“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[MormonDiscussionInc]

EMAIL SENT THIS MORNING TO ROBERT BOYLAN

Robert Boylan,

I have included here Radio Free Mormon and others who are aware of the shenanigans going on.

I want to run the data by you and explain clearly so that you understand the position you and your friends have put you in.

1.) Richard Nygren doesn't exist. At least by this point you know that and such can be demonstrated. He never existed and yet you not only imposed he ran the blog but you knew details about him that don't exist anywhere (Birmingham Alabama) which shows you either made him up (which also shows you are on the inside of these shenanigans as it makes zero sense otherwise) or you were told in a private conversation to push a false persona to protect Peter Pan by someone (which also shows you are on the inside of these shenanigans) or you were innocent and believed the Richard Nygren Story yourself. I welcome a fourth option.

2.) Dan Peterson has stated on the record that he knew the author of the https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/ blog but didn't know Richard Nygren (hardcopy evidence of such ). Hence he knew it was Parker but publicly would not get involved in the Nygren story or was genuinely naïve to it.

3.) Steven Smoot has stated on the record that he only knows of the Nygren persona from you (hardcopy evidence of such ). So hence he has detached from any connection to Nygren and points to you as the originator.

4.) Mike Parker in a private conversation to me (hardcopy evidence of such ) has clearly stated that Richard Nygren is not his creation and that he never once claimed to be Nygren, and that I need to take up the question with you. So again you are the fall guy.

In other words, whether these guys are telling the truth or not doesn't matter. It is being pinned on you. You are being set up to be the fall guy as they can't afford to contradict themselves at this point.

Let's go through each of the scenarios

A.) You are an innocent victim and came to the knowledge of Nygren innocently, being convinced by someone that he was real and actually behind Peter Pan. If that was true, the only action that makes sense now knowing the Shenanigans where you unknowingly helped a Caucasian apologist put themself forward as a black man in Alabama, you would seemingly come forward and clear up the questions of how and when you knew what you did. As it would make no sense for you to assist helping them cover it up if you came to such innocently. Remember you are an innocent victim in this scenario. The longer you stay silent knowing these guys did this and knowing they have pinned you as the fall guy, doesn't look good. Think about it.

B.) You are in cahoots with them. You worked behind the scenes to knock people off the trail with Parker/Peter Pan. They are setting you up to be the fall guy. Any of them involved with you at this point can NOT come clean without contradicting themselves in serious ways and doing significant damage to their credibility. They have already set themselves up to insist you take the fall. And Mike Parker has threatened to sue me which puts you at risk of being subpoenaed. Imagine all the subpoenas I am going to issue, all of the data and comments, and screen images I am going to share and the logical questions I & a good Mormon Lawyer I know would come up with to get to the bottom of this. Certainly lying on the stand wouldn't work well. Parker hasn't thought this through in terms of his own liability in holding this whole story together but certainly in your case it couldn't possibly be good for him to pursue this with you being the fall guy and everyone pointing at you.

C.) You made this up alone. You on your own chose to create Richard Nygren hoping to help friends keep their anonymity. You obviously understood that Parker was Pan and you made an effort to create cover for him. Being in a courtroom explaining the full scope of that as we walk out every logical question is not going to look good.

If you are innocent I would deeply suggest speaking up and being willing to answer the hard questions. If you are in cahoots, I would highly suggest the predicament your associates have put you in. And if you are acting alone, Parker's legal threats if carried out are going to expose where this originated.

See the position this creation of Nygren as cover has put you in. The position you're friends put you in. The position a legal action would put you in.

As all the smart people working on this are connecting the dots, I have already been surprised by folks who have reached out and the evidence that folks have passed along and where that evidence leads when you start connecting the dots.

In fact I wouldn't be surprised who might contact me in the near future either under their real name or as an anonymous source.

Bill Reel
Executive Director
Mormon Discussion Inc

[Doctor Scratch]

Wow, it's not looking good for Boylan at all. Perhaps I simply hadn't paid close enough attention to him, but I was under the impression that he was one of the more "scholarly" types that occasionally floats into the orbit of Mopologetics--people like Brant Gardner or Neal Rappleye who are basically decent people who, for whatever reason, seem blind to the Mopologists' worst behavior but still manage to stay above/apart from all the worst antics (for the most part, anyways). More and more, though, Boylan is starting to seem like a violent, hate-fueled racist who basically fits right in with DCP, Midgley, Gee, Hamblin, and the other "ring leaders." You'd think the general idea was that Mormonism was supposed to help people to be better human beings, but in the case of people like Parker and Boylan, their devotion to the "Restored Gospel" has warped them into vindictive cretins.

But who knows? Maybe Boylan will come forward to accuse Parker of being the source of the "Nygren" claim?

[Marcus]

EMAIL SENT THIS MORNING TO ROBERT BOYLAN

Robert Boylan,
<snipped>
4.) Mike Parker in a private conversation to me (hardcopy evidence of such ) has clearly stated that Richard Nygren is not his creation and that he never once claimed to be Nygren, and that I need to take up the question with you. So again you are the fall guy.

Bill, I think there is something missing from Parker's statement here. He may try to weasel out of it on a technicality, but earlier I posted this

I don't know how to send you a screenshot, but Parker's comment here seems to acknowledge Boylan's incorrect identification that he is Nygren:

Recommended watching: Spencer Kraus’s interview with Robert Boylan

By Peter | Tags: Heartland hoax, Historical sources, Seer stones

Even though this interview goes into more detail about this blog than I’m comfortable with, I still warmly recommend it to my reader(s):

[snipped pic of Boylan's youtube]

—Peter Pan

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2022 ... oylan.html

And here is the transcript from Boylan's podcast that Parker is apparently referring to:

5:21
true.blogspot.com and of course there's also richard nygren's blog neville neville land a blog critiquing jonathan
5:27
neville mainly but also other heartland proponents where he posts on the nickname peter pan uh richard is one of
5:33
only few african-american apologists in the church at the moment and he lives in birmingham alabama um so be sure to
5:40
check those out as well in the uh show notes

Parker posting that there was "more detail about this blog" in reference to Boylan's statement in which he specifically identified the nevillenevilleland blog as "Richard Nygren's blog," reads as, at the very least, NOT a denial of the Nygren identification.

For him to say he never 'claimed' to be Nygren is very convenient and incomplete language when he was perfectly willing to openly share the claim on his blog that he was.

Regardless of who came up with the idea, in my opinion Parker's hands are not clean of the inappropriate use of the Nygren description. Or, as you defined it, as a "Caucasian apologist [who] put themself forward as a black man in Alabama."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Wow, it's not looking good for Boylan at all. Perhaps I simply hadn't paid close enough attention to him, but I was under the impression that he was one of the more "scholarly" types that occasionally floats into the orbit of Mopologetics--people like Brant Gardner or Neal Rappleye who are basically decent people who, for whatever reason, seem blind to the Mopologists' worst behavior but still manage to stay above/apart from all the worst antics (for the most part, anyways). More and more, though, Boylan is starting to seem like a violent, hate-fueled racist who basically fits right in with DCP, Midgley, Gee, Hamblin, and the other "ring leaders." You'd think the general idea was that Mormonism was supposed to help people to be better human beings, but in the case of people like Parker and Boylan, their devotion to the "Restored Gospel" has warped them into vindictive cretins.

But who knows? Maybe Boylan will come forward to accuse Parker of being the source of the "Nygren" claim?

I dunno, but Robert Boylan is hard at work making enemies like a true Mopologist:

https://robertbowman.net/2020/05/31/dou ... ove/#_ftn1

Doubling Down on Diversionary Polemics: Robert Boylan’s Response on Moroni’s Move

Posted on May 31, 2020 by robbowman

As I expected, Boylan issued a hasty “response” to the previous post in which he failed to address any of the substantive issues I presented there. Instead, he engaged in a poorly done tu quoque (“you too”) fallacious argument. First, once again, he quoted me out of context, this time in order to avoid addressing my criticism of his earlier post, which was that he had dismissed my whole book on the basis of two sentences in it that made a tangential point without my having engaged a particular Mormon scholar’s treatment of it. He then accused me (without even a hint of justification) of being “intellectually deceptive”!

Next came the tu quoque fallacy: Supposedly I am being hypocritical or something along those lines for excusing myself from addressing Sorenson’s defense of Moroni’s journey in my book, because in a review of a book by Jehovah’s Witness author Rolf Furuli I had pointed out that Furuli had not engaged one of my books. Boylan missed, or ignored, the salient difference: my book that Furuli had failed to engage addressed “many of the issues raised in his book,” which of course is not true with regard to Sorenson’s books in relation to Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions. Furuli’s book was a defense of the New World Translation and of Watchtower interpretation of the Bible; my book, which he did not mention, was a critique of Watchtower interpretation of the Bible including the New World Translation.

Missing from Boylan’s rushed response: (1) any reference to what I explained was the main point of the paragraph he had criticized, (2) any mention of (let alone response to) the lengthy treatment I presented here regarding the plausibility of Moroni’s journey and Sorenson’s defense (the very thing Boylan complained about me not doing in the book!).

Yet Boylan entitled his non-responsive post “Double Standards and Intellectual Laziness.”[1]

What in the world did Boylan say to this guy???

https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.co ... ctual.html

Update: can someone pass this onto Bowman--Rob: Maria broke into your computer again. No way you would write something as low IQ as Doubling Down on Diversionary Polemics: Robert Boylan’s Response on Moroni’s Move, you know, being the top-notch biblical scholar you truly are.

Oh. He’s an asshole.

- Doc

[Marcus]

Something's been bugging me about Boylan's podcast, where he announces that the nevillenevilleland blog is run by Richard Nygren. Spencer Kraus is in the other half of the screen, nodding and smiling, but when Boylan starts describing "Nygren's blog", Klaus freezes. The smile becomes very brittle, and when Boylan describes Nygren, Krause's eyes shut tight several times, like he is in shock and doesn't know what to say or do. It's a very uncomfortable moment.

Then there's this, something Kraus wrote at the end of one of his reviews of Neville that was published in the Interpreter:

An Unfortunate Approach to Joseph Smith’s Translation of Ancient Scripture
Spencer Kraus
Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 52 (2022): 1-64

Review of Jonathan Neville, A Man That Can Translate: Joseph Smith and the Nephite Interpreters. Salt Lake City: Digital Legends Press, 2020. 385 pages. $22.99 (paperback).

[Author’s Note: I would like to thank Mike Parker and Gregory L. Smith for reviewing an earlier draft of this review and offering helpful suggestions, as well as my other family and friends (especially my father) who helped edit and offer clarifying remarks. I would also like to thank the pseudonymous “Peter Pan” who offered encouragement as I wrote this review.]

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... scripture/

So, Kraus thanks both Mike Parker and "Peter Pan" for help and encouragement as he is reviewing Neville?? His face on Boylan's podcast tells me he knew what was happening.

[Doctor Scratch]

Very interesting point, Marcus. And the material you quoted is a reminder that Gregory L. Smith should not be ruled out yet as being behind the "Captain Hook" persona.

[malkie]

Perhaps channeling Joseph Smith who saw both Elias and Elijah in the Kirtland temple.

See Richard Packham's writeup:

http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#ELIJAH

[Res Ipsa]

EMAIL SENT THIS MORNING TO ROBERT BOYLAN

Robert Boylan,
<snipped>
4.) Mike Parker in a private conversation to me (hardcopy evidence of such ) has clearly stated that Richard Nygren is not his creation and that he never once claimed to be Nygren, and that I need to take up the question with you. So again you are the fall guy.

Bill, I think there is something missing from Parker's statement here. He may try to weasel out of it on a technicality, but earlier I posted this

I don't know how to send you a screenshot, but Parker's comment here seems to acknowledge Boylan's incorrect identification that he is Nygren:

And here is the transcript from Boylan's podcast that Parker is apparently referring to:

5:21
true.blogspot.com and of course there's also richard nygren's blog neville neville land a blog critiquing jonathan
5:27
neville mainly but also other heartland proponents where he posts on the nickname peter pan uh richard is one of
5:33
only few african-american apologists in the church at the moment and he lives in birmingham alabama um so be sure to
5:40
check those out as well in the uh show notes

Parker posting that there was "more detail about this blog" in reference to Boylan's statement in which he specifically identified the nevillenevilleland blog as "Richard Nygren's blog," reads as, at the very least, NOT a denial of the Nygren identification.

For him to say he never 'claimed' to be Nygren is very convenient and incomplete language when he was perfectly willing to openly share the claim on his blog that he was.

Regardless of who came up with the idea, in my opinion Parker's hands are not clean of the inappropriate use of the Nygren description. Or, as you defined it, as a "Caucasian apologist [who] put themself forward as a black man in Alabama."

I read it the same way you do. It looks to me like Parker used Boylen’s claim as cover. Misleading, at best.

[MormonDiscussionInc]

Bill, I think there is something missing from Parker's statement here. He may try to weasel out of it on a technicality, but earlier I posted this

And here is the transcript from Boylan's podcast that Parker is apparently referring to:

Parker posting that there was "more detail about this blog" in reference to Boylan's statement in which he specifically identified the nevillenevilleland blog as "Richard Nygren's blog," reads as, at the very least, NOT a denial of the Nygren identification.

For him to say he never 'claimed' to be Nygren is very convenient and incomplete language when he was perfectly willing to openly share the claim on his blog that he was.

Regardless of who came up with the idea, in my opinion Parker's hands are not clean of the inappropriate use of the Nygren description. Or, as you defined it, as a "Caucasian apologist [who] put themself forward as a black man in Alabama."

I read it the same way you do. It looks to me like Parker used Boylen’s claim as cover. Misleading, at best.

I am well aware of all of this. I now have a great handle on this and am working towards a climatic finish with a new friend of mine.

[MormonDiscussionInc]

There might even be a smoking gun greater than all that has been shared thus far. . . This is not going to end well for the apologists.