It wouldn't have surprised me one bit at all to see Dr, on occasions, lower his fluency from the high level I did hear to a lower level. But I AM surprised none of you Sherlock Holmes wannabes out there could not come up with this notion on your own. (Or was it deliberately suppressed?)
I have noticed that if I'm tired or distracted, then my fluency could go down.
Just like fear limits SIT, fatigue and distraction can place limitations on our willingness to accommodate God in speaking forth unusual sounds.
Just how inexperienced with tongues and fluency WERE you people?
I'm constantly running into criticism of what Dr taught from people who DIDN'T LEARN what Dr taught!
Or at least not very deep nor very detailed.
***
Speaking of “willingness to accommodate,” that reminds me of another method I’d use in my Excellors’ Sessions. We’d go up and down the alphabet and “force” only sentences that began with a particular letter. Or we’d “fill” a segment of SIT with an abundance of that particular letter’s sound.
It seems that God was VERY willing to accommodate us in this alphabet exercise!
I'm not trying to be insulting or an arrogant a-hole,
but,
Have you ever considered the possibility that you're NOT the only person left in the whole world who really understands the intricate subtleties of Almighty God and His foremost prophet V.P. Wierwille, but that you're simply batsheit crazy?
Speaking of “willingness to accommodate,” that reminds me of another method I’d use in my Excellors’ Sessions. We’d go up and down the alphabet and “force” only sentences that began with a particular letter. Or we’d “fill” a segment of SIT with an abundance of that particular letter’s sound.
It seems that God was VERY willing to accommodate us in this alphabet exercise!
Mike,
I have seen this exact same method used to teach theatrical students how to be fluent in improvisation.
They "invent" a language and then do a variety of exercises that includes the ones you described.
Dr. W. said that SIT could not be faked and yet there is evidence that he, as well as many others, did exactly that.
Any other former thespians here ever do this exercise?
When I inquired about what I had seen in the theatre, I was told that what I saw was a counterfeit propounded by devil spirits because there was no "interpretation" given and it did not follow the prescibed format for a " believer's meeting".
Seems like that is the same thing done in an "Excellor Session".
Did "Excellor Sessions" follow the rules set forth in the TIP class?(Intermediate) or were they exempt?
One of the reasons I got booted from TWI was that I questioned the doctrine that I could force God to accommodate my preferences in speaking in tongues. I got a big kick in one exceller's session when the leader asked soemone to SIT emphasizing the letter V, and the that person spoke in tongues for about a minute and a half without a SINGLE V! I think it was God saying, "I'm in charge."
Fluency is a natural part of any spoken language, so it is logical that it be part of an unknown tongue. So what if VP had us think about moving our lips, throats, and tongues; so what if he had us start each tongue sentence with a consonant; doing those exercises functioned as training wheels. Many people with religious backgrounds probably had to fend off the idea that tongues was weird, so VP got us to think about something other than "this is too weird" to practice tongues. No big deal to me; most of my SIT has been in my personal prayer life without any practicing placebos.
quote: Tongues are pneumatikos, "spiritual matters."
Yeah, but you can still HEAR them with your 5 senses ears, right? If a tongue give an uncertain SOUND, what good is it? God's word is a spiritual matter, but we still have to read our bibles, right? With our 5 senses EYES? Right? You don't think the first century believers ever had to deal with this? This is just another bash VP thread.
Fluency is a speech and language pathology term that means the smoothness or flow with which sounds, syllables, words and phrases are joined together when speaking. [1]. Fluency disorders is used as a collective term for cluttering and stuttering. Both disorders have breaks in the fluidity of speech, and both have the fluency breakdown of repetition of parts of speech. Fluency disorders are most often complex in nature and they tend to occur more often in boys than in girls[2].
So - eliminating the "pathology" part of this - the idea of being "fluent" in a tongue seems to flow with what we believed we were doing. My biggest problem from the beginning was that with all of VP's talk about teaching straight from the Word, he never was able to show any reason for an excellor session given in scripture.
BUT - did you ever notice that with all the excellor sessions to get fluent in tongues, the interpretations stayed stuck in the same old pattern?
So far I'm not bashing anyone here. I do believe that there was error in how the whole subject of tongues with interpretation was handled, though.
John, I agree that there are people who consistently post to "bash VP". There are also those who want to "protect" him, ignore his errors, etc. This thread wasn't started by someone who is interested in preserving what was right with VP Wierwille. It was started, at least as I read it, in the interest of presenting "the other side of the story." Other threads are started by those who are of the other persuasion, who believe that God ordained VPW to teach the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century. Granted, there are fewer of those here. Many posters fall somewhere in the middle of the one "side" or the other. There has been bashing and defending on this thread, and there has been a lot of stuff in between. It's a discussion. Take your best shot. Try not to take things personally. (That's not directed at you. General declarative statement.) I'm just trying to be honest. I listen to everyone, at least until I know them pretty well, then I may skip them at times because their posts don't generally help me, or I simply don't want to hear that POV at the moment, kinda like switching from Fox News to Algezera or NPR.
People see things differently than I do. Maybe they are stupid or possessed (not words I usually use, and I do not subscribe to the commonly understood definition), and then again, maybe I am. Maybe we're just two different people with differing life experiences. Someone might call this whole site a "bash VP" and "bash TWI" website. Its orientation is to tell the other side of the story, but I think if one pays attention, "the other side of the story" may include some more moderate and reasonable voices.
John, I agree that there are people who consistently post to "bash VP". There are also those who want to "protect" him, ignore his errors, etc. This thread wasn't started by someone who is interested in preserving what was right with VP Wierwille. It was started, at least as I read it, in the interest of presenting "the other side of the story." Other threads are started by those who are of the other persuasion, who believe that God ordained VPW to teach the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century. Granted, there are fewer of those here. Many posters fall somewhere in the middle of the one "side" or the other. There has been bashing and defending on this thread, and there has been a lot of stuff in between. It's a discussion. Take your best shot. Try not to take things personally. (That's not directed at you. General declarative statement.) I'm just trying to be honest. I listen to everyone, at least until I know them pretty well, then I may skip them at times because their posts don't generally help me, or I simply don't want to hear that POV at the moment, kinda like switching from Fox News to Algezera or NPR.
People see things differently than I do. Maybe they are stupid or possessed (not words I usually use, and I do not subscribe to the commonly understood definition), and then again, maybe I am. Maybe we're just two different people with differing life experiences. Someone might call this whole site a "bash VP" and "bash TWI" website. Its orientation is to tell the other side of the story, but I think if one pays attention, "the other side of the story" may include some more moderate and reasonable voices.
Well said Dan!
There is never one side to any story...there are many sides...GOD is judge; He weighs and determines the truth, not mankind!
I dunno. I think some guy who's been "speaking in tongues" for say what.. over twenty years.. and can't produce more than four or five distinct words, with practically the same inflection, and claims fluency in tongues..
if the description "counterfiet" fits, well.. it's hardly bashing, is it?
I thought the "evidence" of tongues was supposed to convince the "unbeliever"..
I couldn't find the post, but.. like our very own Georgio Jessio said, more likely Lindy though.. "if you get the reference, we may have some issues.."
Honestly.. considering most twi'ers avoided that show like the plague.. if somebody piped up with that as a tongue in the twelfth session.. they'd a thought it was a real tongue..
Another thing about fluency: I was in choir from 7th thru 12th grades and many times we were instructed to sing words differently than they would be phrased if they were spoken. For instance, lowered instead of Lord, jaw instead of jar, deestance instead of distance, etc. I wrote a song in the 80s called 'walk in the spirit'. The song quotes a lot of Galatians, including 3:13 - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. If you speak those words you have to hesitate going from the st in Christ to the next word, the th in hath going to the next word, and the ed in redeemed. You can speak it and hesitate with no difficulty, but to sing it in meter is more difficult. So in that part of the song I instructed those singing it to phrase the first four words as follows.....cry-stah-three-deem-duss. Made the job a lot easier.
Fluency is just a part of speaking ANYTHING. To nit pick about fluency is like objecting to the fact that the tongue words have vowels, consonants, and syllables.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
17
18
41
Popular Days
Sep 9
48
Sep 11
40
Sep 13
22
Mar 21
12
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 13 posts
johniam 17 posts
Ham 18 posts
waysider 41 posts
Popular Days
Sep 9 2007
48 posts
Sep 11 2007
40 posts
Sep 13 2007
22 posts
Mar 21 2010
12 posts
coolchef
i still think it was mostly{not all } a pile of bunk
did i hear fake orgasams?!lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
It wouldn't have surprised me one bit at all to see Dr, on occasions, lower his fluency from the high level I did hear to a lower level. But I AM surprised none of you Sherlock Holmes wannabes out there could not come up with this notion on your own. (Or was it deliberately suppressed?)
I have noticed that if I'm tired or distracted, then my fluency could go down.
Just like fear limits SIT, fatigue and distraction can place limitations on our willingness to accommodate God in speaking forth unusual sounds.
Just how inexperienced with tongues and fluency WERE you people?
I'm constantly running into criticism of what Dr taught from people who DIDN'T LEARN what Dr taught!
Or at least not very deep nor very detailed.
***
Speaking of “willingness to accommodate,” that reminds me of another method I’d use in my Excellors’ Sessions. We’d go up and down the alphabet and “force” only sentences that began with a particular letter. Or we’d “fill” a segment of SIT with an abundance of that particular letter’s sound.
It seems that God was VERY willing to accommodate us in this alphabet exercise!
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Mike,
I'm not trying to be insulting or an arrogant a-hole,
but,
Have you ever considered the possibility that you're NOT the only person left in the whole world who really understands the intricate subtleties of Almighty God and His foremost prophet V.P. Wierwille, but that you're simply batsheit crazy?
Just wondering...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
George,
You're also not trying to address the spiritual issues, so you turn to the subject of me.
Bore me with something other than me, ok?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
fluency in speaking in tongues -- what a concept! Getting good at it.
Why didn't anyone else think of that since the First Century?
quote:
George,
You're also not trying to address the spiritual issues, so you turn to the subject of me.
Mike, George is a non-theist. There are no spiritual issues. There is, however, you. So he deals with you.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Mike. :)
I'm not a Sherlock Holmes wanna-be,
and I'm not sure where you were going with that post,
but SIT is SIT. To heck with fluency.
If one believes in it -- it is a God given thing.
If one doesn't believe in it -- it's a bunch of malarky.
Either way (believing or not believing in it),
fluency (as if it can be determined), doesn't enter into the picture ---
unless you (or anyone) wants to impose man's *values*
on something that God made available for mankind.
If you believe SIT is a bunch of malarky --
you're spared the *mental anguish* of "grading fluency".
If you believe SIT is of God ------
you're spared the *mental anguish* of "grading fluency".
If you're from twi (and yea -- I *ginosko* this all too well),
you're "graded" from the git-go, and the curve system doesn't apply.
IMHO -- you either speak, or you don't. You interpret, or you don't.
Fluency has nothing to do with it.
If it does -- it's a man made concept applied to spiritual matters,
and has no place in the *discussion* whatsoever.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Machine wrapped with butter?
Machine wrapped with butter!
(nods knowingly, with wry smile)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
curvaciously mocking squirrels
This guy is "fluent." But not by faking the alphabet.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Oo shanta malaka sito la shonta."
I think that's the sentence we've all heard from vpw,
in the classes, and in a variety of settings in twi after that down the years.
Including when he was making a big deal that the utterance was SPECIFICALLY
from God.
Of course, some may wonder if this was a repeat of behaviour he freely admitted
to performing back in 1953, when someone tried to minister to him so he could
speak in tongues, and he chose to PRETEND HE DID,
and spoke Greek,
which they somehow didn't recognize.
I think it's worth considering.
Hey, if this "fluency" issue is worth mentioning when someone wants to know
if the only SIT he supposedly did was the same sentence all over the place,
then certainly whether this same sentence was actually given by God lots and
lots of times, syllable exact to syllable, all over the place and down the years.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike,
I have seen this exact same method used to teach theatrical students how to be fluent in improvisation.
They "invent" a language and then do a variety of exercises that includes the ones you described.
Dr. W. said that SIT could not be faked and yet there is evidence that he, as well as many others, did exactly that.
Any other former thespians here ever do this exercise?
When I inquired about what I had seen in the theatre, I was told that what I saw was a counterfeit propounded by devil spirits because there was no "interpretation" given and it did not follow the prescibed format for a " believer's meeting".
Seems like that is the same thing done in an "Excellor Session".
Did "Excellor Sessions" follow the rules set forth in the TIP class?(Intermediate) or were they exempt?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
One of the reasons I got booted from TWI was that I questioned the doctrine that I could force God to accommodate my preferences in speaking in tongues. I got a big kick in one exceller's session when the leader asked soemone to SIT emphasizing the letter V, and the that person spoke in tongues for about a minute and a half without a SINGLE V! I think it was God saying, "I'm in charge."
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Remember that song, "The Name Game?"
"Let's do Shirley!
Shirley, Shirley Bo-birley
Banana-fana fo Firley
Fee Fi Fi Fo Mirley
Shirley!"
"Lo Shanta!
Lo shanta, shanta Bo-anta
Banana-fana fo-anta
Fee Fi Fo Manta
Lo shanta"
Keep up the good work! You'll be fluent in no time! <_<
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Fluency is a natural part of any spoken language, so it is logical that it be part of an unknown tongue. So what if VP had us think about moving our lips, throats, and tongues; so what if he had us start each tongue sentence with a consonant; doing those exercises functioned as training wheels. Many people with religious backgrounds probably had to fend off the idea that tongues was weird, so VP got us to think about something other than "this is too weird" to practice tongues. No big deal to me; most of my SIT has been in my personal prayer life without any practicing placebos.
Oh, by the way. It still works :).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
John, but that's not the point with tongues, is it? Tongues are pneumatikos, "spiritual matters."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Tongues are pneumatikos, "spiritual matters."
Yeah, but you can still HEAR them with your 5 senses ears, right? If a tongue give an uncertain SOUND, what good is it? God's word is a spiritual matter, but we still have to read our bibles, right? With our 5 senses EYES? Right? You don't think the first century believers ever had to deal with this? This is just another bash VP thread.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Actually Johniam, I had a funny feeling about the "excellor sessions" from the first time I heard about them.
Now - this thread did pose a question asking if anyone ever heard VP SIT outside of the class...
It has changed to a related subject.
Here's what I got on a quick (Very - I would look to more sources given the time) search:
From Wikipedea
Speech and Language Pathology
Fluency is a speech and language pathology term that means the smoothness or flow with which sounds, syllables, words and phrases are joined together when speaking. [1]. Fluency disorders is used as a collective term for cluttering and stuttering. Both disorders have breaks in the fluidity of speech, and both have the fluency breakdown of repetition of parts of speech. Fluency disorders are most often complex in nature and they tend to occur more often in boys than in girls[2].
So - eliminating the "pathology" part of this - the idea of being "fluent" in a tongue seems to flow with what we believed we were doing. My biggest problem from the beginning was that with all of VP's talk about teaching straight from the Word, he never was able to show any reason for an excellor session given in scripture.
BUT - did you ever notice that with all the excellor sessions to get fluent in tongues, the interpretations stayed stuck in the same old pattern?
So far I'm not bashing anyone here. I do believe that there was error in how the whole subject of tongues with interpretation was handled, though.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
John, I agree that there are people who consistently post to "bash VP". There are also those who want to "protect" him, ignore his errors, etc. This thread wasn't started by someone who is interested in preserving what was right with VP Wierwille. It was started, at least as I read it, in the interest of presenting "the other side of the story." Other threads are started by those who are of the other persuasion, who believe that God ordained VPW to teach the Word like it had not been known since the 1st century. Granted, there are fewer of those here. Many posters fall somewhere in the middle of the one "side" or the other. There has been bashing and defending on this thread, and there has been a lot of stuff in between. It's a discussion. Take your best shot. Try not to take things personally. (That's not directed at you. General declarative statement.) I'm just trying to be honest. I listen to everyone, at least until I know them pretty well, then I may skip them at times because their posts don't generally help me, or I simply don't want to hear that POV at the moment, kinda like switching from Fox News to Algezera or NPR.
People see things differently than I do. Maybe they are stupid or possessed (not words I usually use, and I do not subscribe to the commonly understood definition), and then again, maybe I am. Maybe we're just two different people with differing life experiences. Someone might call this whole site a "bash VP" and "bash TWI" website. Its orientation is to tell the other side of the story, but I think if one pays attention, "the other side of the story" may include some more moderate and reasonable voices.
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Well said Dan!
There is never one side to any story...there are many sides...GOD is judge; He weighs and determines the truth, not mankind!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I think some guy who's been "speaking in tongues" for say what.. over twenty years.. and can't produce more than four or five distinct words, with practically the same inflection, and claims fluency in tongues..
if the description "counterfiet" fits, well.. it's hardly bashing, is it?
I thought the "evidence" of tongues was supposed to convince the "unbeliever"..
not give them a good reason to doubt.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"Mekka lekka hi mekka hiney ho. ... hiney ho. mekka lekka mekka lekka.."
"wowser.. what an awsome display of power.."
"praise the lord, and pass the horn.."
I couldn't find the post, but.. like our very own Georgio Jessio said, more likely Lindy though.. "if you get the reference, we may have some issues.."
Honestly.. considering most twi'ers avoided that show like the plague.. if somebody piped up with that as a tongue in the twelfth session.. they'd a thought it was a real tongue..
Edited by Mr. HammeroniLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If the class instructor got the reference.. he'd probably be trying to cast "spirits" out of the poor guy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Maybe I would have been more "fluent" if I had practiced that way!
So, we're still at just three people and those three (perhaps, excepting mike) heard pretty much the same thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Nice post, Belle, with a nod to the original poster.
How 'bout a slice of pie?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Another thing about fluency: I was in choir from 7th thru 12th grades and many times we were instructed to sing words differently than they would be phrased if they were spoken. For instance, lowered instead of Lord, jaw instead of jar, deestance instead of distance, etc. I wrote a song in the 80s called 'walk in the spirit'. The song quotes a lot of Galatians, including 3:13 - Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. If you speak those words you have to hesitate going from the st in Christ to the next word, the th in hath going to the next word, and the ed in redeemed. You can speak it and hesitate with no difficulty, but to sing it in meter is more difficult. So in that part of the song I instructed those singing it to phrase the first four words as follows.....cry-stah-three-deem-duss. Made the job a lot easier.
Fluency is just a part of speaking ANYTHING. To nit pick about fluency is like objecting to the fact that the tongue words have vowels, consonants, and syllables.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.