Hamblin wrote:
...Many members of the Church disbelieve one or another of the Church’s claims while continuing in Church activity and membership...
...If the Church is true, then predatory disbelief aims to destroy the eternal salvation of Church members.
Hamblin is obfuscating.
I don't recall Dehlin stating that 'the Church is not true'; he seems to have issues with specific claims (but maybe I've missed the latest news). Regardless, the all-in-one 'Church is True' label is a bit meaningless unless Hamblin wants to define 'The Church is True' to mean that every claim made by the Church is, indeed, factually true... and if so, then what do we do with the many members that he mentions prior, who have issues with one or more of the Church's truth claims?
If 'The Church is True' is not supposed to be all-inclusive of every truth claim made by the Church, then Dehlin cannot be accused - under Hamblin's own, newly-created criteria - of 'predatory disbelief' in presenting contrary evidence for possible consumption by any other member.
Missing in all of this is the fact that any member has the free will to read, accept or reject Dehlin's comments or assertions. If some of Dehlin's comments are based on verifiable but uncomfortable fact, then who is the 'predatory' party - Dehlin, for offering that information, or the Church in attempting to squelch Dehlin or any other person highlighting information that it dislikes so as to keep unsuspecting members from being exposed to that information?