The Expose on LDS Apologists & The Invention And Coverup Of Richard Nygren

[Marcus]

Just imagine how this might have gone if only Mike Parker hadn’t gone to what he thought was Bill Reel’s place of work to try to get him in trouble. It seems to be a time-honored strategy for mopologists to threaten people in real life when they are losing in online debates of topics. It’s the LITERAL embodiment of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

[Marcus]

Well, I’ve gone down the rabbit hole now. In case anyone’s interested, here’s Neville’s latest response

Thursday, April 20, 2023
Who is the ringleader of the clown circus?

On Monday we discussed the pitiful saga of the "Peter Pan" fiasco.

https://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica. ... l-and.html

We'll continue that discussion on the Interpreter blog, here: https://interpreterpeerreviews.blogspot.com/

Underneath the details, we are left to wonder why these fine LDS scholars would think it is not only acceptable but a good idea to resort to a deceitful, racist, ad hominem approach to apologetics?

At first glance, it is evident that their little prank would have gone nowhere if not for the active, enthusiastic endorsement and promotion by Dan Peterson and the rest of the "Interpreters" who promulgated the racist fraud in their own journal, presenting "Mike Parker" and "Peter Pan" as two separate contributors. But Dan's style of sarcastic apologetics and his reputation for giving and taking offense is well-known and easily ignored as goofy. It's "Dan being Dan," generating (i) chuckles at the FAIRMormon conferences but (ii) disgust among everyone else.

Surely no serious young scholar seeking to establish a credible career would choose to emulate Dan's approach.

We need to look elsewhere for an explanation of this counterproductive brand of apologetics.

Naturally, Book of Mormon Central, as one of the facades in the Potemkin village of the M2C citation cartel, republished the Interpreter articles. And that's an important clue.

The "Peter Pan" episode is merely another branch from the tree of deplorable apologetics we've long seen from the citation cartel. To borrow from a legal context, "Peter Pan" is fruit from a poisonous tree.
And what is the poisonous tree?

Where do we find a pattern of using anonymity and surrogates to enable plausible deniability?

Where do we find a façade of academic integrity that masks strident advocacy, censorship, and misdirection?

We might look at the Interpreter Foundation, and to be sure, there is plenty chicanery there, but it's not quite a façade. Generally (other than the "Peter Pan" episode), the contributors there at least publish under their real names. While the Interpreter's brand of peer review (which seems to consist mainly of "peer approval" as I discuss on my InterpreterPeerReviews blog) may be a façade, at least the contributors "own" what they write and say.

Not so at Book of Mormon Central (BMC).

We'll discuss BMC next.

Posted by jonathan3d at 7:32 AM

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.c ... ircus.html

[malkie]

This guy, Neville, is a lawyer, right?

Is he not misusing the "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal terminology?

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well.

In what sense can one say: ""Peter Pan" is fruit from a poisonous tree."

[drumdude]

I think he’s just using the metaphor loosely. Daniel Peterson and the legacy of the old school nasty dishonest Mormon apologetics is the tree. And newer young apologists are the fruit falling from that tainted tradition.

He is hoping that a new generation of apologists can begin without being tainted by DCP’s dishonorable tactics.

[malkie]

I think he’s just using the metaphor loosely. Daniel Peterson and the legacy of the old school nasty dishonest Mormon apologetics is the tree. And newer young apologists are the fruit falling from that tainted tradition.

He is hoping that a new generation of apologists can begin without being tainted by DCP’s dishonorable tactics.

Yeah - I can see that. And I understood what he was getting at.

I guess what I'm really saying (and it doesn't bother me all that much) is that he could probably have found a more apt metaphor. I mean, who here hasn't been introduced to the term by watching Law and Order, or some such?

But perhaps I'm the only person who noticed, and then had to go back and look to see how what he was talking about fitted the "normal" definition.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

And my last one because his Twitter feed is just him talking into the wind and edgelord shitposting. Speaking of which, he re-tweeted this graphic which was popular in alt-Right circles during the last US Presidential election cycle:



So, there you have it. Robert Boylan. Alt-Right Mopologist.

- Doc

Point of interest with regard to why Robert Boylan retweeted the image above and that he was an active DezNat hashtagger:

https://archive.ph/fYOmt#selection-5161.0-5210.0

This is who Robert Boylan is. This is who Mike Parker associates with. This is who Dan Peterson shills for.

- Doc

[Marcus]

I posted this in another thread, but it probably belongs here.

Speaking of Boylan (again), he's having a bad week, apparently due to his propensity to 'trigger' people:

APR 19

Reformed Apologist Triggered by my Blog Being Shared on a Facebook Group

This was just forwarded to me by a friend (apparently, something I wrote was posted/quoted in a Protestant vs. Latter-day Saint Facebook group, and it triggered the best living proof of Total Depravity and Invincible Ignorance):

...You may have noticed I deleted you[r] comment with the Robert Boylan quote.

The rules of this group unfortunately have to exist because of the poor character of guys like Robert.

Many Evangelicals, and faithful Latter-day Saints have had very bad personal encounters with Robert.

When I say "very bad" I mean very very bad. He is not allowed in this group and neither are his writings.

You may not understand why and may think I'm scared of Robert's scholarship. I assure you I'm not.

Feel free to reword the arguments in your own words but no direct quotes from him will be permitted. I appreciate your understanding and compliance in this matter.

Methinks [he] protests too much; he has had a number of occasions to try to respond to my writings before, including my request for him to support their being proto-Protestants in early Christianity when he wanted to debate the Great Apostasy with me via email, so he is lying when he says he is not afraid of my scholarship. And by “very bad personal encounters” that translates as “he calls people out for their eisegesis of the Bible and the patristics.” Still waiting for documentation on those proto-Protestants, James . . .

Here is my challenge to [him] to prove me wrong:

Refute the following where I take you (and [this person] who you plagiarized) that Victorinus did not teach baptismal regeneration:

Baptismal Regeneration in the Writings of Gaius Marius Victorinus (290-364)

At the end of the day, this is why I believe Protestant pastors and apologists such as Hazelton et al are worse than doctors who perform abortions at Planned Parenthood--abortionists can only destroy the body; the nonsense Protestants (esp. Calvinists) like [...] et al preaches destroys the soul.

Posted Yesterday by Robert Boylan

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/

[ I removed names ]

Wow. He really hates a lot of people, doesn't he.

[drumdude]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelph

Although Smith did not mention the Zelph event specifically in his journal, it is clear that during this period he considered the area in which the group was traveling to have been part of the land described in the Book of Mormon. In a letter that Smith wrote to his wife Emma the following day (June 4, 1834), he stated:

The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest and sincere men, wandering over the [North American] plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity, and gazing upon a country the fertility, the splendour and the goodness so indescribable, all serves to pass away time unnoticed.

DCP and the M2C crowd need to learn to follow the prophet Joseph Smith.

Joseph said North America, the area he lived in, was the land of the Nephites.

[malkie]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelph

Although Smith did not mention the Zelph event specifically in his journal, it is clear that during this period he considered the area in which the group was traveling to have been part of the land described in the Book of Mormon. In a letter that Smith wrote to his wife Emma the following day (June 4, 1834), he stated:

DCP and the M2C crowd need to learn to follow the prophet Joseph Smith.

Joseph said North America, the area he lived in, was the land of the Nephites.

Yes, but ...

Is this not how it goes:

Joseph Smith is not the current prophet.
The current prophet says we don't know where the land is that was described in the Book of Mormon.
Therefore we can ignore what Joseph Smith said and take comfort in ignorance.

Of note: The current prophet also, apparently, doesn't know where it isn't, and so cannot resolve the Heartlander vs. LGT dispute by saying that one or the other is wrong.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

At the end of the day, this is why I believe Protestant pastors and apologists such as Hazelton et al are worse than doctors who perform abortions at Planned Parenthood--abortionists can only destroy the body …

Wow. That’s a new low for Mopologist rhetoric. Kinda makes the whole DCP thing about not criticizing other faiths ring hollow when he promotes people like Boylan. Just … wow. I wonder what Rusty would think of Boylan and his words?

- Doc