Does Don's character connection counter the KEP apologetics?

[_jon]

This post suggests it might:

'This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.'

What is your view on how Don's presentation impacts on the 'camel of the Kirtland Eqyptian Papers'?

[_malkie]

This post suggests it might:

'This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.'

What is your view on how Don's presentation impacts on the 'camel of the Kirtland Eqyptian Papers'?

I don't think that it does or should matter. From what I see (admittedly perhaps not very clearly) it seems that Don worked on something that interested him and pursued the evidence regardless of where it led. In other words, he acted as a scholar. From the comments of others (I'm in no position to judge), Don has done excellent scholarly work, and has reached a solid conclusion. He is rightly being commended for that.

Is the author of the quoted post suggesting that Don should have realised the implications of his work (and I'm not saying that he didn't - though that would surprise me), and should have suppressed it rather than risk hurting the KEP camel? If that is the case, then there are other implications of the post that I find troubling.

[_jon]

This post suggests it might:

'This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.'

What is your view on how Don's presentation impacts on the 'camel of the Kirtland Eqyptian Papers'?

I don't think that it does or should matter. From what I see (admittedly perhaps not very clearly) it seems that Don worked on something that interested him and pursued the evidence regardless of where it led. In other words, he acted as a scholar. From the comments of others (I'm in no position to judge), Don has done excellent scholarly work, and has reached a solid conclusion. He is rightly being commended for that.

Is the author of the quoted post suggesting that Don should have realised the implications of his work (and I'm not saying that he didn't - though that would surprise me), and should have suppressed it rather than risk hurting the KEP camel? If that is the case, then there are other implications of the post that I find troubling.

Malkie, do you have a view on this specific question?

[_malkie]

This post suggests it might:

'This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.'

What is your view on how Don's presentation impacts on the 'camel of the Kirtland Eqyptian Papers'?

I don't think that it does or should matter. From what I see (admittedly perhaps not very clearly) it seems that Don worked on something that interested him and pursued the evidence regardless of where it led. In other words, he acted as a scholar. From the comments of others (I'm in no position to judge), Don has done excellent scholarly work, and has reached a solid conclusion. He is rightly being commended for that.

Is the author of the quoted post suggesting that Don should have realised the implications of his work (and I'm not saying that he didn't - though that would surprise me), and should have suppressed it rather than risk hurting the KEP camel? If that is the case, then there are other implications of the post that I find troubling.

Malkie, do you have a view on this specific question?

Sorry for derailing right off the bat (;=(

I do have a view, but not because of my own analysis/understanding of the issues - I believe, based on others' reactions, that it does!

by the way, jon, if I wanted to make some more comments on the "other implications" that I see, would you prefer that I take that to a separate thread?

[_jon]

Hi Malkie, no worries mate.

I was putting this thread up because I am interested in understanding the further implications of Don connecting the characters, and in particular the previous apologetics on the KEP.

I am more than happy for you to put down your opinion on other implications if you feel it fits with the spirit of the thread.

If your opinion is about the comments by the poster whom I quoted, perhaps that's best for another thread.

(I'm beginning to sound like 'thread police' but I don't mean too)

[_malkie]

Hi Malkie, no worries mate.

I was putting this thread up because I am interested in understanding the further implications of Don connecting the characters, and in particular the previous apologetics on the KEP.

I am more than happy for you to put down your opinion on other implications if you feel it fits with the spirit of the thread.

If your opinion is about the comments by the poster whom I quoted, perhaps that's best for another thread.

(I'm beginning to sound like 'thread police' but I don't mean too)

Thanks jon. Sorry to have provoked the 'thread police', but I asked the question so that I could decide if I was likely to advance the thread in any way.

I have nothing to add that would help anyone understand anything related to your reasons for starting the thread - sorry.

I'm just a somewhat biased observer with insufficient actual knowledge of the matter at hand to do anything other than try to glean a little information from the arguments presented by those who appear to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation about it.

[_Themis]

This post suggests it might:

'This apologetic, if embraced, does very little to address what have always been the supposed troubling aspects of the Kinderhook Plates episode, and even at best only permits LDS apologetics to swat the gnat of the Kinderhook Plates while being compelled simultaneously to swallow the camel of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I appreciate, much to my frustration and chagrin, that no one (except Andrew Cook and Chris Smith) seems to yet recognize this rather obvious fact, and that so many faithful, albeit undiscerning, LDS are rushing to haul this Trojan Horse inside the city walls.'

What is your view on how Don's presentation impacts on the 'camel of the Kirtland Eqyptian Papers'?

Will seems to recognize that the evidence Don is presenting may solve the KP problem at the expense of providing damaging evidence that Joseph was very much a part of the Gael, and was using it to translate a character on the KP. This damages Will's theories on the KEP, although they were pretty much dead already. This just adds another nail to that coffin. Don has done some great work and presented some new evidence. I know not everyone agrees with some of his conclusions, and this is a good thing. Time will tell as we get more detailed information and time to digest Don's research.

I think some of his evidence may show that Joseph was indeed a part of the KEP documents and that the Gael was meant as a translating tool, but then that was pretty obvious anyways. This just makes it more so. In the end the KEP is damaging evidence against Joseph's claims about the Book of Abraham, although the papyri has always been much more deadly to the Book of Abraham.