Excuse me, I DID, and saw nothing but Mormon 'scholars' and I use that term dubiously. Try some REAL SCHOLARS:
Standard language reference works contain no reference to ‘reformed’ hieroglyphics. [Standard language references such as Peter T. Daniels and William Bright, eds., The World's Writing Systems (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) (990 pages); David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Roger D. Woodard, ed., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2004) (1162 pages) contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian." "Reformed Egyptian" is also ignored in Andrew Robinson, Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World's Undeciphered Scripts (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002)]
No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of a ‘reformed Egyptian’ language as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America… In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian.”
Furthermore: In 1959, Mormon archaeologist Ross T. Christensen said that "'reformed' Egyptian" is a "form of writing which we have not yet identified in the archaeological material available to us". (Book of Mormon Institute, December 5, 1959, BYU, 1964 ed., p. 10). This statement in spite of vain attempts to prove otherwise by FAIR and FARMS.
Klaus Baer, another Egyptologist at the University of Chicago, called the characters of the "Caractors" document nothing but "doodlings." [Sunstone, (May–June 1980), p. 30. An early twentieth century scholar said that the "Carators" document looked more like "deformed English." Charles A. Shook, Cumorah Revisited or, "The Book of Mormon" and the Claims of the Mormons Reexamined from the Viewpoint of American Archaeology and Ethnology (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Company, 1910), p. 538.
That’s why I’ve been asking. There are acknowledged experts on ancient Egypt throughout the world. From an archaeological standpoint no country on earth has been studied more thoroughly, it would seem that there would be a non-Mormon expert SOMEWHERE who could validate some of these claims.