I agree with Reynolds' assessment. I've always liked his work.
Here's a key passage from the LDS Living article:
This is fascinating for three reasons.
First, the methodology Brother Reynolds used--comparing the Lectures on Faith with the respective writings of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon--is the same methodology I used to figure out who wrote the anonymous articles in the 1842 Times and Seasons that were the origin for the Mesoamerican theory. That methodology led me to Benjamin Winchester, as I explained in my books The Lost City of Zarahemla, Brought to Light, and The Editors: Joseph, William and Don Carlos Smith.
Second, Brother Reynolds looked at Joseph's use of the lectures. His conclusion, which I bolded above, applies equally to the anonymous Mesoamerican articles. There is no proof Joseph Smith ever even looked at these articles (or the Stephens books they quoted), he never claimed them, he never quoted them, he never taught from them, and he never repeated them. In fact, not once did Joseph Smith ever link the Book of Mormon to any geography outside of North America.
Third, I'm informed that Brother Reynolds is a strong supporter of the Mesoamerican and two-Cumorahs theory. Maybe I'm wrong and I'd like to know if I am.
This is especially ironic because the exact same misattribution that took place with the Lectures on Faith also took place with the Mesoamerican articles upon which the Mesomania scholars and educators rely.
If Brother Reynolds and other Mesomania scholars and educators applied the same methodology to the Times and Seasons as they applied to the Lectures on Faith, no one would be promoting the two-Cumorahs and Mesoamerican theories any more.