Does Jonathan Neville Pose a "potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints"?
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 2:21 am
It's another day, and so, of course, "SeN" is in the business of linking to Stephen Smoot's pseudonymously-authored attack blog, "Neville-Neville Land." It seems that acrimony is on the uptick with the apologists lately; just look at this latest missive:
But there's more here that's strange. Not long ago, DrW referred to Dr. Peterson as having "narcissistic personality disorder," and was upbraided by the good Reverend over this. Well, I'm no expert in psychology, but this sentence is downright strange: "Once I noticed Mr. Neville’s propensity to demonize those who don’t share his geographical theories, however, and his urgent need to attack me over and over again, I began to realize that he poses a very unfortunate potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints." Huh? Why would criticism of DCP equal a "potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints"? Does Dr. Peterson really feel that he's that important?
Regardless, the schism between the Heartlanders and the Mopologists is interesting on all sorts of levels, something made clear by the prescient comments from "Chapstick":
And just when you thought things couldn't get any more interesting, here comes Co-Editor in Chief Allen Wyatt:
Well, now. This is quite interesting. First, okay: if he and the apologists are not interested in Book of Mormon geography, then why all the FARMS and Interpreter publications on the topic? Everyone is interested except for DCP? And remember: if the Book of Mormon didn't take place in Latin America, then it took place exactly where the Heartlanders say it took place. Not caring would effectively be a concession to Meldrum and his comrades.DCP wrote:I’m just not interested in Heartlander theories. Truth be told, I’m not overly interested in questions of Book of Mormon geography at all. That is to say, I have opinions — I’m comfortably inclined toward a limited Mesoamerican model, although I’m not wedded to it — but I’ve seldom if ever written on the subject. (Which, by the way, leaves me puzzled as to why I’ve become a principal whipping boy for Mr. Neville, who seems to be obsessed by Book of Mormon geography in general and the location of the Nephite Cumorah in particular.)
Once I noticed Mr. Neville’s propensity to demonize those who don’t share his geographical theories, however, and his urgent need to attack me over and over again, I began to realize that he poses a very unfortunate potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints. I’ve learned approximately everything I know about him from the invaluable Neville-Neville Land blog, which follows his writing pretty closely and quotes him extensively.
But there's more here that's strange. Not long ago, DrW referred to Dr. Peterson as having "narcissistic personality disorder," and was upbraided by the good Reverend over this. Well, I'm no expert in psychology, but this sentence is downright strange: "Once I noticed Mr. Neville’s propensity to demonize those who don’t share his geographical theories, however, and his urgent need to attack me over and over again, I began to realize that he poses a very unfortunate potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints." Huh? Why would criticism of DCP equal a "potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints"? Does Dr. Peterson really feel that he's that important?
Regardless, the schism between the Heartlanders and the Mopologists is interesting on all sorts of levels, something made clear by the prescient comments from "Chapstick":
And check out the replies:Chaptstick wrote:DanielPeterson, "I began to realize that he poses a very unfortunate potential threat to the peace and unity of the Saints."
I think you might be overstating the issue. Do you honestly think frequently posting about Neville is helping fuel the flames or is it helping promote the peace and unity of the Saints?
IMHO, the following has done much more to disrupt the unity of the Saints: multi-year long personal attacks on Gerald Bradford and FARMS, John Gee vs Brian Hauglid, Louis Midgley vs Gina Colvin, John Gee vs Robert Ritner, Bill Hamblin and the "debate" with Philip Jenkins, The Interpreter vs FARMS, FAIR vs FIRM, The Interpreter vs FIRM, The Interpreter vs The Joseph Smith Papers, The Interpreter vs Gays, etc., etc.
What the...??? I'm left shaking me head at this--I guess it's a backhanded compliment? The "malevolent stalking" of Jonathan Neville is justified because he has a large audience, and Interpreter and the Mopologists *don't*?Jack wrote:Chapstick, many of the examples you cite don't reach the rank and file members of the church-- not to a great extent at any rate -- whereas FIRM does, and by extension, the influence of Jonathan Neville.
Is Neville constantly posting NDEs contrary to the Brethren's directives? And can the Mopologists point to anyone who's left the Church over the Heartlanders' activities? We can point to several people on this message board alone who've left the Church thanks to the Mopologists.DCP wrote:CS: "Do you honestly think frequently posting about Neville is helping fuel the flames or is it helping promote the peace and unity of the Saints?"
I think that occasionally sharing links to a site that valuable [sic] chronicles and explains Mr. Neville's errors and false accusations is a service to my readers and, in a very small way, to the health of the Kingdom.
CS: IMHO, the following has done much more to disrupt the unity of the Saints"
It's difficult for me to see that statement as anything other than disingenuous.
Even when they're actually real -- several of them have been inflated and mythologized far beyond actual reality -- none of them has the potential capacity of Mr. Neville's errors and accusations to mislead a large audience.
And just when you thought things couldn't get any more interesting, here comes Co-Editor in Chief Allen Wyatt:
What about Grant Palmer? Was Palmer still a member at the time that Wyatt was engaged in his cybersquatting campaign?Allen Wyatt wrote:CS said "Call me crazy..."
OK, you're crazy.
Were what you say even true, do apologists need "authority" to "attack other members?" I'm been called an apologist for decades and I've associated with many other apologists during that time. I've never attacked other members. I have drawn attention to the untruths, fallacies, and sometimes outright absurdities of the ideas of other people, member or not, but that is not "attacking" others.
You raise points here that you feel are worthy of consideration. You are doing the exact same thing -- discussing others' ideas -- that apologists do.
So, it's about money, then? What a weird chain of logic here. If something is working just fine, why throw money at it? I mean, I know that Wyatt is fishing here, but still. What a dumb argument.Allen Wyatt wrote:It never ceases to amaze me when people -- invariably critics of the Church -- say that FAIR or Interpreter (or BoMC or FARMS or take your pick) has done more to hurt the Church than anything. Were that the case, I would think that critics would cease their own efforts and back (even monetarily) any one of those organizations because, after all, they hurt the Church more than anything.
Yet, having been intimately involved over the years with both FAIR and Interpreter (and at least tangentially involved with the others), I've never seen an outpouring of support from any critics for any of these organizations.
I can only draw from that fact one of two possible conclusions. Either (1) critics are trying to poison the well when it comes to the organizations because they don't know how to actually deal with what the organizations do, or (2) the critics are blowing smoke and don't have the slightest idea of what they opine upon.
What about you, CS? Are you willing to make a donation to help these organizations that are harming (the most! the most!) the Church with which you find fault? I'm sure it could do nothing but good in your eyes.