“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[canpakes]

i just read DCP's latest. That's a whole lot of words to argue he believes the setting for an imaginary story is a real place, but most definitely not the real place a different group of people believe is the setting for that same imaginary story. Meanwhile, no legitimate archeologist or scientist will state in a professional setting that the imaginary story is a real history of a real people, set in a real location.

Perhaps i’m a bit cynical about the controversy, but it seems that the Mesoamerican origin is preferred because the North American model seems even more ludicrous. In other words, Peterson and friends can point at big ancient buildings and claim that they’re ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is historically true, without having to present any further argument, even though there’s not a scrap of archaeological and cultural evidence derived from the area that matches the story. They can’t do that with a setting allegedly in North America, which lacks surviving structures of sufficient grandeur to possibly create some sort of plausibility in the mind of an observer.

So the Heartland model must die, because the job of convincing potential converts or doubting members is much more difficult under it.

[drumdude]

i just read DCP's latest. That's a whole lot of words to argue he believes the setting for an imaginary story is a real place, but most definitely not the real place a different group of people believe is the setting for that same imaginary story. Meanwhile, no legitimate archeologist or scientist will state in a professional setting that the imaginary story is a real history of a real people, set in a real location.

Perhaps i’m a bit cynical about the controversy, but it seems that the Mesoamerican origin is preferred because the North American model seems even more ludicrous. In other words, Peterson and friends can point at big ancient buildings and claim that they’re ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is historically true, without having to present any further argument, even though there’s not a scrap of archaeological and cultural evidence derived from the area that matches the story. They can’t do that with a setting allegedly in North America, which lacks surviving structures of sufficient grandeur to possibly create some sort of plausibility in the mind of an observer.

So the Heartland model must die, because the job of convincing potential converts or doubting members is much more difficult under it.

It’s all about the lack of DNA. Peterson has to fit the entire Book of Mormon story into an area the size of his living room to explain why we shouldn’t expect to see DNA evidence.

[Marcus]

i just read DCP's latest. That's a whole lot of words to argue he believes the setting for an imaginary story is a real place, but most definitely not the real place a different group of people believe is the setting for that same imaginary story. Meanwhile, no legitimate archeologist or scientist will state in a professional setting that the imaginary story is a real history of a real people, set in a real location.

Perhaps i’m a bit cynical about the controversy, but it seems that the Mesoamerican origin is preferred because the North American model seems even more ludicrous. In other words, Peterson and friends can point at big ancient buildings and claim that they’re ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is historically true, without having to present any further argument, even though there’s not a scrap of archaeological and cultural evidence derived from the area that matches the story. They can’t do that with a setting allegedly in North America, which lacks surviving structures of sufficient grandeur to possibly create some sort of plausibility in the mind of an observer.

So the Heartland model must die, because the job of convincing potential converts or doubting members is much more difficult under it.

i would somewhat disagree. The Heartlanders have as much fakery to work with as the fakery used by mesoamerican apologists, it's just a slightly different kind, and they attract a slightly different audience, I would imagine somewhat differentiable by age and length of time spent totally immersed in mormonism, as well as education level. I would concede the heartland group may be smaller, but I don't really know the numbers.

The testimonies of how each group has felt the Spirit and they just know their version is true because they feel it, however, are completely interchangeable, in my experience.

[TwoCumorahFraud]

Perhaps i’m a bit cynical about the controversy, but it seems that the Mesoamerican origin is preferred because the North American model seems even more ludicrous. In other words, Peterson and friends can point at big ancient buildings and claim that they’re ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is historically true, without having to present any further argument, even though there’s not a scrap of archaeological and cultural evidence derived from the area that matches the story. They can’t do that with a setting allegedly in North America, which lacks surviving structures of sufficient grandeur to possibly create some sort of plausibility in the mind of an observer.

So the Heartland model must die, because the job of convincing potential converts or doubting members is much more difficult under it.

i would somewhat disagree. The Heartlanders have as much fakery to work with as the fakery used by mesoamerican apologists, it's just a slightly different kind, and they attract a slightly different audience, I would imagine somewhat differentiable by age and length of time spent totally immersed in mormonism, as well as education level. I would concede the heartland group may be smaller, but I don't really know the numbers.

The testimonies of how each group has felt the Spirit and they just know their version is true because they feel it, however, are completely interchangeable, in my experience.

Nah.. Louis E. Hills’ three books have been scanned on line by Google from three different libraries.
Library of Congress
Princeton
Univiersity of Wisconsin-Madison

I have links to them. I shared one earlier.

He explains in them that he created his theory using Ethnology reports of Central America, he purchased from the Smithsonian.
Those reports, dating from 1904, have been placed online by the Smithsonian.
Hills was completely honest about his sources and motive.

https://library.si.edu/digital-library/ ... -ethnology

One is the “Bureau of American Ethnology;, Bulletin 28, page 80”

https://library.si.edu/digital-library/ ... 281904smit

He also used Bulletin 57.

This has been hidden by the likes of Sorenson, DCP, Welch, Magleby, Garner. They took Hills’ main idea, Tehuantepec, and used their own excuses, even blaming Joseph Smith over John Lloyd Stephens’ books, but Smith never taught a 2C idea. 2C was an idea published by an earlier RLDS member named H.A. Stebbins in 1911. Hills accepted it and shrunk it to Tehuantepec. I know the entire history. It’s online in various documents. I compiled it.

The Heartlanders are quoting the Prophet Joseph Smith, Wentworth letter, D&C missions to the Lamanites, Camp of Zion/Zelph, Center Place (Independence), Oliver Cowdery’s Letters IV and VII.

It’s basically scholars vs Prophets.

[Doctor Scratch]

i just read DCP's latest. That's a whole lot of words to argue he believes the setting for an imaginary story is a real place, but most definitely not the real place a different group of people believe is the setting for that same imaginary story. Meanwhile, no legitimate archeologist or scientist will state in a professional setting that the imaginary story is a real history of a real people, set in a real location.

Perhaps i’m a bit cynical about the controversy, but it seems that the Mesoamerican origin is preferred because the North American model seems even more ludicrous. In other words, Peterson and friends can point at big ancient buildings and claim that they’re ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is historically true, without having to present any further argument, even though there’s not a scrap of archaeological and cultural evidence derived from the area that matches the story. They can’t do that with a setting allegedly in North America, which lacks surviving structures of sufficient grandeur to possibly create some sort of plausibility in the mind of an observer.

So the Heartland model must die, because the job of convincing potential converts or doubting members is much more difficult under it.

That may be part of it, but I’m reminded of Professor Midgley’s remark that the apologists had to wait for Elder Mark E. Petersen *to die* before they could begin promulgating the LGT. This says to me that the whole thing is a matter of power—or a “sense of superiority,” as Dr. Stak put it. Remember that the Mopologists concocted a 100% phony “2nd Watson Letter” in order to contradict a statement that came from the First Presidency. Furthermore, the popularity of the Heartlander movement suggests that attacks on that theory would be *harmful* to overall Church membership. So I think there are other things at play here.

[Kishkumen]

It surprises me that anyone can take Book of Mormon geography at all seriously. That these yo-yos actually fight over such nonsense beggars belief. The real problem, the root problem, is the imposition of Euro culture on indigenous peoples. No matter how one chooses to go here, the end result is substituting a white man’s vision for indigenous cultures, unless one sticks with a view in which the Book of Mormon is largely if not entirely ahistorical and a product of Euro culture.

[Philo Sofee]

It surprises me that anyone can take Book of Mormon geography at all seriously. That these yo-yos actually fight over such nonsense beggars belief. The real problem, the root problem, is the imposition of Euro culture on indigenous peoples. No matter how one chooses to go here, the end result is substituting a white man’s vision for indigenous cultures, unless one sticks with a view in which the Book of Mormon is largely if not entirely ahistorical and a product of Euro culture.

I am entirely 110% with you on this one... Adults acting like arguing mean bully kids to each other in the sand box claiming their sand castle is the only true one, and both are simply mounds of sand scooped together in a heap, and everyone acting like it is a matter of life or death to see who has the more accurately detailed pile of sand. Utterly ridiculous.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Perhaps i’m a bit cynical about the controversy, but it seems that the Mesoamerican origin is preferred because the North American model seems even more ludicrous. In other words, Peterson and friends can point at big ancient buildings and claim that they’re ‘proof’ that the Book of Mormon is historically true, without having to present any further argument, even though there’s not a scrap of archaeological and cultural evidence derived from the area that matches the story. They can’t do that with a setting allegedly in North America, which lacks surviving structures of sufficient grandeur to possibly create some sort of plausibility in the mind of an observer.

So the Heartland model must die, because the job of convincing potential converts or doubting members is much more difficult under it.

It’s all about the lack of DNA. Peterson has to fit the entire Book of Mormon story into an area the size of his living room to explain why we shouldn’t expect to see DNA evidence.

Dan's next movie is going to be "The Lamanite in the Cupboard," telling the hitherto unknown tale of how Lehi accidentally shrunk his family with the Liahona and so that's why we can't find the Nephite ruins.

[Philo Sofee]

It’s all about the lack of DNA. Peterson has to fit the entire Book of Mormon story into an area the size of his living room to explain why we shouldn’t expect to see DNA evidence.

Dan's next movie is going to be "The Lamanite in the Cupboard," telling the hitherto unknown tale of how Lehi accidentally shrunk his family with the Liahona and so that's why we can't find the Nephite ruins.

That would be more easy to scientifically verify than their pet Mesoamerican geography model.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It surprises me that anyone can take Book of Mormon geography at all seriously. That these yo-yos actually fight over such nonsense beggars belief. The real problem, the root problem, is the imposition of Euro culture on indigenous peoples. No matter how one chooses to go here, the end result is substituting a white man’s vision for indigenous cultures, unless one sticks with a view in which the Book of Mormon is largely if not entirely ahistorical and a product of Euro culture.

I am entirely 110% with you on this one... Adults acting like arguing mean bully kids to each other in the sand box claiming their sand castle is the only true one, and both are simply mounds of sand scooped together in a heap, and everyone acting like it is a matter of life or death to see who has the more accurately detailed pile of sand. Utterly ridiculous.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, I think it’s less about the larp, and more the politics of combatting far-Right schismatic movements in the Church. The Heartlander movement has been labeled as a:

brand of belief [that] is exclusivist, fundamentalist, closed-minded, nationalistic, jingoistic, and deeply lacking in responsible scholarship and science. (See the previous posts on this blog for dozens of examples of this.)

and

The so-called Heartland model for the geography of the Book of Mormon is built on a foundation of fraud. Fraudulent artifacts, fraudulent science, fraudulent theology, and fraudulent history secured in place by racist ethno-nationalism are the four cornerstones of Heartlanderism.

The church is fracturing in addition to losing so many to unbelief. I believe the NNL hate blog was encouraged by the Mopologists in order to attack the Heartlanders anonymously, to give the themselves and by extension the Church distance from the activity itself. In this screed:

Heartlanders such as the monomaniacal Jonathan Neville … With an inquisitorial and self-righteous fanaticism, Neville has denounced … [various church outfits - Doc] which includes the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve) as useful idiots at best or subversive fifth columnists at worst in spreading apostate views of the Book of Mormon that undermine faith, sow confusion and discord amongst the Saints, retard the Church’s growth, hinder the Church’s missionary efforts, and compromise confidence in Joseph Smith and other prophets.

Smoot is identifying the raison d'être of not only Mike Parker’s hate blog, but his as well. They believe themselves to be in a political fight.

- Doc