SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[waysider]

What was the purpose of excellor sessions?

It was to 1.)make what we were doing appear to be as real as we could make it and 2.)enhance the theatrical effects.

What other purpose could those sessions have served?

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

Why was it insisted that we never do it in a manner that deviated from Way standards?

Because we were only supposed to do it for people who were pre-primed to accept it.

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Could you imagine the apostle Paul holding up a scroll of the Hebrew alphabet and having new Christians practice tongues by directing the speakers to the variety of sounds possible in their language.

He'd have been laughed out of the Bible!

Me, I paid $50 for that crap.

[waysider]

They used to include all this stuff in what we used to call "session 13". Then, they got hip and realized they could make a separate class and charge for that one too. When I took the Advanced Class, I had already taken a version of PFAL that included session #13 but, I was required to pay my donation? and take the new intermediate class, first. I remember being ticked off about that. All they did was play part of session #13 and add a whole bunch of excellor sessions. Stretched an hour teaching out over a whole weekend.

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

It is interesting, the more I read Samarin (the same study Chockfull quoted before I posted it) that his assessment is simply devastating to the concept of speaking in tongues as we were taught in TWI.

Samarin appears to be extremely polite in holding back on judgmental statements while delivering fatal lines like:

"A glossa is always meaningless in the linguistic sense."

"...although xenoglossia is claimed by Christian charismatics to be part of the tongue-speaking experience, they would be unable to provide a case that would stand up to scientific investigation, and if it did, it would probably prove to be cryptomnesic [bits of a language the speaker knew but forgot that he knew - Raf interjecting here]. Having ruled out the possibility of charismatic xenoglossia, we are left with untold thousands of cases of unintelligible verbal utterances."

The boldface in this post and in a previous post represent my emphasis, not the writers'.

But damn. "Ruled out the possibility of charismatic xenoglossia," to me, sounds a heck of a lot like "ain't no one nowhere who produced an actual language they did not previously know."

What's left is an examination of the quality of fakery employed by present-day tongues speakers. Just like Wierwille taught, they don't just say beep beep beep, boop boop boop. They're too smart for that. They want it to sound like a language, so it does in some ways sound like one.

But they're not languages. Not in any meaningful definition of the term.

To say that they're not gibberish is to exercise, I think, a level of academic politeness that is not necessarily called for considering the gravity of the claim being made. I would argue that they are not simple gibberish (goo goo ga ga) but are rather a more sophisticated gibberish invented by the speaker who is deliberately trying to produce something that sounds like a language.

The only way it's NOT going to "sound like a language to me" is, frankly, if the faker is really bad at it. Onday!

[chockfull]

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.

I think that's a misinterpretation. The statement was that it was not a known language to the linguists, not that it was not a language at all.

It is interesting, the more I read Samarin (the same study Chockfull quoted before I posted it) that his assessment is simply devastating to the concept of speaking in tongues as we were taught in TWI.

Samarin appears to be extremely polite in holding back on judgmental statements while delivering fatal lines like:

"A glossa is always meaningless in the linguistic sense."

"...although xenoglossia is claimed by Christian charismatics to be part of the tongue-speaking experience, they would be unable to provide a case that would stand up to scientific investigation, and if it did, it would probably prove to be cryptomnesic [bits of a language the speaker knew but forgot that he knew - Raf interjecting here]. Having ruled out the possibility of charismatic xenoglossia, we are left with untold thousands of cases of unintelligible verbal utterances."

The boldface in this post and in a previous post represent my emphasis, not the writers'.

But damn. "Ruled out the possibility of charismatic xenoglossia," to me, sounds a heck of a lot like "ain't no one nowhere who produced an actual language they did not previously know."

What's left is an examination of the quality of fakery employed by present-day tongues speakers. Just like Wierwille taught, they don't just say beep beep beep, boop boop boop. They're too smart for that. They want it to sound like a language, so it does in some ways sound like one.

But they're not languages. Not in any meaningful definition of the term.

To say that they're not gibberish is to exercise, I think, a level of academic politeness that is not necessarily called for considering the gravity of the claim being made. I would argue that they are not simple gibberish (goo goo ga ga) but are rather a more sophisticated gibberish invented by the speaker who is deliberately trying to produce something that sounds like a language.

The only way it's NOT going to "sound like a language to me" is, frankly, if the faker is really bad at it. Onday!

Raf, you're mixing up a lot of the facts in the paper with your own viewpoint here. The paper is not saying what you are at all. The quotes you are snipping aren't complete, and many times in the exact vicinity of the quote there is another quote that leans in the opposite direction totally.

[Raf]

More from Samarin. This is rich. Pull up a chair:

I would suggest, as a reasonable hypothesis, that the speaker is subcosciously motivated to produce a new language. To do this, he must make it as different from his own as he possibly can, but since his resources are only those of the linguistic habits he has already stored up, he is as limited to them as is a painter who works with only three colors. Some people are more creative with what they have, as would be some painters. We should not be surprised at the linguistic "creations" of some glossolalists, although we are justified in being awed by them...

There are, however, not too many similarities between the production of glossas and the creation of artificial languages in other contexts. The difference is due to the way in which glossas are produced: extemporaneously and rapidly, using only the vocal channel. The fact that it can be done at all gives further evidence to man's linguistic capacities.

I'll translate that into plain English: It's faked. Always. The fact that there's any doubt about it speaks well of our creativity, not at all of the validity of the supernatural origin it claims.

Of course, this doesn't prove that everyone everywhere who speaks in tongues is flat out faking it.

It sure as hell implies it.

But it doesn't prove it.

No, to prove it, you would have to [censored by the Committee to Protect the Righteous From the Methods of Lucifer].

Raf, you're mixing up a lot of the facts in the paper with your own viewpoint here. The paper is not saying what you are at all. The quotes you are snipping aren't complete, and many times in the exact vicinity of the quote there is another quote that leans in the opposite direction totally.

BRING IT!

[OldSkool]

I have been reading along. My question is doctrinal for sure.

So what of all the Bible has to say of speaking in tongues? (please spare me quotes from previous posts and get to the nitty gritty )

Edited September 19, 2012 by OldSkool

[Steve Lortz]

A lot has been made of linguistic experts' inablity to discern patterns in the bulk of recorded speaking in tongues. Does this disprove that tongues IS a language? I think not...

The genome project has mapped the DNA coding that regulates our lives. Yet at least 70% of the genome consists of gibberish called "junk DNA". At least 70% of the information that defines who we are and what we do appears to the expert scientists as gibberish...

If that which is perfect has not yet come, when the Bible assures me that tonguers will cease, then how can we define what perfect prayer should look like, linguistically?

Some people trust what the Bible (NOT Wierwille!) says about tongues. To other people, tongues seems like drunken behavior or delusion.

It can't be "proved," one way or the other.

Raf, you are willing to swear that you were faking it, and I accept that. I am also willing to swear that I am not faking it, and that I am not deluded, either accoring to the terms of the Diagnostic Standards Manual or the terms of Jeremiah 17:5-9.

It makes me wonder why you are so intent on proving me wrong?

Love,

Steve

Edited September 19, 2012 by Steve Lortz

[waysider]

I have been reading along. My question is doctrinal for sure.

So what of all the Bible has to say of speaking in tongues? (please spare me quotes from previous posts and get to the nitty gritty )

I'm not sure I understand your question, OS.

Do you mean, what does the Bible say about speaking in tongues?

Not all that much, really, and most, if not all, of it emanated from Paul.

Edited September 19, 2012 by waysider

[OldSkool]

I'm not sure I understand your question

Ya, I am drinking in tongues at the moment. Me and the squirrel should hang out.

I am speaking og Paul's writings. How are they discredited?

[waysider]

Ya, I am drinking in tongues at the moment. Me and the squirrel should hang out.

I am speaking og Paul's writings. How are they discredited?

We had a discussion of this topic a couple years ago. (Thus Saith Paul)

I made a lot of enemies in the process.

There was another discussion of it in '03 or '04, as well.

[Raf]

A lot has been made of linguistic experts' inablity to discern patterns in the bulk of recorded speaking in tongues. Does this disprove that tongues IS a language? I think not...

That's fine. We can agree there (at least as far as the implication of the findings as they relate to this topic). Again, it would be of immense value to find a linguist who verified that this was in fact producing a language.

The genome project has mapped the DNA coding that regulates our lives. Yet at least 70% of the genome consists of gibberish called "junk DNA". At least 70% of the information that defines who we are and what we do appears to the expert scientists as gibberish...

We're beyond my expertise here, so for the sake of moving the discussion along, I'll just agree with you.

If that which is perfect has not yet come, when the Bible assures me that tonguers will cease, then how can we define what perfect prayer should look like, linguistically?

Disagree with me on this if you wish. There's plenty of room for more than one point of view. To me, it should look like, well, a language. But maybe I'm picky.

Some people trust what the Bible (NOT Wierwille!) says about tongues. To other people, tongues seems like drunken behavior or delusion.

It can't be "proved," one way or the other.

There you go again. It CAN be proved one way. Not the other. If it produced a recognized language, this conversation would be over. So it CAN be proved. We'll agree that it can't be disproved.

Raf, you are willing to swear that you were faking it, and I accept that.

Mighty nice of you.

I am also willing to swear that I am not faking it, and that I am not deluded, either accoring to the terms of the Diagnostic Standards Manual or the terms of Jeremiah 17:5-9.

It makes me wonder why you are so intent on proving me wrong?

I made reference to the studies and was asked to cite them. Then a snippet of another study was quoted as though it demonstrated something that, in my opinion, it does not. I'm not trying to prove you wrong, per se. I am supplementing my position with documentation that you can take or leave.

You say you're not faking it. You are also not demanding that I prove my position. So if you're not demanding proof from me, and I'm not demanding proof from you, we're fine. I would LIKE for you to change your mind and recognize what I believe to be a disservice that was done to all of us in God's name. But I ain't gonna drag you kicking and screaming.

I am speaking of Paul's writings. How are they discredited?

As far as this thread is concerned, I have made no effort and have no desire to discredit, validate, explore, interpret or reinterpret what Paul wrote. That's why my contention remains that this thread is not doctrinal.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

I have been reading along. My question is doctrinal for sure.

So what of all the Bible has to say of speaking in tongues? (please spare me quotes from previous posts and get to the nitty gritty )

I'm not sure I understand your question, OS.

Do you mean, what does the Bible say about speaking in tongues?

Not all that much, really, and most, if not all, of it emanated from Paul.

Ya, I am drinking in tongues at the moment. Me and the squirrel should hang out.

I am speaking og Paul's writings. How are they discredited?

As far as this thread is concerned, I have made no effort and have no desire to discredit, validate, explore, interpret or reinterpret what Paul wrote. That's why my contention remains that this thread is not doctrinal.

It would appear that the two are intertwined.

[Raf]

That's why I added "as far as this thread is concerned." I am not suggesting the issue is not worth exploring. I'm saying that in THIS thread, I'm not exploring it. I am not seeking to discredit Paul. I AM seeking to discredit Victor Paul and his fakery. I will leave the question of Paul to you.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from exploring the answer to your question. I just know what makes a thread Doctrinal and what makes it About The Way, and am seeking to keep the two separate for as long as I can (more people read About The Way, and many avoid Doctrinal because they're not interested in the nature of conversation that takes place there).

[Steve Lortz]

Disagree with me on this if you wish. There's plenty of room for more than one point of view. To me, it should look like, well, a language. But maybe I'm picky.

See my latest post on my thread in Doctrinal!

Love,

Steve

[excathedra]

it's so hard for me to believe the silly moderators have moved things for so much less

hypocrites but who cares

raf and some others, you remind of self-righteous wayfers lol or maybe offshooters

why the heck are you so determined on this point?

have fun

i know i can go anywhere on here if i don't like this, but i still have the right to say my piece

peace

[geisha779]

it's so hard for me to believe the silly moderators have moved things for so much less

hypocrites but who cares

raf and some others, you remind of self-righteous wayfers lol or maybe offshooters

why the heck are you so determined on this point?

have fun

i know i can go anywhere on here if i don't like this, but i still have the right to say my piece

peace

Yeah, but, at least you don't sound self-righteous. I mean, it is not self-righteous to pop into the thread....insult people.....basically say it bores you but, insist you have the "right" to say your piece. In the next breath you can tell everyone how much faith you have.

You know what, this doctrine really hurt me. It messed with my head....it caused me angst......and it caused me sorrow. Is it okay if I speak of it with other who were effected?

You were not the only one hurt by VP.

[Raf]

Oh my. Excy has criticized me. I want to go home and rethink my life.

[OldSkool]

I AM seeking to discredit Victor Paul and his fakery.

Fair enough.

[waysider]

Anyone remember how they said if your tongue went "over" you were spilling into prophesy?

Really? If it's coming from God, you would think He would pull back on the reins at the appropriate time, wouldn't you?

[Raf]

Well, if the speaker controls when he stops and starts but the words spoken are inspired by God, what other spiritual explanation is there? Doesn't quite prove fakery, does it?

[Ham]

A different question, or is it really different?

Why do the offshoots perpetuate the practice of s.i.t., along with claims of proof of eternal life and all?

is it possible, that at least in some cases, those who partook in wierwille's sins need some re-affirming hope that babbling in some non-english gibberish guarantees they have eternal life, at least going to the right place?

You know- not going to the lake of fire, which is a logical end for those who behaved like the vicster?

I would call it a "vested interest" for some.

[geisha779]

I am speaking og Paul's writings. How are they discredited?

I don't think they are. . . .but, there is a huge gap of history between us and the 1st century church. Too much IMO, to know if what people do today is actually the same thing. I suspect tongues are pretty rare. They served a dual purpose, but, they were a sign for the Jews who required a sign. I don't think there is any good reason to believe tongues changed from known languages to some kind of ecstatic utterance between Acts and what the Corinthians were up to. Did you see that video of people SIT? That is just what it seemed they were doing. And there is not really a compelling case to be made that angels tongues got thrown into the mix.

If tongues had changed....Paul would have mentioned that.

The thing that probably hurts me the most about it all is that while VP promoted things like building ourselves up big and fat spiritually by SIT.....he took away....the way we really are strengthened and helped to endure. God's true grace and mercy. With every self centered doctrine he gave us....he robbed us of the truth about God. It is easy to walk away from teachings that VP promulgated. It is far more difficult to turn your back on a God who died for you.....and whose grace sustains you.

Makes me sad....VP stole so much from so many.

[chockfull]

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.

All right, here we go. Here's what the source says at http://www.matthewclandry.com/Glossolalia.pdf

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. (Malony and Lovekin 28)

Raf says this is stating the determination was that the forty recordings were not a language. WRONG!!!!! The determination was that they did not profess to hear a language that they could identify. Raf is reading in what he wants to into scientific studies.

Next point. Sherrill, who provided 40 recordings of glossolalia, slipped in two recordings that were not professed to be glossolalia, but were indeed gibberish. The linguists easily picked out the "made up gibberish" as distinctly different than the glossolalia recording.

Raf's conclusion? THE LINGUISTS DETERMINED THE GLOSSALALIA TAPES WERE GIBBERISH.

Raf, you are wasting your talents here in scientific analysis. Where you really need to be is ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, working for a SuperPac. You have the prerequisites necessary. Take facts, twist them, ignore them, say what you want to say, and say it a lot. You're a born politician.

[waysider]

Maybe we should just use gobble-dee-goop as a catch-all phrase. That way we don't have to worry about whether we're saying gibberish when we mean glossolalia and vice versa.

Edited September 20, 2012 by waysider