So: DCP thinks that "Peter Pan's" blog is "excellent," and expresses "surprise" at Pan's latest entry. And what does Pan's entry say? Check it out:Sic et Non wrote:I very seldom think about “Heartland” models of the geography of the Book of Mormon, let alone about Jonathan Neville, who is an extremely vocal proponent of a “Heartland” point of view. (He is particularly exercised over the location of the ancient Hill Cumorah.) I rarely if ever post anything of my own replying to him or to “Heartland” ideas. I’m just not interested in them. I don’t think that I could pick Mr. Neville out of a police line-up. If we’ve ever met, I don’t remember it. I don’t read any of his blogs. I haven’t read any of his writing. I think that he may once have been a lawyer. But Mr. Neville apparently thinks about me fairly frequently, and plainly not with admiration. Yesterday, a friend called my attention to this recent item on the excellent Neville-Neville Land blog, which responds to an attack on me by Mr. Neville. I have to admit that, among other things, I was quite surprised at what it had to say about Mr. Neville’s biography:
“My Latest Example of Outrage Theater”
The post contains a series of links to what appears to be an authentic court document, showing that, indeed, Neville was taken to court by the FTC. Well, you have to admit: that's unfortunate. And shame on Neville if he was truly guilty. (I don't see any indication of how the case was resolved...) But you can't help but notice the hypocrisy here. How and why is it okay for Peterson and PeterPan to post links to court documents, but posting links to tax documents showing that Peterson lied about his compensation for Mopologetics is soul-crushingly horrific, and the source of nearly unending weltschmerz? In fact, Pahoran, Peterson, and others have characterized the unearthing of Mopologetic tax documents as 'stalking,' so it's pretty hard to see how this latest bit from Pan--whose blog Peterson characterizes as "excellent" (and this is to say nothing of the fact that Pan uses what Prof. Midgley calls "a phony handle"--as anything less than full-blown "stalking." Plus, Neville's alleged quackery has nothing to do with Mormonism, with Mormon Interpreter, or with the Heartland model. Peterson has challenged Moksha, Dr. Shades and others, claiming that he holds to a higher standard on "Sic et Non"--e.g., by saying, in effect, "I would *never* do the stuff that happens on your board! For example, I would never dig up documents showing wrongdoing!" Except that now he has: such a document has been prominently linked to on "Sic et Non," and has been given a ringing endorsement by Peterson himself.Peter Pan--i.e., probably Steven Smoot or Greg Smith, or somebody in that vein wrote:Honestly, though, I sincerely doubt that Neville knows what an ad hominem fallacy actually is. Ad hominem is attacking the person instead of responding to their argument.
For example, it would be an ad hominem fallacy for me to write, “You can’t trust anything Jonathan Neville says; after all, he once ran a quack cross-border medical clinic that injected people with urine to cure their cancer and was shut down because the Federal Trade Commission took him to court and threatened him with a huge fine.” That statement may be true, but it has nothing to do with Neville’s claims about Book of Mormon geography and Church history; that’s why this blog focuses solely on Neville’s claims, not his person.
At base, there is little more that you can do other than shrug: this is what the Mopologists do. They are smear artists and hypocrites, and nothing will change that, it seems. Just look at the disingenuous way that Peterson wraps up his post:
This actually sounds like a thinly-veiled threat to me. Neville probably ought to be worried, if he values his Church membership--and not because of his views. He needs to be worried because, based on this, it looks as if the Mopologists have painted a target on his back, and that they are going to aggressively try to get him excommunicated. (Note that no links are provided to support the claims that Neville is "extremely critical" of the various stakeholders he names.) It will be interesting to watch what unfolds in the coming months.DCP wrote:Whenever, as now, I do think about Jonathan Neville, I worry. I worry because he apparently has a following, and because he’s extremely critical not merely of evil people like me and even of employees in the Missionary Department, Historical Department, and other offices at the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Utah — which scarcely matters in the eternal scheme of things — but because he’s increasingly critical of the leaders of the Church themselves. In itself, the question of the location of ancient Book of Mormon Cumorah is of, at most, secondary importance. That’s not what’s at issue. I worry that Mr. Neville is heading, whether deliberately or not, toward the creation of a schismatic faction within the Church, and that he will ultimately lead at least some faithful believers away from full fellowship with the Saints. I hope that this isn’t true, and I hope that it never happens. But I see clouds on the horizon.