Given that Kevin said nothing about Don's perceptions about such things, why should he clarify? Don never said he had any issues. No one did. You apparently misread Kevin's post.
No, you're just riding to the rescue, squirting ink.
Standard circling of the wagons (of which there is no doubt, because if Don was a clear and unambiguous member of the apologetics movement, you and Kevin wouldn't defend him if it was the last thing you ever did on this earth. Does Kevin defend me, Wade, Will Gee, Rhodes, Peterson, Nibley, etc? This tells me that Don holds some importance for people like you and Graham who remain outside the church as perennial critics as a kind of iconic figure who can stand within the church but at the same time in some sense assuage the conscience of critics outside it by lending support to their core motives. I don't know what it is, but I do know that Don seems to hold an unusual place within LDS intellectual circles regarding that which he represents to critics of it.
His close relationship to Graham - one of the most hostile, visceral, and deeply alienated apostate critics in modern history, at least on the Internet, while he seems distant from, say, Book of Abraham apologetics, is interesting, to say the least.
This is an odd place to stand, and that's all I'm trying to get at. Kevin seems to have fled the field of battle, so we'll have to see what he comes up with).
