How BYU Destroyed Ancient Book of Mormon Studies
Hamblin's article about BYU's approach is well-written and well-reasoned, but I think he's missing the point.
IMO, BYU didn't destroy Ancient Book of Mormon studies; the Mesoamerican theory did.
Here's what a correct title to his article would be:
How BYU Destroyed Mesoamerican Book of Mormon Studies
I think BYU is right to discourage this line of research and writing. Articles promoting the Mesoamerican theory, published by FARMS and now the Interpreter, are not scholarly because they are not peer reviewed (outside the bias-confirming citation cartel).
John Sorenson's book, Mormon's Codex, sets forth criteria or filters for any proposed Book of Mormon setting that, ironically, exclude Mesoamerica.
Brant Gardner's book, Traditions of the Fathers, sets up a series of illusory correspondences that also show the Book of Mormon could not have taken place in Mesoamerica.
As Earl Wunderli demonstrated in An Imperfect Book, the Mesoamerican theory doesn't line up with the text. Re-interpreting the text to discern hidden "Mayan" features doesn't help, either.
Out of concern it might disappear, I'm going to reproduce Hamblin's piece here with my interlinear comments.