The Bat Creek stone is viewed as a fraud by all but the fringe elements, of which, in the topic of semitic influence in the New World, Cyrus Gordon was one. Cyrus Gordon made all sorts of suspect claims, such as presenting his argument for Old World influence based on the fact that some ancient art contains images that "look" negroid or Greek. His work was rampantly racist, as well. He was following in the long line of earlier racists who refused to believe that the ignorant New World natives could possibly be responsible for the massive civilization being uncovered.
Here's just one example from his book, which I own and have read:
The testimony of ancient American sculpture is complex but clear to this extent: Long before the Vikings reached America around AD 1000, Mesoamerica had long been the scene of the intermingling of different populations from across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Some of the most creative people in America came from the Near East; but no one group monopolized the scene. Caucasians from one end of Europe and Japanese types, from the Far East; from the Mediterranean at different times came various Semites including Phoenicians and Carthaginians, as well as Egyptians, Greeks, Etruscans, Romans and still others. In general, the main consequence was the mingling of highly civilized people from all over the world, creating on American soil, through the pooling of their cultural resources, a galaxy of brilliant old American civilizations, whose final phases are known to us as Inca, Maya, and Aztec. In culture, as in the physical universe, out of nothing comes nothing. The breathtaking achievements of the Mesoamericans could not be, and were not, the works of savages who lifted themselves up by their bootstraps. Instead they are the culminations of mingled strands of civilization brought to these shores by a variety of talented people from Europe, Africa, and Asia. (p 30)
Here's another sample of his scholarship:
From the Maya area of Iximche, in the province of Chimaltenango (Guatemala), comes a superb incense burner, probably of preclassical date. It is 33.5 cm high and belongs to the Musee de l’Homme in Paris. Everything about the sculptured head – nose, beard, expression – would fit a Northwest Semite. Whether he was a Phoenician, Syrian, Israelite, Greek, or even an Etruscan is not important, for delving into such problems often degenerates into unprofitable hyperfiness. If we be impelled to define him specifically, we may tentatively call him “an ancient Mediterranean merchant prince.” From the Early Iron Age into Roman times, people of his type maintained creative contacts with middle America. He typifies an important group of the merchant mariners who linked the Mediterranean with the New World. His motives may have been trade, but trade for him meant the development as well as exchange of natural resources – all of which required the spread of science and technology. No physical anthropologist will try to change his classification from Mediterranean to American Indian. And the incense burner is related to similar ones from Veracruz. Accordingly in our “merchant prince” we have a specific link between preclassical Mesoamerica and the ancient Mediterranean.
In the private collection of Alexander von Wuthenau is a Mayan head, larger than life-size, of a pensive, bearded Smite. The dolichocephalic (“long-headed”) type fits the Near East well. He resembles certain European Jews, but he is more like many Yemenite Jews. In Maya fashion his nose appears to extend up to the middle of his forehead. This Maya custom is best explained as an exaggerated imitation of the prominent nose that characterizes so many Near Eastern types. It was precisely because men like the Mediterranean merchant princes were aristocrats in the Mesoamerican Order that their features were emulated by their Maya Indian successors. (p26)
Aside from his racism, Gordon relied heavily on three artifacts that are viewed as frauds by the scientific community to build his argument: the Bat Creek Stone, the Paraiba Inscription, and the Newark Holy Stones.
Authors such as Barry Fell have followed in Gordon's footsteps. I am only aware of one respected scholar, David Kelley, who does not reject all of Fell's claims, and even he states that Fell's work is
full of distortions and errors.
It is telling that the only nonLDS sources apologists can cite to support their assertions are generally those whose work is derided by scholars in the field.