“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[Dr Moore]

I think this 2018 post by Smoot, especially the comments section, reveals the "big bang" origin of Peter Pan and the Neville obsession blog.

July 2018, Smoot wrote this blog post about the Heartlanders and their "fraud."

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/ ... ullet.html
Posted 7/26/18

First comment, and the only comment of the day, on 7/26/18: Mike Parker

BOOM! goes the dynamite. Well done, Stephen.
...
Heartlanderism is a gnostic cult within Mormonism that, ultimately, can only lead to frustration, disappointment, and loss of testimony.

Huh. It's as if Parker knew this was coming, maybe helped review it, and had been salivating for the torpedo to land. Not that anyone else would notice, or care, for another day...

Next day, Neville responds. And then, it's like a reunion of who's who in Mopologetics ganging up on the Heartlanders. And yes, Smoot and Parker come out swinging, vicious to the end.

By 7/28, Smoot and Parker are both online before dawn responding with more vitriol than the day before. Smoot is particularly pissed about having been confronted for being an "intellectual" at BYU who is in "apostacy" for refusing to "believe the prophets" (ie, Joseph Smith) about Book of Mormon locations.

You really have to read the whole comments section. It wouldn't do justice to post excerpts here. You can taste the bile in every sentence. Parker and Smoot are obsessed with Neville's assertion, implicit or explicit, that church leaders are apostates for having "rejected the prophets" of old (eg, Joseph Smith, re Book of Mormon locations).

But I will post a small number messages that are particularly meaningful for this thread.

Smoot wrote two separate messages in those wee hours on 7/28 actually.

Neville is free to write obsessive blog posts about me and other “M2C intellectuals” as long as he pleases. But I will not grant him any more credibility than he deserves by sharing a stage with him.

Well my patience for all of this is running dry, and I have better things to do than sit here and endlessly argue with you. I think I’m done here. I’ll let you respond to the last batch of comments directed at you if you desire and then after that I’ll probably disable the commenting option on this post, since things have run their course. We’ll see.

(Emphasis mine)
What better things, pray tell? Like, hatching and setting up an anonymous blog devoted to slamming Neville from a distance? Create a new stage where Neville isn't invited to play. One with puppet heads to toss verbal insults non-stop without consequence for 4 more years?

Then, near day's end on 7/28, within 8 minutes of each other, Smoot and Parker write the following:

I agree with Stephen on this matter. Not all propositions deserve to be publicly debated.

Mike has already summarized why I am not inclined to publicly debate Neville.
It is not out of fear or insecurity that the Mesoamerican theory cannot be defended.
It is because, frankly, I don’t feel like wrestling in the mud with a conspiracy-monger.

I really wonder if Smoot and Parker hadn't been hanging out together all day, drawing on napkins what would eventually become the playbook for "Peter Pan" and "Captain Hook." Their messages occur with near simultaneity from pre-dawn hours through the afternoon on 7/28/18, a Wednesday by the way. Their responses are like one-two punches, some within minutes of each other.

In light of this unmasking of Peter Pan, just go back and read all of those comments!

Both "teams" are fully represented, in fact.

• Smoot & Parker
• Dan Peterson cameo!
• Ugo Perego cameo!!!
• Jim Bennet cameo!
• Chris Heimerdinger cameo!!!!! (Anyone remember Tennis Shoes Among The Nephites?)
• Neville, Meldrum
• Rian Nelson
• Stephen Reed cameo!

Interlopers to the post hardly know what to do. More than a few times, someone named "Russ" jumps in to chide Parker and Smoot for their nasty tone and name calling. His pleas are ignored.

Anyway, I submit this post and the battleground comments section, as Exhibit A. Should the blog post and/or comments be deleted, a full capture can be found at archive.org here.

[Res Ipsa]

Well, it's clear Peter and Hook liked to quote Smoot's writings quite a bit in 2019 and 2020, and then abruptly stopped. Run a Google search on "site:nevillenevilleland.com Smoot" and you'll get the following.

One might conclude the blog doubled as a sort of egoic marketing channel for Smoot, in its early days.

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... eview.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... tland.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... le-he.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... -with.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... oroni.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... ndard.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... egory.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... -saga.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... n-yet.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... -word.html
https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... es-it.html

Captain Hook also appears to have stopped posting at some point in 2020.

To narrow down the time frame, I searched for "Captain Hook" on the site. Captain Hook's last blog entry was 9/10/19. https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... eplus.html

The last mention of Captain Hook by Peter Pan was on 2/29/20

[Res Ipsa]

I think this 2018 post by Smoot, especially the comments section, reveals the "big bang" origin of Peter Pan and the Neville obsession blog.

July 2018, Smoot wrote this blog post about the Heartlanders and their "fraud."

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2018/ ... ullet.html
Posted 7/26/18

First comment, and the only comment of the day, on 7/26/18: Mike Parker

BOOM! goes the dynamite. Well done, Stephen.
...
Heartlanderism is a gnostic cult within Mormonism that, ultimately, can only lead to frustration, disappointment, and loss of testimony.

Huh. It's as if Parker knew this was coming, maybe helped review it, and had been salivating for the torpedo to land. Not that anyone else would notice, or care, for another day...

Next day, Neville responds. And then, it's like a reunion of who's who in Mopologetics ganging up on the Heartlanders. And yes, Smoot and Parker come out swinging, vicious to the end.

By 7/28, Smoot and Parker are both online before dawn responding with more vitriol than the day before. Smoot is particularly pissed about having been confronted for being an "intellectual" at BYU who is in "apostacy" for refusing to "believe the prophets" (ie, Joseph Smith) about Book of Mormon locations.

You really have to read the whole comments section. It wouldn't do justice to post excerpts here. You can taste the bile in every sentence. Parker and Smoot are obsessed with Neville's assertion, implicit or explicit, that church leaders are apostates for having "rejected the prophets" of old (eg, Joseph Smith, re Book of Mormon locations).

But I will post a small number messages that are particularly meaningful for this thread.

Smoot wrote two separate messages in those wee hours on 7/28 actually.

Neville is free to write obsessive blog posts about me and other “M2C intellectuals” as long as he pleases. But I will not grant him any more credibility than he deserves by sharing a stage with him.

Well my patience for all of this is running dry, and I have better things to do than sit here and endlessly argue with you. I think I’m done here. I’ll let you respond to the last batch of comments directed at you if you desire and then after that I’ll probably disable the commenting option on this post, since things have run their course. We’ll see.

(Emphasis mine)
What better things, pray tell? Like, hatching and setting up an anonymous blog devoted to slamming Neville from a distance? Create a new stage where Neville isn't invited to play. One with puppet heads to toss verbal insults non-stop without consequence for 4 more years?

Then, near day's end on 7/28, within 8 minutes of each other, Smoot and Parker write the following:

I agree with Stephen on this matter. Not all propositions deserve to be publicly debated.

Mike has already summarized why I am not inclined to publicly debate Neville.
It is not out of fear or insecurity that the Mesoamerican theory cannot be defended.
It is because, frankly, I don’t feel like wrestling in the mud with a conspiracy-monger.

I really wonder if Smoot and Parker hadn't been hanging out together all day, drawing on napkins what would eventually become the playbook for "Peter Pan" and "Captain Hook." Their messages occur with near simultaneity from pre-dawn hours through the afternoon on 7/28/18, a Wednesday by the way. Their responses are like one-two punches, some within minutes of each other.

In light of this unmasking of Peter Pan, just go back and read all of those comments!

Both "teams" are fully represented, in fact.

• Smoot & Parker
• Dan Peterson cameo!
• Ugo Perego cameo!!!
• Jim Bennet cameo!
• Neville, Meldrum
• Rian Nelson
• Stephen Reed cameo!

Interlopers to the post hardly know what to do. More than a few times, someone named "Russ" jumps in to chide Parker and Smoot for their nasty tone and name calling. His pleas are ignored.

Anyway, I submit this post and the battleground comments section, as Exhibit A.

I think this blog entry by Smoot is the start of the LGT-Hearland war. Note that in 2019, Smoot did an extensive review of the Heartlanders annotated Book of Mormon (in eight or nine parts). I'm going to start a chronology thread to keep track of dates.

[Marcus]

I agree about that entry, and have thought the same about it starting things.

And don't forget, Meldrum had some choice words for Smoot in it, BOMC gets attacked, and it even has Parker defending Peterson.

From another thread, here's some excerpts:

if this didn't start some group effort grudge to trash the heartlanders, i don't what would. from the comment section of Smoot's blog, after an entry titled 7 reasons why letter vii is not a heartlander silver bullet.

these entries are dated end of july 2018, about 6 months before the Neville-neville Land blog started up. these are just a few of the comments:

Rod Meldrum

July 28, 2018 at 2:24 pm

Steve [Smoot], you give me much too much credit for the Heartland geography theory “movement.” ... I advise you to be a little more careful at branding all of these good men and women as perpetrators of a fraud. It only makes you look more unhinged and fanatical...

You were only 16 and impressed with the research, as was Richard Holzaphel, but then you let the citation cartel, who spent months of their time formulating ways to take what I had said, and often putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say but that they are sure that I “meant to say,” and compiled them into a series of attack articles to which I was never given an opportunity to reply. Someone mentioned Dan Peterson left FARMS to start Interpreter? That is funny, Dan and all but one of those Meso promoting attackers in the final gasps of the now defunct FARMS Review were summarily FIRED from the Maxwell Institute shortly after those attack articles, wherein they used sacred Church funds to promote their own pet theories, thumbing their collective noses at the Church Leadership who have repeatedly said that they are neutral on issues of Book of Mormon geography. But that it the mantra of the progressive scholars making up the citation cartel. They think they are so much more intelligent than everyone else in the Church, including the prophets and apostles.

For example...“Interpreter”-ing for the brethren how they should have read the scriptures ...

Book of Mormon Central is about as deceitful as an organization can get. They lied to the Priesthood department telling them that they would follow the church’s lead in being neutral on Book of Mormon geography. With that premise in mind, some church administrators, unfortunately, believed the lie and began to promote BOMC more openly. But it was all a rouge. As soon as they got the church employee’s to promote their organization, they immediately began FARMS 2.0 with the never-ending promotion of Mesoamerica in more than half of their NO-Wise articles. This is not neutrality, it is censorship of the worst kind. You, Steve, are a prime example of this censorship, hiding behind your ‘but Jonathan and Rod are mean, nasty people and therefore I will not lower myself to have a debate with them or publish their responses to our attack articles or meet with them personally to resolve differences. I’d rather just sit at my computer and spew hatred and attacks and call them names....

and Mike Parker, to the rescue:

Mike Parker

July 28, 2018 at 3:23 pm

Mr. Meldrum,

I would recommend that you stop repeating the lie that Daniel Peterson’s dismissal from the Maxwell Institute had anything whatsoever to do with that organization’s publications about Mesoamerican theories and Book of Mormon geography. That is a false claim and you have been TOLD that it is false by people who are intimately familiar with the circumstances, and yet you continue to repeat it.

them's fightin' words from Meldrum. Not hard to see a grudge blog coming out of that.

[drumdude]

Some quotes from Mike Parker from 2012:

Mike Parker on June 23, 2012 at 9:59 pm said:
Dan was not fired over the Dehlin paper. The Dehlin paper is merely a symptom of a much larger illness.

I have heard this first-hand from those involved.

Mike Parker on June 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm said:
To clarify: The concerns by some within the Maxwell Institute over Greg Smith’s paper on John Dehlin were not the cause of Dan Peterson’s dismissal. Those concerns were about direction and focus, and the Dehlin paper was part of that direction.

Dan was not dismissed because of a single paper, but over issues of where to take the Institute.

Mike Parker on June 23, 2012 at 10:53 pm said:
G.wesley: “…well intended but frankly embarrassing.” That’s very funny.

Blake: Oh, I completely agree with you. This is a stupid and unnecessary move. Unfortunately, the board that once governed FARMS has been replaced by a university-appointed executive director who makes the decisons.

Dehlin is overstating his role in this event in an attempt to control the narrative. See my blog post on this subject:

http://www.fairblog.org/2012/06/23/chan ... narrative/

Yes, there is a mole at the Maxwell Institute. His identity is known. Bradford has done nothing about it.

Mike Parker on June 23, 2012 at 11:39 pm said:
I won’t defend Will Schryver’s intemperate public comments (even he has admitted he has a problem), but it really is a shame about his research not being published. It’s top-notch stuff; it will, in some important areas, completely change the study of the Book of Abraham.

The examples of “nastiness” in “Apologetistan” are almost exclusively limited to a handful of personal comments made by a few authors outside the pages of their published works. It’s unfortunate to see the entire FARMS Review brushed aside because things unrelated to what actually appeared in print.

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 12:06 am said:
Richard Wagner wrote some immensely complex, moving, and inspiring music. He was one of the most important composers of the 19th century, and a pioneer in world of classical.

He was also a thoroughgoing racist and a raving anti-Semite whose views inspired the Nazi movement in the 20th century.

just because he was a bad man, however, doesn’t mean we should ban his music.

(Imagine Apocalypse Now without “Ride of the Valkyries.”)

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 6:59 am said:
Guy: Gerry Bradford’s email to Dan Peterson, dismissing him as editor of the Review, was not CC’ed to anyone. It was being circulated by anti-Mormon critics withn a few days. (The copy in my possession was sent by Eric Johnson of Mormonism Research Ministries.)

It is ludicrous to think that Dan himself would send that message to his enemies. Someone with access to Gerry Bradford’s email did it.

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 7:02 am said:
Jenn: I am glad that you have chosen to remain in the Church.

John Dehlin is not as nearly interested in a fair and unbaiased presentation of the facts as you believe. When Greg Smith’s paper finally appears, this will become very clear.

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 7:06 am said:
Also, after Dehlin sent his series of preemptive emails, which attempted to silence criticism against him, he then publicly attempted to claim that he had done so in a different order and to different people (i.e., he outright lied), in order to make his actions look more reasonable and less threatening and desperate.

This, too, has all been been documented and will be published someday. Hopefully soon.

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 10:46 am said:
Kaimi: Has anyone at the Maxwell Institute ever held that organization “as representing the Lord”?

Or does everything done at BYU have to hold to that high standard?

If so, does that apply to other subsidiary organizations owned by the Church, like Deseret News and KSL?

And to what level of meanness does a person have to rise before the Church can refuse to have anything to do with him?

Is is possible that flawed people, who have even occasionally been complete jerks, can still produce good scholarship that deserves to published?

These are serious questions.

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm said:
Kaimi: I’m not suggesting that Will Schryver be appointed as editor of the Mormon Studies Review or or made a director at the Maxwell Institute. He was warned by friends that his online behavior was going to kill his scholarly career. He’s admitted his error and apologized.

Considering the importance and quality of his research on the Book of Abraham scrolls, if I were the Review‘s editor, I would publish it. That would not be an approval of his online behavior; it would be in spite of it.

Mike Parker on June 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm said:
I distinctly recall Will apologizing for his behavior. But this was several years ago; I’m afraid I don’t have a link.

His research was done in Church archives with the assistance and support of MI scholars. I don’t know the details, but I think MI has publication rights.

Mike Parker on June 25, 2012 at 8:59 am said:
g.wesley: It’s difficult to take a comment like “well intended but frankly embarrassing” seriously when it represents nothing more than a sweeping generalization without any specifics to back it up.

Time and again, supporters of FARMS’ apologetics have asked its critics to come up with examples of its “mean and nasty” “ad hominem” approach, and consistently the critics have refused to provide examples (or have given a few old, indirect examples of things done or written outside of FARMS).

So it’s difficult to know exactly what you consider “embarrassing” about the hundreds of books, journals, and newsletters FARMS has produced. It’s probably just another example of you believing something and seeing it criticized and not liking it very much.

If I’m wrong, I’d be happy to see your examples of “embarrassing” things published by FARMS.

(And, for what it’s worth, I can think of one article in the Review, years ago, that was poorly conceived and executed. But that article does not represent the sum and substance of what FARMS has achieved.)

William Schryver on July 20, 2012 at 8:05 am said:
Unfortunately, I am getting ready to leave town this morning and cannot provide a thorough reply to the things said in this comment thread about me. I am rather mystified by Mike Parker’s comments, since I am not aware of ever having “acknowledged” having some kind of “problem” or “apologized” for some offense I have allegedly committed. Suffice it to say that I am in the process of preparing a rather lengthy blog entry concerning this entire issue, and I will post it as soon as I am able (probably no sooner than early next week.)

I categorically deny the allegations made against me here and elsewhere that I have routinely engaged in offensive online behavior. Bridget Jeffries et al. are, however, guilty of forgery, gross exaggerations, out-of-context misrepresentations, and otherwise blatant propaganda–all designed to suppress a completely non-apologetic article I had written concerning the forensic analysis John Gee and I made of the Joseph Smith Papyri in February 2010. This paper was to have been the cover article for JBMORS 20:2 (If I recall correctly); had already been fully edited, peer-reviewed, etc., and was literally pulled at the last minute in consequence of a “full-court press” applied to Jerry Bradford while Dan Peterson was out of the country last year.

William Schryver on July 20, 2012 at 8:58 am said:
I have not had a chance to read this entire comment thread, but I also saw this statement by Mike Parker:

“He was warned by friends that his online behavior was going to kill his scholarly career.”

This is untrue. It never happened. To my knowledge, none of my friends has ever believed any of the propaganda created by the MDB crowd. To my knowledge, none of my friends believes my “online behavior” to have been “vulgar” or “misogynist” or “sexist” or particularly offensive.

There is a myth that has been created about me, but it has no relationship to “things as they really were.”

Again, my upcoming blog post will provide a detailed history of the events of the past two years, since the MDB crowd first attempted to convince Scott Gordon and FAIR to remove me from the agenda for the 2010 FAIR conference. Yes, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, they have been in the business of attempting to suppress the publication of my research for over two years now …

https://www.millennialstar.org/the-maxw ... ntroversy/

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://www.millennialstar.org/the-maxw ... ntroversy/

From the link above:

Third, if rumors are true, and Dan was fired because of connections between Bradford and Dehlin, then we must fear that the foxes are in the henhouse.

Good damned god. These people are real “they’re either with us or against us” types, aren’t they? Bradford? Really? There really is a new schism in the church, and it’s Petersonite Mormonsim. Look how his followers kiss his ass and defend him. Look at his heresies he and his acolytes teach. The church would do well to cut all these yahoos loose.

- Doc

[drumdude]

Yep. Did anyone in Dan's camp ever name the suspected mole? It's all so inside-baseball, that I can hardly keep track.

[Marcus]

I found this while reading. The horror! Parker has simply gone too far this time.

“Oliver said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

By Peter | Tags: Bias confirmation, Hill Cumorah, Historical sources, Letter IV, Letter VII, Oliver Cowdery

Jonathan Neville’s blog posts are like Mexican food: The same handful of ingredients, just prepared in different forms...

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... es-it.html

[Dr Moore]

One has to wonder about a subtlety, hiding in plain sight in all of this.

Captain Hook was the villain.

Why wouldn’t Smoot take up the persona of a fellow protagonist? Say, John or Michael, or one of the Lost Boys? Why choose the identity of the story’s villain? In their fantasy world war, wouldn’t the villain be Neville? Makes no sense.

Could be the simple explanation - because Pan and Hook are the most recognizable characters. Parker got Pan, so Smoot took the second leading male role.

Or could it have something to do with Smoot’s ambition to play the bad boy persona? Remember how awkward he was, trying to be edgy in the FAIR T.I.T.S. videos? And then, there is the small matter of Captain Hook being gay, or at least portrayed as such in modern productions according to many online commentators.

Maybe Captain Hook is just a coincidence, but seems more like a subtle clue to me.

[Res Ipsa]

I agree about that entry, and have thought the same about it starting things.

And don't forget, Meldrum had some choice words for Smoot in it, BOMC gets attacked, and it even has Parker defending Peterson.

From another thread, here's some excerpts:

if this didn't start some group effort grudge to trash the heartlanders, i don't what would. from the comment section of Smoot's blog, after an entry titled 7 reasons why letter vii is not a heartlander silver bullet.

these entries are dated end of july 2018, about 6 months before the Neville-neville Land blog started up. these are just a few of the comments:

and Mike Parker, to the rescue:

them's fightin' words from Meldrum. Not hard to see a grudge blog coming out of that.

I have a tentative hypothesis that the publication of the Annotated Book of Mormon by heartlanders escalated a conflict that went back a number of years into an all out war. So far, I'm still thinking Smoot's 2018 blog post was the shot heard 'round the apologetic world. Do you have any kind of information about the Gospel Topic essays? Like, who suggests topics and makes the decisions about topics?