I was listening to RFM's latest podcast where he and Bill Reel interview Patrick Mason. They spend most of the episode discussing the BoA, but it got me thinking about the BoM and "reformed Egyptian."
- Reformed Egyptian isn't and never was a thing. If it had ever been used as described in the BoM we would have examples of it from both ancient America and ancient Jerusalem. Instead we have absolutely nothing.
- Egyptian is not some magical alphabet capable of squeezing massive amounts of information into single characters as JS posited on many occasions. It is hardly any more efficient than hebrew at all. JS possibly made this claim assuming that Egyptian was one of the oldest languages on earth and therefore somehow closer to the "adamic" language which obviously makes it more better in every conceivable way.
- Recording large amounts of data/text on metal plates was not a thing. Metal was expensive and hard to record on. The few examples of writing on metal that we do have are plaques, single page notices, or short records of valuable items. If they used plates as described in BoM we should have examples from both ancient America and ancient Jerusalem. Instead we have absolutely nothing.
- According to Christopher Rollston, "Literacy in ancient Israel and Judah was probably 15 or 20 percent of the population, at most." Which means, if Nephi could read/write in Hebrew he was already in the severe minority. If he could read/write in two languages (Hebrew and Egyptian) then he would have been one of the most educated people in the entire region.
- Codices were not a thing in or around 600BC. In fact, the format did not exist at all until the Romans started using wax tablets in codex form around 1CE. Within 50-100 years (50-100 CE) papyrus codices began to appear. Metal codices though, have never shown up in any way until Mormonism made them a thing and people started making replicas.
- The bible as a single collection did not exist in 600BCE and certainly not in codex form.