“Peter Pan” is Unmasked as Mike Parker

[Kishkumen]

That stuff about Neville being a "deeply unpleasant person to interact with" strikes me as really funny in the context of his appearance on Mormonism Live. The guy was all kinds of pleasant, and then the guy describing him so unfairly is kind of a twerp.

[drumdude]

That stuff about Neville being a "deeply unpleasant person to interact with" strikes me as really funny in the context of his appearance on Mormonism Live. The guy was all kinds of pleasant, and then the guy describing him so unfairly is kind of a twerp.

Excellent point.

[Dr Moore]

Mike Parker back to playing the part of completely not self-aware asshat. Neville offers to meet, and Parker responds with a slap.

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2023 ... art-2.html

I appreciate that. I’m open to meeting with you, but I have just one condition, and that’s that neither you nor I engage in name-calling or profaning the temple endowment. I have never called you names (like “Joker Jonny” or “Nutty Neville”), and I expect the same from you. If you’re willing to remove from your blogs instances where you’ve referred to my friend Daniel Peterson as “Slander Dan” and used phrases from the endowment to imply that he is like Satan, that would be a good-faith gesture, and I would be happy to to meet at a time and place that is convenient for both of us.

LOL. Okay, there are two new names he didn't call Neville, until he did just now.

So, Parker will meet in person, but only if Neville edits his blog to Parker's liking. Specifically, removing where he calls Peterson "Slander Dan." (by the way, Dan Peterson has spent over a decade writing carefully-worded slanders about people who disagree with him or who try to hold him to account for his lies and bad faith -- the brand is entirely earned, as much as any of the labels Parker chose to slap on Neville over the years).

And of course, it never occurs to Parker to lead by example.

Let's see... if it's about editing a blog for offensive name-calling, Parker could show "good faith" by removing all of these instances. But Parker, it seems, is a bad faith actor. He's a student of Peterson's in the LDS school of bad faith defensive tactics.

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021 ... ndard.html
"Jonathan Neville, Chief Captain of the Double Standard"

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... brain.html
"Neville is an extremist"

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2020 ... nders.html
"Neville... and the the rest of the hucksters"

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021 ... about.html
"Neville is a sad, little man"

The rest of the post is largely dedicated to a Midgleyesque sermon about the finer points of what constitutes ad hominem. As if that modifies four years of assholery into good faith discourse. Man... rather than apologize and make amends, Parker opts to dig himself a deeper hole.

[Marcus]

Neville: "One of the problems with these discussions is your ongoing ad hominem site, which I read only once but ignore as I do all ad hominem sites."

If you’ll forgive me for asking a pointed question: If you don’t read my blog, how do you know that I use ad hominem arguments?

I'm guessing the same way Peterson knows when there's ad hom about him, on sites he doesn't read.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

On Mike “Peter Pan” Parker’s tightly moderated comments section (he’s the mod, by the way) he’s been posting comments that support his hate blog and his vicious slanders. In response to a sycophantic note he states:

You’re absolutely spot-on about misguided human efforts to deal with ambiguity. It’s certainly true that the Lord from time to time reveals truths that clarify things that were unknown or confusing, but it’s presumptuous of men and women to try to state with surety things that have not been revealed by God or for which we do not have good historical documentation.

-_-

Imagine having graduated from high school, and then later a college of some sort and posting that absolutely absurd statement and attaching it to your name.

What a rube.

- Doc

[Marcus]

Mike explains how accusations of rejecting LDS leaders cause contention:

...We both accept that the gospel is true, that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by divine means, and that the Book of Mormon is a real history of real ancient people. We may disagree over how best to understand and interpret some of the finer points of those beliefs,
but when you insist that those who don’t interpret those points the same way you do are “rejecting the prophets” or whatever, you are only causing division and contention...

And in a post titled "Heartlanders and 'rejecting the teachings of the prophets' ” , literally, he provides multiple examples of "how accusations of rejecting LDS leaders causes contention":

...And yet it is becoming abundantly clear that it is Heartlanders who are rejecting the teachings of living prophets. For example, they insist upon claiming that their geographical theories have prophetic support (contrary to the explicit counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve), and they reject the teachings of apostles in General Conference about the identification of modern descendants of Lehi.

In just the latest example of Heartlanders rejecting the counsel of Church leaders, Rod Meldrum’s September 2021 FIRM Foundation EXPO has at least one speaker on the schedule who practices and advocates for “energy healing”:

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2021 ... phets.html

[Marcus]

Parker does clarify:

...but it is not “rejecting the prophets” to disagree with statements of leaders that are not the doctrine of the Church...

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2019 ... -will.html

Oh. I don't think Parker is doing as well making his case against Neville that he thinks he is.

And, if it’s all “merely differences of interpretation and opinion,” stop accusing people on the other side of bad faith and nefarious intent.

So, is Parker speaking to... himself?

The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I don’t recall which one, Smoot or Parker, was complaining about how the Heartlanders aren’t accepting the guidance of the current prophets. I think that’s the end game with their charge.

The current and future leadership don’t want the fundamentalists to promote the idea Mormons should abide their dead words, and if new prophets say we don’t know where Cumorah is, despite dead prophets saying otherwise, it’s the duty of current Mormons to accept it as gospel. The true schism within Mormonism happens every time a new First Presidency takes over. They must forget everything the dead men said, and accept what the living men say, even if it seems contradictory or nonsensical.

That’s it. That’s why Mopologists and their idiot proxies like “Peter Pan” Parker exist. It’s to ensure the new regime with whatever nonsense they’re implementing is raised, even if it’s at the expense of a prior one. It’s very Orwellian.

- Doc

[Marcus]

]Statements made by Oliver Cowdery—and anyone else, for that matter—need to be weighed and given context. When you insist that Oliver was “right” about something that is important to your personal beliefs and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you believes he was “wrong,” you’re not doing history—you’re weaponizing Oliver and his words in an ideological war against your opponents.

Oops. He needs to run this argument by Peterson before the next movie.

[Philo Sofee]

]Statements made by Oliver Cowdery—and anyone else, for that matter—need to be weighed and given context. When you insist that Oliver was “right” about something that is important to your personal beliefs and that everyone who doesn’t agree with you believes he was “wrong,” you’re not doing history—you’re weaponizing Oliver and his words in an ideological war against your opponents.

Oops. He needs to run this argument by Peterson before the next movie.

Do these guys even think before they type?!