I asked Copilot,
“Is Rich Kelsey’s article ‘Ten LDS Plot Holes’ well written?”
Short answer: Rich Kelsey’s “Ten LDS Plot Holes” is clear, direct, and well‑structured, but it is not neutral—it is an apologetic/critical essay written to argue a position rather than to provide balanced historical analysis. Its writing quality is solid for its genre, but its methodology is selective and polemical.
Overall Writing Quality
Clarity: The article is written in a straightforward, accessible style. Each “plot hole” is introduced with a clear claim, followed by quotations from LDS sources. This makes the structure easy to follow.
Organization: The numbered “plot hole” format gives the piece a logical flow and helps readers track each argument.
Use of Sources: Kelsey cites LDS documents such as Messenger and Advocate, Lucy Mack Smith’s history, and Joseph Knight’s recollections. These are real historical sources, and he quotes them directly.
Where the Writing Shows Bias or Limitations
Selective framing: Kelsey presents only the interpretation that supports his argument. He does not include LDS scholarly responses, historical context, or alternative explanations.
Polemical tone: The article is written to disprove LDS claims, not to neutrally analyze them. This is consistent with the broader content on his site, which focuses on critical examinations of LDS doctrine.
Argument-driven rather than exploratory: The writing is persuasive rather than investigative. It assumes the reader is open to or already aligned with a critical stance.
Bottom Line
If your standard for “well written” means:
clear structure
readable prose
consistent use of cited sources
→ Yes, it is well written.
If your standard means:
balanced analysis
neutral tone
engagement with counterarguments
→ No, it is not academically balanced; it is a polemical critique.
■ Article