Clarification on Park’s View?

Some of my critics have claimed that I have taken Ben Park’s statements out of context, and misrepresent his real position.  Rather than isolated ambiguous statements taken out of context, there are seven clear statements in Park’s essay of as many pages, which I believe only make sense with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century document.  There is no statement in his paper that even remotely alludes to even the possibility of an ancient Book of Mormon.  

1- “scholars of the Book of Mormon should [not] return to the parochial and exceptionalist framework that has so plagued Mormon studies in the past” (174).  

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, should it not be studied as an “exceptional” book rather than an unexceptional one.

2- “what does [the Book of Mormon] reveal concerning Joseph Smith’s religious genius?” (167).  

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, how can it reveal anything about “Joseph Smith’s religious genius”?

3- “the future for Book of Mormon studies [lies] within the early Americanist field,” (168)

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, how can its future study rest “within the early Americanist field”?

4- The Book of Mormon is “just another voice in a rancorous chorus that had been filling the American religious amphitheater since the nation’s founding” (169)

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, how can it be “just another voice in a rancorous chorus that had been filling the American religious amphitheater”?

5- He advocates “approaching the Book of Mormon as a way to examine an American problem” (171).

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, why should we examine as “an American problem”?

6- “the Book of Mormon is best seen as one of many examples that embody the same cultural strains [of pseudobiblilcal literature]” (173).  

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, why is it “best seen” as a reflection of early American pseudobiblical literature?

7- We should “push to contextualize the Book of Mormon within America’s revelatory heritage” (173).  

If the Book of Mormon is an ancient text translated by divine revelation, what does it have to do with “America’s revelatory heritage”?

None of these seven claims make any coherent sense if the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient book.  I welcome Park’s clarification on these matters; I’d be happy to post anything he has to say on my blog.