Superior-Inferior Pattern in Epistles

There are at least eight epistles in the Book of Mormon.¹ Two of them are personal letters, written late in the Nephite record by Mormon to his son Moroni (Moroni 8–9). The other six are more formal, written in a span of approximately 50 years between military and political leaders in wartime settings (Alma 54:5–14 ; 54:16–24; 56:2–58:41; 60:1–36; 61:2–21; 3 Nephi 3:2–10).

Consistencies in the Six Wartime Letters

Several consistencies can be seen among the six formal war-related correspondences. In all cases, the name of the superior-ranking individual is expressly stated in the introduction and is always the first name that is mentioned. Conversely, the inferior’s name is always given in the concluding remarks and is the last name mentioned in each letter. Tellingly, this pattern holds true even in cases where more than one letter is exchanged between the same two individuals.²

In addition to being the final name in the letter, in one instance the inferior is also named soon after the superior in the opening statements (Alma 61:2). In other cases, the superior is named once again in the closing statements, yet always before the inferior’s name is given for the final time (Alma 54:23–24; 58:41; 3 Nephi 3:10). Thus, the superior is always listed first and the inferior last, even when both individuals are named either at the beginning or end of a letter. The relevant textual details are presented below for each of the six letters.

1. Chief Capitan Moroni (Inferior) to King Ammoron (Superior)

Opening: “Behold, Ammoron, I have written unto you somewhat concerning this war which ye have waged against my people …” (Alma 54:5)

Closing: “Now I close my epistle. I am Moroni; I am a leader of the people of the Nephites.” (Alma 54:14)

2. King Ammoron (Superior) to Chief Captain Moroni (Inferior)

Opening: “I am Ammoron, the king of the Lamanites; I am the brother of Amalickiah whom ye have murdered. Behold, I will avenge his blood upon you …” (Alma 54:16)

Closing: “I am Ammoron, and a descendant of Zoram, whom your fathers pressed and brought out of Jerusalem. And behold now, I am a bold Lamanite; behold, this war hath been waged to avenge their wrongs, and to maintain and to obtain their rights to the government; and I close my epistle to Moroni.” (Alma 54:23–24)

3. Captain Helaman (Inferior) to Chief Captain Moroni (Superior)

Opening: “My dearly beloved brother, Moroni … I have somewhat to tell you concerning our warfare in this part of the land …” (Alma 56:2)

Closing: “And now, my beloved brother, Moroni, may the Lord our God, who has redeemed us and made us free, keep you continually in his presence; yea, and may he favor this people, even that ye may have success in obtaining the possession of all that which the Lamanites have taken from us, which was for our support. And now, behold, I close mine epistle. I am Helaman, the son of Alma.” (Alma 58:41)

4. Chief Captain Moroni (Inferior) to Chief Governor Pahoran (Superior)

Opening: “Behold, I direct mine epistle to Pahoran, in the city of Zarahemla, who is the chief judge and the governor over the land …” (Alma 60:1)

Closing: “Behold, I am Moroni, your chief captain. I seek not for power, but to pull it down. I seek not for honor of the world, but for the glory of my God, and the freedom and welfare of my country. And thus I close mine epistle.” (Alma 60:36)

5. Chief Governor Pahoran (Superior) to Chief Captain Moroni (Inferior)

Opening: “I, Pahoran, who am the chief governor of this land, do send these words unto Moroni, the chief captain over the army” (Alma 61:2)

Closing: “And now I close mine epistle to my beloved brother, Moroni.” (Alma 61:21)

6. Gadianton Leader Giddianhi (Inferior) to Chief Governor Lachoneus (Superior)³

Opening: “Lachoneus, most noble and chief governor of the land, behold, I write this epistle unto you, and do give unto you exceedingly great praise” (3 Nephi 3:2)

Closing: “And I write this epistle unto you, Lachoneus, and I hope that ye will deliver up your lands and your possessions, without the shedding of blood, that this my people may recover their rights and government, who have dissented away from you because of your wickedness in retaining from them their rights of government, and except ye do this, I will avenge their wrongs. I am Giddianhi.” (3 Nephi 3:10)

A Statistically Significant Pattern

One may wonder if this pattern—superior named first at the opening of the letter and inferior named last at the closing—showing up in six letters in a row is very likely to have been produced by chance. The probability of this sequence randomly occurring turns out to be quite low—less than 1%. Thus, it is more likely than not that this pattern was intentional. For further explanation, see the Appendix.

An Ancient Pattern

Of course, the mere existence of a pattern of correspondence isn’t all that startling. No one today, for instance, would find it that impressive to point out that in modern letters the name of the recipient is almost always given first while the name of the sender is given last.

The reason the Nephite formula is significant is because (1) it diverges from the recipient-sender pattern that was most common in Joseph Smith’s day, (2) it differs from patterns readily discerned in the Bible, and (3) it corresponds with an epistolary form used among several ancient Near Eastern societies. As pointed out by Robert F. Smith, “The most noticeable thing about the first six Book of Mormon letters … is that they never violate the ancient Hittite-Syrian, Neo-Assyrian, Amarna, and Hebrew format in which the superior correspondent is always listed first.”⁴ Smith continues,

This is not a feature of letter writing in either the Hellenistic letters … or in letters contemporary with Joseph Smith, even though the rule continued to apply in Jewish letters down to the time of Bar Kokhba in the second century AD. Moreover, even though Brent Knutson’s thorough 1970 analysis demonstrated that no assured preexilic biblical letter can be shown to unambiguously follow this part of the form (no doubt due to the narrative context into which the letters were placed), preexilic nonbiblical Hebrew examples from Lachish and Tel Arad do show adherence to this requirement. More examples have since been discovered, which merely serve to verify the strength of this traditional form throughout the Hittite Empire and beyond. The upshot is, of course, that Joseph Smith had no way of knowing about this ancient epistolary form.⁵

It should be noted that the “superior-inferior sequence” described by Smith was “always at the formal opening” of these ancient letters (i.e., both correspondents were listed in the opening of the letter in order of their rank).⁶ This, of course, differs somewhat from the Nephite formula, in which the superior is always named first at the opening, while the inferior is named last at the closing of the letter.

Nevertheless, the Nephite epistles clearly operate on the same essential superior-inferior principle, not only in the first- and last-named correspondents, but in all cases where the correspondents are mentioned in close proximity at either the beginning or ending of the letter (Alma 54:23–24; 58:41; 61:2; 3 Nephi 3:10). As pointed out by Smith, such adaptations are hardly unexpected, considering that the Nephite letters were written “more than five hundred years since Lehi left Jerusalem.”⁷

Accounting for Mormon’s Two Letters to Moroni

Whether or not the other two Nephite epistles (those written by Mormon to his son Moroni) follow the superior-inferior pattern is less clear (Moroni 8–9). Of the two individuals, Mormon was clearly the superior in multiple categories: militarily, religiously, and familially. Thus, one would expect Mormon to be named first in the introduction to each letter. Which he is.

1. Mormon (Superior) to Moroni (Inferior)

Opening: “An epistle of my father Mormon, written to me, Moroni; and it was written unto me soon after my calling to the ministry. And on this wise did he write unto me, saying: My beloved son, Moroni, I rejoice exceedingly that your Lord Jesus Christ hath been mindful of you, and hath called you to his ministry, and to his holy work.” (Moroni 8:1–2)

2. Mormon (Superior) to Moroni (Inferior)

Opening: “The second epistle of Mormon to his son Moroni. My beloved son, I write unto you again that ye may know that I am yet alive; but I write somewhat of that which is grievous.” (Moroni 9:1)

While this pattern conforms with the ancient epistolary formula described by Smith, uncertainty arises from the fact that Mormon is named only in Moroni’s preliminary statements, rather than in Mormon’s own words found in the letters themselves. The other oddity is that, unlike the other Nephite letters, Moroni (the inferior) isn’t named again at the conclusion.

These differences in format may be at least partially due to Moroni’s editing. In each letter, Moroni may have omitted his father’s formal opening statements, preferring to instead summarize the sender-recipient information in his own words.⁸ Supporting this proposal is the fact that Mormon’s name doesn’t turn up anywhere else in either letter,⁹ and even Moroni’s name is missing in the second letter.

Even if one were to doubt or reject this proposed explanation, there are other aspects of Mormon’s letters that may account for any differences. First, Mormon’s two letters to Moroni were written in the fourth century AD, while the six war-related letters were all written hundreds of years earlier. It is possible that epistolary customs could have changed in the intervening centuries. Second, Mormon’s letters are the only ones written to an immediate family member. All other letters are more official, as they convey information between powerful military, political, and religious leaders who weren’t direct kin. It is thus plausible that the early wartime letters adhered to formalities that weren’t culturally required or expected for intimate, personal letters like the ones Mormon wrote to his son.

Commenting on the differences between Mormon’s letters and those from the earlier era, Smith writes, “Whether this is due to removal of the formal address for insertion into the plates, to changes in form during the intervening centuries, or to the very personal nature of these letters is not known.”¹⁰ Whatever the case may be, there are legitimate reasons to not view Mormon’s letters as counterpoints to the superior-inferior pattern identified in the earlier wartime correspondences.

Conclusion

If Joseph Smith had simply fabricated the six wartime letters written before Christ’s appearance among the Nephites, we might expect them to conform to the most common pattern of his day or to that found in the New Testament. Instead, we find a consistent formula that, although statistically significant, might not seem like a pattern at all unless one knows to look for it. As a case in point, attention wasn’t brought to this feature in the Nephite record until 2010, when a Latter-day Saint scholar with formal training in ancient Near Eastern languages noticed its presence and published his findings.

Thus, we have a legitimate textual pattern that is both elusive and essentially consistent with an epistolary form used by several ancient Near Eastern cultures, including by ancient Hebrew writers. Alongside the many other markers of Hebrew culture and literary influence,¹¹ the superior-inferior protocols in the Book of Mormon’s formal military correspondences provide yet another line of evidence supporting the book’s claimed ancient origins.

Robert F. Smith, “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review 22 no. 2 (2010): 125–135.

Richard Dilworth Rust, “‘Their Fathers’ – Letters and Autobiography,” in Feasting on the Word: The Literary Testimony of the Book of Mormon (Provo, UT: FARMS and Deseret Book, 1997), chapter 6.

Sidney B. Sperry, “Types of Literature in the book of Mormon: Epistles, Psalms, Lamentations,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 4, no. 1 (1995): 69–77.

Alma 54:5–14 Alma 54:16–24Alma 56:2–58:41 Alma 60:1–36Alma 61:2–21 3 Nephi 3:2–10Moroni 8Moroni 9

Alma 54:5–14

Alma 54:16–24

Alma 56:2–58:41

Alma 60:1–36

Alma 61:2–21

3 Nephi 3:2–10

Moroni 8

Moroni 9

The Six Wartime Epistles: A Probability Analysis

To determine the probability of the superior being named first and the inferior being named last in the six wartime epistles mentioned in the article above, we will first make a few observations and assumptions about the data.

Observations

While it is possible for letters to be exchanged between correspondents of equal rank or between groups of individuals, each of the six wartime letters in the Book of Mormon has one clearly superior-ranking individual and one that is inferior. In addition, throughout time and in different cultures, it is typical for epistles to include the names of both the sender and recipient, usually in the opening and/or closing statements. The wartime letters also follow this convention.

Assumptions

With the above factors in mind, our analysis will hold to the following basic assumptions:

Assumption# 1: The sender and recipient in each letter will be an individual rather than a group.

Assumption# 2: The sender and recipient will be expressly named at least once each in either the opening and/or closing of each letter.

Assumption# 3: The sender and recipient in each letter will have a superior-inferior relationship.

Note that these assumptions actually somewhat constrain the data, making it less rather than more likely that this pattern is intentional. This is because including more variables—such as the possibility of correspondents not being named —would create more options for the superior to not be named first and the inferior to not be named last in each letter. In other words, removing these assumptions and adding in more variables would make the pattern in the Book of Mormon increasingly less likely to be a product of random chance and therefore more likely to be by design.

Accounting for All Possible Combinations

Even with these limiting assumptions, there are multiple possible combinations of sender-recipient arrangements that need to be considered. Some letters, like many found in the corpus at Elephantine, include the sender and recipient at both the beginning and ending of the letter, sometimes in the same order and other times in reverse (options 1–4 in the chart below).¹² In other instances, both correspondents may be named at the beginning, while only one is included at the end, or vice versa (options 5–12).¹³

In yet other letters, both correspondents might be named at the beginning, while neither are named at the end, or vice versa (options 13–16).¹⁴ Finally, as is the case in most modern letters, it is possible for the correspondents to be named once each at the beginning or ending of the letter (options 17–18). As seen in the chart below,¹⁵ only 4 of these 18 combinations fit the superior-inferior pattern from the Book of Mormon (highlighted in red).¹⁶

 

This means that the probability for any of the six wartime letters in the Book of Mormon to randomly adhere to the superior-inferior pattern is 4 out of 18 (or 22.22%). While this isn’t especially unlikely on its own, it becomes exponentially more so for each subsequent letter to follow the pattern.

The probability of all six letters exhibiting this sequence can be found by taking 4/18 and raising it to the 6th power: (4/18)^6 = 0.0001. In other words, the chances are approximately 0.01% (or 1 in 10,000) that this sequence was randomly employed. This statistically significant outcome strongly indicates that this epistolary pattern in the Book of Mormon was intentional.

Even if the chances of the superior-inferior pattern to arise in any letter were significantly increased, say up to 1/2 or 50%, the pattern would still most likely not be random: (1/2)^6 = 0.0156. In such a scenario, the likelihood of the pattern being intentional would still be greater than 98%.