Over at his blog
Bill Hamblin is met with a rebuttal from John Dehlin, who pretty much says the same thing I've been trying to get across for days.John Dehlin
: "Bill – what if it’s as simple as this: you guys have failed at doing apologetics in a way that LDS church leadership is comfortable with. Clearly Gerald Bradford didn’t act alone. Clearly general authorities were involved. It’s clear to me that church leadership is uncomfortable with your (and Dr. Peterson’s) brand of apologetics. To blame Bradford for this seems like scapegoating. It’s LDS church leadership that appears to be uncomfortable with your style of apologetics. Unfortunately you can’t criticize them….but it’s not fair to lay the blame on Bradford either. Not fair at all. Try looking in the mirror."Bill Hamblin
: "Well, you may be right....
**Hold the phone!
Bill says John may be right about this? So if John may be right, then why are the Peterpologists (yes, I just invented that word) on the web leaving no room for that possibility? Remember, Mike Parker states as a matter of fact, anything Hamblin has said. Anyway, Bill continues..**"But the fact of the matter is, the LDS church leadership has made absolutely no public statement on the matter."
** irrelevant, as the Church has never bothered to condescend to those rumor-mongers on the blogosphere. It isn't anyone's business which authorities are involved. BYU is a Church owned entity and we all know its oversight is headed by Church leadership** "You have no evidence general authorities are involved in Bradford’s decision. You are fantasizing."
** Aside from common sense, I have a statement coming directly from two BYU scholars who "assured" me that such is the case. In fact, it is Bill who has no evidence that they weren't involved. It is Bill who has no evidence that Bradford was working alone. Yet he has no problem giving that impression as if it were unassailable fact, even before admitting he may in fact be wrong **"I have no idea what the church leadership thinks about this, (though I suspect there are many different views). But more importantly, neither do you."
** How can Bill presume to know what we know? I do happen to know and so does Dehlin. We shouldn't be faulted because we know more about this situation that Peterpologist-in-chief, Bill Hamblin. **"I do not, never have, and never will claim to be speaking for the church leadership. I suggest you do the same."
** and what happens when Bill learns that the Church is involved in this process? Will he be issuing an apology to all those he called liars? I doubt it, since that requires a modicum of integrity**