never-never land lessons

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

never-never land lessons

Post by Lemmie »

From the Neville-Neville land site DP has been posting about, I excerpted this advice about being careful with sources:
pan wrote:To summarize: We have no first-hand accounts from Oliver Cowdery about the cave event (i.e., accounts written in his own hand). The first accounts of the story we have are third-hand (Hyrum Smith told W.W. Phelps who told William Horne Dame), written at least twenty-five years after the event took place. The first secondhand account (Oliver Cowdery told David Whitmer) doesn’t come until at least forty-seven years after the event...

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... ormon.html

In conclusion, Pan recommends being cautious with such stories, considering that such stories may not be completely true:
pan wrote:With all of this in mind, it should be clear to the reader that the Book of Mormon Central KnoWhy was responsibly cautious with the source material, claiming that “it is possible that the sword of Laban had words engraved on it,” and that Joseph and Oliver “once saw a large room which contained many plates,” but that “it is hard to know” if the experience “was a somewhat symbolic vision, a vision of a real location with real items, or an actual cave.”


Peterson recommends this site and particularly Pan's advice to Neville regarding the Heartland theories, but there is clearly also room for Peterson to improve! For example, in a recent blog entry praising Pan for excoriating Neville, DP referred to a column he had published in the Deseret News, about a story of Mary Whitmer seeing the gold plates around June 1829. Based on his column and an article in the Interpreter, it seems the story is based on second-hand accounts, told by her grandson and son, the earliest published in 1878, approximately 49 years after the supposed event.

In spite of admitting his story is based on second hand sources, published almost 50 years after the event, Peterson writes this:
DP, in Deseret News, wrote:John C. Whitmer, her grandson, reported that he himself had heard his grandmother tell of this event several times. He summarized her experience as follows....

According to Jesus, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (Matthew 18:16). Plainly the Lord stilt follows this pattern, and Mary Whitmer can justly be counted the 12th witness to the Book of Mormon.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... ormon.html

Note that Peterson seems to think that having two second hand sources works, but given that they are from father and son, both apparently written down in 1878 according to Skousen, it seems a stretch to think that having two clearly dependent and intertwined, very late statements overcomes the "late, second-hand" nature.

For example, Pan, at Neville-Neville land, clearly disagrees with Peterson on this:
pan, at Neville-Neville Land site, wrote:Competent historians (of which Jonathan Neville is not one) treat late, second- and third-hand accounts like these carefully, aware that stories often change over time as memory becomes less reliable and people expand on what they originally heard...


In light of what was published in the Deseret News, and especially with the Witnesses movie being filmed, Peterson clearly needs to heed Pan from Neville-Neville Land's advice. Counting Mary Whitmer as a 12th Witness is clearly an over-reach, as I'm sure Pan would agree. Or at least that's the advice Pan gives Neville about his references, which Peterson clearly supports.
Last edited by Lemmie on Fri Jul 19, 2019 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stocks
CTR B
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 02, 2019 12:34 am

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Stocks »

Interesting!

The latest FAIR podcast episode featuring Lynne Wilson ended with her being presented with a specially commissioned painting, on copper (to stand for all time), by Bob Pack, of Mary Whitmer the first witness to see the gold plates.

https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/07 ... s-on-women

Would it be fair to assume that this account is, by definition, 100% endorsed by the apologist community, now and for all time?

I think it would.
… the only thing to do when a man is wrong is to be right by ceasing to be wrong. -- Edwin Lefevre

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9918
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Gadianton »

What makes me smile is the play on "never-never" land. As if anyone with a theory of Book of Mormon geography has a right to say any other person with a theory of Book of Mormon geography is "out there in crazy land" "sheer make believe."

It's okay to argue about it and believe the other guy is wrong, but not crazy. That shows a total lack of self-awareness.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Lemmie »

I don't think it can be ruled out that the Neville Neville site may actually be an elaborate hoax that seems to support the Mesoamerican theory, but in actuality, just keeps pointing out how the two camps both fall for the same bad reasoning.

For example Pan recently took Neville to task for pointing out that the BookOfMormon Central's logo that appears everywhere is Mesoamerican. Pan considers this to be hypocritical, because buried in the Heartland site, in a discussion of Zelph, a painting of Zelph is used that shows Zelph wearing a breastplate that has almost imperceptible markings on it that, when you really zoom in, turn out to be similar to markings on the Michigan relics.

To Pan, this violates the LDS church imperative, sort of.
Pan wrote:Of course, the Mystic Symbol directly contradicts the Church’s (supposed) policy of neutrality regarding Book of Mormon geography.

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... ouses.html


I don't see how this helps the Mesoamerican Camp, however. Hasn't Peterson recently written about how historically inaccurate artwork in LDS literature doesn't mean anything? From a SeN blog entry, Peterson mocks those who might think details like markings on a breastplate in a painting might mean something in reality:
DP wrote:Here’s a shocker: Joachim Patinir’s “The Rest on The Flight into Egypt,” painted somewhere 1515-1524 and now hanging in Berlin’s Gemäldegalerie, may not be entirely accurate, historically speaking. Mary may, for example, not have dressed in the manner of northern European Renaissance noblewomen. Furthermore, the landscape along the Mediterranean coast of the Gaza Strip, the Negev Desert, and the Sinai Peninsula is, umm, neither quite so green nor so marked by prominent granite formations, and the Wadi al-Arish is . . . smaller.
(Wikimedia Commons public domain)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/?s=artwork


So where does that leave the never-never land blog? Still without an explanation for the BofM Central mesoamerican logo, posted EVERYWHERE, on a site recommended by the LDS church as having accurate information.

It's also interesting to note pseudonymous Pan has posted on Smoot's site with his Zelph artwork issues, to Smoot's full support. Another commenter there however, has pointed out another, possibly more pressing issue:
That’s as may be, but why is [Zelph] carrying a forged (no pun intended) sword, yet his spear sports a stone point?

:lol: Smoot---I mean Pan and Hook--- can't win for losing.

In the end, eating your own is a dangerous sport, you never know when you might end up nibbling off your own toes.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Lemmie »

Peterson said this a while back, in a discussion of the Neville-neville Land blog approach...

DP wrote:It seems to me a minimal basic requirement of both justice and fairness that a person who publicly targets a named individual or group of individuals for personal attack should disclose his or her own personal identity. That way, the playing field is level. And, that way, outrageous slanders and innuendos will be discouraged, because of the risk that the accuser’s own public reputation runs in the case of false accusations and grievous distortions. Not to do so, unless there are very, very serious concerns regarding safety, security, or something closely analogous thereto, is mere cowardice.

But then he excuses Captain Hook and Peter Pan as just pseudonymously discussing ideas. I was reminded of his comment above when this showed up today in one of the SeN comment sections:

Peter Pan > B Winchester • 4 hours ago • edited

Brother Neville,

Making a pun of someone's name is not "ad hominem." Ad hominem is, in fact, a specific form of logical fallacy in which one argues that one's opponent should be disregarded because of something personal to him or her; it ignores the opponent's arguments and criticizes the person. (Hence the Latin, "to the man.")

While I've used a pun in naming my blog, my arguments are always about the claims you make, never about your person....

That's quite an assertion, especially the part about how even though his blog's title is a personal slur, his blog never gets personal... :rolleyes:

As to the contents of the blog, are Peter Pan's arguments really "never about [Neville's] person," or do they fall under Peterson's definition of arguments by those who "publicly target a named individual or group of individuals for personal attack" ?

After perusing just a handful of entries from the Never Never Land blog, I've come up with a list of comments for evaluation:

anonymous bloggers, on the neville-neville land blog, wrote:It’s becoming more and more difficult for me to tell if Jonathan Neville is being willfully dishonest or if he is simply incapable...

Can Neville’s dishonesty be any more obvious by this point?

You are the one who refuses to accept that your views may be flawed. You are the one who “doesn’t want to learn new things”—you already have all the answers...

... he began unleashing childish and offensive criticisms of those who disagree with his views....

and so they quietly removed his content. I don’t have any personal knowledge that was the case...

Just how clueless is Jonathan Neville?

Jonathan Neville is deeply confused about many things...

His snide comment betrays a stunning childishness...

Or perhaps it is Neville who is the ignoramus...

We’ve had many cranks in the Church since 1830; Jonathan Neville is merely the latest....

Jonathan Neville’s wild-eyed conspiracy theories

If anyone has a “thin skin,” it’s Jonathan Neville..

(Pardon me for a moment while I wipe Neville’s condescension from my computer monitor.)

His bonkers claim...

the Heartland hoax that Neville shills for:

the lies you tell...

If anyone is “acting [badly] on the Internet,” it’s you...

...he’s spectacularly wrong about virtually everything he blogs about...

Every one of his blog posts ...[are] a stunning simultaneous display of arrogance and ignorance.

...simply dishonest.

This is a bald-faced lie, and Jonathan Neville knows it.

... I don’t want to fall into the trap of claiming that Neville must be either “stupid or evil,” but it’s exceptionally difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt...

He begins with a disgusting simultaneous display of unfounded hubris and misrepresentation...

My dear benighted Brother Neville...

...he’s becoming more strident and less clear-headed in his thinking.

(Has anyone else noticed that Neville has finally stopped referring to these articles as “No-Wise”? We’ve criticized him about that on this blog; good for him for dropping the childish name-calling.)

Neville wants to fallaciously frame the debate...

Neville’s post should be an entry in the multivolume series Hypothetical Arguments I’ve Won in the Shower.

That’s childish and unprofessional, and it’s the main reason why this blog exists: To throw a light on Neville’s shameless behavior. (More on that in a bit.)

I don't know, those all sound like personal attacks on Neville's person, especially the last one. That's just straight up a 'personal attack' mission statement.

I really don't get this infighting. Neville is accused of promoting hoaxes and milking his believers for cash, but Peterson just got back from lecturing for a $5-6,000 per person South American cruise advertised as a visit to 'Book of Mormon Lands,' where he apparently entertained them with a "faith-promoting parallel between the Peruvian legend of Viracocha and the visitation of Jesus Christ to the Americas, as described in the Book of Mormon."*

What's the difference?

(*credit to Stocks, http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... a#p1187030 )

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Lemmie »

Neville yet again is falsely claiming that the Church has a position of “neutrality” on Book of Mormon geography.

But, beyond that, I wonder if Neville has bothered to ask himself one important question: If FairMormon is contradicting the Church and “raising barriers to faith,” why is a currently-serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy speaking, on assignment from the Quorum of the Twelve, at this year’s FairMormon Conference?

This is a key question that deserves an answer that considers its own implications.

A related question: Why haven’t the Brethren asked any serving general authorities to speak at Heartlander conferences?

Often the actions of Church leaders fall into the category of “he who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” I believe this is one of those moments.

—Peter Pan

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... aises.html

So, Pan is suggesting that the "assignment from the Quorum of the Twelve" of a "currently-serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy" at this year’s FairMormon Conference, is evidence that the LDS church does NOT have a position of "neutrality" on Book of Mormon geography?

Of course, Midgley has come right out and said this is the case, but his remembrances should probably be taken with a grain of salt, given his age and his unfettered access to a Peterson-provided internet venue where he manages to embarrass himself daily.

From the LDS essay:
the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles urge leaders and members not to advocate those personal theories in any setting or manner that would imply either prophetic or Church support for those theories. All parties should strive to avoid contention on these matters.

This infighting is getting crazy. Pseudonymous Pan is missing the forest for the trees, and is directly violating his church leaders' requirements.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Lemmie wrote:
Neville yet again is falsely claiming that the Church has a position of “neutrality” on Book of Mormon geography.

But, beyond that, I wonder if Neville has bothered to ask himself one important question: If FairMormon is contradicting the Church and “raising barriers to faith,” why is a currently-serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy speaking, on assignment from the Quorum of the Twelve, at this year’s FairMormon Conference?

This is a key question that deserves an answer that considers its own implications.

A related question: Why haven’t the Brethren asked any serving general authorities to speak at Heartlander conferences?

Often the actions of Church leaders fall into the category of “he who hath ears to hear, let him hear.” I believe this is one of those moments.

—Peter Pan

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... aises.html

So, Pan is suggesting that the "assignment from the Quorum of the Twelve" of a "currently-serving member of the First Quorum of the Seventy" at this year’s FairMormon Conference, is evidence that the LDS church does NOT have a position of "neutrality" on Book of Mormon geography?

Whoa! If what he says is true, then this is one of the most stunning developments in the history of Mopologetics. We have pretty much known all along that the Brethren were "pulling the strings," so to speak, with regard to Mopologetics. But I've never heard of this: the Q12 are actually ordered a Seventy to go and do Mopologetics, and to appear at the marquee conference? That's incredible! Of course, Pan is saying this without any evidence--he doesn't reference any officially-sanctioned Church text, nor does he even do what DCP would do--i.e., allude to some shadowy and gossip-filled conversation that he had with "somebody" who's well-connected in Salt Lake City. So, it could be that the Seventy is merely there because he happens to be, e.g., friends via a family connection w/ Scott Gordon, or something like that. In other words, he could be there for reasons that are far more banal. But if he was ordered to do this by the Q12? If it's true, it's absolutely mind-blowing and it would represent a very significant development in this war between the Mopologists and the Heartlanders.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

Tom
God
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Tom »

Doctor Scratch wrote:Whoa! If what he says is true, then this is one of the most stunning developments in the history of Mopologetics. We have pretty much known all along that the Brethren were "pulling the strings," so to speak, with regard to Mopologetics. But I've never heard of this: the Q12 are actually ordered a Seventy to go and do Mopologetics, and to appear at the marquee conference? That's incredible! Of course, Pan is saying this without any evidence--he doesn't reference any officially-sanctioned Church text, nor does he even do what DCP would do--i.e., allude to some shadowy and gossip-filled conversation that he had with "somebody" who's well-connected in Salt Lake City. So, it could be that the Seventy is merely there because he happens to be, e.g., friends via a family connection w/ Scott Gordon, or something like that. In other words, he could be there for reasons that are far more banal. But if he was ordered to do this by the Q12? If it's true, it's absolutely mind-blowing and it would represent a very significant development in this war between the Mopologists and the Heartlanders.

At last year's FairMormon conference, Elder Pearson was asked whether "the basis of your message [was] borne out of [his] own personal concerns on this issue" or whether he was "sharing the message by assignment." He said, "I’m here by assignment. I was invited to come. That invitation went to the assignment committee and the president of the Quorum of the Twelve assigned me to come and speak at this conference. So I’m a representative of the Church. I hope the Brethren agree with everything I’ve said today."

Does this mean that the First Presidency and the Twelve didn't review his address?

Speaking of the FairMormon conference, it appears that Scott Gordon et al. followed the unwritten order of things on Wednesday's program by having a priesthood holder as the final speaker (to correct any doctrinal errors made by the three earlier female speakers). And the unwritten order of things was followed on Thursday because emeritus Seventy Bruce Hafen and his wife spoke last. However, I am stunned that Daniel Peterson is Friday's final speaker. Will he correct any doctrinal errors made earlier in the day by Elders Christensen and Callister?

Speaking of FairMormon and church leaders, I noticed that someone made the claim on Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board that church leaders told FairMormon leaders not to change the name of their organization.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Lemmie »

Peter Pan wrote:Has anyone else noticed that Neville has finally stopped referring to these articles as “No-Wise”? We’ve criticized him about that on this blog; good for him for dropping the childish name-calling.


I find this complaint just dripping with irony. Maybe Peter Pan could scrape up a little credibility by suggesting Peterson return the favor by dropping his childish name-calling. I find it so classless and ridiculous that Peterson persists in referring to the commenter "velhoburrinho," in every single response to him, as "Vegan Burrito." Midgley has started following in Peterson's clown shoes as well:
Midgley wrote:Vegan Burrito's sarcasm aside.... Vegan Burrito has recently boasted of...Vegan Burrito may have an opinion on....
And that's just from one single post.

The Commenter's most recent post describes quite accurately Midgley's style:
velhoburrinho > Louis Midgley • 2 minutes ago

Midgley: "Vegan Burrito either may not know or may not care that the Latter-day Saint scriptures make it clear that every Saint should be prepared to defend their faith, if and when it is challenged. And every Latter-day Saint should be busy promoting their faith in whatever way they can."


Good Doctor Midgley, I think your style of defending the faith may be too much of a good thing, and actually be counterproductive, and harmful. I have read your words while you were "defending the faith" and did not find anything uplifting in them.

I defend my faith by my actions, the way I live and how I treat those around me.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7999
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Tom wrote:
Speaking of FairMormon and church leaders, I noticed that someone made the claim on Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board that church leaders told FairMormon leaders not to change the name of their organization.


Yes, Tom--see here.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21629
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: never-never land lessons

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Another hit post by Dowsin’ Dan Peterson who claims to give Neville little, if any, thought (this makes, what, a dozen blog posts about the Heartlanders now?):

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/

“I have no real interest in Mr. Jonathan Neville. I have no real interest in his ideas. I’m generally familiar with his views, but I don’t read his blog.“

Boy, for someone who says they have no interest in Neville Dowsin’ Dan sure does expend a lot of energy on Neville and the Heartlanders. Anyway. He posts a link to the hit blog Neville-Neville Land blog:

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... ckers.html

Basically the entry is just a bunch of name calling directed toward Neville. Funnily enough the hit post links back to Dowsin’ Dan’s blog post which links back to the hit post. Circular reasoning at its finest.

- Doc

Post Reply