Over at the ridiculously named Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, Bill Hamblin openly attacks and is hostile to the Church leadership who shut down the attack piece on John Dehlin:
But what is most disquieting is his recent attempt to suppress and censor the publication of an article that is critical of his activities. His behavior in this regard is absolutely shocking. This is, quite simply, reprehensible and utter hypocritical. I object in the strongest way possible to this type of censorship. And anti-Mormons do it all the time. Signature Books tried to sue FARMS. They did it to Schryver, and Dehlin doing it again. Why does he object to the publication of an article, even if it is fundamentally flawed or completely wrong-headed. Let it be published and respond to it. If Dehlin has any intellectual integrity, he would not engage in this type of censorship. It is both immoral, pointless, and counter-productive. After all, its going to come out on the web eventually, no doubt with a lengthy appendix explaining how Dehlin tried to censor it.
I'm surprised that Bill Hamblin would voice such opposition to the Church leadership that decided the attack article was inappropriate. I think Bill Hamblin is being openly hostile to the LDS Church and his actions are bordering on open rebellion.
As I have stated before, Bill Hamblin is destroying the Church one post at a time.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Everybody Wang Chung wrote:As I have stated before, Bill Hamblin is destroying the Church one post at a time.
What this doofus misses is the fact that John Dehlin made no personal request to quash the piece, as far as we can tell; some GA voluntarily quashed it.
Nice one, Wild Bill.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Sort of like how they censored "Metcalfe is Butthead," eh?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
This story keeps getting better and better. So why didn't DCP publish the article? Because Dehlin didn't want him to? Hahahahaha. It was because a GA, one of God's own appointed minsters put the kibosh on it. So Hamblin blames Dehlin. Absolutely laughable. And here we have static telling us the article never even existed. The mopes ought to get their stories straight. Hey static, why is Hamblin bitching about Dehlin "censoring" (as if he had the power) an article you say never existed. While you think about that, I'm gonna go pop another bag of popcorn.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Yeah, I have to laugh about this. Bill "The Hutt" Hamblin has blown the lid off all of this. The Mopologists can't deny this any longer. DCP can carry on about "alleged" articles all he wants--his own best friend has thrown him under the bus! What a bummer!
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
As equally ridiculous as the claim that any critic censored William Schryver. Maxwell Institute made the decision. Do they really think that the Maxwell institute didn't publish his article, because critics asked them not to?
Stormy Waters wrote:As equally ridiculous as the claim that any critic censored William Schryver. Maxwell Institute made the decision. Do they really think that the Maxwell institute didn't publish his article, because critics were against it?
Maybe they didn't publish the article because a GA was against it?
Perhaps this is not the first time this has happened.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Well it's good to know that Dehlin has the power to stop their publications.
Wow. This is just incredible. The thing is, Hamblin says, in effect, that the article was intended as a means of "exposing" Dehlin:
Bill Hamblin wrote:But what is most disquieting is his recent attempt to suppress and censor the publication of an article that is critical of his activities.
What "activities"? His podcast?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14