James E. Smith wrote an article in the book titled "How Many Nephites?: The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography."
You can read it here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1099&index=13
Smith does a great job summarizing the traditional interpretations, and in so doing, he shows why M2C is constructed on a faulty premise.
The entire M2C citation cartel relied on mistakes in Church history that led them astray, but they can get back on track if they'll just follow the prophets and accept the New York Cumorah.
Original in blue, my comments in red.
Later in his article, Smith writes this:
John Sorenson has summarized more than fifty published statements on Book of Mormon geography from the 1830s to the present.34 He shows that until the early twentieth century, the traditional hemispheric interpretation dominated, but by the mid—twentieth century, most authors believed Book of Mormon history took place primarily within the more limited confines of Central America. Today almost all writers on Book of Mormon geography agree that Lehi’s landing place, the narrow neck of land, the lands northward and southward, and Mormon’s Hill Cumorah were situated somewhere in Central America. Recently Sorenson has proposed a fairly specific Mesoamerican setting that puts most Book of Mormon history in a geographic area reaching only a few hundred miles in each direction.35
The M2C argument is that most early LDS were wrong about the geography; i.e., the consensus was wrong. But no M2C intellectuals cite the consensus as a reason why everyone should accept it. I don't know if they're self-aware enough to see the inconsistency, but it doesn't matter because LDS who know all the facts--including what the prophets have taught and what archaeology tells us about North America--reject the M2C consensus.