Misrepresentation and Miscellaneous Errors : A Response to Steven Pynakker and Jonathan Neville’s Latest Interview (Part One)

[Preface: since this was posted, Steven Pynakker has reached out to me and we had a pleasant conversation. I have updated this post to better incorporate some of his views and represent what he had to say as fairly and accurately as possible.]

About a month ago (10 September 2021), a third interview of Jonathan Neville appeared on the Mormon Book Reviews YouTube channel hosted by the evangelical Steven Pynakker. In this interview, they discuss Neville’s latest book, Infinite Goodness. Due to my school schedule, I was only recently able to sit down and respond to this interview.

As Neville did in the last two interviews that I have responded to (part one | part two | part three), he misrepresents his sources and makes claims that are misunderstandings at best and lies at worst. Pynakker, Neville’s friend, supports Neville through many of these and makes some comments himself that (whether through his own misunderstandings of history or his lack of familiarity with the topic to the same degree others have) I have felt the need to correct the record on as well.

As I sat down and watched the interview, I realized five minutes in (with already two and a half pages written in my response) that this was going to be a large undertaking. Due to the size of the eventual post, I could not feasibly make this a singular blog post, and have elected to divide this into three parts:

• This post, part one, will explore some comments made by Steven Pynakker that I would offer some correction to.
• Part two will examine every comment that Neville made in regard to Jonathan Edwards’s influence on Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Mormon and theology.
• Finally, part three will examine every other remark made by Jonathan Neville that are likewise false and show his willful ignorance of various topics.

This will be the largest of the three parts, due to the first comment that I will respond to that I could not find a way to put anywhere else and was of such a nature that I felt it merited no small discussion.

A Response to Pynakker and Neville Regarding My Previous Responses

First, I will respond to a few comments from Pynakker and Neville that initially surprised me wen I watched this interview. They come almost two thirds the way through, but were of such a nature that I decided that I had to place this at the beginning of my blog post.

At the 58:30 mark, my blog gets a shout out from Pynakker and Neville. Neither my name nor my blog’s name is mentioned, but they are clearly referring to my post entitled “‘That They May Know the Covenants of the Lord’: A Response to Jonathan Neville Regarding the Book of Mormon and Missionary Work” (part two of my former response to Neville on this YouTube channel). I had previously shared a link to my responses to Neville with Pynakker, and he left a comment on my blog as well after reading it as he had said he would.

I was initially impressed with Pynakker and received the impression that even if you disagreed with him he would treat you fairly and take time to learn all sides of a debate. How Pynakker and Neville play with what I had to say, however, showed their ignorance of what I actually wrote in that post as well as other posts on this blog and my very open discussion regarding other churches tracing back to Joseph Smith (see some of my closing comments here, for instance, or how I reference other editions of the Book of Mormon by these churches here).

Pynakker holds in his hands a copy of The Book of Mormon published by The Church of Jesus Christ (centered in Monongahela, PA). This edition of the Book of Mormon is a red-letter edition of the Book of Mormon, so all of Jesus Christ’s words are printed in red.

At this point, Pynakker and Neville remark:

Pynakker: The Book of Mormon doesn’t just belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there are many, many other branches within the Restoration that you’ve probably never even heard of. They all see the Book of Mormon… it functions as scripture to them, and they all feel the call to spread the gospel of Christ via the Book of Mormon. And so Jonathan… when you, I think I read a blogger saying how, oh, you know… was criticizing you for making that point. I wonder if that person even knows that these churches exist. 

Neville: Probably not. Yeah, I have to say I love the critics, because [chuckles], and part of it is I don’t even respond to most of them because I assume people can think for themselves and realize that most of the things they criticize are things I’ve never said. They’re revealing their own biases by not engaging with what I’m trying to say and what I’ve actually said. But… that case is a perfect example of just speaking out of ignorance. So, what can you do? I mean, you can’t educate people that don’t want to be educated. And so, I think I feel that the LDS [sic] apologists have really blinded themselves to so much possibility out there because of their narrow mindedness and they’re refusal to consider multiple working hypotheses.

So, as my blog was mentioned, let me set the record straight.

Yes, I know about a multitude of other churches in the Restoration movement that trace their origin to Joseph Smith. (Steven L. Shields’s book Divergent Paths of the Restoration is a pretty comprehensive list of them.) I am also aware of the Church of Jesus Christ, and have in my library two  copies of that very edition of the Book of Mormon that Pynakker held (a pocket-sized edition as well as a regular sized edition) that were sent to me by a member of that Church who I had spoken with online. We had a very pleasant conversation, and I was impressed with his conviction in the Book of Mormon and his testimony of Jesus Christ. I also have in my library their two-volume church history and a few pamphlets produced by their church.

I also have in my library editions of the Book of Mormon from the Community of Christ (both the Authorized Version and Revised Authorized Version) as well as the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) and the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message (published as The Record of the Nephites). I also have other books of scripture from these churches – the Community of Christ Doctrine and Covenants (including a copy from the Restoration Branches published by Price Publishing Company), a reprint of the Book of Commandments from the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), The Word of the Lord Revealed to Mankind by an Angel from the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, as well as The Book of the Law of the Lord from the Strangite Church, not to mention other editions by other parties, such as The Book of Mormon: Restored Covenant Edition produced by the Zarahemla Research Foundation. I have spoken to people from all of these churches (and more), and have generally found my experiences to be pleasant. (I will admit that the one Strangite I have met was very critical of me for being a member of the Church, and the few Snufferites I have had the discomfort of meeting were likewise insufferable in that regard.)

So to be clear – yes, I am absolutely aware of other churches believing the Book of Mormon to be scripture and sharing it with the world. But that wasn’t actually the point that I was critiquing in my original blog post that Pynakker and Neville discuss. (In a cruel twist of irony, it is actually Neville’s comment that is “a perfect example of just speaking out of ignorance” from someone who has clearly demonstrated his unwillingness to “be educated.”)

Pynakker states that Neville made the point that the Book of Mormon was for all people and not just the Church. Neville says I (as well as others) don’t actually use his words. Neville’s repeated assertions to this degree are wrong, and Pynakker misremembers what Neville actually said – I quote Neville word-for-word and provide the time stamp for the exact remarks that he makes, reprinted here (see 21:36 of this video):

For Christians in general they’ve kind of tended to see the Book of Mormon as separate from the Bible… I see it as sort of a fulfillment of the Bible, and something that was anticipated actually by people such as Jonathan Edwards, who talked about the future, glorious state of the Church, and he talked about how the word of the Lord would be prevailed [sic] throughout the world… The problem is, I think… it’s devolved to the point today where we use the Book of Mormon as a missionary tool, and that turns Christians off. Because if you go to a Christian and say “If you read this book and believe it’s true, you have to join our church,” they’re not going to read the book, or they’re going to look for ways to attack it.  

I had an experience with a Christian, really great guy, we’ve become really good friends, and he said, “Yeah, I know the missionaries always told me to pray about this, and I’d get a good feeling about it, but of course I would because it contains so much of the Bible!” [chuckles]. He says, “That tells me that the Bible parts of the Book of Mormon are true, I have a spiritual witness of that, but it doesn’t say anything about the rest of the Book of Mormon.” 

And then, so that’s an example of poor apologetics, I think, this whole idea that if you pray about the Book of Mormon, and you get a strong feeling that it’s true, you have to join the Church. I don’t think that was ever the intent. In fact, even in the Title Page it doesn’t say that. It says nothing about joining any church, it says to bring people to Christ.

I point out throughout my response how this is simply not true. The Book of Mormon sees itself as a missionary text (see, for instance, 1 Nephi 19:16, Enos 1:14-15, 3 Nephi 16:4-5, 3 Nephi 21:27, and Moroni 10:3-5), and leaders of the Church have seen it as a missionary text since the foundation of the Church as is evidenced in D&C 3:19-20, 19:26-27, and 20:8-16, among other verses (Pynakker himself states as much in its use by other churches).

I readily admit that there are other churches that believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. However, that was never the issue at hand. Since it has been raised, however, I make this unequivocal statement: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church on the earth that has the Priesthood whereby we can come unto Christ and receive ordinances of salvation. It is through the Book of Mormon we gain a witness of Christ’s love for us and also of the restoration of Christ’s church in these last days. That Priesthood restored through Joseph Smith has carried on in unbroken line to President Russell M. Nelson today, and he is the prophet called to lead us at this very moment in time. No other church has a prophet as we do, nor do they have the Priesthood of God.

As the introduction to the Book of Mormon states,

Those who gain this divine witness [that the Book of Mormon is true] from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah.

I believe that to be true, and am unashamed of that fact. Can these other churches that accept the Book of Mormon to be the word of God do some good in the world? Absolutely. A dear friend of mine and his family had an ancestor who was a Seventy in the RLDS Church at its founding in the 1860s, and through his faithfulness and belief in the Book of Mormon, it led their family to eventually join the Church. Thousands have heard of the Book of Mormon through their work – that is amazing, but there is so much more that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has to offer that they will eventually be able to hear and, like my dear friend’s family, rejoice in the added light and knowledge offered thereby.

Additional Comments from Steven Pynakker

The following are a few comments made by Steven Pynakker that I would like to set the record straight on. Most of these are perfectly understandable when one remembers that Pynakker is not a member of our faith and may not have had as much time learning various facets of our history, and so I would ask that people view these with faith, hope, and charity. 

Pynakker himself, it should be kept in mind, does note that as an evangelical he does not have any bias regarding where the Book of Mormon took place. He is an outsider looking in, and his comments regarding Book of Mormon geography as a whole.

Reactions Towards His Original Interview

Pynakker asserts at the beginning of the video, “I had somebody commenting [on my previous videos], ‘How dare you give him a platform?’”

This is something that he and I discussed since I originally posted this, but for greater context I would like to retain an edited portion of this section, so that my original thought processes can be seen as well as the clarification that came from the dialogue that we were able to have (which, I must say, open and civil dialogue is always a welcome experience).

My first thought was that this comment by Steve Pynakker is unfortunately misrepresenting what the original comment said that I had seen. From a “MrWhipple42” (almost certainly not the actual name of the user), the following comment appeared on the first interview published to YouTube:

I’m saddened to see Mr. Neville and his views getting this kind of exposure. He is not an honest individual. Search online for the "Neville Neville Land" blog, which has many examples of how he has misrepresented those who disagree with him, spread baseless conspiracy theories, and even openly contradicted the teachings of leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He does not represent mainstream Latter-day Saint views.

No comment made the angry and bitter remarks that Pynakker asserts here (except for those made who were offended that Neville’s dishonest medical practices in Mexico and dishonest scholarship were brought to light). While emotional readings of this comment cited above are understandable from a psychological perspective, I was pleased to hear from Steven that it was an accidental conflation of two different comments that he had heard elsewhere. While I originally was concerned that he had accidentally misrepresented this comment, he was able to clarify what had happened.

Like MrWhipple42, however, I do also warn others of Neville’s dishonesty and am saddened when he gets a platform to share his heterodox views that can be critical of the Church.

"Highly Regarded People" and Jonathan Neville

He then claimed that “highly regarded people” (and again at 1:24:47) enjoy Jonathan Neville’s work but understandably cannot tell his audience who those people are while they remain off the record for the time being. I am curious to know who these people are, but am overall unconcerned about who they might be. Whoever they are, they have their opinions, as I have mine, but Neville remains to be a critic of the Church so long as he continues on this path of siding with critics as he does in this very interview itself (as I will discuss in part three).

Reception History and the Book of Mormon

At the 8:47 mark, Pynakker discusses reception history and its use in biblical scholarship – in short, to get the best understanding of early Christianity, read early Christian sources. How they viewed things, and not late Medieval commentators, often gives us a clearer understanding of how Christian teaching was originally observed. He then links this to the Book of Mormon and its first audience:

The Book of Mormon makes it very clear that the book was to come forward at a particular time, to a particular people. So we know who the initial audience is – we even have the publishing date… And so that’s the most important audience, in one sense, is the first audience. Now when old Brigham and Sidney Rigdon get a copy of the Book of Mormon, and they read it and they’re convinced by the contents, part of the reason why they’re convinced of it is because they look out and they see those Indian mounds, and they say, “That’s the history of those people.” And that was foundational; that starts the whole church. So to be critical of the Heartland model… this is something they generally believed at the time. Joseph “walked the plains of the Nephites,” it was Zion’s camp – Joseph found Zelph’s mound. So, Joseph believed in the Heartland model.

There are a few common misconceptions that Pynakker has that I would like to discuss.

First, the Book of Mormon does make it clear who its intended audience is. The title page first and foremost places “the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel” as the primary audience. Then, because it is God’s word and is to be shared with all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples as the Book of Mormon describes, it is written “also to Jew and Gentile.”

The early members of the Restored Church recognized this, and sought every attempt to take the Gospel to the Lamanites wherever they were. They certainly saw the mounds as remnants of the Nephite and Lamanite civilizations, as Pynakker asserts, but Pynakker assumes that that is the only people who they believed the Book of Mormon could have described. The opposite, in all actuality, is true. Early Latter-day Saints (Joseph Smith included) saw all of North and South America as the home of the Lamanites and Nephites, and all of the people who had lived on these continents were descended from the Book of Mormon peoples.

For example, on one occasion Brigham Young wrote,

Nor do I expect we shall stop at Arizona, but I look forward to the time when the settlements of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day [sic] Saints will extend right through to the City of Old Mexico, and from thence on through Central America to the land where the Nephites flourished in the Golden era of their history, and this great backbone of the American Continent be filled, north and south, with the cities and temples of the people of God. In this great work I anticipate the children of Nephi, of Laman and Lemuel will take no small part.[1]

Anonymous articles in the Times and Seasons appeared shortly over thirty years previously. Though anonymous, Joseph Smith and John Taylor were the principal editors of the periodical at that time, and word print analyses have shown that Joseph was the primary author of these pieces with John Taylor’s editorial hand. These articles asserted that Zarahemla stood among the recent Mayan ruins.

And again, in The Evening and Morning Star under the editorship of W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery, an article first appeared in February 1833 (and were later reprinted in Kirtland) detailing how recently uncovered Mayan ruins offered proof for the Book of Mormon cities, which are then listed by the authors.

Even earlier, David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery were apparently skeptical of bearing witness to the world of the Book of Mormon. According to one interviewer:

[David and Oliver] demurred and told the Lord the people would not believe them for the book [Book of Mormon], concerning which they were to bear record, told of a people who were educated and refined, dwelling in large cities; whereas all that was then known of the early inhabitants of this country was the filthy, lazy, degraded and ignorant savages that were roaming over the land. 

“The Lord told us in reply that he would make it known to the people that the early inhabitants of this land had been just such a people as they were described in the book [of Mormon] and he would lead them to uncover the ruins of the great cities, and they should have abundant evidence of the truth of that which is written in the book, all of which,” said Mr. [David] Whitmer, “has been fulfilled to the very letter.”[2]

Such a viewpoint from two of the principal witnesses to the Book of Mormon does not sound as though they believed that the Book of Mormon could only describe the North American Indians.The greatest evidence seems to point to a hemispheric model being held by the early members of the Church.

Was Hugh Nibley a Heartlander?

At the 14:56 mark, Pynakker states “Hugh Nibley said the Book of Mormon makes… the most sense in a mound builder context.” Unfortunately, that does injustice to Hugh Nibley, who offered little insights to Book of Mormon geography himself. On the instances he did, however, little can definitively trace him to a Heartland model, and multiple published and spoken statements affirm his belief in a Central American location. In fact, the claim that Nibley was a Heartlander is largely based off of one quote from Nibley taken drastically out of context of everything else he has had to say on the subject.

Others have gathered those quotes in great length, and so to avoid reinventing the wheel, I would refer Pynakker and all others to the following two links (FAIR | Neville-Neville Land).

Conclusion

I believe that Steven Pynakker is still someone who does seek to hear from other viewpoints, but I was saddened to see what I wrote misrepresented and disparaged, whether or not Pynakker intended to do so. I do not believe he did so out of spite, but out of misunderstanding and misreading what had been said.

I welcome any comments or questions regarding my blog and anything that I have to put to the world. As my comment box says, all thoughtful comments are welcome, and I have no problem discussing things that I wrote and being pushed on what I mean. Healthy dialogue is always welcome in my opinion, and if you are willing to have an open mind and be civil, there is no reason we cannot get along.

I will, however, continue to defend the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and provide thought-provoking content, nonetheless. While I never intended to use my blog as a medium to respond to respond to critics of the Church such as Jonathan Neville, I will not be ashamed to quote him and respond to his exact words as I have done from the very beginning of my responses here posted.

---

[1] Brigham Young to William C. Staines, 11 January 1876, Letterbook 14:124–26. Emphasis added.

[2] See James H. Hart Interview, August 21, 1883, James H. Hart Notebook, in David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness, ed. Lyndon W. Cook (Orem, UT: Grandin Book Co., 1991), 96. For further information regarding how this was fulfilled to the letter, as David described, see Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did the Lord Command the Three Witnesses to Rely upon His Word? (D&C 17:1),” KnoWhy 596 (February 16, 2021).