DiscussMormonism.com

Which conveys the spirit stronger--the written, or the spoken word? According to the Book of Mormon:

2 Nephi 33:1 wrote:And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men.

But then I thought about Paul. Paul seemed to have the opposite problem that Nephi did:

2 Cor. 10:10 wrote:For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.

2 Cor. 11:6 wrote:But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

In fact, even Moroni states that another Book of Mormon prophet was mighty in writing:

Ether 12:24 wrote:And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

I find this to be quite odd. Why would God give many prophets in the Book of Mormon strength in speaking, but not writing? Why do the opposite for Paul? Indeed, doesn't the meaning of Book of Mormon get carried into our hearts by the Holy Ghost? If so, why did Nephi make his remarks?

From the critic point of view, one might suppose that Joseph Smith was speaking of his own weakness--that he was good at speaking, but not good at writing. Yet I don't think that's the case either. If I recall correctly, Sydney Rigdon was Joseph Smith's spokesman as Aaron was for Moses.

This works the opposite way as well. Some people respond better to hearing the gospel preached, others to reading the gospel.

Everyone has a different kind of spiritual gift, and there is room for all in the church.

Gazelam wrote:This works the opposite way as well. Some people respond better to hearing the gospel preached, others to reading the gospel.

Everyone has a different kind of spiritual gift, and there is room for all in the church.

Just to throw a wrench in here, what about Paul Dunn? He was a great speaker and people thought he was good at having the spirit carried into their hearts by what he said. Now, it might get even more interesting if we ask a further question: how differently was he received in oral and written forms? My guess is that the oral form was by far the best received.

Just to throw a wrench in here, what about Paul Dunn?

Satan works in mysterious ways.

asbestosman wrote:

Gazelam wrote:This works the opposite way as well. Some people respond better to hearing the gospel preached, others to reading the gospel.

Everyone has a different kind of spiritual gift, and there is room for all in the church.

Just to throw a wrench in here, what about Paul Dunn? He was a great speaker and people thought he was good at having the spirit carried into their hearts by what he said. Now, it might get even more interesting if we ask a further question: how differently was he received in oral and written forms? My guess is that the oral form was by far the best received.

Yes, as Gazelam mentioned, it may differ for the recipients as well. Similarly to how some people are audio learners, or visual learners or kinesthetic learners, perhaps the spirit differs with people's reception. After all, Book of Mormon prophets may have said they are weak in writing (in their opinion) but does that mean that nobody will feel the spirit strongly? Also, as you pointed out, they mentioned the Jaredites wrote with the spirit strongly. Do you feel the spirit in the book of Ether more than you do in the rest of the Book of Mormon? I suppose that arguably Moroni ruined Ether by summarizing MOST of it in his owns words. I think it's possible that SOME claim they like speaking better because others can feel the spirit emanating from them.

I suppose it's possible that the language itself makes a difference though. Some languages are better for expression, others for logic, etc. As I speak 3 languages and moderately understand a couple others I can vouch that some things work better in some languages than they do in others. Perhaps the reason the Jaredites were great in writing is because their language worked well for it. Remember that the Nephites spoke one language and would read and write in another. I can relate to this as Haitians spoke Haitian Creole, but they would only read and write in French. So while they could speak clearly and eloquently in Creole, they weren't quite so good and clear when putting their thoughts in writing. Perhaps that had something to do with it. Maybe Moroni was a GREAT speaker, but not such a great writer in that same sense. Not claiming to be right, but it's worth consideration.

Speaking of Paul Dunn, I can concur that reading his talks didn't have the same effect on me as listening to the audio tapes my mom has of him speaking. They were REALLY inspirational and uplifting and I surely felt the spirit. I remember how disappointed I was to learn many of his stories were BS...or as apologists like to say..."parables" and "metaphors", etc that teach TRUE principles and thus are TRUE and full of the spirit just like how Romney's dad walked with...oh nevermind. :)