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**

I wonder if Bill will be offended with someone when called in by his SP and asked to tone it down or face the consequences. He (and others) might be considered lucky if this happens verses a call from the Honor Code administrators.

What I find delicious about this whole event is that Dan has been reduced by the brethren to something he always felt he was above.

Since when does the LDS Church issue press releases over a change in editors at a minor journal on BYU campus?

How many libraries take the Review anyway?

LDS leadership tends not to make public statements on much of anything these days, so I don't see why Hamblin thinks that he's got a valid point. I would imagine that what happened is that an apostle first scuttled the Dehlin article, and then DCP tried to push it through anyway and so the apostle told Bradford to relieve him of his duties as editor. Something similar happened when they wanted to get rid of Mike Quinn. Elder Packer told a lower-ranking GA to take away Quinn's temple recommend (which would mean that he could no longer work at BYU). The lower-ranking GA then went to Quinn's SP, but the SP refused to comply.

Today is Sunday. Maybe it's already happened.

Bill Hamblin: "Well, you may be right...."

Too many "buts" for Bill to seriously believe that.

You may be right...I may be crazy but it just might be a lunatic your looking for.

I always knew Billy Joel was a prophet

What else do you expect from a church that serves bread and water?

In a day, a month, a year when Peterson et al have not been restored can we all then rightly say that Church leadership assented to removing Peterson et al?

Surely, the 15, nor BYU would allow a rogue like Bradford continue his rein of terror.

However, so far, the decision has not reversed. Which leaves two options,
the 15 nor BYU know what happened, OR
They all know and will not reverse the decision.

Given his mean manifestations with his internet addiction, I think he would be meaner in his IRL persona.

That's my understanding too, Doctor. It will be interesting to see if there is still a rabbit to pull out of the hat and thus save the situation. Really, all they can hope for, in my view, is to channel the energy of aggrieved contributors and fans into this new FARMS II project they have in the works. I can't imagine that at this point they will recover a presence at BYU for their particular apologetic agenda.