Since Cumorah

I have very conflicting emotions about Since Cumorah by Hugh Nibley. Some of his arguments were very interesting, and he began the book by making a great case for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. For example, he talks a lot about the Dead Sea Scrolls and how they have changed the world's perspective on scripture. This new perspective falls perfectly in line with the Book of Mormon and its teachings.

Nibley goes on to describe names that have been discovered in the Middle East that are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, but have very close counterparts in the Book of Mormon. Following a lot of the external evidence, he then spends a lot of time on the internal evidence of the Book of Mormon, showing how the writing style is not typical of 19th century literature, and also commands a knowledge that would be totally unavailable to an obscure farm boy such as Joseph Smith.

My biggest problem with this book is how Nibley doesn't get his facts right when talking about the Book of Mormon itself. For example, he spends an entire chapter talking about the military history of the Book of Mormon, but repeatedly says it is Moroni, the son of Mormon who is abridging it. This is completely false! Moroni didn't touch the plates as far as writing the history goes until Mormon chapter 8, after his father dies. (Ironically, Nibley later states that Mormon is the one speaking in Mormon 8). At first I thought it was just a mistake when the author uses "Moroni" instead of "Mormon", but then he adds clarification, such as: "Moroni the Younger," "Moroni, son of Mormon," etc. I checked the latest edition of this book, and this problem still has not been fixed.

He also gets some of the history of the Book of Mormon. At one point he talks about a Lamanite King who makes a law to provide for widows and orphans affected by war. The scripture reference he uses is actually referring to King Limhi--a NEPHITE king.

If he cannot get his facts right about the Book of Mormon itself, how can I, as a reader, trust anything else he says about the Dead Sea Scrolls or research done in far away countries and foreign languages? At the beginning of this book, I was a captive reader with an open mind. But after finding so many discrepancies that should have been simple to avoid, I am not sure I can trust the research he has done on everything else. It left a sour taste regarding his book in general.