“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[Res Ipsa]

For what it’s worth:

—I don’t think that DCP is guilty of “perpetuating” the idea that “Neville-Neville Land” was run by a Black apologist. I think the likely source of that idea was Parker. If not him, then Boylan is really the only other possible person.

—That said, DCP *is* guilty of continuing to support “Neville-Neville Land,” even after the Nygren information came to light. Plus, “NNL”‘s fundamental purpose is to smear other Latter-day Saints and mock their beliefs. That by itself is a good and valid reason to hold DCP’s feet to the fire.

—DCP will never, ever condemn a fellow apologist for anything: not for racism, not for sexism, not for anti-semitism or anything else, ever. One of his fellow apologists could turn out to be a rapist or a murderer and the most you’d get out of DCP would be, “I didn’t know.”

I think your opinion is always worth listening to, even if I come to a different conclusion. I think Parker was one of your original suggestions for the identity of Peter Pan, which shows pretty good instincts. You got sidetracked with Smoot, which is too bad. But you admitted your mistake and changed your opinion to something that is consistent with the evidence. I haven’t paid enough attention to Peterson to comment on your other opinions of him.

[drumdude]

Mr. Fraud is now happily posting (with the same style, content, and targets) over at the Peterson Obsession Board. It's yet another illustration of a phenomenon that has already long been noted: at Neville-Neville Land: At least some of these folks apparently align more naturally in their chosen crusade with avowed critics of the Church than with avowed defenders.

Alternate hypothesis: some Mormons are still capable of engaging in discussion amongst critics. Without having to hide in their blog’s safe-space comment section.

[Res Ipsa]

When I first entered this conversation, I asked Marcus a question. He answered with a copy of a post Tom made here on July 27, 2022. You can read the original here. viewtopic.php?p=2793303#p2793303

Tom’s post ends with the question “What are we to conclude here?”

One person answered Tom’s question: Marcus

I think we can conclude, at a minimum, it is not someone named Richard Nygren. That’s the only way DCP’s statements about having no idea who Nygren is can be taken as true, when combined with the evidence of his previous statements

viewtopic.php?p=2793312#p2793312

I agree with Marcus (2022).

[Res Ipsa]

Mr. Fraud is now happily posting (with the same style, content, and targets) over at the Peterson Obsession Board. It's yet another illustration of a phenomenon that has already long been noted: at Neville-Neville Land: At least some of these folks apparently align more naturally in their chosen crusade with avowed critics of the Church than with avowed defenders.

Alternate hypothesis: some Mormons are still capable of engaging in discussion amongst critics. Without having to hide in their blog’s safe-space comment section.

SMH. Is there some Guinness Book of Records record for own goals that Peterson is trying to break? He’s his own worst enemy.

[Marcus]

Mr. Fraud is now happily posting (with the same style, content, and targets) over at the Peterson Obsession Board. It's yet another illustration of a phenomenon that has already long been noted: at Neville-Neville Land: At least some of these folks apparently align more naturally in their chosen crusade with avowed critics of the Church than with avowed defenders.

Alternate hypothesis: some Mormons are still capable of engaging in discussion amongst critics. Without having to hide in their blog’s safe-space comment section.

Who is mr. Fraud? also, wow, but DCP reads over here a lot.

on the other hand, that's pretty damning. Indeed, the record could have been set straight.

It could have, but then look at all the time DCP has spent noticing that people noticed he didn't. He has to do something for attention.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mr. Fraud is now happily posting (with the same style, content, and targets) over at the Peterson Obsession Board. It's yet another illustration of a phenomenon that has already long been noted: at Neville-Neville Land: At least some of these folks apparently align more naturally in their chosen crusade with avowed critics of the Church than with avowed defenders.

Alternate hypothesis: some Mormons are still capable of engaging in discussion amongst critics. Without having to hide in their blog’s safe-space comment section.

Who knew that treating your fellow Mormons like absolute dog crap* would make them not want to interact with you, DCP? Also, goddamn you’re obsessed with this forum.

*An example from the character assassination blog:

So what, exactly, are the “fruits” of the Heartland movement? During the four years I’ve been blogging about it, the fruits that I’ve seen have been irresponsible scholarship, dishonest claims and statements, misuse of historical sources, use of logical fallacies, criticism of the modern Church and modern Church leaders, misrepresentation of those who are critical of their theories, hypocrisy and double standards, promulgation of wild conspiracy theories, and a frequent lack of self-awareness.

The irony couldn’t be any thicker.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Alternate hypothesis: some Mormons are still capable of engaging in discussion amongst critics. Without having to hide in their blog’s safe-space comment section.

Who is mr. Fraud? also, wow, but DCP reads over here a lot.

on the other hand, that's pretty damning. Indeed, the record could have been set straight.

It could have, but then look at all the time DCP has spent noticing that people noticed he didn't. He has to do something for attention.

I think Mr. Fraud is a reference to TwoCumorahFraud.

We have our own play by play announcer. I say we trade him for the ghost of Vin Scully.

[Kishkumen]

DCP is protecting and cultivating his brand because he believes it is the best alternative for advancing the interests of the LDS Church. I think he is completely sincere in that. Certainly we are not interested in advancing the goals of LDS leaders. The Heartlanders are very problematic, and they are, in a sense, a much bigger threat than angry ex-Mos.

[Philo Sofee]

DCP is protecting and cultivating his brand because he believes it is the best alternative for advancing the interests of the LDS Church. I think he is completely sincere in that. Certainly we are not interested in advancing the goals of LDS leaders. The Heartlanders are very problematic, and they are, in a sense, a much bigger threat than angry ex-Mos.

An astute point. Yes insiders who actually do think different about "evidences" of anything in Mormonism, for whatever reasons always are seen as threats. It is sooooooo fascinating to come to recognize this. Perhaps it is because they threaten the ideology of being all together as One in thought. I, for the life of me, cannot grasp why that is such a worthy goal to try and attain. Can you imagine how absolutely boring college would be if all thought as One and no one had a dissenting thought or different piece of evidence or how to read it?! And everyone just yammered about the same thing and all constantly agreed? Would actual learning be able to take place? OH! Hey!!! A lightbulb moment... no wonder the Church wants everyone to be as One in thought...

[drumdude]

2CFraud: "Now you’re admitting where it came from and that you used it."
I've never used anything by Mr. L. E. Hills, nor read a line from him. And I really couldn't care less who first formulated a limited Tehuantepec model for the Book of Mormon. Couldn't care less.
2CFraud: "you know nothing about why L.E. Hills created the theory"
You're right. I don't. And I don't care.
2CFraud: "But you spent the majority of your adult life promoting it and ragging on your fellow church members who disagreed. You still are."
Actually, I've rarely written anything on the geography of the Book of Mormon. It's not among my principal pre-occupations, although I find it occasionally somewhat interesting. I certainly don't share your laser-like focus on it.

I find this hard to believe. Why?

Because Thomas Murphy specifically called out Daniel Peterson and his fellow Mezoamerican theorists in this dialogue article which specifically mentions them building on the work of L. E. Hills.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_129.pdf

This article was published in 2003. DCP wants us to believe he never read a single line by someone this article claims was foundational to their central hypothesis about the Book of Mormon.