“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[Canadiandude2]

The problem is, as you state, that you’ve never read anything from the NNL blog. Parker drones on and on about lying and duplicity, yet he himself appropriated the persona of a black LDS man from Birmingham, AL. This is bananas. Especially so considering the era in which we live where Mormons have openly, secretly, and socially persecuted black people. It’s not only in bad taste to use a black man as an avatar, but one has to wonder if Parker did so in order to deflect any criticism - did he think using the identity of a black man would afford him a social shield from criticism? Regardless, an anonymous handle would’ve been sufficient for the task at hand, but to flesh it out as a black man in these racially charged times is stupidity manifest. Mike Parker who currently teaches an adult religion class in the Hurricane, Utah, area is goddamn fool.

- Doc

It also reveals a fundamental error conservative Mormons are making in how they understand positionality and intersectionalism. Granted there are far too many people that claim to be progressive with similar misunderstandings.

One’s positionalities in life do not by themselves confer any legitimacy or authority. You can see the same mistake being made by the ‘gays against gr**mers’ idiots. They cannot empirically demonstrate their claims and much of their work seems merely to enrich themselves as Republican rainbow window dressings.

Similarly, a black man devoted unconditionally in defence of the church’s historical (and contemporary) racism and prejudice isn’t gonna suddenly change most people’s minds on the matter.

Positionality I think is more useful in understanding an actor’s *potential* blindspots, lived realities, and assumptions. But these aren’t guaranteed, and we all wear different hats at the same time which of course all interact with one another in interesting ways.

I’ll never forget telling an older, gay man he could go f*Celestial Kingdom himself upon hearing that he didn’t believe in the necessity of gay marriage legislation. “Nobody’s forcing you to get married, and I sure as hell ain’t in line for either a long nor good time!!”

[Dr Moore]

Well I hope dear brother Parker is proud of himself.

He’s left a trail of digital evidence behind for instruction of future generations on important life questions.

Questions such as, “how to behave like a bigoted anonymous asshole online and then self-doxx,” or rather the neo-fable, “Peter Pan commits seppuku with a keyboard.”

[Doctor Scratch]

Look up mike-parker.org on the way back machine.

You will find some gems like this:

TOP 30 INDICATIONS YOU LIVE IN A LIBERAL STAKE:

30. Most of the men have long hair; most of the women have short hair.
29. Members frequently use the term, "international church."
28. The singles' ward has better Home/Visiting Teaching statistics than
the family wards.
27. The flagpole hasn't been painted since Ezra Taft Benson was prophet.
26. The flag hasn't quite made it up the flagpole since Ezra Taft
Benson was prophet.
25. Flag? What flag?
24. No bubble perms on women (or men--see #30).
23. Very few, if any, men are wearing white shirts.
22. Most members of the Bishoprics, High Council, and Stake Presidency
sport facial hair in one form or another.
21. The Relief Society President attends PEC. Every week.
20. There are no lawyers or orthodontists in high-profile leadership
positions.
19. Primary children are permitted to "drum" when singing "Book of
Mormon Stories."
Corollary: Primary children are permitted to shout "Sun-BEAM!"
(You know when.)
18. No "Rush is Right" bumper stickers in the parking lot.
17. No faded "Happiness is Family Home Evening" bumper stickers in the
parking lot.
16. No 1970's-era station wagons or vans in the parking lot, with or
without the aforementioned bumper stickers.
15. None of these aforementioned station wagons or vans can be found at
the neighborhood PriceCostco.
14. The Laurels don't flirt with the missionaries--the Beehives do.
13. No ward picnic on or around July 24.
12. Portraits of past Relief Society presidents are prominently
displayed in the foyer--but no apostles.
11. Nobody in a leadership position uses a Franklin Day Planner.
10. The red punch actually tastes good.
9. The Relief Society doesn't own a lace doily tablecloth.
8. The Stake President is quoted in the local liberal rag.
7. During the weekly announcement from the pulpit, the Ward Magazine
Rep pushes "Sunstone" and "Dialogue."
6. None of the Young Women wear hair bows, floral print dresses, or
lace collars.
5. Ezra Taft Benson is never quoted in any meeting (not even the
"Pride" talk).
4. The Relief Society Presidency all wear Birkenstocks to church on
Sunday.
3. Multi-whole-grain sacrament bread.
2. The General Handbook of Instructions is supporting the broken leg
on the bishop's desk.
1. Members prefer to be called "Mormons" rather than "Latter-day
Saints."

Yuck.

This list, and the attitudes behind it, are telling, and for me, it points to what may be the motive for the "Richard Nygren" minstrelsy. Parker seems like the kind of person who cannot sympathize with or understand people who don't share his politics, and so he ridicules and dehumanizes them. If I may be allowed to speculate: I think that Parker pretended to be a Black man from Alabama because he assumes that his critics--especially the folks *here* at DiscussMormonism.com--are a bunch of "Libtards" who are so afflicted with "wokeism" that they think Black folks are beyond reproach. The idea being, I guess, that if he were to pose as Black, that he'd gain an advantage of some kind. It's the kind of warped and dishonest and exploitative racism that you saw in cases like Rachel Dolezal and Andrea Smith.

And, I will note that Parker's main enabler--Daniel C. Peterson--has said nothing about this, other than his usual, pathetic "Gee, I didn't know about the Richard Nygren thing!" So, is DCP--the guy who posted images of Black people being lynched as a "joke"--going to denounce this behavior? Or is "Peter Pan" still the "estimable" author of an "invaluable" blog that trashes other Latter-day Saints?

[drumdude]

I actually agree with you and, if I had gone on, would have said that I think it highly unlikely, realistically speaking, that anybody ever has been or ever could be purely evil. In fact, a completely bad person may not even really be fully imaginable. In any case, I'm guessing that Mafiosi love their children. I expect that der Führer really liked his German shepherd, Blondi. (What? You expected him to own a French poodle?)

DCP who an hour ago argued that Hitler wasn't a completely bad person because he probably liked his dog? Right up there with the Midge listing his top 5 favorite holocaust death camps.

[dastardly stem]

I know I'm way behind here, but I just read Peterson's blog post about this stuff. Apparently he think Everybody Wang Chung told Robert Boylan that Richard Nygren was the author of the blog. And then something about Everybody Wang Chung posting in Peterson's comments section. Boylan then said it on a podcast or something and Mike Parker and perhaps others ran with it since it perhaps offered some convenient cover?

How far off am I now?

I would enjoy seeing someone offer an explanation for this whole mess, though. Sounds like Parker is quite a weenie.

[Kishkumen]

I know I'm way behind here, but I just read Peterson's blog post about this stuff. Apparently he think Everybody Wang Chung told Robert Boylan that Richard Nygren was the author of the blog. And then something about Everybody Wang Chung posting in Peterson's comments section. Boylan then said it on a podcast or something and Mike Parker and perhaps others ran with it since it perhaps offered some convenient cover?

How far off am I now?

I would enjoy seeing someone offer an explanation for this whole mess, though. Sounds like Parker is quite a weenie.

I think you are giving him too much credit. He assumes his readers know nothing about the facts, and he spins from there. No need to concoct an elaborate alternate narrative.

[drumdude]

I know I'm way behind here, but I just read Peterson's blog post about this stuff. Apparently he think Everybody Wang Chung told Robert Boylan that Richard Nygren was the author of the blog. And then something about Everybody Wang Chung posting in Peterson's comments section. Boylan then said it on a podcast or something and Mike Parker and perhaps others ran with it since it perhaps offered some convenient cover?

How far off am I now?

I would enjoy seeing someone offer an explanation for this whole mess, though. Sounds like Parker is quite a weenie.

I think you are giving him too much credit. He assumes his readers know nothing about the facts, and he spins from there. No need to concoct an elaborate alternate narrative.

This.

The first time Richard Nygren was mentioned was on the Robert Boylan YouTube video I posted. Then it was repeated by Peter Pan (Mike) on NNL and Steve Smoot on SeN. DCP allowed the claim by Smoot to stand in the SeN comment section even after knowing Mike was Peter.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Wait….What?

DCP is blaming me for the whole Richard Nygren affair? Good Lord.

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

[dastardly stem]

Wait….What?

DCP is blaming me for the whole Richard Nygren affair? Good Lord.

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up.

Either that, or he's saying the real fraud is that someone created an account under Richard Nygren and tried to post a couple of comments on his blog.

Moreover, I’m reasonably confident that I know who is behind the fraud: It’s good old “Everybody Wang Chung” himself.

Admittedly, I'd still be curious to learn where Boylan got his information from. I have no reason to doubt it'd be Parker, but it'd be nice to have some sort of confirmation.