Back to Mormonism Researched Page

Seeing Spots Before Your Eyes? They Aren't Mongolian Ones in the Book of Mormon!

Research by Kerry A. Shirts

From time to time it seems critics are willing to resurrect the Mongolian Spot in order to discredit the Book of Mormon, in order to demonstrate what they think is a refutation of the BofM's peoples being from the Old World, or to demonstrate that the BofM peoples were not Jewish at all. As we have been taught "The normal way of dealing with the BofM "scientifically" has been first to attribute to the BofM something it did not say, and then to refute the claim by scientific statements that have not been proven." (Nibley, "Since Cumorah," Deseret Book, 1967, p. 244)

Many are claiming the Smithsonian Statement about the BofM proves genetically and with the Mongolian spot these clearly disprove the BofM. This is simply false. And I have the references to demonstrate that this is false. The statement is outdated and rather naive. Mind you, I nor any other LDS scholar is not saying the Smithsonian is naive, but this statement is in sore need of revision based on current new information which, apparently the BofM critics refuse to understand, read, or acknowledge. Again it confirms my thesis that critics want things to stay in the old grooves, but this is one bed of Procrustes which is going to be updated. The latest cutting edge research demonstrates very clearly that we have a much more complex situation here than is generally acknowledged by either Mormons or non-Mormons. So it is time we begin educating ourselves with new information lest naivite spreads.

In my research into the BofM, I have found soe fascinating things, none moreso than this so-called "race" issue. In absolutely E-V-E-R-Y case I have read which is trying to prove the BofM false, I notice that the issue is simplistically discussed, for example: "The Book of Mormon is just a story about Good Guys verses Bad Guys." Or the White people are more righteous than the dark people. With such a child's understanding of the BofM, it is no wonder that so many things get taken incorrectly and it is no wonder that critics argue against the BofM the way they do. What can correct this overly-simplistic view is doing something that not many critics seem willing to do... READ the ENTIRE BofM and note when it discusses race and skin color or good and bad guys and see if it is honestly that simple. IT IS NOT. Of course, since most critics do not accept the BofM, most feel it a waste of time to read ALL the way through. Would that we had more Eduard Meyers in the world of scholarship! Would that more Krister Stendahls would appear and take seriously the BofM, if for only writing intelligently about it instead of just yammering about something they don't know about. As usual, secondary or tertiary sources seem to call the shot with criticisms instead of doing the thing most needed, that is get to the PRIMARY source if at all possible first and then comment on what you read. Since Mormons have an over-abundance of BofM's it ought not to be that difficult to get this primary source and read it once to see what you're commenting about. Anyway, I am babbling and wishing something which I am sure is doubtful, so lets get on with the subject.

Ariel Crowley in his most interesting little text "About the Book of Mormon," 1961, p. 142f, notes that way back in 1949 Dr. Julian H. Steward of the American Bureau of Ethnology, said, among other things, that since the influx of new information it cannot be disproved that non-Mongolian sources provide the ancestry of American Indians. Crowley also notes that Philip Means in his text "Ancient Civilizations of the Andes" while indicating that he believes in the Bering Strait theory also notes that "sporadic groups of current borne and wind blown mariners might have arrived on one part or another of the American Coast, bearing with them a mariners version of this or that Old World culture." This is clearly what the BofM claims.

Crowley also notes something of extreme interest which not many people are aware of at all. Hitler did the world a service on this point of the Mongolian spot. During his obssession with the Aryan purity idea, Hitler had his top ethnologists get on the trail of the Mongolian Spot to prove Germanic descent from a master race, and ended up proving beyond question that the Mongolian Spot and epicanthic fold are found in the Germans, Irish, Russians, English, thoroughly establishing the fact that while these features are certainly predominant in the Mongolians, they are by no means peculiar to them, and may and often do occur in Caucasian families and elsewhere. (Crowley, p. 144). Crowley also notes something else which is important to realize. The BofM is only a part of the history of the New World. It nowhere includes all possible peoples, or religions, etc. We are told in the BofM that the Mulekites, "a motly Phoenician-Canaanitish sort of people" were more than twice as numerous as the Nephites and Lamanites combined! (Mosiah 25:2)

And all we have is the writings (heavily edited) of the Nephites. And we are told that Joseph Smith did NOT translate ALL the plates of the BofM either. Some of the plates were sealed to be given to the world later. So we have a very selective writing here, and Hugh Nibley has shown that just because an artifact is found we have no right to think it is either a Nephite or Lamanite object. There were all sorts of people here in the New World even before the Nephites. The Jaredites had been here for centuries before. The lesson is VERY CLEAR: The BofM does NOT oversimplify the history of its FEW peoples we read about. WE are the ones guilty of trying to make a simple story out of a complex situation. No wonder the archaeological record has no bearings on what we think are the facts! Our facts are all wrong, as our assumptions about not only what the BofM says and is, but the state and nature of New World archaeology.

Jacob Bronowski in his marvelous text "The Ascent of Man," Little, Brown and Co., 1973, pp. 92f notes that the indians do not have the same blood types as people found in populations elsewhere. The indians in the Americas have the blood types O and some A, but NONE have type B. In light of this Hugh Nibley's comments way back in 1957 have very full relelvance: He is discussing Carlton Beals analysis of blood types; "Few Indians have even 1 percent of B blood... though this is the most important characteristic non-O ingredient of Asia... Here is a mystery that requires much pondering and investigation." In other words, the Indians, that is, who are supposed as we all know to have come from eastern Asia [via the Bering Strait] do NOT have the Asiatic blood-type. ("An Approach to the Book of Mormon," Deseret Book, 1957, p. xi). And further later investigation into 1967 and up to 1983 for Nibley showed that this problem has not been solved, but according to G.A. Matson, a leading authority in the field, the indians do not have the Mongolian blood type B. (Nibley, "The Book of Mormon and the Ruins: The Main Issues," F.A.R.M.S. Archive, N-BMA, 1983, p. 3).

Interestingly this issue is discussed in B.H. Roberts book "Studies of the Book of Mormon," Brigham D. Madsen, ed., University of Illinois Press, 1985, p. 125f for on instance, thus demonstrating my argument that many if not all areas of Roberts studies have been further researched through the years and found to be incorrect. That is, what once was considered to be problem areas in the BofM for Roberts have turned out not to be problem areas, but he didn't live long enough to see this. Archaeology in other words NEVER has the last word on things historical. If you doubt this ask an archaeologist!

While I haven't actually attended any digs, I certainly have attended their many hundreds of excellent texts and articles and I have never found where ANY archaeologist has concluded that his or her particular study is the LAST word on the subject and there is nothing left to learn. Archaeologists are more keenly aware of the limited information they have acquired through their science than anyone else on the planet. Talk to them if you think I'm kidding. I have. For an absolutely EXCELLENT case in point I can do no better than point to four very excellent must read texts; P.R.S. Moorey, "A Century of Biblical Archaeology," Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991 - covering the Ancient Near East; Michael Grant, "The Visible Past: Greek and Roman History From Archaeology 1960- 1990," Charles Scribner's Sons, 1990 - Covering the Greek and Classical archaeology; Colin Renfrew, "Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins," Cambridge Univ. Press, 1st paperback, 1990 - Covering the European and Northern Russian theatres of archaeology; and finally, Linda Schele and David Freidel, "A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya," William Morrow, 1990 - Covering the latest in New World Archaeology.

One more very interesting example which I have never gotten over yet, is related by Hugh Nibley. He used to teach at Claremont College with professor Goodspeed. Goodspeed used to always claim that the New Testament was not written in Christ's time. It wasn't written until the fourth century. Goodspeed of course was talking back in the 1930's and 40's. He used to claim that the Jews never wrote anything at all. We have no records of the Jews writing anything at the time of Christ. He died, and the year after they found thousands and thousands of things written by the Jews all over the place! Of course these were the Dead Sea Scrolls. Everybody had been writing, and writing about every conceivable subject to boot, and in an elegant and cursive hand. An archaeological discovery made hash of one of the greatest Bible scholars 30 year argument, literally, overnight. Well the scrolls have changed everything we thought we knew about the Bible, early Christianity, early Judaism, the Book of Mormon, you name it. So never say we KNOW the situation. Archaeology will come along and change what we know (Nibley - "Teachings of the Book of Mormon" Semester 2, F.A.R.M.S., 1990, p. 5).

When we puruse Dan Vogel's text "Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon," Signature Books, 1986, we find him saying something interesting: "Even informed Mormon scholars have had to concede that the American Indians are predominantly of Mongolian extraction and that their ancestors inhabited the Americas throughout Book of Mormon times." (p. 72). What fascinated me here was his footnote # 8 reference was to John Sorenson's text "An Ancient American Setting For the Book of Mormon" on p. 87. When I checked out Sorenson's book I found something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. Vogel had not gone near as far as Sorenson had with the newest and most updated information. Typical of most critics I have read. Jim Spencer, a local anti-Mormon here in Idaho comes to mind. His book "Have You Witnessed to a Mormon Lately?" is desparately outdated and utterly naive when it comes to the Book of Mormon. What Sorenson said was in essence this:

Concerning the Mongoloid race issue, some things are clear. The eyelid, the pigmented spot at the base of the spine, a special shape of incisor, etc., all show that some biological linkage to Asia is safely assumed by every researcher who knows the materials. [Here is where Vogel stopped. But Sorenson is not done yet - so typical of critics - I call this lack of context] Soreson goes on: "What is unclear is the extent and historical meaning of these facts. It is apparent that a major part of the Native Americans' characteristics is a result of adaption to New World environmental conditions. Significant variation is found in the distribution of various bodily traits; that is, some groups are much less Mongoloid than others. That raises the question whether at some time in the past, certain peoples in America might have been totally non-Mongoloid." (p. 87f). And Sorenson also notes that the art depicts several different types of racial groups, Chinese, Black, "Semitic." (p. 88). This can very clearly be seen in Lee A. Parsons very beautiful text "Pre-Columbian Art: The Morton D. May and the Saint Louis Art Museum Collections," Harper and Row, 1980. Interestingly Parson's says, as many of us Mormon scholars have continually claimed that when it comes to Mesoamerican archaeology, we are only just started and there are many changes in our understanding in the future... oh what the heck, I'll quote him:

"...it is well to emphasize that there remain fundamental gaps in our understanding of the total history and social structure, and even in the archaeological exploration of certain regions. Major discoveries are still being made, and are yet to be made...we still do not know the precise origins or causes of the incipient Olmec and Chavin civilizations... We also do not completely comprehend the decline and fall of the ancient Maya... Nevertheless, we are beginning to reconstruct an outline of the history of ancient America, which is being rapidly amplified by new data and new scholars." (pp. 6f).

And Ivan Van Sertima clearly has shown that various stocks of races have been in the New World from ancient times in his book "Before Columbus." While we're noting references here, it is well to take stock of the interesting text by Cheikh Anta Diop, "Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology," Lawrence Hill Books, 1991. He very definitely demonstrate how our knowledge is changing as new parts of history which have been deliberately hidden or changed or just plainly ignored, are taken into account.

Vogel ineptly dealt with the Mongolian issue, as do most BofM critics, especially by not noting that Sorenson went on to use several more scholars about the other non-Mongolian peoples in the Americas, namely, Dr. Juan Comas, G. Albin Matson, Earnest Hooten out of Harvard, Harold S. Gladwin, Andrzej Wiercinski, and Robert Chadwick among others. In other words, THE RACE ISSUE IS NOT SETTLED. Can it be any plainer??? The Book of Mormon is not dead out wrong on this issue. It is still wide open as new information comes out. Ignoring the new information has resulted in the critics bungling and they have only themselves to blame. We have constnatly invited them to update themselves and see what new information has arrived, but they refuse to do so. For them to continue harping on this subject just demonstrates how bankrupt they are on anything substantial against the Book of Mormon.

James R. Christianson in his article "The Bering Strait and American Indian Origins" found in the book "The Book of Mormon: The Keystone Scripture" also discusses blood types and uses the scholar T.D. Stewart and his book "The People of America" Marvin Harris in his text "Our Kind," Harper and Row, 1989, pp. 107ff discusses the extreme difficulty with establishing who belongs to what race because of the difficulty with blood types.

Interestingly the anthropologist Carol R. Ember, "Anthropology" 7th ed., Prentice Hall, 1993, p. 115 says that the Jewish race does not exist in anthropological terms. All kinds of people may be Jews, whether or not they descended from the Ancient Near Eastern population that spoke Hebrew. "There are light skinned Danish Jews and darker Jewish Arabs." (NOTE THIS!) The Mongoloid spot is "not limited to people traditionally classified as Mongoloid...Caucasoids can have Mongoloid spots." (p. 116) NOTE THIS ALSO.

I hope by now the point is clear. The Mongolian spot does not refute the Book of Mormon anymore than genetics does. It is worthy to note that now many scholars are agreeing that there are other peoples here than just those from the Bering Strait, and they now agree that, of course, many could and probably did come by boat, even many thousands of years ago. The Book of Mormon has withstood this old barrage of criticisms.