are so intent on following the words of a dead prophet that they have rejected the teachings and counsel of the living ones.… Following the prophet is a great strength, but it needs to be consistent and current lest it lead to the spiritual downfall that comes from rejecting continuous revelation. Under that principle, the most important difference between dead prophets and living ones is that those who are dead are not here to receive and declare the Lord’s latest words to his people. If they were, there would be no differences among the messages of the prophets.

(emphasis added)

Jonathan Neville’s teachings result in confusion and, ultimately, rejection of the words of those whom the Lord has called to lead the Saints today. They should be renounced by all members of the Church.

—Peter Pan

Heartlanders and “rejecting the teachings of the prophets”

Heartlanders continually and emphatically assert that people who don’t believe the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon is in New York are “rejecting the teachings of the prophets.” (Jonathan Neville has made that very claim hundreds of times.)

And yet it is becoming abundantly clear that it is Heartlanders who are rejecting the teachings of living prophets. For example, they insist upon claiming that their geographical theories have prophetic support (contrary to the explicit counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve), and they reject the teachings of apostles in General Conference about the identification of modern descendants of Lehi.

In just the latest example of Heartlanders rejecting the counsel of Church leaders, Rod Meldrum’s September 2021 FIRM Foundation EXPO has at least one speaker on the schedule who practices and advocates for “energy healing”:

The program also features Angie Christensen, who the FIRM Foundation once described as a “certified neurofeedback and energy healer,” but for this conference has been demoted, I suppose, to someone who has simply “been trained in” neurofeedback and energy therapy.

Apparently, Meldrum hasn’t gotten the memo from Church leaders:

Church members are discouraged from seeking miraculous or supernatural healing from an individual or group that claims to have special methods for accessing healing power outside of prayer and properly performed priesthood blessings. These practices are often referred to as “energy healing.” Other names are also used. Such promises for healing are often given in exchange for money.

This counsel was issued seven months ago, so there’s been plenty of time for Meldrum and the FIRM Foundation to distance themselves from the “energy healing” grifters who are so closely tied to the Heartland movement.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Meldrum doesn’t want to distance himself and his organization from those people, because there is money to be made.

—Peter Pan