Witnesses of the First Visions

[_why me]

Uncle Dale, now don't you bother Why Me about his Book of Mormon anymore.

It is okay. He can bother me with the Book of Mormon. But I a little worried about Miss Taken. She seems to spend her life on his site looking up little heresay tidbits to bolster her positions.

[Guest]

Uncle Dale, now don't you bother Why Me about his Book of Mormon anymore.

It is okay. He can bother me with the Book of Mormon. But I a little worried about Miss Taken. She seems to spend her life on his site looking up little heresay tidbits to bolster her positions.

Uncle Dale doesn't actually bother me with his website quotations, regarding the Book of Mormon or any other Mormon topic he throws out into the mix. But he is the master of sowing doubt.

[Guest]

Uncle Dale, now don't you bother Why Me about his Book of Mormon anymore.

The Book of Mormon is an enigma to be sure. The way it came about, the translation process, and the witnesses add to the enigma.

[_rcrocket]

If witnesses are so important, wouldn't it be appropriate to wonder about the veracity of those instances where there were none?

It is an evidentiary axiom that the absence of witnesses to an event does not mean that the event did not occur. It means only that there is no corroboration to a single witness and from that one could argue that the witness is untrustworthy and a liar.

Similiarly, a plethora of witnesses to an event does not mean the event did occur. It means that there is corroboration to a single witnesses, and the more the better, and from that one could argue, however unlikely, that a large number of witnesses are liars or have been deceived.

You don't know personally that the Holocaust occurred, but there are so many respectable witnesses to the event it would be foolish to deny them.

You don't know personally that Oswald shot Kennedy. There are no witnesses. He never confessed. But external circumstantial proofs make it very likely that he did, and it would be foolish to deny the fact.

In the case of the First Vision, believers have the witness of the Holy Spirit Unbelievers do not.

[_cinepro]

Hmmm...so is the "Law of Witnesses" really a law, or is it more like "guidelines"?

President Joseph Fielding Smith best described this law: “There is a law definitely stated in the scriptures governing testimony and the appointment of witnesses. This law the Lord has always followed in granting new revelation to the people. … Paul in writing to the Corinthians said: ‘In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established’ (2 Cor. 13:1).” (Doctrines of Salvation, Bruce R. McConkie, comp., 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954, 1:203.)

The Law of Witnesses

Witnesses and witnessing are vital in God’s plan for the salvation of His children. In the Godhead, the function of the Holy Ghost is to bear witness of the Father and the Son (see 2 Ne. 31:18). The Father has borne witness of the Son (see Matt. 3:17; Matt. 17:5; John 5:31–39), and the Son has borne witness of the Father (see John 17). The Lord has commanded His servants to testify of Him (see Isa. 43:10; Mosiah 18:9; D&C 84:62), and all of the prophets have borne witness of Jesus Christ (see Acts 10:43; Rev. 19:10).

The scriptures state that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1; D&C 6:28; see also Deut. 19:15). The most important ordinances of salvation—baptism, marriage, and other ordinances of the temple—are required to have witnesses (see D&C 127:6; D&C 128:3).

The Witness: Martin Harris, Dallin H. Oaks

During the course of this general conference, much will be said concerning the Lord’s work and what Heavenly Father desires of His children. These are sacred things. May it be known that the speakers do not stand alone in their declarations. Accompanying their testimonies, I raise my voice as yet another witness. This process is referred to as the law of witnesses.

This law was established to introduce, affirm, and seal the truth upon the hearts of God’s children. One never stands alone in carrying the word of God to the world. Moses was called as a prophet to lead Israel, but he was not left alone. The Lord sent to him his brother, Aaron, not only as a voice, but as a witness with Moses that the God of Abraham had spoken.

This law of witnesses ushered in the birth, life, and mission of Christ Jesus. Holy angels, John the Baptist, prophets, apostles, the Holy Ghost, the Savior himself, and God our Father all declared His divinity.

This same pattern prevailed at each step in the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in these latter days. Multiple witnesses, reliable beyond refute, have written and spoken of what their ears heard, their eyes beheld, their hearts understood. In every dispensation, two or more witnesses have joined their voices in such proclamations. It is the pattern of heaven. Said the Apostle Paul, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1).

Ye May Know, Bishop Keith B. McMullin

What good is it to have a "Law of Witnesses" if a single person making a claim is enough to establish that claim?

[_Mercury]

it was a different time when experiences were felt just as much as tangibly acted through. What I mean by this is that the "spiritual world" of mutually held hallucinations influenced by group-think and common narratives were spun into recollections that shifted over time. The influence of a charismatic individual such as Joseph Smith combined with the financial structure of the deal promoted a falsely collaborated story.

The resulting culture clings to this invented story today unfortunately. It is sad to see individuals pour their lives into such a worthless thing.

[_Jason Bourne]

In the case of the First Vision, believers have the witness of the Holy Spirit Unbelievers do not.

Some Christian opponents I have met claim the Holy Spirit has told them the FV did not occur. What does one do when one's witness of the spirit disagrees with someone else's?

[_rcrocket]

The resulting culture clings to this invented story today unfortunately. It is sad to see individuals pour their lives into such a worthless thing.

Hah hah. Do you ever notice that hardly anybody engages with you? Carry on.

[_rcrocket]

What good is it to have a "Law of Witnesses" if a single person making a claim is enough to establish that claim?

As one who has studied ancient jurisprudence, I think the law of witnesses should apply as a mandatory matter for secular matters. This law is described as part of the Mosaic law. Couldn't convict for murder on the basis of one witness -- not even a confession would work. When it comes to spiritual matters, I don't think it mandatory. Moses and the burning bush had no witnesses. Nobody saw Moses slay the Egyptian. Nobody witnessed Isaiah's encounter with Jehovah, or Ezekial's visions, or the Acopolypse where John saw the resurrected Christ and angels, and on and on.

[_rcrocket]

Some Christian opponents I have met claim the Holy Spirit has told them the FV did not occur. What does one do when one's witness of the spirit disagrees with someone else's?

The witness of the spirit, as described in John 16:1-15. It can't be gainsaid merely because others mock. I feel badly that you have fallen so far as to be on the side of the mockers. (Rev. 3:16.)

I certainly regret mentioning the witness of the spirit. I try and stay away from such argument here; it just exposes me to repeated mockery.