Two Witnesses

[Investigating]

There are a couple of passages in the Bible (and, I think, the Book of Mormon, or the D&C) that speak of everything being established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but how does this work?

 

What constitutes a witness?

 

Could it be a sneeze, a dream, a coincidence, or some kind of omen, and is two the magic number that tells you something is true?

[Investigating]

Here's something someone else shared online.

 

 

This may sound wierd, but I pray that my dreams will be protected from devils and demons, as I have had VERY VERY vivid, real, oppressive nightmares where the EVIL was palpable; so thick you could taste it; you swam in it. Nightmares where I literally felt as though I was doomed to hell.

 

This person speaks of "nightmares" (plural), and that means he had at least two dreams that seemed to tell him he was "doomed to hell."

 

If scripture says everything is established in the mouth of two witnesses, does this mean this particular person is actually doomed to hell?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Investigating

[ERayR]

Here's something someone else shared online.

 

 

This person speaks of "nightmares" (plural), and that means he had at least two dreams that seemed to tell him he was "doomed to hell."

 

If scripture says everything is established in the mouth of two witnesses, does this mean this particular person is actually doomed to hell?

 

No.

[rpn]

It means just what it says.   That two mortal beings must give testimony that they saw something.  Two to witness saving ordinances.  Two with personal knowledge of the sin for disciplinary purposes (usually the sinner is one of the them, but s/he may refuse to allow his right to the penitent privilege to be waived, and that does mean that sometimes councils cannot proceed without the evidence of two).   Two  member who witnessed a baptism that was not recorded at the time to create a late membership record.   And in the case of this dispensation's founding events, three and eleven witnesses to the plates, many witnesses to the miracles in the Kirtland Temple.  

 

This edict not about a testimony that comes by revelation.   Only the Holy Ghost's confirmation is needed for that.

Edited September 7, 2014 by rpn

[Investigating]

No.

 

Could you elaborate a little?

 

Paul said (in 2 Cor. 13:1) that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," and I believe Joseph Smith said that the Bible needed a second witness because of passages like this.

 

So how far do we take this principle?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Investigating

[ERayR]

Could you elaborate a little?

 

Paul said (in 2 Cor. 13:1) that "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," and I believe Joseph Smith said that the Bible needed a second witness because of passages like this.

That has to do with revelation including scripture and has nothing to do nightmares.

[Kind Debater]

Here's something someone else shared online.

 

This may sound wierd, but I pray that my dreams will be protected from devils and demons, as I have had VERY VERY vivid, real, oppressive nightmares where the EVIL was palpable; so thick you could taste it; you swam in it. Nightmares where I literally felt as though I was doomed to hell.

 

This person speaks of "nightmares" (plural), and that means he had at least two dreams that seemed to tell him he was "doomed to hell."

 

If scripture says everything is established in the mouth of two witnesses, does this mean this particular person is actually doomed to hell?

Demons can lie; Satan is known as the father of lies. They're not exactly reliable witnesses.

[Investigating]

That has to do with revelation including scripture and has nothing to do nightmares.

 

The book of Daniel is scripture, and it's largely a record of his dreams.

 

Don't you believe God sometimes speaks to people in their dreams?

 

How do you know two dreams with the same or similar content don't equal revelation?

 

If "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" is a principle that extends beyond human courts, how do you know it doesn't include dreams?

 

How far does this principle extend?

[Investigating]

Demons can lie; Satan is known as the father of lies. They're not exactly reliable witnesses.

 

Thank you.

 

But does 2 Cor. 13:1 ("In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established") imply that God wouldn't allow them to lie more than once?

[Investigating]

I don't know if this is true, or just something made up by some anti (and it seems strange that the "monster" should tell her mother that she "did well" in running away from her Mormon boss), but would God ever allow something like this?

Yes, I have experienced demonic influence from the Mormon members. It might sound unbelievable, but it is pure truth.
Below is my story:
My ex manager is a Mormon. He has a very high position with the company I worked for. I am a very devoted Christian, I am non-denominational and I believe in the Christian Bible and in the Lord Jesus Christ as my savior. My mother has the same beliefs as mine.
One day my manager preached the Mormon doctrine to me at work in his office. He invited me to his church and to his house where he intended to bring two missionaries to convert me to Mormonism. I had no clue what Mormonism means at that time. He told me that it was a Christian religion. What a lie ! I believed him and this is the reason why I visited his church.
That same day my mother who is in Romania had a nightmare, a horrible nightmare. My former manager was in her dream and he did all kinds of immoral things until he was transfigured into a monster. My mother called the blood of Jesus Christ in the dream and then she was able to woke up.

I also had a dream on a Saturday. My Mormon manager was in that dream. It looked like we were walking together in an opened field. He was very nice to me and he was talking very nicely, very attractive. We approached a large ditch that I was able to see. When I saw the ditch, I realized that I was in a huge danger and the only way I could escape was to scream for the blood of Jesus Christ. I was screaming these words in the dream: "the blood of Jesus Christ" to protect me from that danger. Then I woke up and I was not able to go back to sleep. I fasted the next Monday.

Things became very bad for me in the company. In the end I was let go by this manager.

My mother fasted. On her day of fast, she was a little tired and she just closed her eyes trying to relax. A monster appeared to her in a sort of a vision and asked her to sign a contract with him. My mother called the blood of Jesus Christ. Then my mother had two nightmares in the next following nights. She had to continuously call the blood of Jesus Christ in her dream.

One day this is what happened: I was thinking in my mind that Mormons must be very dangerous people and I was very troubled by those thoughts. Exactly the same time my mother had a dream with another monster who told her this: "Woman listen to what I am telling you. The Mormons are very dangerous people". My mother called the blood of Jesus Christ in the dream. She woke up. When she was able to go back to sleep, the same monster came to her, but this time she could only hear his voice that said: "Your daughter did very well that she left that company. She will be OK in her new company". My mother called the blood of Jesus Christ again. She woke up and she could not sleep.

I noticed that the only way these strong spiritual battles are gone only when I really run away from that man. If I have absolutely no contact with him, everything is OK. I guess the devil fights for his soul like crazy.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2135029/pg1

Would God allow "two witnesses" to lead this girl away from the LDS Church like this?

[cinepro]

There are a couple of passages in the Bible (and, I think, the Book of Mormon, or the D&C) that speak of everything being established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, but how does this work?

 

 

It doesn't.  It's possible for something that is "true" to only have one "witness", and just as possible for something that is untrue to have a thousand "witnesses". 

 

Without a methodology to evaluate the quality of the "witness", it's a meaningless criteria.

[Investigating]

It doesn't.  It's possible for something that is "true" to only have one "witness", and just as possible for something that is untrue to have a thousand "witnesses". 

 

Without a methodology to evaluate the quality of the "witness", it's a meaningless criteria.

 

Thank you--but do you say that as a believer, or as an unbeliever?

 

(I've read a lot of your posts, and it's hard to tell sometimes.)

 

As a believer, wouldn't you have to say that it is a meaningful criteria (because of 2 Cor. 13:1, and the Bible and Book of Mormon being called "two witnesses")?

 

If it is a meaningless criteria, why is it found in scripture, and what do the passages of scripture where it is found (such as 2 Cor. 13:1) mean?

 

Did Joseph Smith ever say anything (or relate any personal experiences) that could be helpful here?

 

P.S. I often try to think things out on discussion forums, and I often ask a "what did Joseph say" type question on Mormon discussion forums because the premise that he's a prophet seems basic to your faith claims (and anything he clearly taught at least allows me to come to some conclusion as to what's true "if" those faith claims are true.)

Edited September 8, 2014 by Investigating

[The Nehor]

Thank you.

 

But does 2 Cor. 13:1 ("In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established") imply that God wouldn't allow them to lie more than once?

 

No, or he could only tempt us once for each sin.

 

There is no magic in having two witnesses that makes something true. God is saying that when things like keys being handed off happen or when saving Priesthood ordinances are performed or to discipline someone you need at least two witnesses. You then have to judge the witnesses or get a witness yourself (preferably the latter) when it comes to spiritual things.

[cinepro]

As a believer, wouldn't you have to say that it is a meaningful criteria (because of 2 Cor. 13:1, and the Bible and Book of Mormon being called "two witnesses")?

 

 

What I said is obviously true, whether or not you're a believer.  There are so many examples of either case that I wouldn't know where to begin in listing them.

 

As for "The Bible" and "The Book of Mormon" being "two witnesses", I don't think so.  If we take them at face value, those aren't "books", they're collections of books.  So it's not "two witnesses", it's several dozen witnesses bound together.  Heck, now that the Church binds them all together in a Quad, by that criteria they would only be considered one "witness". 

 

There are tons of things that the Bible says that we ignore, and others that we choose to focus on.  The "two or three witnesses" thing seems to fit the Mormon paradigm nicely, so we teach it. 

[JLHPROF]

The book of Daniel is scripture, and it's largely a record of his dreams.

 

Don't you believe God sometimes speaks to people in their dreams?

 

How do you know two dreams with the same or similar content don't equal revelation?

 

If "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" is a principle that extends beyond human courts, how do you know it doesn't include dreams?

 

How far does this principle extend?

 

The important thing to remember is that the principle doesn't MAKE something true.  Just because two witnesses testify to a lie doesn't make it the truth.

The actual principle is that one witness alone is NOT enough to go on.

 

Two witnesses don't necessarily make something true, but one witness doesn't sufficient testimony for belief.

At least according to the principle God has laid out.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What I said is obviously true, whether or not you're a believer.  There are so many examples of either case that I wouldn't know where to begin in listing them.

 

As for "The Bible" and "The Book of Mormon" being "two witnesses", I don't think so.  If we take them at face value, those aren't "books", they're collections of books.  So it's not "two witnesses", it's several dozen witnesses bound together.  Heck, now that the Church binds them all together in a Quad, by that criteria they would only be considered one "witness". 

 

 

I think you must have slept through October 2011's conference which featured Elder Callister stating the following: 

 

The Bible is one witness of Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon is another. Why is this second witness so crucial? The following illustration may help: How many straight lines can you draw through a single point on a piece of paper? The answer is infinite. For a moment, suppose that single point represents the Bible and that hundreds of those straight lines drawn through that point represent different interpretations of the Bible and that each of those interpretations represents a different church.

What happens, however, if on that piece of paper there is a second point representing the Book of Mormon? How many straight lines could you draw between these two reference points: the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Only one. Only one interpretation of Christ’s doctrines survives the testimony of these two witnesses.

 

[cinepro]

I think you must have slept through October 2011's conference which featured Elder Callister stating the following: 

 

 

 

No, what he says makes absolutely no sense.

 

At the very least, the Bible (purports) to be many "witnesses" of Christ.  There are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul.  That's five.  Depending on how you want to slice it up, each Prophet in the OT could be a "witness".  So the Bible isn't one "point", it's already like 20 "points".  To an LDS, the Book of Mormon has the same thing.  Lehi, Nephi, Alma, Helaman, Nephi, Brother of Jared, Mormon and Moroni and others are all "witnesses."  So the book isn't one "witness", it's ten or more.  It's easy to look at them as "points" because at some point in the past someone took the different "witnesses" and put them in the same book binding.  But that doesn't make them one "witness"; if it did, then Elder Callister's illustration would have become nullified by the Church's publication of the "quad" binding of the scriptures (thus making it all one "witness" again).

 

And of course, the other way it makes absolutely no sense is that even with the Book of Mormon, there are different "lines" going through the two "points".  In addition to the endless variation of opinions among members of the CoJCoLdS, there are many off-shoot religions that still believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon. 

 

In truth, there is only one "point", and that is "scripture".  And you can define "scripture" in many different ways, interpret it in many different ways, and get many different "lines" going through that "point", even if you include the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 10, 2014 by cinepro