Rian Nelson promotes the claim that Russell M. Nelson is “the prophet who teacheth lies”

I’m taking a break from my very busy summer schedule to share what should be a warning to all Saints to not believe or follow the teachings of Rian Nelson, blogger and social media coordinator for Rod Meldrum’s Book of Mormon Evidence website.

For many years, Rian Nelson has been blogging and posting about his opposition to COVID-19 vaccines. He’s compared vaccines in general to sorcery and the occult and called pharmaceutical drugs “poisonous.” (Click here to see more examples of conspiracy theories he’s peddled.)

The problem of course with Rian Nelson’s anti-vaccine stance is that it’s in direct opposition to the repeated counsel of the First Presidency. This has forced him to make increasingly convoluted claims in order to justify his positions in the light of prophetic statements.

The latest example of this is his promotion of Alexander Tibekizis’s Kindle book—available for just 99 cents (you truly do get what you pay for, I suppose)—that claims “by teaching lies, the president of the Church fulfilled the prophet Isaiah’s prophecy” in Isaiah 9:15.* (If his blog post ends up being deleted, you can see a screenshot of it here.)

Rian Nelson first reprinted the Amazon.com description of Tibekizis’s book, unintentionally referring to it as “an amazing quote by Joseph Smith”:

During COVID-19, many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were shocked to have their church leaders encouraging them to take the COVID-19 Vaccine. Some questioned the faith of those who would not take the Vaccine; others accused any who spoke against the Vaccine of promoting apostasy. Some questioned their own faith when confronted with their prophet promoting what they saw as a lie. Still, others took the Vaccine even against their better judgment, believing that God would not hold them responsible for the damage it caused if they followed the prophet’s counsel.

By teaching lies, the president of the Church fulfilled the prophet Isaiah’s prophecy in the Old Testament, accompanied by many other leaders worldwide. Avoiding the Vaccine was not only the right and privilege of every member but standing for truth is precisely what the Lord has called those loyal to Him to do, both in and outside the Church. The Book of Mormon records that more part of the people came to believe in the Gadianton’s and thus took part with them in their spoils. This book documents how that same process occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also witnesses that none need question their faith in God, the Book of Mormon, the restoration of the Church, or their own membership, but it rather invigorates all to remain faithful to the purposes of the Lord and stand for truth at all times and all places.

Rian Nelson then followed that by reprinting this comment that he wrote to Tibekizis:

I absolutely love the premise of your book. It is the message the Saints need to hear. Often, I think how the Word of Wisdom was not given as a commandment, as it was written for the WEAKEST of the Saints, which is very similar to what you are speaking about.

Over 70% of my family took the jab, which I didn’t, as I was blessed with a calming spirit that told me not to take it. My family didn’t listen, as they were deceived by the craftiness of man. Now, I know the Lord forgives and He will bless my family as they show faith in Him.

Our dear Prophet was not wrong, as he was speaking to the entire world. Many countries would have ostracized or rejected the Church in many countries, like they did in Utah and our own USA. President Nelson knows the Lord will bless those who truly understand or repent. It was a huge trial of our faith and we will go through much more as the Prophet [Joseph Smith] said,

“Does God really want to speak to you? Yes! “As well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri river in its decreed course…as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down knowledge from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints.”

Let’s break this down, shall we?

• Rian Nelson believes that the First Presidency’s repeated counsel to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was, like the Word of Wisdom originally, not a commandment. (Nelson is correct that the Word of Wisdom was originally given “not by commandment or constraint,” although that changed in the 1920s under President Heber J. Grant.)
• Rian Nelson believes that the First Presidency’s repeated counsel to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was “written for the WEAKEST of Saints.” This would imply, it seems, that spiritually elite Saints knew that President Nelson didn’t mean they should get the vaccine, but all the spiritual commoners didn’t understand this coded message and failed the test.
• Rian Nelson believes that over 70 percent of his family members were “deceived by the craftiness of man.” (Wow, I’ll bet Thanksgivings and family reunions are blast with him around!)
• Rian Nelson believes that the First Presidency’s repeated counsel to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was a ploy to keep the Church in good standing among the nations of the world, and that President Nelson “knows the Lord will bless those who truly understand”—wink, wink—that he really didn’t mean for people to get vaccinated. This was just a secret code that only the spiritually elite like Rian Nelson would understand, while Saints who lacked his understanding or were disobedient (i.e., those who need to repent) didn’t understand and follow.

In an ironic twist, on the very same day that Rian Nelson published his “the prophet who teacheth lies” blog post, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced a contribution of $3 million to procure and distribute the new RTS,S malaria vaccine to help 39,500 African children receive the four doses required for immunity against malaria.

Rian Nelson is a false teacher who is leading unsuspecting Latter-day Saints into apostasy. Avoid and shun his teachings, and warn your fellow Saints also against them.

—Mike Parker [“Peter Pan”]

---

* Addendum: Who was “the prophet that teacheth lies” in Isaiah 9:15?

I haven’t (and won’t) read Tibekizis’s book, but if he truly believes that Isaiah 9:15 is prophecy of Russell M. Nelson—or even that President Nelson fits some sort of prophetic type in connection with that verse—then he’s gravely mistaken.

Isaiah 9:8–10:4 is an oracle (prophetic saying) made by Isaiah some time around 730 b.c. against the nation of Israel (also called Ephraim), which lay to the north of Judah where Isaiah lived. Israel had formed an alliance with Syria (also called Aram) to jointly throw off the yoke of Assyrian oppression. The two small nations wanted Judah to join them against Assyria, but king Jotham of Judah refused to participate in their coalition. Israel and Syria responded to Jotham’s decision by attacking Judah to force her to join their alliance. Shortly after the war began, Jotham died and was succeeded by his young son, the wicked Ahaz (r. 732–716). Judah suffered significant defeats during the reign of king Ahaz, and eventually the armies of Syria and Israel marched to Jerusalem and besieged the city. It was at this point that Isaiah gave Ahaz the Immanuel Prophecy to reassure him that Israel and Syria would both be defeated within a few years (Isaiah 7:3–17).

Isaiah 9:8–10:4 follows that by declaring the Lord’s coming punishment on Israel/Ephraim, and its capital city Samaria:

¹¹Therefore the Lord shall set up the adversaries of Rezin [the king of Syria] against him [Jacob, meaning the people of Israel],
 and join his enemies together;
¹²The Syrians before [i.e., from the east], and the Philistines behind [i.e., from the west];
 and they shall devour Israel with open mouth.
For all [despite] this his [the Lord’s] anger is not turned away [does not subside],
 but his hand is stretched out still [to strike Israel].
¹³For the people [of Israel] turneth not unto him that smiteth them [the Lord],
 neither do they seek the Lord of hosts [turn to him in the spirit of repentence].
¹⁴Therefore the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail,
 branch and rush [i.e., shoots and stem], in one day.
¹⁵The ancient and honourable [i.e., leaders and highly respected people], he is the head;
 and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.
¹⁶For the leaders of this people [i.e., the “ancient and honourable” and the prophets of v. 15] cause them [the people of Israel] to err;
 and they that are led of them are destroyed.

This prophecy was fulfilled a few years later (ca. 721 b.c.), when the Assyrians attacked and overran the nation of Israel and deported the ten tribes who lived there to the east.

Isaiah’s prophecy condemned the false prophets of the nation of Israel in the eighth century b.c. It has nothing whatsoever to do with modern times, COVID-19, or (heaven forbid) Russell M. Nelson.

“And in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.” (D&C 10:63)

Why die on this hill? A reply to Robert Thornton

My July 2020 blog post, “Wayne May and the apostasy of the Heartlanders,” is probably my most-viewed post. Last month, Heartlander Rian Nelson gave it some attention on the FIRM Foundation’s blog, which has increased the view count of my post from Heartlanders who disagree with my conclusions.

One such person is Robert Thornton, who recently left a lengthy comment on that blog post. He raised some interesting points, so I’ve decided to respond in this blog post.

I put my trust in God not men or the philosophies of men.

This claim is often made by those who assert that they are right because they supposedly trust in God while others are wrong because they supposedly trust in men.

I’m reasonably certain that Robert believes the things that Jonathan Neville, Rian Nelson, Wayne May, and Rod Meldrum have taught regarding the hill Cumorah and Book of Mormon geography. How are their beliefs different from “the philosophies of men”? They’re interpreting scripture and Church history, and their interpretations are at least as prone to error as anyone else’s.

Robert puts his trust in “the philosophies of men” like Neville and Meldrum; he just doesn’t recognize that he’s doing it.

I give little credence to those touting the superiority of intellectuals and scholars over prophets and apostles.

Heartlanders frequently level this accusation at people who believe the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica. The claim that scholars and academics are “rejecting the prophets” goes back to Rod Meldrum’s 2008 DVD presentation; it’s now essentially a Heartland article of faith.

Despite what Jonathan Neville and other figures in the Heartland movement have said, no Book of Mormon scholar who believes in a Mesoamerican geography has claimed to be intellectually superior to prophets and apostles. In fact, many academics in the Mesoamerican camp have been invited to speak to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and have good working relationships with them. (Daniel Peterson is just one example of such a scholar.)

I flee from those who cast stones from the great and spacious building in order to demonize others for their sincere beliefs.

Robert is implying that I’m in “the great and spacious building” and “casting stones” at Heartlanders. It intrigues me that he sees this disagreement over Book of Mormon geography and how the Book of Mormon was translated as an issue of good vs. evil. If I disagree with Jonathan Neville and criticize his claims, I’m apparently in the “evil” camp. Not mistaken. Not in error. Evil—or at least wicked (1 Nephi 15:28).

Also, sincerity proves nothing. There have been many people throughout history who have been very sincere but still wrong in their beliefs.

Rather, I trust the Lord and those servants He has called.

Actually, Robert trusts specific statements from specific Church leaders that support his views. He probably ignores or rationalizes away the statements of Church leaders that disagree with his beliefs. I’m reasonably certain that Robert, like Jonathan Neville, dismisses the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon geography, even though it represents the official position of today’s Church.

I don’t pretend to know many things, but I do know that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and the “plains of the Nephites” are in the Heartland because that is what the prophet Joseph Smith taught.

Actually, Joseph Smith said very little about Book of Mormon geography, and he never made it the topic of any sermon. He had beliefs about it, but it’s a real stretch to assert that those beliefs were based on revelation. There’s no evidence whatsoever that his comment about “the plains of the Nephites” in his 1834 letter to Emma was derived from inspiration rather than simple assumption.

Heartlanders have planted a stake in the ground that the contents of his letter were revealed, and they accuse anyone who disagrees with them of “rejecting the prophets” or “claiming Joseph was an ignorant speculator.” That’s not the same thing, however, as providing actual evidence that Joseph’s letter was revealed.

Yes, I know all the arguments you will trot out to try to invalidate the prophet’s words and make him contradict himself, so you can spare me the repeating of them.

No one, least of all me, is trying to “invalidate” the words of Joseph Smith. The hard truth is that his words (or anyone else’s) don’t speak for themselves—they have to be interpreted. The best way to interpret them is in the light of what his close associates and other Church leaders of his day believed he meant, along with what Church leaders today affirm.

Robert and other Heartlanders are clinging to a specific set of statements made by Joseph Smith and disregarding the rest, along with contemporary context and nuance. They are pushing the simplistic—not simple, but oversimplified—version of Church history that they were taught in Primary classes and by well-meaning but under-informed Sunday School teachers.

When evaluating any theory, I don’t look at the men promoting it, but for the fruits it produces. I’ve tasted good fruit as I’ve learned about some theories and bad fruit as I’ve learned from others.

This is the most interesting of all Robert’s statements. What “fruit” is there from the assertion that the hill near Joseph Smith’s home was the hill Cumorah of the Book of Mormon? What does one learn about the Atonement of Christ, the doctrines of salvation and exaltation, the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, or any other central teaching of the restored gospel? In short, why die on that hill? (Please pardon the pun.)

Lest you accuse Mesoamericanists of the same thing, let me remind you that people in the Mesoamerican camp don’t believe that the truth of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s calling hinges on where it took place. Book of Mormon geography and the location of the hill Cumorah are interesting fields of research, study, and discussion, but if it turns out that the Book of Mormon actually took place in New York State, the American Midwest, the Panamanian Isthmus, or South America, Mesoamericanists wouldn’t be crushed by this revelation. For Heartlanders, however, the Book of Mormon had to have taken place in the area around western New York, because Joseph Smith supposedly knew this by revelation and therefore the legitimacy of his prophetic mantle depends on it being true.

So what, exactly, are the “fruits” of the Heartland movement? During the four years I’ve been blogging about it, the fruits that I’ve seen have been irresponsible scholarship, dishonest claims and statements, misuse of historical sources, use of logical fallacies, criticism of the modern Church and modern Church leaders, misrepresentation of those who are critical of their theories, hypocrisy and double standards, promulgation of wild conspiracy theories, and a frequent lack of self-awareness.

My assumption is that the “fruit” that Robert has experienced has been mostly confirmation of his own biases and preexisting beliefs. It can feel good to have someone tell you that everything you already believe is true; it’s much harder for people to be told that what they believe isn’t quite correct and needs to be amended, updated, and revised.

I honestly don’t know why some people are so obsessed with calling this or that believer a deceiver, charlatan, or apostate simply for expressing their beliefs. It stirs up contention and turns those involved into servants of the adversary.

This goes back to my earlier comment about sincerity. “Simply expressing one’s beliefs” sounds harmless, but it’s troubling when those expressions lead people to believe things that aren’t true. Even worse, when those expression lead people to reject the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, disparage Church employees, scholars, and publications, and praise anti-Mormons and use their resources, then it’s clear that those expressions are leading people astray and down the road to apostasy.

The Savior admonished the Nephites to avoid contention because they were disputing over the proper manner of baptism (3 Nephi 11:28–30). His injunction was never intended to prevent people (such as your humble author) from pointing out dangerous falsehoods that are being promulgated within the Church of Jesus Christ.

I also use my real name when I blog and comment on others’ blogs because I am not ashamed of what I believe and I have nothing to hide. I’ve learned that those who criticize others under an alias are often wearing a costume in order to deceive the elect.

I’m far from “ashamed” of what I write. I stand by it, in fact. I don’t expect Robert to have read every blog post on my site, so I’ll repeat the following for his benefit:

I go by the pseudonym Peter Pan for a couple of reasons. The first is that I thought it was funny and that it tied in with the name of the blog (which was created first). The second is that, to be honest, there are some unstable people in the Heartland movement—Stephen Reed being just one prominent example—and I’d rather not expose myself or my family to being stalked or harassed by them.

I appreciate Robert’s comment and for giving me the chance to clear up any misunderstanding and confusion he or other Heartlanders may have about me and this blog.

—Peter Pan
 

Neville-Neville Land 2022 year in review

The end of 2022 brings to a close the fourth year I’ve been publishing this blog. What started as something of a lark has developed into a full-blown escapade.

This year I published 48 posts examining the iconoclastic beliefs and assertions of Jonathan Neville and his associates in the so-called “Heartland” Book of Mormon movement. That’s down from 72 in 2021 and 74 in 2020. The reduced number of posts this year has been due mostly to (a) my increasingly busy schedule and (b) Jonathan Neville’s regular routine of regurgitating the same content over and over again, only using just ever-so-slightly different words. There’s only so many times that I can write about (to use just one example) his repeated fatuous assertion that people who don’t agree with him are “rejecting the teachings of the prophets.”

Among the significant developments this year in Neville-Neville Land, I would include the following:

• The most impactful event was the publication in the journal Interpreter of Spencer Kraus’s reviews of Neville’s two recent books, A Man That Can Translate: Joseph Smith and the Nephite Interpreters and Infinite Goodness: Joseph Smith, Jonathan Edwards, and the Book of Mormon. Neville’s theories on the origins and translation of the Book of Mormon have long needed to be examined in a detailed manner, and Kraus delivered the goods in two excellent essays.
  The editors of Interpreter graciously gave Neville the opportunity to respond to Kraus, and he did so in a 3,600-word response they published—after which he had the temerity to claim that Interpreter and other scholarly Latter-day Saint organizations “refuse to permit alternative faithful interpretations [of Book of Mormon geography] on their websites” and implied that these organizations are responsible for the declining growth in Church membership.
  Spencer Kraus responded to Neville in Interpreter, on his own blog, and in an interview with Robert Boylan, ably demonstrating that Neville misunderstands and misinterprets original sources and the arguments of those who criticize him.
• A key individual in the Heartland movement finally decided to engage my criticisms: On December 22, 2022, Rian Nelson of the FIRM Foundation wrote a blog post complaining about the way I characterize him and his associates. What followed was something approaching an actual conversation (see part 1, part 2, and part 3). Even though we didn’t come to an agreement, I am grateful to Rian for respectfully discussing some of our differences.
• Adding to the list of disturbing statements made by prominent Heartlanders, this year we saw David Hocking refer to Book of Mormon artwork approved by Church leaders as “visual pornography” and Kimberly W. Smith (who, in 2021, accused the Church of being “off course”) claim that Church members who follow the First Presidency’s counsel on vaccines have “fallen victim to a cult mindset.” (And Rian Nelson wonders why I say that he and his comrades are flirting with apostasy!)
• Adding to his long history of making dishonest statements, this year Jonathan Neville falsely claimed that the people he calls “M2Cers” and “SITH sayers” don’t want people to read his books.
• An important document came to my attention this year that refutes Jonathan Neville’s claim that Oliver Cowdery never said Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by placing stones in a hat and his claim that the “stone in the hat” stories were invented in 1834 by an anti-Mormon author. Both of those assertions are shown to be false by the January 29, 1831, diary entry of Richard NcNemar, who heard Oliver Cowdery preach in November 1830 that Joseph translated by using “two transparent stones in the form of spectacles thro[ugh] which the translator looked on the engraving & afterwards put his face into a hat & the interpretation then flowed into his mind.” Neville’s assertions continue to fall apart under the weight of documentary evidence.
• Finally, one of the worst people on the internet triumphantly claimed that he’s figured out my true identity, and yet he’s completely, hilariously wrong. Like, not even in the ballpark. But since he’s wrong concerning most things about which he arrogantly opines, I guess that’s to be expected.

Finally, here are the top ten Neville-Neville Land posts for 2022 by number of reads:

1. The First Presidency reviewed Saints before publication (July 27, 2022).
2. Jonathan Neville reacts to Spencer Kraus’s reviews (June 30, 2022).
3. President Nelson and the attention to detail in Saints (August 4, 2022).
4. Follow-up: The character of Stephen Reed (“TwoCumorahFraud”) (March 14, 2022).
5. “Doctor Scratch,” perpetual gadfly and blowhard (July 23, 2022).
6. Recommended watching: Spencer Kraus’s interview with Robert Boylan (July 19, 2022).
7. Peter’s hiatus and three brief notices (March 6, 2022).
8. Jonathan Neville’s latest folly: The Kinderhook Plates (March 30, 2022).
9. Spencer Kraus’s devastating review of Jonathan Neville’s A Man that Can Translate (June 17, 2022).
10. Rian Nelson pulls a Michael Scott (April 11, 2022).

Last year at this time, I wrote, “I see little evidence that Jonathan Neville will retreat from his extremist views in the coming year and bring himself more in line with the teachings of the prophets regarding the Book of Mormon and how the Prophet Joseph Smith translated it.” I’m saddened to report that I was right. However, 2023 brings a new year and new opportunities, so here’s hoping that more people will see through the transparent falsehoods of the Heartland movement in the coming year.

Happy new year!

—Peter Pan
 

My reply to Rian Nelson of the FIRM Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for rephrasing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Peter Pan 

An open letter to Rian Nelson of the FIRM Foundation

Dear Rian,

I notice that you recently blogged about me. Thank you for opening a dialog; I hope this leads to further discussion.

I’ll respond to each of your points:

The blog below is from a a [sic] man who calls himself “Peter Pan.” I respect all peoples [sic] opinions, but it is very sad when they begin calling Heartlanders names.

This is a very interesting statement, since in your own blog you referred to the BYU Book of Mormon Conceptual Map by the derogatory name “Fantasy Map” (a term that Jonathan Neville has used in over 100 of his own blog posts) and also wrote that I “just seem like a very small person” to you. So, apparently, name-calling is not exclusive to my site.

He said we are an apostate sect, and hucksters, racists and other inflammatory things.

Allow me to examine those three terms in the context in which I used them:

• Over the last four years, I have given many examples of statements from you, Jonathan Neville, and other Heartlanders that are apostate or lean in that direction. One of the most troubling features of Heartland movement is how its advocates continually imply that today’s Church and Church leaders are teaching falsehoods or withholding the truth about Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the hill Cumorah. (For example, see these statements by Jonathan Neville about how Church leaders have been purportedly suppressing the truth about the translation of the Book of Mormon in General Conference talks and Church magazines, and this claim he made that a general authority published anti-Mormon material in a Church magazine.) These things are very disturbing. You are leading your followers away from the teachings of living prophets while claiming to be faithful to dead prophets. You are also causing dissension and division among the Saints by repeatedly attacking mainstream Latter-day Saint scholars and implying that they are a “fifth column” within the Church. These things are despicable and dangerous. When confronted, you claim that you follow the Brethren and have faith in the Church, but your own statements contract that claim.
• Yes, I called the leaders of the Heartland movement “hucksters.” A huckster is “a person who employs showy methods to effect a sale,” and the conferences and videos produced by the FIRM Foundation certainly fit that description.
• Please read carefully: I have never once called you or anyone else a racist. I have said, however, that some of things you have written are racist: I’ve referred to “a disturbingly racist blog post,” “appeals to vaguely racist notions,” and “a disturbingly racist approach” to a specific matter. Occasionally using racist language does not make you a racist; it simply means that you should carefully consider what you write and how it could be interpreted by your readers before publishing.

He defends the “fantasy map” they use as you see it in the video below by John Lefgren.

There you go using the term “fantasy map” (in scare quotes, no less) instead of its actual name, the BYU Book of Mormon Conceptual Map. Using its real name would show respect for its creators, but it would prevent you from using derogatory labeling as a polemical weapon.

I support the following scriptures and quotes, that strengthen my faith and testimony, as I believe the Book of Mormon events began in North America:
1- D&C 128:20
2- D&C 125:3
3- Joseph’s letter to his wife Emma, on the Plains of the Nephites. JSP
4- Story of Zelph and Onondagus on the Illinois River JSP
5- Hundreds of quotes by Prophets, Apostles and Leaders HERE.

I’ve discussed each of these references and the problems with the Heartland interpretation of them. Feel free to use the search feature on my blog to find these discussions.

The problem with the Heartland approach is that you start with a conclusion (“the Book of Mormon events began in North America”) and then interpret these texts so that they fit into your predetermined belief, while also ignoring or hand-waving texts that contradict that belief. For example, Jonathan Neville doesn’t like the statements from Emma Smith, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and many others that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, so he dismisses those eyewitness testimonies and tells people, wrongly, that they should focus only on specific, cherry-picked statements of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, without interpreting those statements in the light of all the available evidence.

When you write:

Please read, pray and study these references above on your own, for validation of your own feelings.

…you’re doing the same thing Neville does—telling people to focus on only a limited number of specific sources that are the keystones of your belief.

I share this information with you for an awareness of the vitriol my friends Wayne, Rod, and Jonathan have endured for many years. They are entertained and just shrug it off as the good men they are.

The “vitriol” I have supposedly heaped upon your friends is no worse than what you and your friends have said about Daniel Peterson, Jack Welch, Richard Bushman, John Sorenson, and many other good men. You and your associates have repeatedly stated that these men—along with Church employees and Church leaders—have “rejected the teachings of the prophets,” are responsible for loss of faith and a decline in the growth of Church membership.

If you want respect for yourselves, then you need to start giving respect to others. This entire conflict began in 2008 with Rod Meldrum claiming that Church scholars are leading members astray; you, Jonathan Neville, and others have continued to promulgate that lie since then. If you want to know the source of the supposed “vitriol,” take a look in the mirror.

I love the gospel and the Savior and His Church. It saddens me to see good members put others down and don’t have the courage to openly debate in a positive way. We all love the Book of Mormon and it is my prayer we can all come together and not fight with each other. Our fight is against Satan not our fellow members.

I wholeheartedly agree! So please stop putting down and misconstruing the beliefs and statements of those who disagree with your interpretations about Book of Mormon geography, Book of Mormon translation, and other matters. Stop implying that the Brethren and Church employees are suppressing or distorting Church history. Stop peddling misguided “QAnon,” anti-vaxx, and other conspiracy theories. Start focusing on the truth of the teachings in the Book of Mormon and allow for different viewpoints on historical and geographic issues without asserting that those who disagree with you are “rejecting the teachings of the prophets.”

The anonymous Mesoamericanist supporter of the Book of Mormon won’t disclose his real name as he continually calls Heartlanders names.

Many authors throughout history have used pseudonyms for one reason or another. (There’s a long list of them on Wikipedia.)

I go by the pseudonym Peter Pan for a couple of reasons. The first is that I thought it was funny and that it tied in with the name of the blog (which was created first). The second is that, to be honest, there are some unstable people in the Heartland movement—Stephen Reed being just one prominent example—and I’d rather not expose myself or my family to being stalked or harassed by them.

Summary of Quotes from Peter Pan

1- “hucksters who are selling the Heartland hoax to gullible Latter-day Saints”
2- “advancing fraudulent pseudoarchaeology”
3- “May’s latest venture is a scheme”
4- “dubious interpretation of D&C 125:3 to find what he insists must be there.”
6- “must have a true and correct belief in Book of Mormon geography, otherwise their faith is misplaced”
7- “According to Wayne May, the Church is “under condemnation” for not believing in the correct geography of the Book of Mormon.”
8- “This is yet another example of the false god of the Heartland Book of Mormon movement:”
9- “with their own message of American Exceptionalism.”
10- “According to them, the United States is God’s promised land, and therefore the peoples of the Book of Mormon must have lived in the United States and the Book of Mormon’s promises must apply only to the United States and its inhabitants.”
11- “explains Neville’s disturbing views on nationalism and racial superiority
directly accuses the Church and its leaders of hypocrisy and teaching false doctrine. Wayne May once again claims that the Church is “under condemnation” for not accepting the Heartland Book of Mormon geography”
12- “He then asks viewers to give him money to help pay for the effort to find it.”
13- “As I’ve previously written, the Heartland movement is an apostate sect that is critical of living prophets and apostles.”
14- “Heterodox Teachings” [Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma.]

I stand by all of these statements as I made them in their original context. I invite anyone to search for these phrases on my blog and read what I wrote in full.

You can respond to Peter Pan at his blog below. Please, no derogatory remarks. I am sure he is a good member of the Church who loves the Book of Mormon. He just seems like a very small person to me.

And there’s the reference to me being “a very small person.” Who’s calling names now?

(For the record, I’m 5′ 10½″ tall, which is not “small.”)

It appears that some of your followers haven’t been heeding your advice. (“Please, no derogatory remarks about that very small person!”) Here are a couple of examples from your Facebook post about your blog:

(The comment above—along with all of its replies—was deleted by its author or by Rian Nelson.)

Respect is a two-way street, Rian.

If you would like to engage in a dialog, I would be more than pleased to have that conversation. Please feel free to contact me in the comments below or at peter ᴀᴛ nevillenevilleland ᴅᴏᴛ com.

Sincerely,

—Peter Pan
 

Saints to be the focus of a worldwide Church devotional

Jonathan Neville has claimed that Saints—the multi-volume Church-published history—lacks “an accurate historical narrative,” presenting instead “a false historical narrative” written by anonymous editors who surreptitiously “omitted or spun” the source materials they worked with.

Unsurprisingly, his allegations continue to go unheeded by Church leaders: Saints volume 3 is going to be the subject of an hour-long worldwide devotional with Elder Dale G. Renlund of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and his wife, Ruth, on September 11, 2022.

It’s telling that the Brethren continue to promote and build up the Saints volumes while Jonathan Neville continues to try to tear them down.

What does Jonathan Neville know about Saints that Elder Renlund and the other members of the Quorum of the Twelve don’t? Less than he thinks, I imagine.

—Peter Pan

It’s all so tiresome

When I started this blog, I legitimately hoped that, by pointing out the errors in Jonathan Neville’s arguments and methods, he would come to understand how misguided and offensive his manner is and perhaps moderate his approach.

Three-and-a-half years later, I am not so sanguine. He continues to misrepresent the arguments and the motivations those who disagree with him. He continues to call for mutual respect and to tolerate different points of view while simultaneously presuming the worst about his opponents.

One example of this is the terms that he uses to describe those on the other side. One of these is the acronym SITH, which stands for “stone in the hat,” referring to the (overwhelming) historical evidence that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by using a seer stone that he placed into a hat. The term “Sith” comes from the fictional Star Wars universe; it describes “an ancient order of Force-wielders devoted to the dark side [who] practice hate, deception, and greed…[and] look to amass power at all costs.”

This is not an innocent coincidence. Jonathan Neville knows the connection the word Sith has to great evil: In one of his earliest blog posts in which he used the term, he included photos of Star Wars-related media and used the phrase “the revenge of the SITH,” a reference to the title of the 2005 Star Wars movie. He’s deliberately using this acronym to describe those who disagree with him because it implies they are evil.

And yet Neville still protests his innocence and claims that all of this is just for convenience: “Some people don’t like these acronyms,” he writes, “and I’m happy to consider alternatives, but for now…SITH = stone-in-the-hat theory.” This is a lie. He is not going to “consider alternatives.” He knows exactly what he’s doing, and the evidence clearly shows that he’s doing it deliberately.

Amidst all of this, Neville continually—and hypocritically—pleads for disagreements to be “handled charitably.” That was the focus of two recent blog posts (here and here) in which he called for “respect [for] other perspectives, interpretations, beliefs, etc.,” while in the very same post calling the BYU Virtual Scriptures conceptual Book of Mormon map a “fantasy map,” claiming his opponents’ beliefs are “based on the premise that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ignorant, naive, or deceitful,” and asserting that “the citation cartel”—(another derogatory term he uses frequently)—“obscures and censors sources so that people cannot make informed decisions.”

It requires either a massive amount of chutzpah or a total lack of self-awareness to plead for respect and charity while simultaneously resorting to name-calling and misrepresenting one’s ideological opponents.

The evidence sadly suggests that Jonathan Neville is not going to stop doing these things or even tone down his rhetoric. If anything, Neville’s recent appearance on Steven Pynakker’s Mormon Book Reviews YouTube channel shows that he’s doubling down on his approach in the wake of Spencer Kraus’s incisive reviews of his recent books.

My interpretation of all of this is that Jonathan Neville is allowing himself to become more and more convinced that Church leaders are going to come crawling to him, telling him that he’s been right about everything and pleading with him to come cast out the evil historians and save us all with his brilliance. But the phone keeps not ringing, so he has to keep ramping up the hyperbole to show the world how sincere and right he is. (See, for example, his recent blog post “Yet another SITH video!” in which he accuses the Church of the “suppression” of “what Joseph and Oliver taught.”) Neville’s latest interview with Pynakker doesn’t help, because Pynakker just feeds Neville’s sense of self-importance by telling him there is a time coming for him to shine, calling this approaching moment “the hour of Jonathan.” “the Jonathan Neville moment.”*

If my reading of these tea leaves is correct, then Jonathan Neville is following a well-trodden path that many would-be ark-steadiers` have walked before him. This road never leads to good ends.

—Peter Pan
 
* I inadvertantly misquoted Pynakker when I posted this blog. Pynakker pointed this out recently, and I’ve corrected the error. (Although, to be honest, I don’t see a qualitative difference between “the hour of Jonathan” and “the Jonathan Neville moment.”) —November 11, 2022.

There has been a critical error

Screenshot taken August 25, 2022

What could the critical error be? Apostasy? Special pleading? Strawman arguments?

The world may never know.…

—Peter Pan
 

The First Presidency reviewed Saints before publication

It’s no secret that Jonathan Neville has serious problems with Saints, the Church-published, multi-volume history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Neville maintains an entire blog called Saints Review that he uses to criticize what he considers to be its “censored” version of Church history.

For example, concerning Saints, Neville has written:

• “[Accepting the history in Saints] wouldn’t be a problem if the editors had decided to accurately present the historical events from the perspective of the people involved; i.e., if they had presented an accurate historical narrative. Instead, they chose to promote modern ideas about Cumorah and the translation of the Book of Mormon.” (September 25, 2021)
• “The Saints books, especially volume 1, created a false historical narrative present (meaning, how did historical figures think and act in their day) to accommodate M2C and SITH.” (August 12, 2021)
• “The Saints books…are anonymous. We don’t know who wrote or edited them, we don’t have access to editorial decisions, and despite the numerous footnotes, readers can’t tell what was omitted or spun unless they have extensive background in the source materials.” (May 17, 2021)

Neville is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but that last statement from him is not even factually accurate: Jed Woodworth is the Managing Historian for the Saints project, and Scott Hales is also an editor. These facts are easily discovered with a simple Google search, which Neville apparently didn’t even attempt.

In a podcast produced by the Church about Saints volume 2 and published to the Gospel Library, Jed Woodworth had this to say about how the books have been produced:

My main duty is to ensure that the history [published in Saints] is accurate, to make sure that our writing measures up to the highest standards, [and] that we’re source-accurate. And I also incorporate feedback from a number of reviewers—external reviewers, general authority reviewers, including the First Presidency.

(The Saints Podcast, season 2, episode 1, “Gather Up a Company,” timestamp 0:59–1:19; emphasis added.)

So, contrary to what Jonathan Neville has been telling his readers for almost three years, the editors of Saints have “decided to accurately present…an accurate historical narrative.” Not only that, but the the manuscripts for Saints have been reviewed by general authorities, including members of the First Presidency. The First Presidency also wrote a foreword to the first volume, in which they encouraged “all to read the book and make use of the supplementary material available online” and expressed their hope “that this volume will enlarge your understanding of the past, strengthen your faith, and help you make and keep the covenants that lead to exaltation and eternal life.”

The raises an important question: Whom are we to believe? The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Jonathan Neville, conspiracy theorist, ark-steadier, and critic of the Church?

—Peter Pan
 

Jonathan Neville continues to assert that the Church is “out of the way”

In his October 1965 general conference address, Elder Harold B. Lee warned the members of the Church:

There are those among us who would set themselves up as critics of the Church, saying that the Church has gone out of the way. Some splintered apostate clans even from the beginning of this dispensation have made fictitious claims to authority. We should warn these, as well as those who are in danger of being led astray of what the Prophet [Joseph Smith] predicted. He said, “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church saying they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is [on the way] to apostasy and if he does not repent, [he] will apostatize, as God lives.”

In April 1989, Elder (now President) Dallin H. Oaks warned the Saints about “alternate voices” who “speak of…the doctrines, ordinances, and practices of his church,” but do so “without calling or authority”:

The Church does approve or disapprove those publications that are to be published or used in the official activities of the Church, general or local. For example, we have procedures to ensure approved content for materials published in the name of the Church or used for instruction in its classes. These procedures can be somewhat slow and cumbersome, but they have an important benefit. They provide a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said. Members who listen to the voice of the Church need not be on guard against being misled. They have no such assurance for what they hear from alternate voices.

Elder Lee’s warning about “those among us” who criticize the Church and Elder Oaks’ warning about “alternate voices” both firmly apply to Jonathan Neville, who continually criticizes the Church, its leaders, and its publications. His July 14, 2022, blog post, “The Rising Generation, SITH and the GTE,” is rife with examples of this. For the sake of brevity, I’ll share just the following excerpt.

Note how different Neville’s evaluation of Church publications is to the one given to us by Elder Oaks:

Not only has Cumorah been censored from the Saints book, volume 1, but the teachings of Joseph and Oliver about the Urim and Thummim have been all but erased as well.

A prime example is the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation as we’ll discuss below. This essay has been criticized by outsiders, but it is more problematic from a faithful perspective.

There are two aspects of the Gospel Topics Essays that people seem to overlook.

1. They were written by committee, published anonymously, and are not canonized.
2. They are subject to revision at any time without notice, and have been revised from time to time in the past.

These two aspects lead me to hope and propose that the essays continue to be improved. As it is now, the Translation essay misleads readers—particularly the rising generation.

…

[Joseph Smith] never said or implied that he dictated the Book of Mormon from words that appeared on the stone in the hat (SITH).

But the rising generation does not know any of this.

They are not being taught to refer to original sources but instead are led to the Saints books and to the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation.

That essay omits and edits important, relevant original sources, including the teachings of the prophets, to promote the narrative generated by David Whitmer and others, contrary to the plain teachings of Joseph, Oliver, and their successors in Church leadership.

Just in this brief excerpt of his much longer blog post, Jonathan Neville has:

• Accused Church employees of censoring the historical record in official Church publications.
• Accused Church publications of being “problematic from a faithful perspective.”
• Downplayed the authority of the Gospel Topics Essays. (This, despite the Church’s explicit statement that the Gospel Topics Essays “have been approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles,” something I pointed out three years ago.)
• Hand-waved the Essays’ authority away on the spurious basis that they can be and have been revised. (Every position of the Church is subject to revision as “further light and knowledge” are received, either from divine or earthly sources. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants have been revised; that doesn’t in any way lessen their authoritative status.)
• Accused the Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon translation of “mislead[ing] [its] readers.”
• Accused Church publications of misleading the youth of the Church (“the rising generation”) by teaching them to ignore original sources.
• Accused Church publications of “omitting” and “editing” sources so they are “contrary to the plain teachings” of Joseph Smith and other early Church leaders.

Please explain to me how Neville’s statements do not clearly fit Elder Lee’s warning about “those among us who would set themselves up as critics of the Church, saying that the Church has gone out of the way.”

Please explain to me how Neville’s statements do not explicitly call into question Elder Oaks’s witness that Church publications have “a spiritual quality control that allows members to rely on the truth of what is said.”

I am not claiming that Church publications are perfect. Everything produced by mortals is fallible, including scripture. There’s a difference, however, between (a) having concerns about or disagreements with specific articles published by the Church and (b) claiming that there is a conspiracy within the Church to suppress all teaching about a specific pet doctrine that one espouses. There will of course be errors in Church publications, and most publications will eventually be superseded by newer ones that correct these errors. But claiming that the entire Church is off the rails on supposedly important matters of doctrine and history is where Neville goes horribly wrong.

His approach can and will lead people in only one direction: into apostasy and out of the Church.

—Peter Pan
 

Jonathan Neville reacts to Spencer Kraus’s reviews

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

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

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

Neville writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ad hominem itself blushes in the face of Jonathan Neville.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Peter Pan