Mike Parker says Neville is trying to blackmail him

[Kishkumen]

I’m disappointed by the “personal” turn that things have now taken. Of course, it’s always been “personal” in a sense. As I’ve tried to say on multiple prior occasions, I’m quite unconcerned by “Heartland” geographical models for the Book of Mormon. I’m not persuaded by them, but I’m not especially upset that not a few others are persuaded. What concerns me is the tendency of some “Heartlanders” to regard Book of Mormon geography as a central doctrine of the Gospel and, accordingly, to cast public doubt on the loyalty to the Church, the Restoration, and the Gospel of those who publicly affirm views that differ from theirs. That’s why, alas, I’ve found the Neville-Neville Land blog “necessary.” It chronicles such poor and inappropriate behavior. And now I’m further dismayed by the gleeful willingness of at least two zealous “Heartlander” advocates to make common cause with avowed, vocal critics the Church, the Restoration, and the Gospel against those whose views on Book of Mormon geography fail to toe the “Heartland” line.

This new kerfuffle strikes me as a tempest in the proverbial teapot. As Gertrude Stein once wrote about Oakland, California, where she grew up, “there’s no there there.” Especially bemusing to me is the central role in it that is now being assigned to me both by Mr. Jonathan Neville and by my Malevolent Stalker and his epigones. I’m so peripheral to this story, as intrinsically insignificant as it is, that one would need a high-powered telescope even to see me from the periphery.

An anonymous blog that personally lampoons a Heartlander is "necessary"? Um, no. Publishing quality arguments against the Heartlander views may be necessary, but these childish antics were never "necessary" in any way, shape, or form.

[drumdude]

We need to help Daniel and Mike see the irony here.

Neville and his crew have legitimate arguments, even if some of the heartlanders go off the rails into anti semitism and attacking the church. Neville wants M2C to engage with his arguments, but they would rather stick to the side issues.

Daniel Peterson and his M2C crew have spent a lifetime going off the rails, and then bashing everyone for not engaging with their arguments. “Metcalfe is Butthead” and the latest Richard Nygren fiasco are the two classic examples.

DCP and Mike Parker want to have it both ways. They want to blast Mormon critics for not engaging with their arguments and focusing on side issues, while simultaneously not engaging with Neville’s arguments and focusing on side issues.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

From Peterson’s blog’s comments section:

To be hated, cursed and despised for Jesus' sake is an honor that we can only hope to attain...

And when that doesn’t work, you could always bully a marginalized group until people push back, and then act like the aggrieved victim you desperately hope to be. For Jesus.

- Doc

[Marcus]

Yes, DCP's irony is ridiculously thick.

“DCP” wrote:
I’m disappointed by the “personal” turn that things have now taken. Of course, it’s always been “personal” in a sense.

Have "now" taken? At least he seems to realize how obviously untrue that statement is. Yes, "in a sense" Parker's repeated personal insults over 4 years were personal. Deeply, unkindly, viciously personal.

As I’ve tried to say on multiple prior occasions, I’m quite unconcerned by “Heartland” geographical models for the Book of Mormon...

That one has drifted from irony into an outright lie. DCP has repeatedly stated not only that he thought various Heartlanders were headed toward apostasy but that he also thought they were guiding their followers to the same.

For him to argue now that he's always said the opposite is dishonest. in my opinion, he is attempting to distance himself from the fray, similar to his abandonment of Hamblin.

[Bond]

Guy works in a pawn shop and probably sees all kinds. If you're not carrying a bloody battle axe it probably doesn't phase someone like that.

Yes, when you work in a pawn shot you learn to tolerate the kray kray without blinking an eye. Parker was just a Thursday.

Indeed. Most people nowadays have done some sort of tour of duty in retail/service and have seen actual kray.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

But he’s so far on the periphery of the issue you’d nEeD aN eLeCtRoN mIcRoScOpe hIgH PoWeReD tElEsCoPe [shout out to consig] to see him!

Naw, dawg, we can see you just fine. You literally shilled for Mike “Peter Pan” Parker’s blog dozens of times, have a close relationship with Captain Hook, and have yourself directly attacked the people behind the Heartlander movement.

So, no. You’re a big, fat, juicy, gaping maw blathering about All Things Dan Doesn’t Like punching your keyboard with your sausage fingers like your posts are going to save your soul or something.

You dingus.

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

From Peterson’s blog’s comments section:

To be hated, cursed and despised for Jesus' sake is an honor that we can only hope to attain...

And when that doesn’t work, you could always bully a marginalized group until people push back, and then act like the aggrieved victim you desperately hope to be. For Jesus.

- Doc

Seatimer responds to my post above:

Please don't get me wrong. I don't want to ever suggest that we should be anything other than a peaceable people. I truly endorse, love and sustain President Nelson's latest conference talk on being Peacemakers. Nor do I think that we should be martyrs nor seek out any faux reason to be hated, cursed or despised.

That being said, my honest and true preference is that everyone should be a member of the restored Church. This would alleviate almost all of the "burning hatred" found in the world today. Until that time arrives, when I say that it is an honor to be derided for Jesus' sake, I mostly imply this for Dr. Peterson who takes more than his fair share of the brunt of it. Me, myself and I am too politically and ethically unimportant to receive such consideration; he on the other hand faces it daily. Mostly in support of him and others like him was my comment made, and I sympathize and empathize with all those who suffer publicly or privately for Jesus' sake. I, being somewhat cowardly, don't personally happen to be one of them, but I vastly admire those who are willing to stand up, defend the faith and state the truth as they see it, all the while maintaining a true Christian mien of meekness and love unfeigned.

At this moment in my life, observing what Dr. Peterson goes through just happens to be the most public image of this active onslaught most readily observable today.

I don’t think Seatimer has been paying attention to his own people’s infighting. Ask Neville if he feels like there’s a lack of “burning hatred” from the guy who’s been obsessed with him for four years running.

- Doc

[Doctor Scratch]

I’m disappointed by the “personal” turn that things have now taken. Of course, it’s always been “personal” in a sense. As I’ve tried to say on multiple prior occasions, I’m quite unconcerned by “Heartland” geographical models for the Book of Mormon. I’m not persuaded by them, but I’m not especially upset that not a few others are persuaded. What concerns me is the tendency of some “Heartlanders” to regard Book of Mormon geography as a central doctrine of the Gospel and, accordingly, to cast public doubt on the loyalty to the Church, the Restoration, and the Gospel of those who publicly affirm views that differ from theirs. That’s why, alas, I’ve found the Neville-Neville Land blog “necessary.” It chronicles such poor and inappropriate behavior. And now I’m further dismayed by the gleeful willingness of at least two zealous “Heartlander” advocates to make common cause with avowed, vocal critics the Church, the Restoration, and the Gospel against those whose views on Book of Mormon geography fail to toe the “Heartland” line.

This new kerfuffle strikes me as a tempest in the proverbial teapot. As Gertrude Stein once wrote about Oakland, California, where she grew up, “there’s no there there.” Especially bemusing to me is the central role in it that is now being assigned to me both by Mr. Jonathan Neville and by my Malevolent Stalker and his epigones. I’m so peripheral to this story, as intrinsically insignificant as it is, that one would need a high-powered telescope even to see me from the periphery.

An anonymous blog that personally lampoons a Heartlander is "necessary"? Um, no. Publishing quality arguments against the Heartlander views may be necessary, but these childish antics were never "necessary" in any way, shape, or form.

One of the great ironies in all of this is the fact that the Mopologists went after the "new MI" in pretty much exactly the way that he is describing the Heartlanders. In the wake of their ejection from the Maxwell Institute, the Mopologists went on a crusade, claiming that anyone who even hinted at the idea that the Book of Mormon might be "inspired fiction" was a full-blown apostate who needed to be stripped of their temple recommend.

And DCP is hardly on the "periphery." He's the Ring Leader--the person that all the junior tier Mopologists, such as Smoot, Parker, the Rappleyes, and Robert Boylan--all look up to and try to emulate. Did he invent the Richard Nygren persona or did he write all the hundreds of NNL entries? No. But he enthusiastically approved of and arguably inspired much of it.

[consiglieri]

I’m so peripheral to this story, as intrinsically insignificant as it is, that one would need a high-powered telescope even to see me from the periphery.

One doesn’t need a high powered telescope to see DCP from anywhere.

[Kishkumen]

I don’t think Seatimer has been paying attention to his own people’s infighting. Ask Neville if he feels like there’s a lack of “burning hatred” from the guy who’s been obsessed with him for four years running.

Yes, it’s all rather silly. Jonathan Neville is LDS. Mike Parker is LDS. Boylan is LDS. Where is the persecution here? What is provoking the nastiness is disagreement over issues that do not matter. The Mopologists did not have to get personal about this, regardless of the behavior of any Heartlanders. Now critics are being leveraged by both sides for rhetorical purposes.