waysider

Not only does it not produce a verifiable language, it lacks the syntax and semantics (linguistic structure) that is found in genuine languages. I think that is really a crucial point to consider. ......................................... Linguistics The syllables that make up instances of glossolalia typically appear to be unpatterned reorganizations of phonemes from the primary language of the person uttering the syllables; thus, the glossolalia of people from Russia, the United Kingdom, and Brazil all sound quite different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively. Many linguists generally regard most glossolalia as lacking any identifiable semantics, syntax, or morphology. SOURCE

Steve HERE is another article that lists an abundance of citations. This article strongly suggests that speaking in tongues is a learned behavior and, as such, is greatly influenced by the community and culture in which it exists. There is a section in the article that describes an incident in which a group of people were led into tongues. It bears a striking resemblance to session #12 of PFAL.

"It would help me if you could give me some specific references to the studies so I can consider their impact on my thesis." Here ya go, Steve. This is the most often cited study but, there are many other academic pieces on the subject, as well. HERE

Here's a (rhetorical) thought. If SIT/TIP/Prophesy is as important as we've been led to believe, why is there so little information about it in the scriptures?

The best lie you can tell is always the one you believe yourself.

Remember how we were never, ever supposed to speak in tongues just to demonstrate to someone? "Hey, Fred,Check this out..... Lo Shanta La ....." Nope ..never supposed to do it in any way shape or form that hadn't been authorized by official Way doctrine. What was that about? What was supposed to happen if we did?

I see these old guys (older than me! :o ) on the evening news, talking about how they were swindled out of their life savings. It must be embarrassing. So, why do they do it? I don't know. Maybe it gives them a feeling of reprieve to acknowledge it's the swindler who has done something wrong, not them.

I'm with you on the first part. I have to disagree with you on this: "I don't think it can be proven that SIT is fake." It can and has been proven that SIT (as defined within the parameters of Way Theology) is "fake". Scientific studies have demonstrated that, when one is engaged in glossolalia, measurable, physiological changes take place in the portions of the brain associated with speech and critical thinking. These changes are temporary and cause no damage, in and of themselves. But, think about it. Why would God need to alter physiological processes to facilitate a spirit-to-spirit discourse? What happened to The Great Principle (ie: spirit can only talk to spirit)? What about free will? If you're not the one freely controlling it, someone else must be, making free will a moot point. ergo>>>>>>It's fake.

God told me you would say that.

Ummmmmm.....You do realize you're just parroting Wierwille, don't you? Is there someplace in the Bible that corroborates that thought?

Twin talk (idioglossia) might sound like speaking in tongues but, that's about as far as the similarity goes. The brain activity involved in twin talk and speaking in tongues is not the same.

The good news is, it's only temporary if you want it to be. That is, unless you've taken session #7 too much to heart. (That's the one where we're told to never, ever even consider other viewpoints.) Just continue to "STAND!". Then, no amount of logic or reason will be able to persuade you otherwise .

Speaking in tongues can't hurt you. That's a proven fact. But, consider this: Unlike meditation, when you speak in tongues, you temporarily relinquish a portion of your ability to think and question critically. You temporarily lose some of your sense of self. Now add that to the concept of a lift list and the camera analogy. You are focusing on something specific while losing some of your sense of self and critical thinking abilities. Here's an example: Picture Wierwille giving a successful and stirring presentation while you are speaking in tongues. (In other words, lift Wierwille.) What happens? Your mind begins to delude itself with the false image of Wierwille you created. Voila! Years go by and you still have this fairytale image of what Wierwille must have really been like. Well, that's my theory. But, I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

What does that tell us? Something was going on. It wasn't what Wierwille taught. It wasn't what was going on at the Brownsville revival. But something WAS going on. What was it? Well, maybe it was glossolalia. It had been around a long time before Pentecost.

When I took acting classes, we did an exercise that wasn't very different than an excellor session. "Make up a language and sell me this prop."

If you ever participated in an excellor (practice) session.....you made stuff up. It's really that straightforward.

Well, you can never be too careful. I mean, look what happened to poor Eve!

I think it's important to note, you can make things up ahead of time and you can make things up spontaneously. Most of us probably fell into the latter classification.

I second the motion. I should add, though, that I think most of us weren't aware we were lying....like when we told a younger sibling about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny and believed it ourselves.

Pillai said that people in Biblical times gave something on their birthday, rather than receive something. Does anyone know if there is any substantiation for this claim? We know they must have counted birthdays for the purpose of chronology and that certain birthdays were special, but, did they actually celebrate birthdays in the same sense as we do?

Yes, you can only be 50 once....but you can celebrate it as many times as you want to.

It makes me glad I never rose beyond the rank of peon.

Exactly. There are new groups constantly springing up on FB....Skype type fellowships...taped teachings on youtube......and even live, on-line excellor sessions.....and then there's the debacle waiting to happen in Mississippi.

Two big big problems I see with trying to explain things away with administrations: Wierwille said, in PFAL, that because the Ten Commandments are from an administration that no longer involves us or applies to us directly, we technically don't need to follow them, because, he said, The Great Commandment (Love God with all your heart, etc.) and The Second Great Commandment (Love your neighbor as yourself) supersede them and, thus, if we follow these two, we will be following the Ten Commandments inherently. In other words, if we follow the two Great Commandments, we wouldn't kill someone anyway. Here's where it gets stupid. Problem one: If you can use that logic to show that murder is wrong, how can you NOT say that the rest of the list (which includes adultery) needs to be treated equally? Problem two: The Great Commandment and its addendum, as found in the New Testament, are really, in essence, simply a restating of values that were originally set forth in the Old Testament. (Lev. and Deut.) So, logic would seem to say that they don't hold some sort of special significance that is proprietary to a specific era of time, nor do they supersede the essence of what was stated in The Ten Commandments. ...................................................................... Wierwille, of course, explained away part of this dilemma, in the Advanced Class, by saying that, when the Bible talks about "adultery", it is really talking about idolatry. So, his logic was that adultery is not really referring to the physical act of intercourse, but to something "spiritual". He went on to suggest that anyone who did not understand this, was somehow lacking in their ability to understand spiritual matters. ............................................................. Wierwille was no big shot leader with a special, inside track on understanding spiritual matters. He was just another self-centered, charismatic fool who abused the scriptures and used Darby's Administrations to rationalize his deviant behaviors.