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 the Mesoamerican photos in the 1963–1981 Book of Mormon are important

In my last post, I shared a set of photographs that were published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1963–1981 missionary edition of the Book of Mormon. These photos of of ancient sites, murals, textiles, and crafts from Mesoamerica are clear evidence that leaders of the Church since at least the early 1960s have considered Mesoamerica and South America to be potential locations for Book of Mormon events. (The publication of multiple articles in the Ensign magazine in the 1980s shows that belief persisted after the photographs were no longer included in the Church-published Book of Mormon.)

Our old fried “TwoCumorahFraud,” whose immature, mocking comments I no longer publish (see here), left a comment on that post that began with:

But The Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints never taught the Two Cumorahs theory.

Heartlanders like Mr. Fraud and Jonathan Neville assert that mention in Church publications of connections between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerican sites and artifacts is okay, as long as it doesn’t mean that the hill Cumorah itself was located in Mesoamerica. They insist—for reasons that still perplex me—that the hill Cumorah in western New York must be the one and only Cumorah and the place where the final battles of the Jaredites and the Nephites were fought because some leaders of the Church said it was.

The problem is that there’s no reasonable way to admit that at least some of the narrative of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica and also insist that the hill in New York was the hill Cumorah described in Mormon chapter 6.

The problem—which John Sorenson documented decades ago—has to do with travel distances. The Book of Mormon doesn’t measure the distances it took for people to travel from one place to another in miles or kilometers, but it does regularly mention how many days it took for people on foot to go from point A to point B.

For example, the book of Mosiah describes Ammon¹ and his party departing Zarahemla and going south, up to the land of Lehi-Nephi: “And now, they knew not the course they should travel in the wilderness to go up to the land of Lehi-Nephi; therefore they wandered many days in the wilderness, even forty days did they wander” (Mosiah 7:4) “Wandering” clearly indicates that they did not know the route, so that tells us that a person who did know the route could make the same trip in less time. And that’s exactly what we see when Alma¹’s group makes the same trip, only in reverse, in approximately 22 days. This translates to a maximum distance of between 225 and 260 miles between Lehi-Nephi and Zarahemla. (See Sorenson’s The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book, p. 229.)

That distance is important because we also read about an earlier expedition sent by King Limhi from Lehi-Nephi to find Zarahemla:

And [King Limhi] said unto [Ammon¹]: Being grieved for the afflictions of my people, I caused that forty and three of my people should take a journey into the wilderness, that thereby they might find the land of Zarahemla, that we might appeal unto our brethren to deliver us out of bondage. And they were lost in the wilderness for the space of many days, yet they were diligent, and found not the land of Zarahemla but returned to this land, having traveled in a land among many waters, having discovered a land which was covered with bones of men, and of beasts, and was also covered with ruins of buildings of every kind, having discovered a land which had been peopled with a people who were as numerous as the hosts of Israel. (Mosiah 8:7–8)

Limhi’s expeditionary party did not know the way to Zarahemla; they only knew that it was in the lowlands to the north of the land of Nephi. This group was “lost in the wilderness for the space of many days,” but they eventually stumbled upon “a land among many waters” and discovered the ruins and remains of the Jaredite people. This land featured the hill Cumorah, which the Jaredites had called Ramah (Ether 15:11).

From this narrative, we can logically infer that the men of Limhi’s expedition knew the basic direction in which they needed to travel to get to Zarahemla; they just didn’t know the exact way to get there. They were only two generations removed from when their ancestor, Zeniff, had come from the land of Zarahemla to settle in Lehi-Nephi. They missed Zarahemla, overshot it by some distance, and stumbled upon the land where the hill Cumorah was. They believed they had found Zarahemla and that it had been destroyed (Mosiah 21:26).

If they hadn’t found the remains of the Jaredites, how far would Limhi’s party have traveled before realizing they were lost and turned back? We can’t answer this question definitively from the scriptural record, but it seems implausible that they would have traveled more than twice the distance that we know it to be. Let’s be generous and give them three times the distance—750 miles.

And this is where we get to the important part: If at least parts of the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, as Church leaders seem to have acknowledged by using photographs of that area in the missionary edition of the Book of Mormon published in the 1960s and 1970s, then it would have been impossible for Limhi’s expeditionary group to have traveled from there to western New York, a journey on foot of about 2,500 miles.

So it’s extremely unlikely—and I would argue impossible—for any part of the Book of Mormon to have taken place in Mesoamerica and still have the hill Cumorah of Mormon chapter 6 be in western New York. The distances just don’t work out.

Therefore, according to Heartlanders, the leaders of the Church must have been mistaken to include photographs of Mesoamerican and South American sites and artifacts in the 1963–1981 missionary edition of the Book of Mormon. Those were in no way connected to the peoples and civilizations of the Book of Mormon.

That’s not any different than Mesoamericanists claiming that leaders of the Church who have insisted on a single location for Cumorah—in the absence of any revelation on the subject, I wish to point out—were also mistaken.

Both theories require that one explain contrary statements and publications by Church leaders. It’s not nearly as cut-and-dried as the Heartlanders’ “scholars vs. prophets” claim would have us believe.

—Peter Pan
 

Photos of Mesoamerican sites in the 1963–1981 missionary edition of the Book of Mormon

From 1963 to 1981, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published a paperback edition of the Book of Mormon with a photograph of a gold angel Moroni statue on its cover:

This was the standard inexpensive edition that was printed in large quantities and given by missionaries to investigators.

Like the one with the dark blue cover that’s been published since 1981, the earlier edition contained photographs of several paintings of Book of Mormon scenes by Arnold Friberg.

It also contained several pages of photographs of ancient sites, murals, textiles, and crafts that demonstrated the existence of advanced, complex, ancient American civilizations. The first page in the series had two photographs of the hill Cumorah, “where Joseph Smith obtained the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.”

Click images to enlarge.

None of these images proves that the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica or South America.

However, they do clearly demonstrate that, since at least the early 1960s, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have considered Mesoamerica and South America to be potential locations for Book of Mormon events.

This continues to be backed up by statements made by President Russell M. Nelson, the current (2023) president of the Church.

—Peter Pan
 

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
 

Heartlander David Hocking calls Church-approved artwork “pornography”

David Hocking is a noted figure in the Heartland movement who has self-published his own annotated editions of the Book of Mormon, the New Testament, the Book of Jasher, and the Old Testament book of Isaiah. His Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon, which he co-edited with Rodney Meldrum, contains forgeries and unprovenanced artifacts, misrepresentations of historical sources and DNA science, and unsubstantiated claims and arguments. His editions of the New Testament, Jasher, and Isaiah are texts in the public domain—usually translations that are well over one hundred years old.

Hocking was recently interviewed for the Gospel Tangents podcast, which bills itself as “the best source for Mormon history, science, and theology.” Among the eyebrow-raising things he said in this interview was that Church-authorized artwork depicting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica is “visual pornography.”

The pertinent part of the interview begins at 1:04:13. Podcaster Rick Bennett noted that there may be “people who admire the work you’ve done,” but who are going to be “turned off with the Heartland theory stuff.” Bennett then asked:

Rick Bennett: Would you consider creating an edition [of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon] that was more geography…

David Hocking: Neutral.

Bennett: …neutral, yeah.

Hocking: Yeah. And, actually, the Church should be doing that, but they’re not. Every—everything that they talk about—they have never been neutral—

Bennett [crosstalk]: That’s so weird about [unintelligible]

Hocking: But, yeah, they want us to be neutral, but they’re not. They have never shown anything in Central—uh, in North America; they always show it as in Mesoamerica. Although the background has mountains in it, it’s got palm trees, it’s got Chichen Itza-type/style temples that have nothing to do with the law of Moses, but that’s their choice. All the artwork—now I’m going to be very bold here; people are going to hear this from Dave Hocking—we hear a lot about pornography in the Church. You know, we have a problem with pornography and what is [unintelligible]? It’s a visual image that you can’t get out of your brain, and it desecrates the human body. These images of the temple that are in our church buildings, that’s in our church material, to me is visual pornography. Why? Because those are not temples after the order of Solomon. You don’t do the law-of-Moses types of sacrifices in these models that they show as images, and you can’t get it out of your mind, and it desecrates the law of Moses. So, for me, that’s visual pornography.

Bennett: Hmm. Wow, that’s pretty bold.

Hocking: It is very bold, but to me that’s what it is, because you cannot get that out of your brain. And if they [Church leaders?] attempt to do that [remove or change the artwork?], there’s going to be a huge backlash. Like, you’ve been given this all this time—you know, image after image after image, iterations after iterations —and now we’ve got new videos that we’re going to show you, and it’s going to be the same image, and I think that’s not right. If they’re going to be truly neutral, they need to remove that kind of image and make it more Hebrew, not some other weird religion that has stone steps with a little square box [at the top]. I’ve never been to a Mormon temple or go to Hebrew [sic] when you go to the temple after the manner of Solomon that has multiple steps with a little square box at the top. They’re all rectangular, and they have different compartments, and you go through these different—and you’ll never see that as part of the depiction of where the Savior came. You see them in a Chichen Itza-style temple with these stone—and, you know, you read the book of Mormon, they never built out of stone.

Hocking is probably referring to Church-commissioned or Church-approved artwork like “And He Healed Them All Every One” by Gary Kapp, “Christ Asks for the Records” by Robert T. Barrett, and “Jesus Christ Visits the Americas” by John Scott. These paintings are published in Church manuals and magazines and approved by Church leaders for use in meetinghouses. (John Scott’s painting hangs in the high council room in my stake center. I confess that I’ve never felt especially turned on when looking at it during stake meetings.)

Strictly speaking, the “Chichen Itza-style temples” in Latter-day Saint depictions of the Book of Mormon are anachronistic. The city of Chichen Itza didn’t become prominent until after 600 A.D., and the Temple of Kukulcán—the building with “multiple steps with a little square box at the top”—didn’t reach its final form until after 900 A.D., hundreds of years after the fall of the Nephite civilization near the end of the 4th century. Art often uses anachronistic elements. (For example, consider the Italian Renaissance setting of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper.) The use of Mayan-style architecture in Book of Mormon paintings is intended to represent a Mesoamerican setting without actually claiming that the Mayans were the people of the Book of Mormon. (They weren’t.) Hocking is protesting the use of artistic license; no one who knows Mesoamerican history is arguing that the Temple of Kukulcán was a Nephite temple.

But Hocking’s claim that Church artwork is “visually pornographic” goes well beyond mere disagreement over artistic style. He’s implicitly accusing Church leaders, including the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, of defiling Latter-day Saint temples and meetinghouses because they’ve approved artwork for them that depicts the Savior in a setting that Hocking disagrees with.

How captivated does he have to be with his own theories to claim that Church artwork is pornographic? It’s beyond bizarre, bordering on obsessive madness.

(Also, his claim that the Nephites “never built out of stone” is manifestly false. Alma 48:8 tells us that they built “walls of stone” as defenses against Lamanite attacks. No passage in the Book of Mormon so much as implies that they didn’t use stone in constructing buildings and other structures.)

—Peter Pan
 

Jonathan Neville shills for anti-Mormons (again)

“Stuff You Missed in Sunday School” is an online meme page that tries to point out supposed contradictions in Latter-day Saint beliefs. I’m not going to provide them a link—you can look them up online yourself, if you’re so inclined—but their content lacks even a modest level of depth or understanding. Their modus operandi is to take advantage of the low level of knowledge many Saints have about difficult or complex issues involving Church history and doctrine.

Considering his willingness to freely use and even defend anti-Mormon resources, it’s not at all surprising that Jonathan Neville posted this “Stuff You Missed in Sunday School” meme to his “Book of Mormon Central America” blog on November 29, 2022:

Neville followed up with this statement:

One quotation is from an anonymous essay written by scholars who promoted their own theories and never bothered to quote what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery said on the topic.

The other is from a President of the Church who served as an apostle for 62 years and 2 months, second only to David O. McKay (63 years and 9 months). He also served as Church historian for nearly 50 years.

The meme and Neville’s commentary overlook the long and complex history of how Latter-day Saint historians have treated the many eyewitness accounts of Joseph Smith using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon and receive revelations. Many historians have accepted these accounts, and their eyewitness testimonies have been printed in Church-published books and newspapers in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. A very small number of historians have rejected these eyewitness testimonies, Joseph Fielding Smith being the most prominent example.

In his comments, Neville has employed the logical fallacy of appeal to authority: Insisting that a claim must be true simply because someone important said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. In this case, he has appealed to Joseph Fielding Smith, who “personally [did] not believe” that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Neville argues, fallaciously, that Joseph Fielding Smith’s view is correct because he was an apostle and served as Church historian; serving in those two positions does not make him infallible, however, and Neville himself would certainly disagree with some of the views he held.

In summary, “Stuff You Missed in Sunday School” has tried to pit the current official stance of the Church concerning a historical matter against the personal stance of a prophet who has been dead for over fifty years. Joseph Fielding Smith wasn’t correct in the first place, so his personal views are inconsequential. What’s worse, though, is that Jonathan Neville has decided, once again, to use the “any stick with which to beat them” approach to dealing with those who disagree with him, to the point of being willing to repost anti-Mormon claims that are designed to destroy the testimonies of the spiritually weak and historically unaware.

Neville should be ashamed of his actions, but my guess is that he’s not.

—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.