waysider

22

I signed them up for the class. :(

Well, you can't "beat" that.

Exactly! People were practicing glossolalia long before Jesus was ever born. Hence, they could not have "made Jesus Lord". Wierwille latched onto the old glossolalia movement that was re-energized in the early twentieth century and said, "Oh, look, keeds, this MUST be what the Bible is talking about when it refers to speaking in tongues." Toss in a smattering of very "privately interpreted" scriptures and BINGO!, you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you! Does this mean that the Jews and pagans who practiced glossolalia (which is what we called SIT) before Christ's time are going to heaven, too? We really have no way that I am aware of to know what the Bible is referencing when it talks about speaking in tongues. I'm pretty sure, though, that it's not some process you are required to partake of on a daily (and excessive) basis before you can any hope of having a spiritual connection to God.

Man has already destroyed large and important portions of the Earth and continues to do so at a rapid pace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation That subject, though, really deserves a thread of its own.

Here's part of the SIT doctrine as presented in the Advanced Class. "Speaking in tongues much daily is prerequisite to receiving revelation." Has anyone ever stopped to consider the absurdity of this? ********************************************** Or how about this from PLAF. "You have to speak in tongues much so the Christ in you will be spiritually nurtured and grow big and strong." Helloooo? You supposedly have this spirit inside you that is completely, completely complete, perfect in every way, but you have to water it and sprinkle on a steady diet of spirit food so it can get more "completer" and more "perfecter"? ************************* These are examples of what I am talking about when I say SIT (Way doctrine regarding speaking in tongues/ glossolalia) is bogus.

I'm not sure what else I could possibly say to stress that I am not interested in validating or invalidating anyone's personal experience with speaking in tongues. My point is simply this: When it comes to spiritual matters, Way doctrine has an extremely low level of credibility. Consider, for example, the Advanced Class teachings on devil spirits, discerning of spirits and the rest of the revelation and impartation manifestations. Think about how far out in la-la land some of that material is. Why, on Earth, should we assume then that the doctrines surrounding the subject of speaking in tongues are any more credible? Should we blindly accept everything that was presented in sessions 11 & 12 as if it is the end all answer to everything you ever wanted to know about speaking in tongues? I think that would be an unwise decision.

Well said, George.

How can we even know if this thing we call "speaking in tongues" is, indeed, the same thing being referred to in Acts and Cor.?----or if this admonition was directed solely toward a specific group at a specific space in time? This whole concept of increasing your spiritual prowess in direct proportion to time spent practicing glossolalia (sessions 11 & 12) would appear to greatly diminish the importance of anything that may have been accomplished on the cross.

Apparently, I have failed to make myself clear. I am not addressing the practice of speaking in tongues per se. Nor am I addressing it's validity. What I am addressing is the doctrine of "SIT" that was built around it in Way theology. Clearly, it's not "spiritual mashed potatoes for the Christ in you" or "proof that you're going to heaven and all hell can't stop you." as was taught in the context of SIT. I propose that much of what we think we know about speaking in tongues is really just Way theology (ie:SIT)

Maybe for some folks, but much more recent (and even current) for others. Time is irrelevant, though. Would you tell a rape victim to "get over it" simply because much time has elapsed? Everyone's time table for healing is uniquely theirs.

Maybe I missed something. How exactly is this situation Obama's fault?

Wasn't it Wierwille who claimed there was a devil spirit lurking behind every statue?

Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?

In the 1960's, there was a little bar on the East Side of Cleveland called Faragher's Back Room. It was a little hole in the wall. Mostly it featured local talent but many times you could catch an up and coming act such as Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, Phil Ochs, Eric Anderson, etc. as they were passing through town. I don't think there was even a cover charge. Of course, they weren't "famous" yet at that time. http://ech.cwru.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=FBR

The standard teaching in TWI was that Jesus had to have had perfect "believing" and never doubt for a second in order to pull off his feat. And the idea was that if we could perfect our "believing" in like manner, we could do the same thing. Does anyone see a huge problem with this? Well, for starters, the "law" of believing is bogus! This wasn't a promotion of what Jesus did. It was an infomercial for TWI doctrine. (specifically, the "law" of believing.) Therefore it's a moot point . Now, with that obstacle out of the way, who's to say he never had any doubts about anything? Maybe he actually said "Why have you forsaken me?" because that's how he really felt. Just a thought.

Hiya, tag SIT is the acronym that The Way used to refer to it's particular brand of doctrine regarding speaking in tongues. It is my contention that SIT (TWI's particular brand of doctrine regarding speaking in tongues) is bogus. Thanks for asking.

I could be mistaken (on account of I'm an old guy now and my memory ain't what it used to be) but I seem to recall that particular version being part of CF&S.

I was looking for a replacement for my lost PLAF book and stumbbled in the door.

Here's my metaphysical thought for the day: Suppose God really talks to us in ways that transcend "language" as we know it. Wouldn't that make The Way and all it's intricate studies of specific "words" a rather diabolical twist of irony?

Out of respect, we should probably retire this thread, now that he has passed on. Just a thought.

When I took PLAF (The Wonder Class), it was 13 sessions long. After session 12, you were officially a grad but eligible for session 13. That session was supposed to be like the hidden track on a CD or something. The 13th session consisted of another hour or so of audio taped teaching regarding SIT, TIP and Prophecy. It was really like a less energetic version of sessions 11 and 12 combined. No, there were no examples of Wierwille showcasing his product. It was just straightforward teaching fare. Looking back, I believe it was probably material that had been cut from the main body of the class because it didn't follow the emotional pattern of the rest of it. After that extra hour or so, the class broke up into small participatory groups that later became known as excellor sessions That session came to be known as the T.I.P. session. I think the whole thing lasted 2-3 hours tops. (with refreshments) Later, it got extended to the full blown, three session, Intermediate Class. Still not much more teaching. Lots of added excellor session activity. If you wanted to take the AC, you had to pay for and take the Intermediate even if you had sat through T.I.P. That kind of fried me at the time because I had done all three mannies before I ever took the PLAF class. But, being a good wayfer kind of guy, I kept my mouth shut and followed orders. I guess that's a 'round about way of saying that I never heard him do much of anything beyond what was in those classes. edited to add: When I was in Fellow Laborers, it was pretty rare to hear a limb leader or any high ranking "mucky muck" speak in tongues and interpret. In fact, it was seen as somewhat of an imposition on them to do TIP. You were never supposed to call on them in a believer's meeting. If anything, they would sometimes give a "word of prophesy" if they were running the show. There was some kind of rationalization that prophesy was heavier stuff or something.

Ever think about how amazing evolution is? Not the kind where man evolved from an amoeba. No, what I'm talking about is the millions of seemingly independent examples that don't seem to be related in the least bit. Like how certain types of algae have evolved to produce pigments that will block out specific wavelengths of light that could endanger their future. Or how the common housefly has developed the ability to synthesize an anti-freeze like substance to fill it's circulatory system so it can survive the brutality of winter and knows exactly when to put the whole shebang in motion. Maybe there's some kind of lesson in all this. I'm not sure. Seems to me, though, like it can't be summed up into some nice, neat little lesson to be expounded from a pulpit on Sunday morning. (or night)