SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Naten00]

Never being in "The Way" I can't really comment on their SIT thing... I just become very cautious when we starting telling God what He can and cannot do... Being apart of the Assemblies of God I do believe in it but not in the typical form the AG does it nor in the way my wife describes that way it was done in TWI. I think it is very clear that there was an unknown language in scripture but I think most people today babble saying the say thing over and over again... I have seen God do miracles before my eye's and too me like my moms heart being healed by the laying on of hands (she couldn't walk her heart was pumping so low and the docs said the scars on her heart would not heal) and more that many wouldn't believe...

I think the errors where more doctrinally in their tongues than anything else... LIke its tie in with Salvation or the spiritual sign it gave or anything like that.

[Raf]

I wasn't using the movie to prove my point. I was using the movie to illustrate it.

using the movie to prove my point would not have worked because in the end their hunger was satisfied by their imagination

the real world doesn't work that way except when it comes to speaking in tongues

[chockfull]

I wasn't using the movie to prove my point. I was using the movie to illustrate it.

using the movie to prove my point would not have worked because in the end their hunger was satisfied by their imagination

the real world doesn't work that way except when it comes to speaking in tongues

Your position is by no means unique. In the denomination where I had my first experience of that, I talked to two pastors in two different cities about the topic - same denomination. One told me he thought that it died out with the apostles, so anyone doing it today had to be faking it. The other used it regularly in his Tuesday night men's prayer meetings, but would not expose it to the Sunday services because it was too controversial for the general congregation.

Any other real world knowledge that you need to impart to me here, Captain Hook?

[Raf]

Yeah. The first pastor was leveling with you. You shoulda listened to him, Tink.

[Raf]

Yes, I'm just being flippant.

[chockfull]

Yeah. The first pastor was leveling with you. You shoulda listened to him, Tink.

Well from a practical point of view, if I would have, then I would have avoided the whole TWI thing. So maybe you have a point.

But from another point of view, how is it you're going to get rid of all that "tick, tock" noise following you around everywhere?

[waysider]

Wierwille said that praying in the spirit meant speaking in tongues to yourself (silently). How do we know that's really the intended meaning?

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[geisha779]

I could never figure out what VP meant by "tongues cannot be counterfeited"... I always thought that was a pile of poo. It led me to start reading about tongues outside of twi literature. I've read some of the research waysider references prior to leaving twi trying to find evidence of what VP stated about counterfeit SIT. Never found ANYTHING to back up his statement.

"Beep,beep,beep, boop, boop, boop. That's not speaking in tongues." Scares me that I can so easily call that to memory. Didn't VP say that right after he said ....the devil can counterfeit anything the true God does? Wasn't there the whole spiel about how he had given his life, nearly thirty years, to studying the genuine so he could know the counterfeit. He could "spot it, just like that." Wasn't he speaking of tongues there in session 12? I could totally have it mixed up....but, I thought he said it could, at least be faked. He did it.

1 Corinthians is about separating the genuine from the counterfeit. It wasn't pretty when I finally saw that in those verses. I saw myself and I saw TWI and then I saw what a genuine believer should look like. It actually was a little earth shattering. Happy days.

Edited September 19, 2012 by geisha779

[chockfull]

Wierwille said that praying in the spirit meant speaking in tongues to yourself (silently). How do we know that's really the intended meaning?

That's not just a Wierwille doctrine. Much of Christianity is divided over this topic. Just search on "praying in the spirit". You'll find all kinds of stuff. Raf can even find his video "evidence" to analyze. Although that could be counterfeit, what's recorded.

"Beep,beep,beep, boop, boop, boop. That's not speaking in tongues." Scares me that I can so easily call that to memory. Didn't VP say that right after he said ....the devil can counterfeit anything the true God does? Wasn't there the whole spiel about how he had given his life, nearly thirty years, to studying the genuine so he could know the counterfeit. He could "spot it, just like that." Wasn't he speaking of tongues there in session 12? I could totally have it mixed up....but, I thought he said it could, at least be faked. He did it.

IMO he could spot it easily looking in the mirror.

[geisha779]

What never made sense to me was VP said that you had to speak in tons A LOT to build up the spirit. If SIT is God's gift that is perfect, as He is perfect, why would we ever have to 'perfect' it?

And no, I don't feel the need to SIT anymore; the chatter gets in the way of my pure, heartfelt longing to connect and hear from Him.

It angers me......and this kind of knowledge is easier to walk away from than knowing and being in a relationship with the holy God of scripture. It kept us occupied with something and kept our eyes of the real mark. We never would have to perfect it. You can't operate or control the Holy Spirit. You can't improve on Him. If we were doing it....forming the words, choosing what letter to start with....trying new sounds....expanding our tongues. . . .then WE were doing it. Doesn't get much clearer than that. It was our choice to form new words, try new letters, play with it, expand and perfect a supposed gift from the HS. Thank goodness God had our hands, feet, and lips to pick up the slack.

Edited September 19, 2012 by geisha779

[JavaJane]

Just to be clear, I never believed that SIT couldn't be counterfieted... The way TWI taught the formulaic approach to SIT was BS, and it was used as a way to brainwash us and keep us from thinking.

One thing chock, me, and others on the thread who do SIT seem to have in common is that we all SIT the first time BEFORE we became part of TWI.

[waysider]

One thing chock, me, and others on the thread who do SIT seem to have in common is that we all SIT the first time BEFORE we became part of TWI.

I got witnessed to, spoke in tongues, spoke with interpretation and brought forth prophesy, all within a time span of 1 or 2 weeks....before I took the class. But, what does that really mean? I don't know. Maybe it just means I was less inhibited in this department than some of the others.

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

It would not be counterfeit, necessarily, but faked. If we're using those terms interchangeably, then fine, counterfeit.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting no samples exist. Plenty exist, and insofar as they have been examined by competent linguists, they have all been dismissed as non-languages (not archaic, not angelic, not foreign, not languages).

I do believe there have been some apparent instances of someone purporting to speak in a language that they haven't learned, but further examination revealed a prior exposure to the language (and the messages did not fit the description of what tongues would be provided in either TWI or the Bible).

But I'm basing the above on a cursory Google search of a handful of studies, so I'm not resting too much on them. I'm looking for the study that says "Holy Cow, this farmer from Ohio just spoke in a language that has not been seen on earth since the days of ancient Egypt!"

I am unable to find that study.

Here's the thing: I've been asked to prove that everyone everywhere who practices SIT is faking it. Can't do it. I would have to investigate everyone everywhere and have them voluntarily subject their practice to observation. I can't even get someone on this thread to do that, and they WANT me to be wrong.

We CAN prove me wrong by finding someone who, shucks, can do it. Samples abound. They're all over You Tube. But proving that some dude crying while muttering "muhmuhmuhmuhmuh" is not speaking in tongues doesn't impress anyone reading THIS thread for a variety of legitimate reasons, not the least of which is the fact that he is lying (can we agree that guy was faking it?) does not disprove anyone's TWI experience.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Wierwille claimed to SIT during the PFAL class. I mean he did it. We all heard it. Splendid! In his case, which has already been recorded and identified as the genuine article by the faithful... submit it to a linguist, identify the language and (assuming success in identifying the language) determine to some level of satisfaction that Wierwille, who held AT LEAST a Master's Degree, had not previously been exposed to that language. This is not a new recording taken for the purpose of tempting God. It's an old recording presented as genuine. Let's test it.

Does anyone have any doubt what the outcome would be?

Let's go further. For those of us who subscribed to Gartmore Weekly Tapes (GWT) after the 1989 expulsion from TWI, we know that, at the very least, there are a couple of hundred samples of SITWI exist that were presented as genuine and, because they were recorded for a genuine worship purpose and not for the purpose of tempting God, they could very easily be subject to examination.

For the record, I threw all mine out and steam cleaned the cabinet where I kept them.

Now, my contention is that Wierwille faked it. These were people (in Gartmore) who had been taught to do this by Wierwille himself or by Wierwille's followers. My contention is that they faked it.

Prove it? I could, if I had the tapes and sent them to a competent linguist, I could demonstrate the accuracy of my contention (by show of hands, how many people have a SHRED of doubt what the outcome would be?)

There is a catch with Gartmore. Considering this is a European audience about which I know absolutely nothing, there exists a very real possibility that someone speaking in tongues and interpreting was knowingly conning everyone by speaking a language he or she knew full well. Because we cannot identify the speakers, we cannot read absolute confirmation from the speaking of an actual language. But it would at least give us something to investigate and some possible indication, still disprovable, that the experience was actually producing a language.

But even if we were to determine that Wierwille and all those GWT speakers were not producing a real language, I agree, it would not prove that your experience was not genuine. It would be a hint and a half for anyone with a shred of personal integrity. But it would not be proof of your self-delusion. To prove that, you would have to [the remainder of this sentence has been censored by the committee to defend the faith against the methods of SATAN]!

I defy any holder of these tapes, be it Wierwille's, GWT or any other sample, to submit those tapes to a competent, unbiased linguist for analysis to determine whether an actual language is being spoken. Or send them to me and I'll do it.

It would not prove that everyone who practiced SIT in TWI faked it, but is sure as heck would prove that the fakery was widespread.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

I've still got boxes and boxes of SNS tapes, buried in with the rest of the clutter in my cellar. Did those have mannies on them? It's been too many years since I listened to them to remember.

Edit: I'm not even sure I still have a machine that would play them.

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Chockfull, on what evidence do you base the conclusion that Wierwille faked it?

[socks]

A point has been made here in the conversation that bears restating -

The Way doctrine taught that the "SIT" could not be counterfeited...

We're discussing performances of the "SIT" that were faked...

The words seem like they're being used here to state the same result - one that wasn't "real" , as described in PFAL.

So a person that "faked" it produced something that could be considered a "counterfeit" - even though the PFAL teaching taught that wasn't possible. Good to note I think although it's not my point - but the idea of a thing that can't be counterfeited is unwieldy at best....? - there are counterfeit paintings of art works, sculpture, books. A spoken language could be counterfeited, fairly easily...if/when the actual words and sounds of the language aren't known as is the case with how SIT was taught. If you don't know what the real thing is supposed to sound like and it can be a sign to the unbeliever and a comfort when interpreted to the believer - who's to say that it's for real or not?

And the point there that you've made is valid Raf - the metrics aren't there to validate what was taught in PFAL - while there may be instances that are noted, the overwhelming number of examples have never been validated and won't be if the criteria of "tongues of angels" is used because no one knows what that sounds like.

I - think - that VPW meant that if you prayed/believe God for the "real" thing, you couldn't get the "counterfeit" thing, God doesn't "give you" the wrong thing and it couldn't be circumvented by the devil, etc. etc. Ask God for bread, He won't give a box of tacks, that idea. Step out on your ol' believing and claim that bad boy and you won't get snafu'd, you'll be walking big 'n' tall in all power. :B)

I get your point Raf - you're saying that there was nothing to receive in this, no SIT at all, and all the effort to do so was nada, zip, not able to deliver SIT as promised.

My actual real point though is that I don't see anything wrong or ungodly if I can use that word, with anyone being honest. Better to be honest and go from there than to be dishonest.

[chockfull]

Chockfull, on what evidence do you base the conclusion that Wierwille faked it?

Mainly because every time I heard him, whether on tape or actually doing it, to me it seemed like he was repeating almost verbatim the exact same syllables I heard him speak before. He said more "lo shanta"s than anyone in the history of speaking anything.

But I didn't say that I can prove Wierwille faked it. I said IMO. And because he faked so much else.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting no samples exist. Plenty exist, and insofar as they have been examined by competent linguists, they have all been dismissed as non-languages (not archaic, not angelic, not foreign, not languages).

Can you document this claim for me? I'd like to see the actual evidence before coming to a conclusion on how widespread fakery in this area is. And this does seem to be a statement that would have some factual evidence to support.

[waysider]

In order to have a counterfeit (anything), there must first be a genuine. It's now my opinion that the genuine never existed. (At least in this day and time)....Sooooo..Counterfeited? No.... Faked? Yes.

[Steve Lortz]

So, expert linguists have examined samples of SIT and determined that it has some language-like qualities, but most of it is just gibberish...

Do we see anything else in creation that shares those properties?

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

Edited September 19, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[waysider]

Raf:

Mind you, I'm not suggesting no samples exist. Plenty exist, and insofar as they have been examined by competent linguists, they have all been dismissed as non-languages (not archaic, not angelic, not foreign, not languages).

Chock:

Can you document this claim for me? I'd like to see the actual evidence before coming to a conclusion on how widespread fakery in this area is. And this does seem to be a statement that would have some factual evidence to support.

................................................................................

HERE

(page 3 or 4, I think.)

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

It angers me......and this kind of knowledge is easier to walk away from than knowing and being in a relationship with the holy God of scripture. It kept us occupied with something and kept our eyes of the real mark. We never would have to perfect it. You can't operate or control the Holy Spirit. You can't improve on Him. If we were doing it....forming the words, choosing what letter to start with....trying new sounds....expanding our tongues. . . .then WE were doing it. Doesn't get much clearer than that. It was our choice to form new words, try new letters, play with it, expand and perfect a supposed gift from the HS. Thank goodness God had our hands, feet, and lips to pick up the slack.

IMO that which you are describing is the BS part of what TWI teaches. Wierwille should have taken his own advice and practiced more made up words than "lo shanta". I guess his minions that taught the classes added all that for him.

Just to be clear one more time I don't believe that you walking away from this stuff and the practice of tongues is something God will care one iota about. I don't think it will negatively impact your prayer life. Especially as it concerns TWI and fulfills "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". I don't believe God hears me more than you because I do it. I don't believe I'm better than you in any way, or more Christian, or whatever. To me that's ridiculous thinking, and I know that doesn't line up with the love described in I Cor 13 or any of the one body stuff in 12 and 14 either.

Why do I do it? It's just part of my developed relationship with God. My spouse and I say things to each other people listening in would never understand (not tongues). Is that wrong? To me it's the same with me and God. Because of the purity of what I experienced as a young person that I shared about it is one aspect that never got tainted by all the BS in TWI for me.

And sometimes if people call me a liar or delusional I want to stand up for myself. Unlike just eating it like I did while in TWI.

[chockfull]

Chock:

Can you document this claim for me? I'd like to see the actual evidence before coming to a conclusion on how widespread fakery in this area is. And this does seem to be a statement that would have some factual evidence to support.

................................................................................

HERE

(page 3 or 4, I think.)

Interesting read. Here is the quote part:

"Sherrill (1964) played over forty recordings of glossolalia to six linguists from graduate institutions in New York City. No one of them professed to hear a language that could be identified. Interestingly enough, however, they easily spotted two recordings of “made up gibberish” that Sherrill had slipped into the presentation and one linguist reported that a given recording had the structure of a poem, a structure that he understood, even though the actual meaning of the words eluded him"

So the linguists did not say "none of these recordings represent real languages". They did say that they did not hear a known language to them.

Further on in the study, he notes another study:

"Glossolalics do not speak in a mixed up mishmash fashion. They organize their verbiage into productions that include macrosegments (comparable to sentences), microsegments (comparable to words), and phonemes (sound units). Thus tongue speakers are speaking what sounds like a language with grammar and syntax. (Samarin, 1968)

(Malony and Lovekin 33)"

The entire conclusion of his paper definitely does NOT say that glossolalia is faked or made up. In fact, I love his concluding sentence more than anything else:

"One tongue speaker expressed his opinion on the entire study as such, “I regret the unfortunate and exaggerated claims of those who are either for

or against glossolalia and have consequently cut loose from their objectivity” he continues, “… and who seem to lack love for their brothers who differ with them.”

[Raf]

Mainly because every time I heard him, whether on tape or actually doing it, to me it seemed like he was repeating almost verbatim the exact same syllables I heard him speak before. He said more "lo shanta"s than anyone in the history of speaking anything.

But I didn't say that I can prove Wierwille faked it. I said IMO. And because he faked so much else.

Fair enough. I agree. My first wife always sounded exactly the same when she practiced SIT. Every other word, and every sentence, ended with the sound "on-day." Though I never said it at the time, I knew darned well she was faking it. She's a wiccan now, last we spoke, so I'm sure if she were to see and answer this poll, if she were being perfectly honest, she would have to answer D or E. It's inescapable.

I don't think you "proved" Wierwille faked it, but you reached the conclusion based on some fairly reasonable grounds. I am sure that if you confronted him, he would respond in terms that were indistinguishable from the arguments put forth by you and by JohnHeIs. But, of course, he's dead, so I can't prove that. We do have his admission that he faked it once (by speaking a language, or at least some foreign words, that he knew). So we KNOW he has a history of faking it because he admitted it. But then he presented his subsequent experience as genuine. In my opinion, his recording on PFAL should withstand a linguistic examination.

Can you document this claim for me? I'd like to see the actual evidence before coming to a conclusion on how widespread fakery in this area is. And this does seem to be a statement that would have some factual evidence to support.

I'll repeat that I haven't taken the time to really examine linguistic studies, so I'm on shaky ground when I speak of them. That said, I have no problem complying with your request.

Here is a summary of studies that are instructive, but presented in a laughably biased manner:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/linguistic-and-sociological-analyses-of-modern-tongues-speaking-their-contributions-and-limitations/

In this study I found the section on "free vocalization" of particular interest, as I believe it IS what we were all instructed to do in PFAL (and has no spiritual/miraculous implications whatsoever).

Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty.

One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then he speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out

Well shoot.

Overall, I think the author of this piece bends over backward to validate what the evidence before him discredits. But your opinion may differ.

Here is a study that appears less biased but that I have not fully read. It's a fairly long pdf by our standards, about 27 pages of really small print. The author doesn't seem to be seeking to prove or disprove anything, but to describe the practice. He is, thus, exceedingly polite and respectful of the deeply religious people who have subjected their private "prayers" to academic examination. He is also, for academic purposes anyway, not immediately dismissive of the idea of parapsychology, which leads me open to questioning at least SOME of what he's saying:

http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf

Of particular interest is this quote on page 54 (the whole thing starts on p. 49; the stuff in brackets is my words)

In talking about xenoglossia [speaking in tongues and producing an actual, known foreign language] we must remember that most reports are made by uncritical people, many of whom are predisposed to believe in them. They have never been witnesses of a case of xenoglossia but have been told about it by somebody who knows. In short, we are given hearsay evidence, and we will aways have as much difficulty in finding a bona fide witness as one does who tries to find a person who saw a sea monster. Therefore, the frequent references to xenoglossia in the writings of Christian charismatics are nearly worthless as evidence to the incidents of this phenomenon. Their chief value is to illustrate the beliefs of the glossolalists.

It should be noted that an interesting feature of these reports is that they are often set in a certain frame. It consists of the following elements: On a certain occasion person A utters a glossic discourse [speaks in tongues] which is identified by person B as being his own language, whereupon some witness to the event (including either A or B) takes it as a God-given sign for some kind of decision. This stereotypic kind of oral transmission of purported history requires its being considered a kind of folkloristic genre.

Here's some more "stuff" to consider:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues5.htm

This article quotes from the above study, but I haven't found the source of the quote yet. I'm sure it's there. I just have more searching to do:

"When the full apparatus of linguistic science comes to bear on glossolalia, this turns out to be only a facade of language — although at times a very good one indeed. For when we comprehend what language is, we must conclude that no glossa, no matter how well constructed, is a specimen of human language, because it is neither internally organized nor systematically related to the world man perceives."

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

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. [15]

SOURCE

Here is the [15] citation: CLICK

.....................................................................................

Sure, it SOUNDS like it has a structure. That's why it's so convincing.

[Raf]

"Glossolalics do not speak in a mixed up mishmash fashion. They organize their verbiage into productions that include macrosegments (comparable to sentences), microsegments (comparable to words), and phonemes (sound units). Thus tongue speakers are speaking what sounds like a language with grammar and syntax. (Samarin, 1968)

(Malony and Lovekin 33)"

The entire conclusion of his paper definitely does NOT say that glossolalia is faked or made up. In fact, I love his concluding sentence more than anything else:

"One tongue speaker expressed his opinion on the entire study as such, “I regret the unfortunate and exaggerated claims of those who are either for

or against glossolalia and have consequently cut loose from their objectivity” he continues, “… and who seem to lack love for their brothers who differ with them.”

Yeah, I noticed that. Here's my take: I regret the unfortunate and exaggerated politeness of researchers who decline to call a spade a spade out of undue respect or politeness to their subjects.

I agree that this paper does not make the judgment that the practice was faked. In fact, it makes no judgment at all. It merely examines the vocalizations that are uttered.

The key that I walk away from here is that these recordings are listed and the determination is that it's not a language. As Samarin wrote, it's got the facade of a language (as it would if the speaker were faking it with any measure of competence, as we were specifically instructed to do in TWI), but it lacks the qualities of real language.

No, he does not take the next logical step and call BS.

Disappointing, I think.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf