Bom: Do We Really Need It?

[Calm]

Am curious about what library he had a card to and what time period this was and how did they find out. I don't do podcast, besides it doesn't sound like it gave you much info anyway. If you could just give a name or something because the usual search terms aren't working.

[mormonnewb]

I think that you may need to be more selective in your websites or read them much more questioningly. Even Emma stated that no way could he put together a coherent sentence. When one reads the letters that he wrote emma one sees a guy who had difficulties in writing. And perhaps this is one reason he tried to avoid writing as much as possible. Here is something interesting to read:

 

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html

 

I don't think that the local library at his time had a large collection of books. And no one in town reported him hanging around the library very much. Certainly if I were the librarian and saw young joseph taking out books on topics related to the book of mormon I may just request an interview with the local newspaper and spill the beans. And I am sure that the critics at that time went to the library just to see if 'joe smith' spent some time there. But...he didn't.

 

All of that being said, I do think we tend to understate Joseph Smith's "educational level."  We constantly say, "How could a man with a third grade education write such a book?  It must have been translated by the power of God."  However, if he had three years of formal schooling, that would be TWICE as much as Abraham Lincoln.  And we don't go around talking about how "uneducated" Lincoln was.  Formal schooling wasn't the measure of knowledge and competence that it is now.

 

And as this was a time before TV and YouTube, people would often find "entertainment" in listening to oral presentations and readings.  In fact, I recently heard it said that America's first rock star was an Anglican preacher by the name of George Whitfield.  And I think we can conclude that the Smiths spent a lot of time in various churches, thus prompting Joseph's quest for the "right" church to join.  And by the way, he went on this quest as a 14 yo boy, so he obviously had an atypical interest in the things of God.

 

My point is that given Joseph's high level of intelligence, he likely gleaned enough from repeatedly hearing the scriptures that he was well-versed in the Bible by the age of 24.  So the fact that he couldn't write well, doesn't mean that he should consider him an "ignorant rube."  To our knowledge, Socrates wrote even less than Joseph Smith and many consider Socrates the most influential figure in Western intellectual development.

 

When we look at it in this light, it's probably more accurate to describe Joseph Smith as a near-genius with about an average level of education and a keen interest in scripture.  We should probably start from that vantage point in assessing how likely it is that he would have been able to write the BOM from scratch.  In the end, it probably doesn't change the answer to the question but I think it's a much more realistic starting point for the inquiry.

[why me]

 

When we look at it in this light, it's probably more accurate to describe Joseph Smith as a near-genius with about an average level of education and a keen interest in scripture.  We should probably start from that vantage point in assessing how likely it is that he would have been able to write the BOM from scratch.  In the end, it probably doesn't change the answer to the question but I think it's a much more realistic starting point for the inquiry.

I don't think so. His wife would have known him best. And this is what she said about him:

 

 

Emma Smith

Said Emma Smith in later interviews:

Q.-Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him? A.-The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.... "Q-Could not [Joseph Smith] have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery, and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book? "A.-Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, 'a marvel and a wonder,' as much so as to anyone else. "Q.-I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them? "A.-I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so. "Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

"A.-I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

 

And this is also interesting:

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=7c8ef48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Edited January 16, 2014 by why me

[Kenngo1969]

... And I think we can conclude that the Smiths spent a lot of time in various churches, thus prompting Joseph's quest for the "right" church to join.  ...

With due respect, you may be confusing cause and effect on that score.

[mormonnewb]

I don't think so. His wife would have known him best. And this is what she said about him:

Emma Smith

Said Emma Smith in later interviews:

Q.-Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him? A.-The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.... "Q-Could not [Joseph Smith] have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery, and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book? "A.-Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, 'a marvel and a wonder,' as much so as to anyone else. "Q.-I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them? "A.-I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so. "Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

"A.-I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses

And this is also interesting:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=7c8ef48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

What did Emma say to indicate that Joseph was not extremely intelligent and keenly interested in scripture? I'm not contending that he was even literate. I'm simply saying that describing him as someone with a third grade education who could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter is like describing Christ as an "unschooled illiterate backwoods Hebrew peasant." It would be technical accurate description of the facts but it would not contain the whole truth of His brilliance.

[oremites]

It would be technical accurate description of the facts but it would not contain the whole truth of His brilliance.

 

On the flip-side, what evidence (other than the sudden appearance of The Book of Mormon) do we have that anyone around him at that time considered him a "near-genius" or "brilliant"? 

[mormonnewb]

On the flip-side, what evidence (other than the sudden appearance of The Book of Mormon) do we have that anyone around him at that time considered him a "near-genius" or "brilliant"?

15 million worldwide members seems pretty good evidence. I can't think of any "dummy" who has founded an organization that has continued to grow for almost two centuries. No matter how moved by the spirit, I don't think that the early saints said, "You know, that Joseph Smith is dumb as a rock but let's sell everything we own and follow him across the country."

Also, as I understand it, the D&C is basically God's answers to questions asked by JS. I'm not sure a person of average intelligence would have even thought to ask some of the questions for which we now have answers. As I see it, it takes a brilliant person to ask brilliant questions.

[Buzzard]

15 million worldwide members seems pretty good evidence. I can't think of any "dummy" who has founded an organization that has continued to grow for almost two centuries. No matter how moved by the spirit, I don't think that the early saints said, "You know, that Joseph Smith is dumb as a rock but let's sell everything we own and follow him across the country."

Also, as I understand it, the D&C is basically God's answers to questions asked by JS. I'm not sure a person of average intelligence would have even thought to ask some of the questions for which we now have answers. As I see it, it takes a brilliant person to ask brilliant questions.

And of course, a lot of those questions came to him during his translation of the Book of Mormon. 

[Avatar4321]

So one must have written a book to be a true prophet? Don't tell that to Moses, Samuel, Elijah, et al.

I thought JS received the priesthood by divine ordination and not by virtue of publishing the BOM. Isn't that the real source of the restoration?

 

Moses wrote a book. 5 actually. They are called the Books of Moses.

[Avatar4321]

Agreed.  Even with all of the historical evidence that sets much of the Bible in specific times and places, there is no objective PROOF that Christ was the Messiah.  In the end, it does come down to a leap of faith.  However, there are things that can shorten the distance of that leap.  For me, researching the subject on the Internet widened that chasm, making the leap harder.

 

Of course, that was just MY experience and I am certainly, shall we say, "unique" in my thought processes.  Perhaps, there are others on the board who were also not raised in the Church, but received confirmation of the BOM from the text itself.  Bueller? Anyone?  Bueller?

 

I had the exact opposite experience with the internet. The more I read on the internet, the more I had reason to believe? Why? Because I found the anti mormon arguments so ridiculous i had to seriously consider the scriptures on their own merits. I quickly found them to be outright lying, misrepresenting and making up things about the Church. It seemed to me that if they were correct about the Church and Restoration being wrong, they wouldn't have to lie about it.

 

Meanwhile, I saw those arguing for the Church give a number of reasons why the critics' accusations weren't as clean cut as they would pretend and they say "but don't take our word for it, go to the Lord and found out for yourself"

 

The more I studied the most convinced I became that the only way to know for myself was to get wisdom from the Lord. And I eventually did.

[Gervin]

 

Said Emma Smith in later interviews:

"A.-Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter; let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.

"During the 17 years of their marriage, Joseph and Emma Smith endured many hardships. Joseph traveled extensively for the Church and was often obliged to find safety among friends to avoid angry mobs or numerous legal harassments. While he was away, Joseph and Emma wrote consistently to one another, and though only some of those letters have survived, their content and the context in which they were written tell a powerful story."  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/09/my-dear-and-beloved-companion-the-letters-of-joseph-and-emma-smith?lang=eng

 

Since Joseph was unable to write or dictate a coherent letter, who do you think was sending letters to Emma Smith over the course of these 17 years?  More importantly, who do think Emma thought was sending her those letters?

[thesometimesaint]

So one must have written a book to be a true prophet? Don't tell that to Moses, Samuel, Elijah, et al.

I thought JS received the priesthood by divine ordination and not by virtue of publishing the BOM. Isn't that the real source of the restoration?

 

Moses is thought to written the first five books of the Bible.

[why me]

What did Emma say to indicate that Joseph was not extremely intelligent and keenly interested in scripture? I'm not contending that he was even literate. I'm simply saying that describing him as someone with a third grade education who could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter is like describing Christ as an "unschooled illiterate backwoods Hebrew peasant." It would be technical accurate description of the facts but it would not contain the whole truth of His brilliance.

Since the book of mormon is a book with sentences, it would seem that emma knew that joseph had difficulties in writing a coherent sentence. Thus, she could never believe that he could write such a book. Was he intelligent as a boy? No, not really. When we see Joseph's life we see an average fellow who did not seem to impress his neighbors with his intelligence.  

 

Look at the Joseph Smith Papers. How much do we have in his own writing? Not much. Do we have his original sermons or do we have what scribes said he said? Also, Joseph seems to have grown in brilliance as time went on. Not in writing but in depth of character, in speaking, and in creating towns, cities buildings etc. None of this was seen in his youth. It was as if the spirit of god was with him.

[why me]

 

"During the 17 years of their marriage, Joseph and Emma Smith endured many hardships. Joseph traveled extensively for the Church and was often obliged to find safety among friends to avoid angry mobs or numerous legal harassments. While he was away, Joseph and Emma wrote consistently to one another, and though only some of those letters have survived, their content and the context in which they were written tell a powerful story."  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2008/09/my-dear-and-beloved-companion-the-letters-of-joseph-and-emma-smith?lang=eng

 

Since Joseph was unable to write or dictate a coherent letter, who do you think was sending letters to Emma Smith over the course of these 17 years?  More importantly, who do think Emma thought was sending her those letters?

 

Have you read the letters? You can listen to the first 6 minutes of this:

 

http://www.byutv.org/watch/e38a7e66-3760-4856-9ebf-f3b253fd59fd/the-joseph-smith-papers-the-letters-of-joseph-and-emma

 

And listen to what the historian said about joseph's letters. But the whole presentation is good. I don't think that emma believed that joseph could write a book. I also believe that emma was more educated than joseph. And as such, she knew that joseph had his limitations when he wrote to her.

Edited January 16, 2014 by why me

[longview]

15 million worldwide members seems pretty good evidence. I can't think of any "dummy" who has founded an organization that has continued to grow for almost two centuries. No matter how moved by the spirit, I don't think that the early saints said, "You know, that Joseph Smith is dumb as a rock but let's sell everything we own and follow him across the country."

Also, as I understand it, the D&C is basically God's answers to questions asked by JS. I'm not sure a person of average intelligence would have even thought to ask some of the questions for which we now have answers. As I see it, it takes a brilliant person to ask brilliant questions.

Many of the revelations recorded in the D&C were prompted by JS questions which in turn were prompted by his reading of the Book of Mormon.

[mfbukowski]

 

In the end, it does come down to a leap of faith.  However, there are things that can shorten the distance of that leap.  For me, researching the subject on the Internet widened that chasm, making the leap harder.

The problem here is that nothing can "shorten the distance of that leap", and as you discovered, it is an illusion to think so.

 

I wish all could understand this. We would have no wasted time on "scholarly" analysis of geography, history, and anything of a factual nature, because ultimately that chasm is there for everyone, and the key is that it is just as wide as ever for everyone.

 

The mistake is in the belief that any kind of objective inquiry can make a difference.  It cannot, it never has, it never will.

 

When an evangelical answers an altar call, he is not doing it because the resurrection has been proven logically to his satisfaction, and when a Mormon gets baptized, it is not because all the questions are gone.  So why do we do those things?

 

Because nothing else matters, and in those moments we are completely clear on that.  We are following the spirit and what we KNOW is true, in the only way the spirit testifies- in our hearts.

 

The only power that atheists like Dawkins have is because people do not understand this very point.  The only reason people think there is a conflict between science and religion is because people do not understand this point.  The only reason people have trouble with historical issues is because they do not understand this very point.

 

The leap is there for everyone, and it is just as wide for everyone and nothing can narrow it.   Either there exists objective evidence or there doesn't, and guess what- there IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.  Period, end of story.

[mfbukowski]

 Perhaps, there are others on the board who were also not raised in the Church, but received confirmation of the BOM from the text itself.  Bueller? Anyone?  Bueller?

Me.

[mfbukowski]

Curious about who "we" are, but more curious about finding a link about this revolutionized thought, if there is one. thx

Dunno, I guess I will have to write one. 

[mfbukowski]

Why Christ, being perfect, still needed to be baptized (2 Nephi 31:4–10)

 

Explained in Matt.3:15 and Mark 1:11

 

The atonement is "infinite and eternal". (Alma 34:14)

 

2 Tim. 2:10

2 Cor. 4:17

Heb. 5:9

John 10:28

 

All things given of God are a type of Christ and testify of Him (2 Nephi 11:4, Alma 30:44)

 

Colossians 2:16-17

Heb. 8: 4-6

Acts 3:18

 

The nature of the resurrection: "this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that they can die no more, their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal..." (Alma 11:45)

 

Luke 24:39

1 john 3:2

Heb.13:8

Colossians 3:4

Ephesians 2:6

Romans 8:11

 

How Satan will be bound during the millennium (1 Nephi 22:26)

 

The real way in which Satan will be bound: Rev. 20:1-2

 

What motivates Satan - retribution for his misery (2 Nephi 2:18, 2 Nephi 2:27)

 

Revelation 12:9-10

 

The devil hates all men, including those that follow him (Alma 30:60)

 

This is an eye opener??????

 

The fall of Adam and Eve was part of God's plan – had he not fallen, they would have remained in the garden forever, knowing no joy or misery, doing no good nor evil, having no children. (2 Nephi 2:22–25)

 

Fortunate Fall or “Felix culpa” has been around for centuries, including Milton’s Paradise Lost. Not a surprise to see Joseph include it here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_culpa

 

 

This life is a probationary state, a time to prepare to meet God. (Alma 42:1-10,13, Alma 12:24 (20-24), Alma 34:32)

 

"We are saved by grace, after all we can do." (2 Nephi 25:23)

 

 

This is a false doctrine.

 

 

Baptism existed before John the Baptist (2 Nephi 31:4–6,8,11–12 Mosiah 18:10,13,15–17)

 

How to retain a remission of your sins (Mosiah 4:11-26)

 

 

Heb. 10: 16-26

 

Romans 1:16 – 2:10

 

We must repent, be baptized and become as a little child or we can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. (3 Nephi 11:37–38)

 

Luke 18:17

 

Baptism not for infants (Moroni 8:4-23)

 

 

Interesting that you should bring this up. Because the Mormons are just a half step behind Catholics in this area. A Jewish child is considered approaching accountability at approx. Age 12-13

 

Yet, you baptize little children who are arguably not hardly accountable for sin. Isn’t this like the pot calling the kettle black?

 

Luke 18:16

 

So if the Savior said to you: “Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” would you really come to the conclusion that they needed to be baptized for the remission of sins?????

See also Romans 5:14-15 and see if you can figure that one out and then get back to me.

 

Why we need the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible (2 Nephi 29:1-14, Title Page (see end of last paragraph))

 

This is circular logic: “We need the Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon says we do............

Right.....

 

The answer to the age-old question 'How can God be a god of love, yet have commanded the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites?' (1 Nephi 17:32–45)

 

This is nothing more than a commentary on Leviticus 18:24-30, Even you could have written it.

 

Priestcraft defined and condemned (2 Nephi 26:29-31)

 

"By small and simple things are great things brought to pass, and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls" (Alma 37:6, 1 Nephi 16:9)

 

1 Cor. 1:27

 

The role and ministry of angels (Moroni 7:25,29-32)

 

Heb. 1:13-14

 

I think Paul beat him to it.............

 

I may have missed one or two but I have limited time and I think you get the point.

Those things which fit the bill you characterize as "false doctrine", or are found on wikipedia and are therefore allegedly classical Christian doctrine.

 

It it's not in the Bible it must be false doctrine.   Really great argument. 

Edited January 16, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Gervin]

Have you read the letters? You can listen to the first 6 minutes of this:

 

http://www.byutv.org/watch/e38a7e66-3760-4856-9ebf-f3b253fd59fd/the-joseph-smith-papers-the-letters-of-joseph-and-emma

 

And listen to what the historian said about joseph's letters. But the whole presentation is good. I don't think that emma believed that joseph could write a book. I also believe that emma was more educated than joseph. And as such, she knew that joseph had his limitations when he wrote to her.

Actually, the fact that I've read his letters (and sermons) prompted my reply.  I watched the video to the part where the woman says* she was impressed by Joseph Smith and his "loftiness of language, his vocabulary his understanding and his imagery."  It sounds more like the Emma Smith interview, above, is a fabrication because it certainly doesn't jibe with the written record.

 

*just after the 5 minute mark

Edited January 17, 2014 by Gervin

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I'm looking it up on the LDS website, but do you (or anyone) have any examples off hand you think expain the Resurrection in the BOM that aren't explained in the Bible?

Different book to a different audience.

[Avatar4321]

Actually, the fact that I've read his letters (and sermons) prompted my reply.  I watched the video to the part where the woman says* she was impressed by Joseph Smith and his "loftiness of language, his vocabulary his understanding and his imagery."  It sounds more like the Emma Smith interview, above, is a fabrication because it certainly doesn't jibe with the written record.

 

*just after the 5 minute mark

 

You do realize that just because Joseph couldn't write or dictate a coherent letter when he translated the Book of Mormon doesn't mean he didn't improve his abilities. He wasn't much of a public speaker at first either. Sydney Rigdon was called to be his spokesman. Over time he developed his own voice.

 

He also educated himself to be quite good with languages later in his life.

[Stone holm]

One of my stumbling blocks in finally gaining a testimony about the Church was the BOM itself. When I was investigating the Church, I was told to pray about the truth of the BOM as a way of verifying that JS was a prophet. So I went home and sought answers from the source of all truth -- the Internet. Like many people, I won't even try out a new restaurant without first looking it up online. So if you ask me to try out a whole new religion, I'm going to Google it.

And while you may KNOW that the BOM is true, this is not the consensus of the Internet. Regardless of the ultimate truth, Mormons are simply outnumbered. The number of people presenting arguments against the BOM dwarfs the people in support of it. In the end, the Internet made a pretty convincing case that you're all a bunch of wackos (the technical term according to the Internet). It took almost three years for my KNOWLEDGE of the Christ-like qualities of the members and the inspired policies of our leaders to overtake my doubts about the BOM. And I'm not sure it had to be that way.

What is the point of praying for a confirmation about the BOM when I could have just prayed for a confirmation that JS was a prophet? Isn't this the really important issue anyway?

After all, it was JS who announced the restoration; not the BOM. Nor did the BOM give us the sacred ordinances, the temple ceremonies or the organization of the Church. As I see it, almost all of the distinctive characteristics of Mormonism come from JS' revelations AFTER the translation of the BOM. And while the BOM may be "the most correct book on earth," perhaps we should treat it like "milk before meat" or as "pearls before swine".

Okay, so let me have it. What am I missing about the BOM that makes it so important to our faith and worth the loss of those who lose faith in its truthfulness or immediately write us off as a bunch of crazies?

No it's not necessary. But it is probably unlikely that Joseph Smith could have attracted enough attention to get the revelations that we know as the Doctrine and Covenants and which really set out the peculiarities of Mormondom a fair hearing without it. And, besides its kind of fun. But if people want to understand the Church they would be better off studying the D & C and The Pearl of Great Price. The B of M, however, is good for helping to understand what was really intended in the OT. But we rely on it to convince people that Joseph was a Prophet, once one has a testimony of that, time would probably be better spent elsewhere.

[rodheadlee]

The problem here is that nothing can "shorten the distance of that leap", and as you discovered, it is an illusion to think so.

 

I wish all could understand this. We would have no wasted time on "scholarly" analysis of geography, history, and anything of a factual nature, because ultimately that chasm is there for everyone, and the key is that it is just as wide as ever for everyone.

 

The mistake is in the belief that any kind of objective inquiry can make a difference.  It cannot, it never has, it never will.

 

When an evangelical answers an altar call, he is not doing it because the resurrection has been proven logically to his satisfaction, and when a Mormon gets baptized, it is not because all the questions are gone.  So why do we do those things?

 

Because nothing else matters, and in those moments we are completely clear on that.  We are following the spirit and what we KNOW is true, in the only way the spirit testifies- in our hearts.

 

The only power that atheists like Dawkins have is because people do not understand this very point.  The only reason people think there is a conflict between science and religion is because people do not understand this point.  The only reason people have trouble with historical issues is because they do not understand this very point.

 

The leap is there for everyone, and it is just as wide for everyone and nothing can narrow it.   Either there exists objective evidence or there doesn't, and guess what- there IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.  Period, end of story.

Yes this is how I received the message of the Gospel  in the first place. I had an overpowering witness as I read Matthew that Jesus Christ died for me and He had the power to resurrect me. It would be 2 more years for me to get the same witness for the BoM and the Church.

 

I  totally agree it is the only way to Know the Gospel is true. Studying history and geography is fun but it can't give the witness, but I suppose you could get a witness of the Spirit that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true while studying history or geography.

[Calm]

What did Emma say to indicate that Joseph was not extremely intelligent and keenly interested in scripture? I'm not contending that he was even literate. I'm simply saying that describing him as someone with a third grade education who could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter is like describing Christ as an "unschooled illiterate backwoods Hebrew peasant." It would be technical accurate description of the facts but it would not contain the whole truth of His brilliance.

I think it is also very important not to make a generalised evaluation due to the highly varied level of interaction with materials and experiences that would affect his writing and speaking ability. Even ordinary people's ability to write can change dramatically with some higher education. Later in his life, he seems to have put significant time and effort into increasing his knowledge in relevant areas, so while I would expect an ongoing development as he became more and more involved in speaking and writing, I would not be surprised to see a dramatic improvement when he brought in some professionals to teach.

He also seemed intent on self improvement so again over the years would develop greater verbal skills.

I would be very interested in any longitudinal studies of his writings to pinpoint changes if any and at what level and significance. Anyone aware of anything like this?