What is the rationale behind the expectation, that I should testify to the veracity of the First Vision, despite there being only a single witness to that event?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Pneumos said:

My point is that, the very thing that Paul had seen was not determined to be the basis for establishing core doctrines.  Paul never used his vision (in and of itself) to establish doctrines.

Most of the accounts which you mention (that are related in the Bible) are legendary, and were passed down by oral tradition for  potentially thousands of years.  Historicity was not the concern there, but rather the moral of the story. 

The First Vision of Paul was to turn him around from his evil ways and wrong beliefs, to convert him to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which he had so resolutely opposed.  Versions of that First Vision of Paul are opposed to one another, but the basic message comes through:  God can direct his servants by revelation.  That "legendary" Bible is filled with core doctrines, none of which are known to be true without the witness of the Holy Spirit.

1 hour ago, Pneumos said:

The First Vision is in a completely different class.  For example, there is no clear moral to that story — It is simply meant to establish an empirical fact.

The ethical and moral nature of the message of the First Vision is that all churches have bollixed the Gospel and taught falsehood in its place -- no church was true.  That message was directed at Joseph based on his specific inquiry.  This was part of his calling as the Prophet of the Restoration.

1 hour ago, Pneumos said:

Simple question; very complicated answer.  Such would be a whole discussion unto itself. 

The Holy Spirit is the short answer.  Though I would say that misunderstanding the precise nature of the Holy Spirit will lead one to misunderstand the way in which the Holy Spirit establishes truth. 

You are equivocating the epistemological question:  How can we know something is true or false?  You are hemming and hawwing about the nature of the Holy Spirit.  Much of so-called Christianity actually rejects the power of the Holy Spirit.

1 hour ago, Pneumos said:

What if God has witnessed to you that the Church is true, but that the First Vision is false?  I would be interested to see how such a testimony would go down at a sacrament meeting. 

One must follow his conscience, no matter what.  However, it is interesting that the Body of Christ, the body of believers, is not wracked by such lack of unity.  Your own moniker, Pneumos "Spirit,"  ought to be taken more seriously.

[Pneumos]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Witnesses were provided for plenty of other experiences and visions which retroactively support the First Vision account.

Sounds like a bit of a stretch.  Did Oliver Cowdery ever see Heavenly Father in the flesh?  David Whitmer?  Which experiences and visions are you referring to?  Why was the First Vision (as we know it today) and its implications only taught in the Nauvoo period and not before?

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

But here you put the cart before the horse. They are already following for some reason. Why are they following without the witness?

I would disagree.  Do they, elsewhere, not “already follow”?

To continue with the hypothetical leader lady.... They attend the gathering as investigators.  They continue to come as investigators — why?  Because they are intrigued.  In a sense they have already become followers.  They like what they see.  They might be slow to trust, but that does not mean they do not want to trust.  Is the one who is wanting not the one who is following? 

[let’s roll]

There were three persons present at the first vision, and two of them are willing to confirm to you, today, in real time, that it happened if you ask with the requisite intent.

Posing a question based on the premise that there was only a single witness to the first vision points to the fact that you’ve overlooked the fact that of those present at the first vision Joseph is, at this point, the least accessible.  If you’re desirous of testifying with confidence of the reality of the first vision, I’d invite you to take it up the Father and the Son.

 

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Pneumos said:

Sounds like a bit of a stretch.  Did Oliver Cowdery ever see Heavenly Father in the flesh?  David Whitmer?  Which experiences and visions are you referring to?  Why was the First Vision (as we know it today) and its implications only taught in the Nauvoo period and not before?

I would disagree.  Do they, elsewhere, not “already follow”?

To continue with the hypothetical leader lady.... They attend the gathering as investigators.  They continue to come as investigators — why?  Because they are intrigued.  In a sense they have already become followers.  They like what they see.  They might be slow to trust, but that does not mean they do not want to trust.  Is the one who is wanting not the one who is following? 

Many saw the Savior in visions and in other experiences but I do not remember any seeing the Father. If this is a weird way of trying to bring the Trinity in through the back door this is a disingenuous way of doing it. Just come out and say it.

I would not call investigators “followers” but we are splitting hairs. If the testimony of the Holy Ghost is insufficient for someone I doubt they will last long in this faith.

[Pneumos]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Many saw the Savior in visions and in other experiences but I do not remember any seeing the Father. If this is a weird way of trying to bring the Trinity in through the back door this is a disingenuous way of doing it. Just come out and say it.

I would not call investigators “followers” but we are splitting hairs. If the testimony of the Holy Ghost is insufficient for someone I doubt they will last long in this faith.

I thought it was clear by the title of this thread that I am a Trinitarian.  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Pneumos said:

I thought it was clear by the title of this thread that I am a Trinitarian.  

Nope, just hinted at. You could also be a Restorationist who believes Joseph made up or exaggerated the First Vision but got the rest right. You could be a troll trying to pick at the law of Witnesses generally with no other agenda. There are lots of other possibilities.

[strappinglad]

Somebody snuck (sneaked?) in a debate topic before 25 posts. Naughty ! 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Pneumos said:

Yes?

Could you please answer what you mean by true?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Pneumos said:

.............  If someone wants to believe the story is true in all of its detail, that is fine; I have no problem with that.  But I think it is unfair for authorities to expect the Church as a whole to join together in believing such.

Your title for this thread was partly "the expectation, that I should testify to the veracity of the First Vision" Yet, there is no such expectation by the so-called "authorities," unless of course someone happens to believe it and wants to testify to it.  Our Fast & Testimony meetings are not mass "Church as a whole" declarations, but quite individual.  People get up one at atime and say whatever they want.  A personal testimony is non-transferable.  Moreover, testimonies about the First Vision of Joseph Smith or of St Paul are quite rare.

9 hours ago, Pneumos said:

 This was not the culture of the Apostles, following Jesus.  Let a man believe this-or-that, they said, but come together in the love of Christ. 

You are going off on a tangent, Pneumos, and a non sequitur at that.

What Jesus himself said to St Peter was abundantly clear:  " flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt 16:17).  That's right, the rock of revelation.  That is a core doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Somebody snuck (sneaked?) in a debate topic before 25 posts. Naughty ! 

To err is human, to forgive divine.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

10 hours ago, Pneumos said:

The Bible states that truth shall be established by the mouths of two or three witnesses.  Therefore, why am I expected to believe in the First Vision when nobody else but Joseph Smith witnessed it?  If someone wants to believe the story is true in all of its detail, that is fine; I have no problem with that.  But I think it is unfair for authorities to expect the Church as a whole to join together in believing such.  This was not the culture of the Apostles, following Jesus.  Let a man believe this-or-that, they said, but come together in the love of Christ. 

Well the social hall is not for debate, but I guess you could not wait. The Bible is filled with all but a couple of instances where every single Prophet in every book and dispensation, where all received their call in private. No witness, sometimes not even a vision, just the silent whisper of the Holy Ghost. Saul”s, or Paul’s call has two different accounts, with witnesses either “seeing”, or “hearing”. We are not asked to simply believe Joseph’s account, but to gain our own witness first hand. I have have received that witness first hand, but I have no witness to having received it. With Moses, a “burning bush”, no one else witnessed, and tables are plates written by the finger of God, which only Moses saw. Love to continue this debate in the Discussion Forum, when you can post it there. 

[Raingirl]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To err is human, to forgive divine.

I don’t think it was a mistake. The OP is clearly so anxious to tell us that we’re all wrong, and he’s right, that he couldn’t be bothered to abide by the rules he agreed to when joining the site.