“Reformed Egyptian is a made-up language!?” False Claim by Alyssa Grenfell

by Anonymous | Jul 21, 2025 | Book of Mormon

Bottom Line

No, “Reformed Egyptian” isn’t listed in modern language textbooks. But it was never supposed to be. It was described as a sacred, evolving script unique to a small religious elite. Its absence in today’s linguistic record doesn’t disprove it — it aligns with exactly what the Book of Mormon claimed.

🔍 Core Finding

The Book of Mormon never claims “Reformed Egyptian” was a widespread, institutionalized language. Instead, it explicitly states that this script was modified over time by the Nephite record keepers and may not have been readable by other cultures. That’s not the same as “made up.”

“We have written this record in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian… but the Lord knoweth the things which we have written.”
— Mormon 9:32

📚 Ancient Parallels

Many small ancient cultures used hybrid or localized scripts for record keeping and ritual purposes:

• Demotic evolved from Egyptian hieratic, which itself evolved from hieroglyphics.
• Ugaritic cuneiform was unknown until the 20th century.
• Minoan Linear A remains undeciphered despite decades of research.

“The concept of a modified Egyptian script adapted by a specific population is entirely consistent with ancient scribal practices.”
— John Gee, Egyptologist, Interpreter, 2014

🧠 A Misleading Standard

Critics demand that “Reformed Egyptian” show up in modern archaeology. But the Book of Mormon itself says no other people knew the language:

“…none other people know our language.” — Mormon 9:34

Expecting modern corroboration of a script the book claims was lost is circular reasoning. Ancient languages are often rediscovered centuries later — or never at all.

🪪 What Did Joseph Smith Mean?

There is no record of Joseph Smith claiming that “Reformed Egyptian” was recognized by scholars. He never promoted it outside the Book of Mormon text. He admitted he could not read the characters and translated by the gift of God.

📚 Sources

• Book of Mormon, Mormon 9:32–34; 1 Nephi 1:2
• John Gee, “The ‘Breathing Permit of Hôr’ among the Joseph Smith Papyri,” Interpreter, Vol. 1, 2012
• Royal Skousen, The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale, 2009)
• Paul Hoskisson, “Reformed Egyptian,” Book of Mormon Reference Companion, 2003
• Mormoner.org – Reformed Egyptian Overview

Zero Archaeological Book of Mormon Evidence? – Fact Checking Alyssa Grenfell

by Anonymous | Jul 21, 2025 | Book of Mormon

Bottom Line

There is no smoking-gun “Zarahemla tablet,” but the claim that there is “literally nothing” is false. Nahom alone defies that claim. Mesoamerican evidence aligns with dozens of textual features. The real question is not “is there nothing?” but “are we willing to evaluate the data fairly?”

🔍 Core Findings

The claim that there is “literally nothing” to support the Book of Mormon archaeologically is inaccurate and misleading. It ignores significant findings in both the Old and New Worlds that align with Book of Mormon descriptions.

🧭 Key Evidence from the Old World: Nahom

1 Nephi 16:34 references “Nahom,” where Ishmael was buried. In 1994, archaeologists discovered ancient altars in Yemen inscribed with the tribal name “NHM” — matching both name and location. These date to the correct time period for Lehi’s journey and confirm a key waypoint on the route.

“This is the first direct archaeological correlation with a specific location mentioned in the Book of Mormon.”
— S. Kent Brown, BYU Studies, 2002

🗺️ Mesoamerican Correlations

Dozens of cultural and geographic details in the Book of Mormon — including cities, roads, markets, warfare, and natural disasters — align with Mesoamerican civilizations. No definitive site has been found, but the limited geography model shows high consistency with the text.

“The Book of Mormon’s setting—based on city sizes, travel distances, topography, and climate—best fits a limited geography in Mesoamerica.”
— John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting

🔎 Why No Confirming Names?

The absence of direct inscriptions (e.g., “Zarahemla was here”) is expected:

• Ancient cities were renamed or destroyed.
• Records were hidden, destroyed (Mormon 6–8), or looted.
• Archaeology rarely preserves tribal or scriptural names unless carved in stone.

📚 Sources

• S. Kent Brown, “Nahom and the ‘Eastward’ Turn,” BYU Studies 42.2 (2003)
• Warren P. Aston, Lehi and Sariah in Arabia (2015)
• John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (1985)
• Mark A. Wright, “Heartland as Hinterland,” Interpreter Vol. 13 (2015)
• Mormoner.org – Nahom Archaeology