Mike Parker says Neville is trying to blackmail him

[drumdude]

This is not a post I wanted to write. Unfortunately, it’s become necessary because Jonathan Neville has threatened to team up with anti-Mormon critics to attack me and my character unless I take down this entire blog.

(TL;DR version)

I’ll begin with some context:
Bill Reel’s podcast
On April 14, 2023, ex-Mormon podcaster Bill Reel hosted a 2 hour and 46 minute (!) YouTube livestream with the intent to (from the video’s description) “expose the shocking story of how a group of 5 white LDS apologists fabricated and perpetuated a fictional black apologist, Richard Nygren, to provide cover for one of their own. Through detailed investigation and interviews with key players, we reveal the disturbing truth behind this deceitful act and its coverup as well as the impact it has on those involved and on the Mormon apologetic community.”

The truth behind Reel’s breathless hyperbole is not nearly as interesting or dramatic as he tried to make it, and none of the supposed “key players” responded to his requests for information (unless Reel was referring to Jonathan Neville, in which case I’m not surprised). In addition to denying Reel’s spin that I or anyone else “perpetuated a fictional black apologist,” I also categorically state that neither I nor anyone else mentioned in Reel’s video made any fake Richard Nygren profiles on YouTube or any other social media platform or website.

That didn’t stop Reel from “grinning ear to ear” when he found a story he could spin to attack and defame a few Latter-day Saints. And his lackeys naturally ate up everything he said, making equally reprehensible comments in the live chat, including some loathsome attempts to dox me by posting my home address.

Because of Bill Reel’s video, I’ve received harassing messages from disturbed individuals accusing me of being a racist. Some of these messages have contained what could be considered threats. I won’t post those messages here, as they may be evidence if one of these people decides to follow through on their statements.

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.

And then Jonathan Neville jumped on Bill Reel’s bandwagon.
Jonathan Neville promotes Bill Reel’s video
Jonathan Neville—who refuses to read anything I’ve written or to watch my interview with Robert Boylan—was apparently more than happy to watch Bill Reel’s podcast, because he posted about it on his blog.

In his blog post, Neville asserted:

Prominent members of the citation cartel concocted, promoted and perpetuated a fake blogger persona named ‘Peter Pan’ to attack me on an ad hominem blog that ridicules my family name.

Just about every word of that sentence is false.

There were no “prominent members” of anything involved with the creation and maintaining of this blog; it was solely my idea, and I alone am responsible for it.
By “promoted,” Neville is referring to Daniel Peterson sharing links to this blog on his own site from time to time. He did this not because he’s been involved in the creation or operation of this blog, but because Jonathan Neville has attacked him and other scholars with weird claims that they’re part of some conspiracy to promulgate “M2C” within the Church.
If Neville wants to call writing a blog under a pseudonym using “a fake blogger persona,” then I’m afraid to tell him that many blogs are pseudonymous, many famous authors have written under pseudonyms, and even many early American Founders wrote pseudonymously. (I certainly don’t consider this blog to be on the level of Thomas Paine’s anonymously published Common Sense, of course.) As I’ve stated before, I used a pseudonym to protect myself from unstable people—a decision that has now proven itself to be prophetic, as I’ll explain in a moment.
To the best of my knowledge, I’ve never “attacked” Jonathan Neville on this blog. I’ve at times been sarcastic or snarky, but I’ve always tried to focus on his claims and assertions, not on his person. If anyone can give me examples of where I’ve “attacked” him, please let me know in the comments below; if there are legitimate examples, I’ll gladly remove them and apologize.
The name of this blog is not “ad hominem,” because that’s not what ad hominem means.
This is the first time that Neville has alleged that the name Neville-Neville Land “ridicules [his] family name.” It’s strange that he’s waited this long to make an issue about it; this blog has existed for over four years, and only now he’s bringing this up? It seems to me that he’s desperately seeking some opportunity to criticize me.

Amid his many other claims, Neville also asserted in his blog post:

For years, these guys have been falsely accusing Heartlanders of racist motives when it is they themselves who used a phony and racist persona to mislead their own readers and followers (and donors, in the case of Dan Peterson).

This is a rather audacious claim, considering that Rian Nelson on the FIRM Foundation’s blog has made repeated antisemitic statements, statements that Neville himself has shrugged off by writing, “Lots of people think crazy things, and normally that doesn’t matter because we recognize that none of us is perfect.”

Neither Jonathan Neville nor Bill Reel cared when the FIRM Foundation was posting vile, racist antisemitism on a regular basis. Only after Daniel Peterson blogged about it did Neville address it, with a response that equates to, "Yeah, that’s not great, but it’s just Rian being Rian.” But now that they think they’ve got me dead to rights, suddenly the mere mention of a fictitious Black man has them screaming “EMERGENCY! RACISM! DANGER!” Actual incendiary antisemitism is something they’re happy to overlook and excuse, but merely mentioning a nonexistent Black man as part of a joke is apparently beyond the pale. Hypocrisy much?

One could reasonably accuse Reel and Neville of being nothing more than deplorable opportunists.

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.
My personal request to Jonathan Neville
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. (I’ve made a few slight changes to my email to remove some sensitive, personal information.)

Brother Neville,

I notice that you have blogged approvingly about Bill Reel’s video about me.

Setting Reel’s egregiously false spin on these events aside for the moment, his video invades my privacy by discussing in general terms where I live and work. (He lives in the same part of Southern Utah that I do.) Several comments in his YouTube video have tried to dox me by providing my home address and links to information about me on my employer’s website.

I have already received several harassing messages from people who have seen the video. These I can deal with, but they have troubled my family members. They have been terrified by what sound like threats and worried about disturbed individuals showing up at our home uninvited.

I’ve already reported Reel’s YouTube video as harassing me, but it seems unlikely that they’ll do anything about it.

I’m asking you, as a fellow Latter-day Saint and on behalf of my family, to please remove your blog posts linking to Reel’s video. The less advertisement his salacious trash can get, the better.

Kind regards,

Mike Parker

Jonathan Neville’s response and attempt to blackmail me
Neville so far responded to my email three times. The first reply came on the afternoon of April 18th. (I’ve made a couple of slight changes to his email to remove some sensitive, personal information.)

I certainly won’t say anything about your email here (although you felt free to publicize my private email to you), but I can’t tell if you’re serious in your request about deleting my post.

I’m sorry for your family members’ distress, but you didn’t care about the impact of your blog on my family, did you? For years, you and Dan have been ridiculing my family name. None of my children, extended family, friends, ward members, or anyone outside of your Interpreters pals thought you were funny, cute or clever (or honorable, Christian, etc.).

If you completely delete your blog, and ask Dan (and the rest of the Interpreters) to do the same with his (their) links to it, I would gladly remove my blog post because then I would have no reason to leave up my posts and links to Bill’s video that explains your blog and alter ego (Peter Pan). I could unwind my observations about Dan as well.

Then, if you’re willing, we could have a cordial and brotherly exchange of views on a neutral site. I would welcome that. And I’m sure our Church leaders would be relieved, as well.

What do you think?

Best,

Jonathan

by the way, your email was timely. I was about to upload a follow-up post on all of this. I’ll defer that, pending your response.

Jonathan Neville does not seemingly recognize any distinctive difference between a pun that he finds personally offensive and a video that distorts the truth and exposes me and my family to unbalanced individuals who may wish to harm us. Got it.

And he will remove one blog post only if I completely delete my entire blog and ask Daniel Peterson and everyone else who has linked to it to remove their posts. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit disproportionate to me.

But it gets worse. On the morning of April 19, 2023, he emailed me again with the subject “Decision time”:

Hi Mike. I postponed my follow-up in post light of your request, but I have to assume your silence means you don’t want to work through this.

You may think this is all about your southern Utah dispute with Bill Reel, but thanks to Dan Peterson’s promotion of your blog, I’ve heard about Peter Pan from as far away as Europe and Australia. People deserve to know the background as Bill explained it. Unfortunately, the critics are having a field day with it. Your Peter Pan stunt has managed to give Bill a lot of credibility by reinforcing the stereotypes of LDS apologists, while making Dan and the rest of the Interpreters look like racist fools. Bill has had over 8,000 views in just 4 days, which makes it one of his biggest videos so far, and John Dehlin will undoubtedly do an episode.

This can go two ways, your choice.

One, I can accept the invites I’ve already had and do more podcasts, blogs, etc. From my perspective, the whole “Peter Pan” fiasco epitomizes the problems with the Dan Peterson approach to apologetics, so I’m happy to discuss the topic until that changes.

Two, we can use this situation as a path to reconciliation, eliminate the contention, and discuss the issues in a reasonable, friendly, cordial way that models the “unity in diversity” approach I’ve been seeking all along. That would defuse the critics and demonstrate a new, healthy, noncontentious form of apologetics.

Your choice.

What do you want to do?

Call me any time. 801-███-████.

Best,

Jonathan

“This can go two ways, your choice.”

Jonathan Neville has explicitly threatened me that, unless I delete my entire blog, he’ll go on anti-Mormon podcasts and attack me and my character. Not to rebut my arguments or refute my claims, but to promote the false narrative about me “as Bill [Reel] explained it.”

The “honorable, Christian” thing to do would have been for him to simply remove his blog post to help prevent the spread of misinformation and threats against my family. Instead, Jonathan Neville chose the nuclear option: Do what he says or he’ll go on a campaign of personal destruction using the platforms of enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

For years, Neville and his associates have misrepresented and abused fellow Latter-day Saints. He’s been dishonest and stabbed people in the back whenever they have tried to open a dialog with him. Now he’s allowing himself to be used as a tool by anti-Mormon critics who want to destroy everything he supposedly believes just to get back at me for supposedly hurting his feelings. This tells me everything I need to know about his moral character.

Jonathan Neville and Bill Reel accuse me of being a racist because of a joke that I myself didn’t make, didn’t repeat, and didn’t do anything to disseminate. Meanwhile, Neville has hand-waved away explicit and repeated antisemitic statements made by one of his own friends and associates with the excuse that “people are complicated.” His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

My attempt to correspond with him was a mistake, as he is clearly an unprincipled individual.

Mr. Neville: Please go ahead and ally yourself with anti-Mormons; this will help people like me warn the Saints about what kind of person you really are.

The blog stays up.

Mike Parker [“Peter Pan”]

https://www.nevillenevilleland.com/2023 ... e.html?m=1

[drumdude]

Also just an observation. Daniel Peterson, who for years gleefully posted at great length about Peter Pan and the critics failed attempts to unmask him, has gone almost completely silent on this issue. He simply posts a link to Parker’s blog with almost no commentary.

With friends like DCP, who needs enemies?

[Kishkumen]

Oh, so now he's proud to be Peter Pan?

LOL.

[drumdude]

My personal favorite is Mike saying the title “Neville Neville land” was never an ad hom. attack.

Who exactly is he trying to fool?

[consiglieri]

I am struck by the fact that this is what the LDS church does to so many of its members. Take down the offending Facebook posts and you can remain a member. Take down the offending podcast and you can remain a member. Nothing wrong with that though is there Mike?

[consiglieri]

I am also struck by what a total nebbish Mike Parker is.

[dastardly stem]

I didn't get very far into Bill's episode when I decided this was a bit much for me. Something about insinuating Parker ran with the Nygren name to post comments in comments section to troll or goad? That seemed obviously not Parker to me. But, I don't know the dude at all. For some reason Bill thought it was more likely Parker? Whatever....As I said...a bit much. A hill too far...or whatever. But I don't know how it went beyond that. I don't know how close to accurate Parker is in his description. I also happen to not be aware of how close to accurate Parker is in describing his own blog's criticisms, or Neville's contributions. or Neville's partners own antisemitism. As I understand Parker's blog from people here, it was not about the content at all.

I don't know these people and don't care that much. I'd agree making up and running with, to whatever extent it was so ran with, a black man as cover is tacky at best. I don't consider it racist, per se. i think it's a bit deaf. Colossally stupid. Sure.

Didn't Parker show up at Bill's son's work or something? I don't mean to downplay whatever Parker and his family are experiencing, if they are in fact experiencing it. But showing up to someone's work all upset sounds pretty crazily unhinged. Why would that be any less a threat than whatever threats he thinks he's gotten from others?

[Kishkumen]

I am also struck by what a total nebbish Mike Parker is.

Yeah, this latest outing does make him look pretty weak and dull.

[Kishkumen]

I didn't get very far into Bill's episode when I decided this was a bit much for me. Something about insinuating Parker ran with the Nygren name to post comments in comments section to troll or goad? That seemed obviously not Parker to me. But, I don't know the dude at all. For some reason Bill thought it was more likely Parker? Whatever....As I said...a bit much. A hill too far...or whatever. But I don't know how it went beyond that. I don't know how close to accurate Parker is in his description. I also happen to not be aware of how close to accurate Parker is in describing his own blog's criticisms, or Neville's contributions. or Neville's partners own antisemitism. As I understand Parker's blog from people here, it was not about the content at all.

I don't know these people and don't care that much. I'd agree making up and running with, to whatever extent it was so ran with, a black man as cover is tacky at best. I don't consider it racist, per se. i think it's a bit deaf. Colossally stupid. Sure.

Didn't Parker show up at Bill's son's work or something? I don't mean to downplay whatever Parker and his family are experiencing, if they are in fact experiencing it. But showing up to someone's work all upset sounds pretty crazily unhinged. Why would that be any less a threat than whatever threats he thinks he's gotten from others?

Yeah, I think Boylan is the likely culprit of the Nygren fraud. It perfectly suits his tasteless alt-right behavior online. The other guys are complicit inasmuch as they chose to engage with the fraud indirectly when they could easily have corrected the record. I hate to say it, but there is nothing like a spotless record when it comes to racial issues amongst the apologists. We have noted some tasteless behavior in the past. I don't think I need to repeat the cases to you.

And, yes, Parker showed up at the pawn shop where Bill used to work and his son currently does work in order to raise a stink. So, pardon us if we are not fainting with the vapors over his loud protestations in this post.

[Marcus]

parker: his video invades my privacy by discussing in general terms where I live and work.

Oh my.

Mike Parker has gone into my old place of employment and has demanded I take down my Facebook post claiming my is borderline libel. And That I need to issue a retraction and a apology…

So it’s okay when Parker, himself, actually physically goes to a person’s place of employment and makes accusations and threatens to sue, to both the business and Reel’s family members, but when a podcast discusses “in general terms” where he lives and works, it’s suddenly an invasion of privacy.

Parker is just making himself look more and more like a fool. And he should realize by now that Peterson doesn’t have his back any more than he had Hamblin’s back during the Jenkins debate.