Mike Parker says Neville is trying to blackmail him

[Moksha]

Both the Heartlanders and the Orem bunch have been beaten by the cogent explanation of the Delmarva Hypothesis for this fictional story. The Malaysian Hypothesis has more weight of evidence than either the Heartlands or the Mesoamerican Fantasia.

It is time for the Apologetics War to cease and for this group of grizzled defenders to beat their swords into plowshares.

[Doctor Scratch]

DCP is fond of the French phrase, "Cet animal est très méchant, quand on l'attaque il se défend," which translates roughly as "This is a very vicious animal; when you attack it, it defends itself." He used to say this all the time in response to critics saying things about the implausibility of various LDS claims. It seems to me that Parker ought to think about how that phrase might apply in this situation. He's been running his Neville attack blog for four years, after all.

[malkie]

Both the Heartlanders and the Orem bunch have been beaten by the cogent explanation of the Delmarva Hypothesis for this fictional story. The Malaysian Hypothesis has more weight of evidence than either the Heartlands or the Mesoamerican Fantasia.

It is time for the Apologetics War to cease and for this group of grizzled defenders to beat their swords into plowshares.

Not yet!

Calling Darth J, calling Darth J!

We still have the Italian Hypothesis to consider.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sorry if this is a re-post, but I didn’t see it:

http://www.bookofmormoncentralamerica.com/

Neville does a very thorough job of breaking down Mike “Peter Pan” Parker’s nonsense “blackmail” post, and further reveals an email exchange he had with the Pan lunatic. It’s a very interesting read, and Mike “Peter Pan” Parker comes off looking really, really bad. Like. Deranged bad.

- Doc

[Marcus]

And no less than Dan Peterson not only promoted the Peter Pan persona, but he perpetrated the fraud right in the pages of the Interpreter.

I still find it incredible, even for the Interpreter.

Wow. And this side story about a general authority is jaw-dropping:

A couple of years ago, I received similarly aggressive and antagonistic emails from an individual who was using an obvious pseudonym (but not "Peter Pan"). We exchanged several messages as I explained my positions on various issues. I also explained that my responses would be the same regardless of who the person was. Eventually the individual identified himself as a well-known General Authority who has spoken in General Conference. He even gave me a link to his talk. I verified his identity through a mutual acquaintance. Fortunately, he is now emeritus so no one sustains him, but this is some of the history I've had with LDS pseudonyms.

Omg. A sitting general authority did that???

[Doctor Scratch]

That detail about the GA is remarkable. I wonder who it was? My initial guess would be Bruce C. Hafen, but I’d be curious to know what others think. (E.g., I bet Tom has a thought or two…)

[Marcus]

I know. It makes you wonder how much of this is out there that people just keep quiet about.

This is probably the clearest description of the issue I've read:

Anyone can watch the video and see Mike Parker and his friend discussing the fictional black apologist they named Richard Nygren. Apparently Mike is focusing on the word "perpetuated," but again, anyone can watch the video and see that Mike not only did not renounce or even object to the creation of Richard Nygren, but he responded as Peter Pan to comments directed at Nygren without clarifying that Nygren was fictional and was not the true person behind Peter Pan. Readers can decide whether that constitutes perpetuating.

It's not clear how Mike can speak categorically on behalf of the other Interpreters mentioned in the video. Their participation in this fraud gives them plenty of incentive to hide their behavior, even from Mike, and Mike's participation gives him plenty of reason to protect his friends. Regardless, it was their invention of Richard Nygren that gave an opportunity for anyone to create a fake profile in that name.]

[Marcus]

Wow. I hope no one minds the quotes, because Neville's post today where he responds to Parker really sums it up:

Normally, I would just ignore Reel’s video—“don’t feed the trolls,” and so forth. These deranged lunatics are obsessed with destroying people who believe in the restored gospel, and they experience no twinge of conscience when they distort the truth.

[More Interpreter committee rhetoric doesn't clarify the issues. I don't know Bill Reel and even if I did, I couldn't read his mind the way Mike does. But I agree with Mike on this: if Bill does seek to "destroy people who believe in the restored gospel" then I deplore that agenda and any related conduct. But I don't see that in his video. Instead, I see Mike Parker and his friends creating and promoting a fraudulent, racist persona to protect the true identity of "Peter Pan," whether that identity is Mike individually or his Interpreter friends as a group.

Of course, the obvious irony here is that "Peter Pan" has for years published a blog that seeks to "destroy" me as a person who believes in the restored gospel but not in the narratives promoted by Mike and his Interpreter friends. It reveals more about Mike and his friends than about Bill Reel when he writes "they experience no twinge of conscience when they distort the truth."

[Marcus]

Again, extremely well said, and a very clear summing up.

...Mike's friend created a false, racist "true" identity of Nygren for Mike's pseudonym and Mike not only did not object, Mike not only did not promptly disclose his true identity, but he went along with the Nygren fraud until someone found his digital fingerprints. I had nothing to do with any of this, but once I saw the video, I owed it to my own readers and everyone who has asked me about "Peter Pan" to share the information. Do I wish Mike had not participated in the Nygren fiasco? Definitely. But that was his choice.

And, as I’ve already stated, I’ve never used a “racist persona” in any way on any platform. Claims that I or anyone I know has done so are absolutely false.

This is misdirection and wordplay. I don't remember Bill's video claiming that Mike "used" a racist persona. The video shows Mike knowing about the persona, not objecting to it, not unwinding it, and actually responding on behalf of it. So far, in this explanation, Mike hasn't refuted those charges from the video.

[Marcus]

Did everyone catch this bit of smarminess??

After I saw Neville’s blog post, I sent him the following email on April 18, 2023. I asked him to not share this message online out of respect for my family’s privacy, but unfortunately I’m now forced to post it publicly to provide context for Neville’s response...

The first time I read this, it seemed that Parker was implying Neville broke his privacy request. But...

To be clear, I did not share his email, but I did have an expectation of privacy going both ways, given his request to me not to share his.

Parker posted Neville's emails, after asking Neville not to post his. Parker obfuscates with the best of them.