Lars Glenson would have been much clearer, I’m sure.

It’s entirely possible not to take that step, either from a faithful or a skeptical perspective. The skeptic would say that the book is fraud to begin with, and so it makes no sense to treat it as a historical document. The faithful perspective is similar to Dave’s objection above, namely that the nature of Joseph Smith’s translation doesn’t permit the text to be as fallible as other historical documents. We can still interpret the text theologically or as literature, but we can’t use it to do history.

You are the one inserting the words “skeptically” and “skepticism” into the discussion. People who suggest underlying complexities in the BoM as a historical document are not being skeptical in the same way that biblical critics are because these folks accept the BoM as an authentically historical document. Doing so requires them to accept its miraculous (and therefore divine) origins which sets them wholly apart from the biblical critics.

(1) “People who want to take principles of historical skepticism seriously with respect to the Book of Mormon have to keep in mind the distinction between what a document says, and what actually happened.”
(2) “People who want to consider the Book of Mormon skeptically as a historical document have to keep in mind the distinction between what a document says, and what actually happened.”

Leaders of the Church seem to want us to “take the Book of Mormon seriously as a historical document”, but I sense little encouragement from them to engage in skeptical speculation about how it might incorporate forgeries on the order of the Donation of Constantine. Those who, because of profession or hobby, are inclined to treat the Book of Mormon this way are, of course, welcome to do so, but it cannot reasonably be maintained that such treatment is what seriousness demands.