Remember in session 12 when Dr. W. talked about a guy who had a tongue that was merely grunts and groans and guttural sounds? He used this to persuade us that it did not matter what your tongue sounded like because it came from God.
This was intended(imo) to relax class members who were self conscious of their "tongue" and encourage them to "manifest" no matter what it sounded like.
So here's my question:
If it didn't matter that this guy's "tongue" sounded wacky, how come we had to have practice sessions to make ours sound eloquent? <_<
I'm just sayin'----------
snip
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.
" ---tongue words have vowels, consonants, and syllables."------johniam
( Not necessarily true according to VPW in session 12.)
If it didn't matter that this guy's "tongue" sounded wacky, how come we had to have practice sessions to make ours sound eloquent?
The guy's tongue sounding wacky has to do with THAT you SIT; the practice sessions had more to do with HOW MUCH BENEFIT you get from SIT. Not only will practice sessions act as training wheels for doing it more on your own, but when you SIT with interpretation, the more fluent your tongue, the better the interpretation. Belittle it all you want, it still works.
Angels not only speak English, they speak "Olde English"!
For yea verily I say unto you, "dost thou not knowest this?"
Verily I say unto you this day ... that was the interpretation ... which was supposed to be english for us, I guess using the king's english made it more authoritative
The angel language wasn't english ...
and I thought olde english was different ...
like Chaucer, but I can't remember that poem from high school, and maybe that is middle english.
If it didn't matter that this guy's "tongue" sounded wacky, how come we had to have practice sessions to make ours sound eloquent?
The guy's tongue sounding wacky has to do with THAT you SIT; the practice sessions had more to do with HOW MUCH BENEFIT you get from SIT. Not only will practice sessions act as training wheels for doing it more on your own, but when you SIT with interpretation, the more fluent your tongue, the better the interpretation. Belittle it all you want, it still works.
Twi's excellor sessions were hideously wrong. The spirit gives the utterance...you don't practice it. There's nothing in scripture that even vaguely resembles the perversions that twi practiced.
How much benefit you get from it?...Good grief!...that's made up. There's nothing biblical about it. The benefit from it comes when it's genuine...not when you follow an instructors manual.
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...
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?
...Mike, George is a non-theist. There are no spiritual issues. There is, however, you. So he deals with you.
Thanks guys!!!! I needed a good laugh after a rough day!!!!!!!!
quote: Twi's excellor sessions were hideously wrong. The spirit gives the utterance...you don't practice it. There's nothing in scripture that even vaguely resembles the perversions that twi practiced.
quote: First one to find a scripture reference or scriptural support for "Excellor Sessions" gets a kewpie doll and a year's supply of "green cards".
1 Cor. 14:27 - if any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret
verse 40 - Let all things be done decently and in order.
Now get out of GSC brain for a second and think. If Paul can say 1) by two or by three, 2) by course (one at a time), and 3) decent and in order, then why can't some other man say 1) you move your lips, your throat, your tongue, 2) get real fluent at it, or 3) wonderful, wonderful, all right...now, speak in tongues, just keep speaking, isn't God wonderful?
God is a God of order, not confusion. One of the major premises of pfal is that if the bible is really God's word, then there can't be multiple interpretations of it. But the critics say that anybody can interpret it any way they want and it's OK. This absolves them of the responsibility before God to try to understand His word. All these churches where "the spirit controls the tongue" are the ones where several people speak at the same time and there's no interpretation and maybe they break out the snakes. Not very decent and in order.
The word utterance in Acts 2:4 (the spirit gave them utterance) is a very long greek word used only 2 other times in the NT, both in Acts. VP said it meant that the gift of holy spirit gave their mind the words to speak and he was right. Acts 2:14 - but Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them.... also Acts 26:25 - but he (Paul) said I am not mad most noble Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness.
The spirit wasn't speaking, Peter and Paul were. The spirit gave them the words. You can keep the kewpie doll and the cards, thanx.
Now get out of GSC brain for a second and think. If Paul can say 1) by two or by three, 2) by course (one at a time), and 3) decent and in order, then why can't some other man say 1) you move your lips, your mouth, your tongue, 2) get real fluent at it, or 3) wonderful, wonderful, all right...now, speak in tongues, just keep speaking, isn't God wonderful?
Because --- when Paul said what he did ---
The folks he was writing to (speaking to) ALREADY spoke in tongues.
He wasn't leading them into it by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm not trying to pick on you, but do you not see the obvious contradictions in your own post?
First you quote I Cor. 14:27 where it clearly states,"let one interpret."
Then you excuse the fact that interpretation was not given by suggesting that the words of Dr. Wierwille were somehow on a parallel with the words of the apostle Paul.
Next, you ignore the fact that it states,"at the most by three."
Sorry, I fail to see how that is giving any scriptural credibility to excellor sessions.
Whether or not you do it in an orderly fashion is not the issue here. There is still no scriptural support to "practice"your fluency.
Still haven't seen biblically or logically how one can improve by practicing something that is already perfect (perfect prayer, wonderful works of God etc). Now if by "fluent", Wierwille really meant "comfortable", now that's another thing. If someone is shy or unsure, wouldn't the words still be perfect, while the delivery is shaky?
I don't know if "comfortable" is what ole vp intended, maybe those familiar with Stiles and Leonard"s ways of leading into tongues might be able to shed some light on it to see if vp "borrowed" fluency by excellors sessions from them.
I never did SIT at the 12th session, it was too much in your face and too many people around for me.  I did SIT that night at home alone with God though, it was as fluent that first night as it is today. Â
I never thought of excellers sessions, after the fact, as something I personally needed, I did see others struggling with SIT though.  I always attributed that to the individual being unsure of themselves or unsure in the faith. Â
When I've lead others into tongues without a class, the excellers part was used to make the receiver more comfortable and more familiar with speaking in tongues in general, sort of created some momentum toward them doing it themselves.
I used to go through the reasons for excellor sessions. I'd say that just like someone from China can't say their "R" sounds because their natural language has no such sound, we would sometimes need to make a sound or group of sounds that was foriegn to our mouths. Hence the need for excellor sessions.
BUT - when I speak in tongues in my head - there is no mouth that moves. No tongue gets tangled up. There is no stuttering and stumbling.
This is what finally convinced me that the whole "excellor session" thing was a bunch of bunk, hooie and hogwash.
If SIT is perfect - then it should stand to reason that tongues would be perfect when I did it in my head. The only reason for stumbling would be to get my body to do respond to a language with foreign sounds.
John you still can't find a Biblical, scriptural reason and justification for excellor sessions.
quote: Twi's excellor sessions were hideously wrong. The spirit gives the utterance...you don't practice it. There's nothing in scripture that even vaguely resembles the perversions that twi practiced.
quote: First one to find a scripture reference or scriptural support for "Excellor Sessions" gets a kewpie doll and a year's supply of "green cards".
1 Cor. 14:27 - if any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret
verse 40 - Let all things be done decently and in order.
Now get out of GSC brain for a second and think. If Paul can say 1) by two or by three, 2) by course (one at a time), and 3) decent and in order, then why can't some other man say 1) you move your lips, your throat, your tongue, 2) get real fluent at it, or 3) wonderful, wonderful, all right...now, speak in tongues, just keep speaking, isn't God wonderful?
Now, get out of TWI brain for a second and think. These scriptures were used to justify and explain the way manifestations were held in fellowship - NOT with "practicing" or trying to "learn" or becoming "fluent" in something that is supposedly divinely inspired.
You can't get "practice sessions" anywhere from those scriptures without "private interpretation".
God is a God of order, not confusion. One of the major premises of pfal is that if the bible is really God's word, then there can't be multiple interpretations of it. But the critics say that anybody can interpret it any way they want and it's OK. This absolves them of the responsibility before God to try to understand His word. All these churches where "the spirit controls the tongue" are the ones where several people speak at the same time and there's no interpretation and maybe they break out the snakes. Not very decent and in order.
And, you've been to EVERY church where people speak in tongues? Careful there, Bud. I've experienced just the opposite and they don't "practice".
IF there is only ONE interpretation of the bible, then who's to say and how can you be so sure YOURS in THE one? It's that kind of arrogance that gets people into trouble.
The word utterance in Acts 2:4 (the spirit gave them utterance) is a very long greek word used only 2 other times in the NT, both in Acts. VP said it meant that the gift of holy spirit gave their mind the words to speak and he was right. Acts 2:14 - but Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them.... also Acts 26:25 - but he (Paul) said I am not mad most noble Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness.
The spirit wasn't speaking, Peter and Paul were. The spirit gave them the words. You can keep the kewpie doll and the cards, thanx.
IF the gift of holy spirit gave their mind the words, then why on earth would they need to practice it?? How does this justify your position? And what vee pee said it meant is immaterial, what does it REALLY mean? Back up vee pee's declaration with some credible sources, please.
No kewpie doll for you.... yet.... feel free to try again. :)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
18
41
13
Popular Days
Sep 9
48
Sep 11
40
Sep 13
22
Mar 21
12
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 17 posts
Ham 18 posts
waysider 41 posts
anotherDan 13 posts
Popular Days
Sep 9 2007
48 posts
Sep 11 2007
40 posts
Sep 13 2007
22 posts
Mar 21 2010
12 posts
waysider
Remember in session 12 when Dr. W. talked about a guy who had a tongue that was merely grunts and groans and guttural sounds? He used this to persuade us that it did not matter what your tongue sounded like because it came from God.
This was intended(imo) to relax class members who were self conscious of their "tongue" and encourage them to "manifest" no matter what it sounded like.
So here's my question:
If it didn't matter that this guy's "tongue" sounded wacky, how come we had to have practice sessions to make ours sound eloquent? <_<
I'm just sayin'----------
" ---tongue words have vowels, consonants, and syllables."------johniam
( Not necessarily true according to VPW in session 12.)
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Waysider
Great question
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oh yeah i remember that guttural guy
as far as this natural fluency..... talked to any angels lately ? ;)
speaking of angels, i have REALLY derailed my own thread ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
the excellors sessions needed to use the angel alphabet ... or foreign tongue alphabet ...
by using english, we were limiting the other languages ... right?
Excie is an angel, so she is speaking in tongues all the time?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
abso f'ing lutely my dear
i don't know why paw doesn't see it that way
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
hmm.. have I talked to angels lately.. only one here I am aware of..
:)
Speaking of guttural tongues..
oooh eeee. ooooh, eeeee. oooh, eeee, oooh.
after a few "excellor's" sessions..
"ooh, eee, oooh ah ah, ..."
sowy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Angels not only speak English, they speak "Olde English"!
For yea verily I say unto you, "dost thou not knowest this?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
verily of a truth i knowest this
how was that ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: So here's my question:
If it didn't matter that this guy's "tongue" sounded wacky, how come we had to have practice sessions to make ours sound eloquent?
The guy's tongue sounding wacky has to do with THAT you SIT; the practice sessions had more to do with HOW MUCH BENEFIT you get from SIT. Not only will practice sessions act as training wheels for doing it more on your own, but when you SIT with interpretation, the more fluent your tongue, the better the interpretation. Belittle it all you want, it still works.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't know..... jyam..... i did a lot of those....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ting tang walla walla bing bang----
Saaaaay! isn't that the one about the "Witch Dr."?!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Verily I say unto you this day ... that was the interpretation ... which was supposed to be english for us, I guess using the king's english made it more authoritative
The angel language wasn't english ...
and I thought olde english was different ...
like Chaucer, but I can't remember that poem from high school, and maybe that is middle english.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Twi's excellor sessions were hideously wrong. The spirit gives the utterance...you don't practice it. There's nothing in scripture that even vaguely resembles the perversions that twi practiced.
How much benefit you get from it?...Good grief!...that's made up. There's nothing biblical about it. The benefit from it comes when it's genuine...not when you follow an instructors manual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, I guess you guys are right.
"Olde English" is a malt liquor that is sold in 40 ounce bottles.
Errrr----That's what the guys at work told me.
"Say, Kids!!!!---------- Let's have an old fashioned "Biblical Research" party!!!"
First one to find a scripture reference or scriptural support for "Excellor Sessions" gets a kewpie doll and a year's supply of "green cards".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks guys!!!! I needed a good laugh after a rough day!!!!!!!!
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
:biglaugh:jump.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Twi's excellor sessions were hideously wrong. The spirit gives the utterance...you don't practice it. There's nothing in scripture that even vaguely resembles the perversions that twi practiced.
quote: First one to find a scripture reference or scriptural support for "Excellor Sessions" gets a kewpie doll and a year's supply of "green cards".
1 Cor. 14:27 - if any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret
verse 40 - Let all things be done decently and in order.
Now get out of GSC brain for a second and think. If Paul can say 1) by two or by three, 2) by course (one at a time), and 3) decent and in order, then why can't some other man say 1) you move your lips, your throat, your tongue, 2) get real fluent at it, or 3) wonderful, wonderful, all right...now, speak in tongues, just keep speaking, isn't God wonderful?
God is a God of order, not confusion. One of the major premises of pfal is that if the bible is really God's word, then there can't be multiple interpretations of it. But the critics say that anybody can interpret it any way they want and it's OK. This absolves them of the responsibility before God to try to understand His word. All these churches where "the spirit controls the tongue" are the ones where several people speak at the same time and there's no interpretation and maybe they break out the snakes. Not very decent and in order.
The word utterance in Acts 2:4 (the spirit gave them utterance) is a very long greek word used only 2 other times in the NT, both in Acts. VP said it meant that the gift of holy spirit gave their mind the words to speak and he was right. Acts 2:14 - but Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said unto them.... also Acts 26:25 - but he (Paul) said I am not mad most noble Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness.
The spirit wasn't speaking, Peter and Paul were. The spirit gave them the words. You can keep the kewpie doll and the cards, thanx.
Edited by johniamLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Because --- when Paul said what he did ---
The folks he was writing to (speaking to) ALREADY spoke in tongues.
He wasn't leading them into it by any stretch of the imagination.
That's the difference. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Johniam
I'm not trying to pick on you, but do you not see the obvious contradictions in your own post?
First you quote I Cor. 14:27 where it clearly states,"let one interpret."
Then you excuse the fact that interpretation was not given by suggesting that the words of Dr. Wierwille were somehow on a parallel with the words of the apostle Paul.
Next, you ignore the fact that it states,"at the most by three."
Sorry, I fail to see how that is giving any scriptural credibility to excellor sessions.
Whether or not you do it in an orderly fashion is not the issue here. There is still no scriptural support to "practice"your fluency.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Still haven't seen biblically or logically how one can improve by practicing something that is already perfect (perfect prayer, wonderful works of God etc). Now if by "fluent", Wierwille really meant "comfortable", now that's another thing. If someone is shy or unsure, wouldn't the words still be perfect, while the delivery is shaky?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I thought it was furniture polish..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
I don't know if "comfortable" is what ole vp intended, maybe those familiar with Stiles and Leonard"s ways of leading into tongues might be able to shed some light on it to see if vp "borrowed" fluency by excellors sessions from them.
I never did SIT at the 12th session, it was too much in your face and too many people around for me.  I did SIT that night at home alone with God though, it was as fluent that first night as it is today. Â
I never thought of excellers sessions, after the fact, as something I personally needed, I did see others struggling with SIT though.  I always attributed that to the individual being unsure of themselves or unsure in the faith. Â
When I've lead others into tongues without a class, the excellers part was used to make the receiver more comfortable and more familiar with speaking in tongues in general, sort of created some momentum toward them doing it themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
You know....here's some flawed logic for you...
I used to go through the reasons for excellor sessions. I'd say that just like someone from China can't say their "R" sounds because their natural language has no such sound, we would sometimes need to make a sound or group of sounds that was foriegn to our mouths. Hence the need for excellor sessions.
BUT - when I speak in tongues in my head - there is no mouth that moves. No tongue gets tangled up. There is no stuttering and stumbling.
This is what finally convinced me that the whole "excellor session" thing was a bunch of bunk, hooie and hogwash.
If SIT is perfect - then it should stand to reason that tongues would be perfect when I did it in my head. The only reason for stumbling would be to get my body to do respond to a language with foreign sounds.
John you still can't find a Biblical, scriptural reason and justification for excellor sessions.
Please return the prizes at the door.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Now, get out of TWI brain for a second and think. These scriptures were used to justify and explain the way manifestations were held in fellowship - NOT with "practicing" or trying to "learn" or becoming "fluent" in something that is supposedly divinely inspired.
You can't get "practice sessions" anywhere from those scriptures without "private interpretation".
And, you've been to EVERY church where people speak in tongues? Careful there, Bud. I've experienced just the opposite and they don't "practice".
IF there is only ONE interpretation of the bible, then who's to say and how can you be so sure YOURS in THE one? It's that kind of arrogance that gets people into trouble.
IF the gift of holy spirit gave their mind the words, then why on earth would they need to practice it?? How does this justify your position? And what vee pee said it meant is immaterial, what does it REALLY mean?
Back up vee pee's declaration with some credible sources, please.
No kewpie doll for you.... yet.... feel free to try again. :)
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.