Dear Moroni; or, Letters Between Plates

[Limnor]

A Study of the Epistles in the Book of Mormon

Mosiah 24 6 But they taught them that they should keep their record, and that they might write one to another.

I’ve been thinking a lot about letters.

Letters in the Book of Mormon, to be exact.

Engravers in ancient societies did not engrave routine correspondence or record temporary diplomatic letters. No culture engraved everyday letters.

So, for example, for Ammoron’s “letter” to appear on the plates, Mormon/Moroni would have had to treat a disposable communication written in a fleeting wartime moment by an enemy in a heated tone about logistics and prisoner exchange and engrave it on a plate.

For that to happen, the following events must have had to occur: 1) Ammoron writes a paper or parchment letter in normal correspondence form, 2) that letter is delivered to Moroni, 3) Moroni reads it, 4) Mormon or Moroni later gain access to that letter and copy it onto a metal plate by engraving it, 5) generations later, Joseph “translates” the engraved version back into…19th-century epistolary English, 6) with 19th century vocabulary and rhetorical style.

This is awkward enough, but then you’d have to consider what Mormon or whoever is choosing to engrave.

Why would he preserve Ammoron’s angry note? Why engrave the full correspondence of two rival generals? Why treat Moroni’s rant and Pahoran’s apology as sacred scripture?

Instead, this better matches something else: the 19th-century habit of preserving personal letters as historical documents. This is exactly what Joseph was did with his 1830s–1840s diaries and the History of the Church.

In my allegorical/confessional codex model, this becomes even clearer.

If the “letters” in Alma 54–61 encode real disputes among Sidney (Moroni), Joseph (Ammoron), and Parley P Pratt (Pahoran), as well as Oliver (Alma), and Whitmer (Amulek), then what Mormon/Moroni is “engraving” is an edited, ancientized version of actual 1820s conflicts, retrocast as wartime correspondence.

Ammoron’s “letter” becomes a reply from Joseph to Moroni’s rebuke in his “letter”—which serves as Sidney’s accusation of Joseph—and Pahoran’s “reply” is then Parley P Pratt’s mediation.

In this frameplonet, the implausibility of metallic letters isn’t a flaw—it’s a tell.

The letters in the Book of Mormon are the places where actual 1823–1829, conflicts, accusations, and internal communications are encoded directly into the story. They reflect real 19th century arguments, real power struggles, and real betrayals.

In other words, the letters are the rawest trace of the early circle’s interpersonal relationships.

To demonstrate: If Pahoran = Parley P. Pratt, the Alma 60–61 epistle exchange becomes instantly decipherable as an encoded internal dispute among the early conspirators:

Moroni = Sidney Rigdon writing an angry, accusatory letter, Ammoron = Joseph Smith as Sidney’s theological rival, and Pahoran = Parley Pratt responding with patient, conciliatory, liberty-centered rhetoric.

The match is exact: historically, Parley often mediated between Joseph and Sidney, he took rebuke calmly, and he used liberty language consistently in his writings—just like Pahoran. Overall, Parley tried to stabilize tensions while remaining loyal.

In Alma 61, Pahoran says, “I do not joy in your afflictions…I do not accuse you…I remain firm in the cause of liberty.”

That is Parley’s voice.

Meanwhile Moroni’s letter (Alma 60) is pure Sidney: moralistic outrage, accusations of treason, covenant language, and prophetic indignation.

That’s Sidney.

[Dr. Shades]

I’d say this is the most fascinating suggestion to which you’ve treated us yet. Is there any such correspondence that survives from any of these modern three that we can read and compare?

[Limnor]

I’d say this is the most fascinating suggestion to which you’ve treated us yet. Is there any such correspondence that survives from any of these modern three that we can read and compare?

Yes:

https://josephsmithfoundation.org/writi ... ker-pratt/

http://sidneyrigdon.com/rigwrit1.htm

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers/documents


I don’t like to “link and run,” but will return to this later.

[Limnor]

Having read through the word print analyses, whether critical (Jockers et al. and rebuttals) or faithful (Larsen–Rencher–Layton), I was disappointed that the studies were broad in scope and not narrowed to specific sections of the book. Those studies did not consider the individual letters/correspondence within the book as stand-alone “documents.”

There is, however, a neutral study (David I. Holmes (JRSS A, 1992), but I haven’t studied that to any depth—I’ve skimmed it and there seem to be some interesting conclusions.

I don’t consider myself an expert in linguistics. What I’d really like is to see a professional stylometric analysis applied specifically to the epistolary sections.

But for now—and partly to solicit feedback and discussion—I’ll walk this through the three distinct “voices” I see in Alma 54–61 (Ammoron, Moroni, and Pahoran), and compare each to what I think are their real-world counterparts in the historical allegory I’m exploring.

I’ve only looked at a small source sample:

Joseph Smith (via JSP letters and the 26 May 1844 discourse)

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... -hawkins/1

Sidney Rigdon (Appeal to the American People, Salt Sermon)

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1840RigA.htm

Parley P. Pratt (An Answer to Mr. William Hewitt’s Tract, History of the Late Persecution, and A Voice of Warning)

https://archive.org/stream/AnAnswerToMr ... t_djvu.txt

https://rsc.BYU.edu/Mormon-redress-peti ... ersecution

https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org ... 2?lang=eng

I’m not trying to prove line-by-line dependence, but rather noting the rhetorical similarities.

Ammoron’s epistle (Alma 54)

—Key phrases/concepts from Alma 54: Opens with self-identification and genealogical grievance; Ammoron frames the conflict as ancestral injustice (“your fathers wronged us” kind of logic), he demands Nephite submission and threatens continued war if demands aren’t met.

Joseph Smith parallel to Ammoron

—Closest match: the 26 May 1844 Nauvoo discourse (“Come on! ye prosecutors!”). Joseph denounces “prosecutors” and “false swearers,” calls all the legal action “of the devil,” and declares that “all hell” may boil but he will “come out on the top at last. The register is defensive, defiant, persecuted, and personally aggrieved.

—This resonates strongly with Ammoron’s emotional stance. Both speak as wronged insiders confronting enemies they see as corrupt. Both lean into apocalyptic imagery (hell, lava / destruction). Both close with a note of personal triumph or dominance.

In terms of letters:

—Liberty Jail letter (20 March 1839) repeatedly stresses that the Saints have “done them no wrong” and suffered “unheard-of” injustice.

—So the emotional heat and persecuted self-image are very Joseph/Ammoron. Ammoron’s emotional profile and persecuted posture resonate strongest with Joseph at his hottest, especially Nauvoo 1844, consistent with Joseph/Ammoron mapping.

Moroni’s letter (Alma 60)

—Key phrases/concepts of Alma 60 include a long, structured rebuke to the central government, Moroni accuses the leadership of “neglect”, treason, and being complicit with the enemy. He frames the conflict in covenantal, theological terms: God will not justify such neglect; blood of the slain will come upon their heads. He threatens to march on the capital if they fail to act.

Rigdon parallel to Moroni

—Sidney Rigdon, in Appeal to the American People, describes Missouri trials as “a compound between an inquisition and a criminal court” and accuses enemies of barbarity and deliberate witness-tampering.

—This is where Rigdon fits like a glove. Appeal to the American People is a long, structured indictment of Missouri. It catalogs abuses, invokes constitutional and divine principles, and presents the Church as morally in the right and the state as barbaric and unjust. In descriptions of Rigdon’s July 4, 1838 oration, he promises “a war of extermination” if mobs attack, vowing to pursue them until their “blood” is spilled.

—Parallels to Moroni include the length and structure: both are extended, carefully built arguments, not short emotional bursts. They both hold an accusatory stance and they address an internal or national audience and accuse leaders/majority of treachery or complicity. Both describe the conflict as a test of a righteous remnant vs. corrupt rulers, with God/justice standing behind the remnant, and Moroni threatens the sword; Rigdon threatens “war of extermination” language in response to aggression.

—This is why Moroni = Rigdon works so well rhetorically: they share the “prophetic prosecutor” voice.

Pahoran’s reply (Alma 61)

—Key phrases/concepts from Alma 61. Pahoran begins by saying he does not rejoice in Moroni’s afflictions; rather it grieves his soul. He clarifies that he is not guilty of the things Moroni accuses him of, and describes a third-party problem—internal rebellion (king-men) that both he and Moroni must now oppose. Pahoran Invites Moroni to join him against the real rebels and holds no personal offense.

Pratt parallel to Pahoran

—Parley P. Pratt, in An Answer to Mr. William Hewitt’s Tract, rebukes Hewitt for calling Joseph a fanatic and urges him to “repent” of “rash judgment.” Pratt defends doctrine, rebukes critics, and argues from scripture.

—This parallel screams Parley P. Pratt. Pratt takes accusations (“headed by a fanatic,” “would-be only holy people”) and responds with a mix of mild sarcasm, clarification, and appeals to fairness.

—Pratt speaks of “rash judgment,” but says he “dares not” judge the critic as harshly in return, and invites a more careful consideration of evidence. In other writings (Late Persecution and Voice of Warning), Pratt’s voice is often infused with liberty and justice terms.

—“I do not joy in your afflictions” maps nicely onto Pratt’s habit of acknowledging opponents’ sincerity while still correcting them. Both reposition the conflict: “You think I’m the problem, but here’s a wider context (rebellion / false teachers / persecution) that explains the mess.” Both end up reaffirming a shared cause (liberty / truth / the gospel) and invite ongoing cooperation, not schism.

Caveats:

I’m comparing published and preserved texts, not stenography. Genre differences matter: Rigdon’s Appeal is a pamphlet; Pratt’s tracts are essays; Joseph’s discourse is a sermon later written down.

Again, I’m not trying to prove direct dependence, only showing that distinct fingerprints in Alma 54–61 line up well with these three 1830s–40s voices.

But within those caveats, the mapping of Ammoron/Joseph, Moroni/Rigdon, and Pahoran/Pratt is plausible and textually supportable in tone, structure, and rhetorical posture.

[Limnor]

Well this is interesting.

Thinking “out loud” here, what caught my eye in Holmes’ 1992 study is his observation that several of the “prophet” voices in the Book of Mormon are statistically indistinguishable.

At first I was puzzled, but then it became more clear—that’s what you’d expect if figures like Moroni or Alma weren’t single people but composite roles occupied at different times by different 19th-century collaborators.

From my perspective, “Moroni” is not a single person throughout the book, but a role occupied at different times by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon. “Alma” also demonstrates this peculiarity, especially in sermons or doctrinal speeches later shaped by a compiler—Joseph—who “ancientized” the letters, accounts, sermons, and etc.

There may still be underlying voices and hints of parallels, but within a model in which the roles change hands, and are—let’s say translated—by Joseph into an ancient setting, there would naturally be shifts.

https://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/Scie ... metric.pdf

[Limnor]

Apologies for three posts in a row. Just need to vent a little.

This is a difficult puzzle.

Ok I’m going to think out loud here and share it with you all. Welcome to the world of how I think about this puzzle.

So let’s think about it.

The Book of Mormon isn’t behaving like a cleanly authored text.

But maybe that’s because it almost certainly isn’t one.

What we’re working with is an artifact where roles (Moroni, Alma, Ammoron, Mormon, etc.), voices (Joseph, Rigdon, Cowdery, Pratt)and a final compiler (Joseph again) are stacked on top of each other.

Stylometry was “built” to detect single authors behind coherent documents—not composite people/roles filtered through a retro-biblical style.

Consider:

The signals aren’t supposed to be clean, because the 19th-century writers were trying to “hide” themselves while creating consistency.

If different contributors provided raw material, they would have their own natural styles. But sometimes those styles appear like masks worn at different times. Sometimes Joseph is “Moroni.” Other times Rigdon is “Moroni.” Editorial comments may be at times Joseph adopting the Mormon/Moroni persona, other times it’s Rigdon.

And then it’s all run through a KJV filter—archaic syntax, biblical sounding cadence—distinct voices then become harder to detect.

We’re not working with one author, one voice, one character. We’re working with many authors, many voices, many characters, and a single style imposed on them all.

Stylometry can provide glimpses at seams but can’t fully separate them because the contributions don’t stack neatly.

I’m trying to reverse-engineer who wrote which parts, why conflicting voices appear within the same character, and how much the final translator/editor introduced.

That’s inherently blurry.

The text behaves exactly like a collaborative, layered, retro-scriptural production—not like a single prophetic book, not like an ancient text, and not like a unified forgery.

Maybe the difficulty isn’t a flaw and it’s the design.

Very challenging.

Thanks for listening.

[Limnor]

Something I’d like to mention is that my allegorical/codex reading of early Mormon origins isn’t built on fringe assumptions—it actually relies on historical points that mainstream LDS and non-LDS scholars agree on.

One of those points: There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith ever said anything about “gold plates” before 1826–27. All descriptions of the 1823–25 period come from accounts written years later.

Bushman, Vogel, Brodie, Palmer, Quinn, and Marquardt all acknowledge the same basic thing: Joseph left no writings from 1823–25 that mention plates; no neighbors recorded him talking about plates at the time; the 1826 Bainbridge examination describes treasure-digging and seer stones, but no plates.

There is no contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith himself ever mentioned plates before 1826–27. No letters, no journals, no legal records, no dated statements from 1823–25 where he describes a gold record or Moroni’s instructions.

Everything we have about those early years—the 1823 visitation, the annual Moroni visits, the failed attempts to obtain the plates, the commandments and punishments—comes from later narratives: Joseph’s 1832 and 1838 histories; Oliver Cowdery’s 1835 letters; 1830s neighbor affidavits recalling earlier conversations. All of those neighbors only mention hearing the plate story only after 1826.

That same pattern shows up in the marriage/sealing thread: the doctrine appears only after the action, and then later writers retroject an explanation why it “had” to happen.

My allegorical model simply takes that agreed-upon gap and draws a different interpretive conclusion from it.

If the plate story doesn’t appear in contemporary documents until after 1826, then it is at least plausible to consider the that Joseph did have physical plates—just not ancient Nephite ones; they were the copper printing plates prepared for William Morgan’s Illustrations of Masonry for publication in 1826.

[Limnor]

Helaman 2 14 Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written.

Mormon, Moroni, and Nephi all say they engraved the plates themselves and explain how difficult it is to place their words upon plates. There is no amanuensis. No assistant scribe. No secretary. Just men carving metal.

Yet they repeatedly make the kinds of corrections (“I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but the end of the book of Nephi”) that make sense in oral dictation but make no sense at all for someone inscribing metal.

I’d offer the example of Helaman 2 14 gives a glimpse into the composition process, especially in light of other editorial evidences (Words of Mormon, the Benjamin/Mosiah error, letters within plates) that indicate Joseph was juggling multiple source materials during composition.