Physically the four corners region is separated by 300 miles of very rugged terrain. I would hardly call that local in the 1850's as it equals about a 15 day trip in those days.

Read this: <[www.hallofmaat.com];
The following is from this article: [www.ancient-hebrew.org]

1. The inscriber of this stone probably was a man of many ports of call and could speak multiple languages phonetically, but not a man versed in letters. Is it possible to speak a language and not know basically how to write it?
2. Though he clearly displays the Mosaic Faith, he is not of priestly origin. This man is a classic layperson who is a product of a recitation, ritually practiced enough to display the Mosaic faith by memory.
3. Though he uses Phoenician letters he is not Phoenician: 1) He uses Greek lettering to get him out of phonetic problems; meaning, he points in the direction of Greek origins. 2) In the script itself, there is minimal pointers to Middle Eastern origins; namely, no connection to Aramaic (Estrangela Script). I know that Dr. Gordon sees strong Samaritan signatures. He makes a strong case for it being Samaritan but not on the lettering; rather, the function played by the 10 Commandments. There is a version of the Samaritan 10 Commandments where the 10th commandment is the command to build a Temple on Mount Gerizim. The Samaritans did not hold Jerusalem as the central place of Temple worship. Again, Gordon�s conclusion that the 10 Commandments were used as a Mezuzah has problems too. If I understand the use and script of the Mezuzah, the 10 Commandments are not what inside the box. What is contained in the mezuzah box is the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9), and the Vehaya (Deuteronomy 11:13-21).
4. The connections between the Stone and the Mormon community is not very strong from alphabetical or historical dating of the two.

When one researches the use of the 10 Commandments in the liturgical practice of ancient Israel, what is consistent is it is not abridged! We can only assume that the editing on the Los Lunas Stone points to the author himself. The abridgement must be intentional and might well be autobiographical; particularly, when we investigate the omissions of the word for slave and the longest Commandment being the parent-honor commandment.
It is an assumption, but I believe a fair one that Commandment 1 conforms to the Jewish tradition. I realize the second half of the first Commandment is careted, but they are understood as one even though a period was used only (and that is important) after he had separated what he thought was one from two.
There is not a hint of Christian (Catholic or Protestant variants) in this abridgement.
Without any liturgical connections, it is difficult to venture in any certainty of formatted recitation. If there was any indication in this direction, it would point also toward the inscription�s antiquity; particularly post-exilic timing when the 10 Commandments was a centerpiece to the Torah reception.
As I have attempted to show, the editing of Exodus 20 on the Los Lunas Stone is intentional, and without Old World precedent. From the evidence we have of Ancient Israel, any presentation of the 10 Commandments would be as a whole and without abridgement, and after the 2d century BCE, Rabbinical emphasis was taken away from the 10 Commandments for the sake of emphasizing the whole Torah. The Los Lunas abridgement is without any archeological match.

Hope this explains the problems regarding the stone, There is just not enough evidence to make a call one way or another at this time. I am sure few academics will pursue where my thoughts lead now for they really don't want to upset the apple cart.

Regards