SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

The thing that bothers me is this:

If "speaking in tongues is proof in the senses realm of the internal presence...."....well, you know...

How's come it's also been practiced by so many Non-Christian people for thousands of years, even before the "internal presence" and all that stuff was known about?

It seems like there ought to be some sort of clue in there that addresses the subject at hand.

Yes, and Vern provides it. Anyone can perform free vocalization. If you're in a place and time with next to zero exposure to other cultures and other languages, then you can claim to be speaking in a foreign tongue by the power of God, Krishna, Isis, Zeus or Baal, and no one would be the wiser. Rare is the person who cannot do this. Common is the religious leader who would seize on it as proof of, or display of, or manifestation of, something supernatural.

[excathedra]

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.

okay, sorry

and raf, you don't have to rethink your life for me, that's for sure

[excathedra]

because namecalling really helps prove your point).

well, she's 12 :)

[Raf]

Aww, thanks!

Hey, seriously, I'm sorry if this thread bums you out or upsets you. If you want to make a case to the mods, be my guest. If they move it (over my objection), so be it.

I am at a loss to how "hey, you know all those times I claimed to be speaking through the power that created the heavens and earth? Mea culpa, I was full of crap" can somehow be interpreted as self-righteous, but HEY, we are free to make judgments and express them.

well, she's 12 :)

BWAAAAhaahahahahaha!

[excathedra]

again, i'm sorry

i don't care where the thread resides (my old hostilities must come out in me i guess)

i'm free to make judgments too

i cannot prove anything to you or anyone else

oh you just saw that? glad you laughed

[Raf]

Ok, so now I'm just piling on:

The highly respected 1972 study of John P. Kildahl (The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues) concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired glossolalic utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired." In fact, glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior." (Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements by Spittler, P. 340).

Experts in the field of linguistics have diligently studied the phenomenon of glossolalia over a period of many years. One of the early investigations was made in the early 1960's by Eugene A. Nida. He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language. Another early study, that of W.A. Wolfram in the year 1966, also concluded that glossolalia lacks the basic elements of human language as a system of coherent communication.

In a massive study of glossolalia from a linguistic perspective by [Well, shucks, I'll be dag-burned, said Raf] Professor William J. Samarin of the University of Toronto's Department of Linguistics published after more than a decade of careful research, he rejected the view that glossolalia is xenoglossia, i.e. some foreign language that could be understood by another person who knew that language. Samarin concluded that glossolalia is a "pseudo-language." He defined glossolalia as "unintelligible babbling speech that exhibits superficial phonological similarity to language, without having consistent syntagmatic structure and that is not systematically derived from or related to known language." (William J. Samarin, "Variation and Variables in Religious Glossolalia," Language in Society, ed. Dell Haymes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972 pgs. 121-130)

Read more: http://meta-religion.com/Linguistics/Glossolalia/contemporary_linguistic_study.htm#ixzz272JyAyIW

The bold and italics, and of course, the "well shucks" bracket, are mine.

Folks, if ANYONE reading this is able to speak in tongues and produce the tongues of men, I am certain that there are linguists who would LOVE to talk to you. And preachers/pastors. And, yes, psychologists. James Randi, who has offered $1 million for conclusive proof of the paranormal, would probably be obliged to cough up a check to you.

Yeah, I know. God won't let you.

It can't be because, deep down, you KNOW that you don't know that you know.

[excathedra]

He provided a detailed list of reasons why glossolalia cannot be human language.

what did he say about tongues of angels?

[Raf]

Can't speak for that researcher. I haven't gone into his work.

I can tell you that Samarin recognizes such a field of study as impossible, for obvious reasons.

A linguist could tell you whether different people are speaking the same language, even without recognizing the language itself, to a reasonable degree of certainty.

But understand what we're dealing with in your question, excy: once we embark on it, we are accepting the findings of the linguists and concluding that if SIT is truly what we have claimed it to be (it's not. We all know it. Some of us just choose to finally admit it), then everyone who's ever participated in a study of it has either been faking or, how dare I suggest such a thing, speaking in the tongues of angels.

ALL OF THEM.

Come on.

[waysider]

what did he say about tongues of angels?

It so often comes down to that as a matter of last resort. The real point to take away here is that tongues is not a "language" (human or angelic) because it does not follow the conventions and structural requirements to qualify as a language. It has some elements of language. It sounds like language. (especially when we learn to enhance its delivery via excellor sessions) But, bottom line..... it's not a language.

[waysider]

edited... :)

Edited September 20, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

I am going to state rather emphatically that waysider and I appear to be headed in different directions here. ;)

In his conclusion Samarin reiterates that glossolalia is not a

supernatural phenomenon, nor is there any mystery in it. He

modifies his original question in this way: Why do people want to

utter something which is language-like but fundamentally not

language? Samarin answers this question by stating that it is part

of a movement that offers them the fulfillment of aspirations that

their previous religious experience created in them. They want to

believe in God passionately, to know the delight of communion

with Him and to see Him at work in life. They see evidence of this

in members of the charismatic movement. It is intellectually

satisfying, and belief is nurtured by intimate personal relations

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/muellerlinguisticanalysis.pdf

It is communal self-delusion.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Raf

[excathedra]

i don't know

[penworks]

True, I left out possible replies that would be either more diplomatic or reflect uncertainty on the part of the person responding. Mea culpa. Your reproof is well taken.

Only you know deep in your heart whether you experienced something supernatural or you imitated the method (not the sounds) out of a sincere hunger to manifest a spiritual gift.

Hi Raf,

Just wanted to say my comments were not meant as reproof so no need to apologize. I really did want to know whether you had a reason for excluding the option in your survery along the lines of some of us believing SIT was "of God" but later doubting it after we left TWI.

I agree with you that TWI's teachings (and the offshoots of TWI) are contradictory, often nonsensical, presumptuous, and most of us here know were stolen from the teachings of J.E. Stiles, etc. and others who wrote about the holy spirit.

My musings on my experience with speaking in tongues are just musings. At the time it happened, I believed it was a spiritual experience from God. Now I'm not sure, since I've abandoned lots of ideas about God. Like others here, I don't expect to ever "know" what the heck I was really doing when I spoke in tongues and to put it bluntly - I don't care.

But I don't conceive of myself of having lied about it, although you have given me reason to pause and second guess myself on that. I guess I don't know how lying applies to this situation. I'm puzzled. While in TWI, I felt like I was doing what VP described and I thought he was right about it all. Plus, I was not consciously asking the critical questions like the ones expressed here. I had shut down my faculty of critical thinking thanks to VP's and others' intimidation and my weak self esteem.

Perhaps the question now is: Does the nature of lying involve a conscious awareness of doing so? I think for some of us, we were blindly following and not consiously aware that VP's claims about speaking in tongues were false. BUT as soon as we had doubts, we quit preaching VP's doctrines and admitted we just didn't know that we knew anymore...

What more thoughts can you share with me on this? I am sincerely asking.

[chockfull]

Read that carefully: I did not call Landry laughably biased. I made a reference to Landry, then changed the subject to the OTHER article, Vern's identifying it as the one I had previously referred to as laughably biased.

So I retract my statement. You did not bear falsewitness. You did not mean to lie about me. You were mistaken, and the subsequent statement you made in reference to that mistake was untrue, but sincere.

Kinda like the whole SIT experience we've been hoodwinked into accepting.

OK I reread it. The only article we were discussing in the context of that message from what I read was Landry, not Vern. At the very least, your message was blending two topics without clearly referring to what you meant as laughably biased. Which, actually, sounds a lot like your assessment of almost every single source we are discussing. They are "laughably biased" if they allow for the possibility of tongues in a private prayer life. Or, other discrediting statements about college research papers.

So since you want to denigrate our sources, let me put this out to you. Landry may be a college paper (I don't know where you get that), but it's better written and more well documented than anything you've produced on the topic. If you think it's so bad, then let's see something you produce that's better.

You know, some of this debate would go a lot better and be a lot more profitable if you would drop the ridiculous and inflammatory terms like "bearing false witness", "Satan", etc. They may sound cool and make you feel better, but overall it just distracts from the discussion, in addition to being incorrect, inflammatory, and serve to escalate emotion.

Communal self-delusion.

Explain to me why exactly it is you repeating these words hundreds of times isn't just you being a tool?

[Raf]

OK I reread it. The only article we were discussing in the context of that message from what I read was Landry, not Vern. At the very least, your message was blending two topics without clearly referring to what you meant as laughably biased. Which, actually, sounds a lot like your assessment of almost every single source we are discussing. They are "laughably biased" if they allow for the possibility of tongues in a private prayer life. Or, other discrediting statements about college research papers.

You can say that, but that doesn't make it true.

So since you want to denigrate our sources, let me put this out to you. Landry may be a college paper (I don't know where you get that), but it's better written and more well documented than anything you've produced on the topic. If you think it's so bad, then let's see something you produce that's better.

Why? You're just going to discount it anyway. Any study that doesn't agree with what you've already concluded is ineffective for our discussion. Clearly, when you asked me for those studies, you were uninterested in their scientific accuracy or reasonableness of their unbiased arguments. You were looking to embarrass me and insult me. You succeeded. Congratulations. But clearly your argument has been reduced to insulting me, as you have ceased misrepresenting the papers you soooo carefully read.

By the way, the report has the look and feel of a college paper. I've taught college, recently. I know what these things look like. Landry also has a resume or something posted that shows where he went to school and when he graduated. This paper was written while he was studying for a degree in philosophy/religion. That doesn't discredit it, per se, but seeing as he quoted an evangelical tongues speaker without disclosing the rather obvious bias of the source... Do I really need to go on? Kid wrote a decent college paper, but that's all it was.

You know, some of this debate would go a lot better and be a lot more profitable if you would drop the ridiculous and inflammatory terms like "bearing false witness", "Satan", etc. They may sound cool and make you feel better, but overall it just distracts from the discussion, in addition to being incorrect, inflammatory, and serve to escalate emotion.

Communal self-delusion.

Explain to me why exactly it is you repeating these words hundreds of times isn't just you being a tool?

"Drop the ridiculous namecalling, you tool."

Riiiiight.

Chockfull, take it elsewhere. I don't want this thread moved to Soap Opera.

I noted earlier that an honest intellectual discussion is impossible once one side of that discussion has been denounced as Satanic in its methodology. Over the past two days, you have illustrated my point brilliantly, for which I thank you.

[chockfull]

You see? THAT's funny.

I wouldn't describe you as funny by any means. Inflammatory? Check. All over the place? Check. Emotional? Check. Accusative of your brethren in Christ? Check. Funny? Not so much.

Let's take a quick tally of where we are at in sources we are examining, OK? Samarin? Landry? Vern? All support the possibility of tongues being real in private prayer life. Note I didn't say "proven", or "don't bring up valid issues that could support the other side of the position", or anything like that. More middle of the road, accepting of the possibility of God working in people in a different way than they have personally experienced or scientifically analyze. From my perspective, I haven't heard any source yet that emphatically says what you do about communal self-delusion.

Which is telling so far. You are all excited to get into disproving tongues from a language perspective, and have yet to produce one supporting scientific study that even comes close to what you are trying to shove down all of our throats, that we are communaly self-deluding ourselves.

I am engaging in this debate because I was goaded into it by you. You said "bring it". But how I really feel about this debate is I'm pretty much traveling down the same road in arguing the topic that I would just recording a stupid YouTube event of my private prayer life. In other words, it's an immature Christian endeavor that I'm not seeing a whole lot of profit in.

[chockfull]

By the way, the report has the look and feel of a college paper. I've taught college, recently. I know what these things look like. Landry also has a resume or something posted that shows where he went to school and when he graduated. This paper was written while he was studying for a degree in philosophy/religion. That doesn't discredit it, per se, but seeing as he quoted an evangelical tongues speaker without disclosing the rather obvious bias of the source... Do I really need to go on? Kid wrote a decent college paper, but that's all it was.

So in other words you have no supporting evidence whatsoever that this was a college paper besides your speculation. Good to know.

"Drop the ridiculous namecalling, you tool."

You can't even accurately reflect something that was written one post ago. I did not call YOU a tool, I asked WHY YOUR BEHAVIOR, consisting of repeating the phrase "communal self-delusion" about 50 times in this thread, is anything more than you acting like a tool. It's offensive. It's obnoxious. It's not in alignment to anything I read in I Cor. 13.

Here, get the criticism right, for once. WHY IS YOUR BEHAVIOR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN YOU ACTING LIKE A TOOL?

Chockfull, take it elsewhere. I don't want this thread moved to Soap Opera.

I noted earlier that an honest intellectual discussion is impossible once one side of that discussion has been denounced as Satanic in its methodology. Over the past two days, you have illustrated my point brilliantly, for which I thank you.

The way you are responding, it probably belongs in Soap Opera. Emotional. Not listening. Being inflammatory.

You can't even get it straight what I was communicating as to my reluctance to discuss this regarding tempting God. However, in an ironic moment, the first source you posted actually frames my position on that pretty accurately. Did you need me to post it again?

what did he say about tongues of angels?

Ex, no offense, but please don't accept Raf's Cliff Notes on what these sources are saying. He's all over the place and is not providing accurate synopsis of what they are saying. He picks out a couple paragraphs then repeats the phrase "communal self deception", when none of the authors have said that.

I mean no disrespect to the Rev. Vern. He is clearly a brilliant man and quite the Christian apologist. But this paper, for what it's worth, is not a work of research, per se, and cannot be treated as such.

Then please do all of us a favor and explain exactly why it was that you chose Vern as the first scholarly reference to prove your position? You hadn't really read him thoroughly?

[waysider]

Communal self delusion

Joe B. Leever

My little children, I am the Lord, thy God. You are this, you are that and you are some other stuff, too.

Tommy Twig Leader

Wasn't that neat, guys? God just told us we're this, that, and some other stuff, too.

Twiggies

Wow! God sure loves us!

Communal self delusion

[Raf]

Hi Raf,

Just wanted to say my comments were not meant as reproof so no need to apologize.

Reproof got a bad rap because of how TWI did it. It should not. It's a good thing. It makes us all better people when done right.

But I don't conceive of myself of having lied about it, although you have given me reason to pause and second guess myself on that.

Pick a word that's less insulting to you. I don't think anyone "lied" per se. I think we kidded ourselves out of a sincere hunger for the things of God and a considerable amount of peer pressure to manifest. I think Samarin described that well.

While in TWI, I felt like I was doing what VP described and I thought he was right about it all. Plus, I was not consciously asking the critical questions like the ones expressed here. I had shut down my faculty of critical thinking thanks to VP's and others' intimidation and my weak self esteem.

I would say that you described my experience as well.

Perhaps the question now is: Does the nature of lying involve a conscious awareness of doing so? I think for some of us, we were blindly following and not consiously aware that VP's claims about speaking in tongues were false. BUT as soon as we had doubts, we quit preaching VP's doctrines and admitted we just didn't know that we knew anymore...

What more thoughts can you share with me on this? I am sincerely asking.

First, I'll repeat: lying is an ugly, ugly word. As I used it, it had the effect of starting this whole conversation, immediately, in rather stark, absolute terms. I don't think of myself as a liar, and certainly didn't think of it then. But there was always little niggling thoughts in the back of my head: You KNOW this is just you. You know that interpretation bore no relationship to what you just spoke. You know you made up that prophecy.

I keep using the words communal self delusion (since someone asked) because it's so vividly descriptive of what happened. It wasn't just that I fooled myself. It's that I fooled myself within the loving embrace of a community of people who had done exactly the same thing. And we embraced each other and it bound us. It helped cement us into a family. It wasn't just "God" or "Church." It was "Wow. We have done something pretty amazing. God's AWESOME."

I intend no assigning of malice to anyone who did this. I did it out of a sincere hunger and desire to spread the message of God. I WANTED it to be real. But when I look in the mirror, I realize it wasn't.

The rest is kind of a leap. I know I'm not alone in what I did. And I want others who did it to realize it's ok.

Because it is.

[chockfull]

Communal self delusion

Joe B. Leever

My little children, I am the Lord, thy God. You are this, you are that and you are some other stuff, too.

Tommy Twig Leader

Wasn't that neat, guys? God just told us we're this, that, and some other stuff, too.

Twiggies

Wow! God sure loves us!

Communal self delusion

And if VP's teachings on the topic were erroneous, yet God just honored the trust in these 3 believer's hearts in Him by providing a genuine message?

Then your finger pointing at them just has three pointing back at yourself.

[Raf]

So in other words you have no supporting evidence whatsoever that this was a college paper besides your speculation. Good to know.

Um, no. Other than that it looks like a term paper and that it WAS written by someone who at the time he wrote it was a college undergrad with a major in philosophy and religion, no, I have no evidence that this was a college paper.

Goodness, is enough evidence enough for you in ANY area?

You can't even accurately reflect something that was written one post ago. I did not call YOU a tool, I asked WHY YOUR BEHAVIOR, consisting of repeating the phrase "communal self-delusion" about 50 times in this thread, is anything more than you acting like a tool. It's offensive. It's obnoxious. It's not in alignment to anything I read in I Cor. 13.

Here, get the criticism right, for once. WHY IS YOUR BEHAVIOR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN YOU ACTING LIKE A TOOL?

You have descended into a fit of namecalling and hysteria that is far beneath you. I think.

Ex, no offense, but please don't accept Raf's Cliff Notes on what these sources are saying. He's all over the place and is not providing accurate synopsis of what they are saying. He picks out a couple paragraphs then repeats the phrase "communal self deception", when none of the authors have said that.

Excy, I wholeheartedly agree with that first sentence! Do not accept my abbreviations. Read them all for yourself (IF YOU WANT TO. If you don't, don't. I sleep exactly the same either way.

Then please do all of us a favor and explain exactly why it was that you chose Vern as the first scholarly reference to prove your position? You hadn't really read him thoroughly?

Sure! I googled "speaking in tongues" and "linguists" and that was the first article that came up. I printed it out. I thought it was interesting, though I questioned the objectivity of the writer (not realizing until later why).

I did not provide you with the Vern citation to "prove" my position. I provided it because you asked for it, and I'm not going to hide stuff I find interesting just because I disagree with some of the conclusions or methodology!

We call that integrity. You should try it.

You see, if I lacked integrity, I would have ONLY shared Samarin. And you would have found Vern and asked me why I ignored him. I didn't. He's just biased, and I showed exactly how and where and why. But it's okay for you to not accept that.

What's not okay is to take a quote out of context, use it to prove that a researcher (Samarin) is saying the exact opposite of what he's saying (which is EXACTLY what you did) and then turning around and accusing ME of the same when all I've done is correct your misrepresentation of his findings!

[chockfull]

I keep using the words communal self delusion (since someone asked) because it's so vividly descriptive of what happened. It wasn't just that I fooled myself. It's that I fooled myself within the loving embrace of a community of people who had done exactly the same thing. And we embraced each other and it bound us. It helped cement us into a family. It wasn't just "God" or "Church." It was "Wow. We have done something pretty amazing. God's AWESOME."

Yes, the Way's concept of "The Household of God" is elitist, arrogant, and obnoxious. Yes it damages people. Yes most of us have found out who our real friends are by now, and "The Household" doesn't number among them. Yes it promoted a counterfeit family.

But in our discussion we are moving beyond "The Way", and delving into truths about God and the Holy Spirit field that encompasses all of Christianity.

If the damage from the Way is too great to be able handle that without the grief from the Way and anger at the Way, then the honest thing to do is to simply recuse yourself from the discussion, or since this board involves a lot of people in that boat, just drop the discussion, as you honestly recognize emotional bias in handling it.

That is intellectual and spiritual honesty, not labeling all of charismatic Christianity as "communaly self deluding".

You have descended into a fit of namecalling and hysteria that is far beneath you. I think.

When you can accept criticisms of your behavior as different from an overall assessment of you as a person without this kind of emotional reaction, then you're probably able to discuss it rationally.

[OldSkool]

I dunno. Raf. After reading pages of your posts you have an edge in your posts that is abrasive. I didn't find that edge in other posts of yours, and I have read many, many of them. So I appreciate the work you have put into other topics. I am not sure why you have this "agree with me or I will berate you" thing going on. Personally, all you have accomplished with me is I find it hard to consider your point of view. My 2 cents anyway.

Carry on.

[skyrider]

My musings on my experience with speaking in tongues are just musings. At the time it happened, I believed it was a spiritual experience from God. Now I'm not sure, since I've abandoned lots of ideas about God. Like others here, I don't expect to ever "know" what the heck I was really doing when I spoke in tongues and to put it bluntly - I don't care.

But I don't conceive of myself of having lied about it, although you have given me reason to pause and second guess myself on that. I guess I don't know how lying applies to this situation. I'm puzzled. While in TWI, I felt like I was doing what VP described and I thought he was right about it all. Plus, I was not consciously asking the critical questions like the ones expressed here. I had shut down my faculty of critical thinking thanks to VP's and others' intimidation and my weak self esteem.

Perhaps the question now is: Does the nature of lying involve a conscious awareness of doing so? I think for some of us, we were blindly following and not consiously aware that VP's claims about speaking in tongues were false. BUT as soon as we had doubts, we quit preaching VP's doctrines and admitted we just didn't know that we knew anymore...

What more thoughts can you share with me on this? I am sincerely asking.

IMO.....like so many things in twi, there were mixed messages everywhere.

On one hand, the first three manifestations were expounded as *inspirational*......."as the spirit gives utterance."

How many of us walked on inspired impulse? inspired to help? inspired to get involved? inspired to speak out?

Simple, right? Don't think about it. Don't analyze it. Just do it.

Yet, on the other hand......twi's intermediate class got specific.

Length of tongue needs to be so long.....and length of interpretation (gist) should be near the same length.

It's the sum and substance of that which was just spoken in an unknown tongue.......kinda close? sort of the substance?

Yet, even wierwille's SIT sounded redundant.....and his TIP sounded King James-y......

But hey.......wierwille 'taught' us how that Tennessee guy hollered and he hollered (that's what they do in the south, right?)

DID ANYONE ELSE EVER NOTICE.......that the intermediate class was the least attended class in the pfal series?

From personal experience, I can tell you that of all the twi classes I oversaw......the intermediate class was the most challenging.

And yes, even in twi.....I often considered that there was much more to be learned in this area.

To me, twi was not the end-all of teaching about the manifestations or the power of God.

Was twi just another stepping-stone on this journey thru life.......??

Heck, even the Apostle Paul was wrong on some things........surely, wierwille was! <_<

[chockfull]

Um, no. Other than that it looks like a term paper and that it WAS written by someone who at the time he wrote it was a college undergrad with a major in philosophy and religion, no, I have no evidence that this was a college paper.

Yet you have referred to it as such in a way that sounds like it is fact numerous times to discredit it as a source. Do you honestly not see a problem with this behavior?

I did not provide you with the Vern citation to "prove" my position.

Revisionist motives. You found out it doesn't prove your position, then recanted your support of it.

We call that integrity. You should try it.

What I call integrity is reproving you for making blanket statements denigrating all of your brothers and sisters in Christ from a Charismatic background.