SIT, Interpretation, Prophecy and Confession, REBOOT

[Raf]

I did this on my own, without consulting the other mods. They can smack my hand if I'm out of line, but let me outline my reasoning.

1. The original thread is here: LINK! It is too long for anyone to reasonably be expected to read it all and catch up on it, and recapping after more than 100 pages is only useful if you know where the recap is. The recap will be in this post, with the opportunity for others to recap if their memories differ from mine.

2. The original thread got ugly. Recapping here allows us to remove the ugliness while keeping the many salient points that were made on both sides.

The Recap

The thread started with me confessing that I'd faked SIT all along. In addition, I said I made up interpretations and prophecies on the spot. I referred to it as "reinforced self-deception," where TWI encouraged us to participate in a fundamentally dishonest practice to build community. We all did it.

My choice of language was highly divisive. Folks thought I was accusing everyone of lying. In actuality, my feeling was that we were all deceived and walked out on it, in good faith believing that what we were doing is genuine. But I used the word lie, and I own that. So to clarify: I think we fooled ourselves, were encouraged by others to fake it [in good faith: most of them thought it was real, too], and were told that we weren't faking it as part of the initiation. TWI made a compelling Biblical case, and we wanted what the Bible promised.

As the conversation progressed, people felt a need to defend their faith, practice and integrity. They also disagreed with me on whether everyone was/is faking it.

From there, it became a question of who had the burden of proof. Is it the person claiming to produce something supernatural, or the one claiming it's all a fake?

To this day, I don't think we reached a consensus. But I think there was general agreement about my observation that my thesis, "It's all fake," cannot be proved. To do so, I would have to record every instance of SIT, ever, and prove beyond a doubt that it's not a language. It is not reasonable to expect me to do that. BUT!!!!! Disproving my thesis should be easy. Produce a language. You do that, and I'm wrong, end of story.

As far as me demonstrating my position (not proving it), we got into a lengthy discussion about scholarship on the subject. Many works were cited, but the two that drew the most comments were from linguist William Samarin and another gentleman whose credentials I no longer remember. His name was Vern Poythress. Poythress was fascinating because he is (was?) a believer who never discounted the possibility of genuine SIT.

Samarin's position was secular. Summarizing him is easy: SIT does not produce languages. What it does produce is similar to language in a number of ways, but the similarities are superficial. It's not gibberish (goo-goo-ga-ga, bliggety, bloggety, boo!). It is supposed to simulate language, and as such, it will have a diverse "vocabulary" and pauses similar to what you would encounter while reading and coming across a comma or period. SIT produces not just words, but sentences and paragraphs.

But, he said repeatedly, it doesn't produce language.

There was lots of disagreement, some of it contentious, about what Samarin was and was not saying.

Poythress took Samarin's work a little further and described a typical "first experience" with SIT. What he described was remarkably similar to Session 12 of PFAL. Relax. Speak. Uncomfortable at first, but soon it will be as easy as riding a bicycle. And this was very important: the instructor would tell the speaker not to doubt. "If he says, 'I seem to be doing it myself,' the 'coach' replies, 'That’s the devil trying to make you doubt the gift that God has given you.'"

It was Poythress who coined the term "free vocalization," which I subsequently adopted. I'll let him define it:

Free vocalization (glossolalia) occurs when (1) a human being produces a connected sequence of speech sounds, (2) he cannot identify the sound-sequence as belonging to any natural language that he already knows how to speak, (3) he cannot identify and give the meaning of words or morphemes (minimal lexical units), (4) in the case of utterances of more than a few syllables, he typically cannot repeat the same sound-sequence on demand, (5) a naive listener might suppose that it was an unknown language.

Again, it needs to be stressed that Poythress was/is not a doubter. He merely considered SIT a testable claim and found that it didn't produce languages. I'm leaving a LOT out for the sake of brevity (100-page thread, people!). Here's Poythress' article. Go to town.

I don't think it's necessary to go into more than that for the sake of summary, but again I must insist: I have not done Poythress justice. He refers to my position as "unbiblical." I actually disagree with that. Which brings us to the issue of presuppositions and why I did not reveal during the course of this thread that I am no longer a believer.

There are numerous Christian denominations that teach SIT is a thing of the past and not possible today. There is no difference between what those Christians believe about modern SIT and what I believe about it (with the exception that those Christians might believe there's something demonic at work, whereas I most certainly do not). Point is, you do not need to be a non-Christian to conclude modern SIT is a $3 bill. I wanted this issue discussed on the merits. My lack of faith in other areas was not relevant. In fact, I had come to my conclusion about SIT years before I lost my faith in other aspects of Christianity. I chose to save atheism for a later discussion. SIT could be discussed on its own, on the merits, without a loss of faith in those who came to agree with me.

A couple of other brief points before I wrap up this summary:

I cannot prove everyone faked it. I never tried. I only tried to document the claims I was making, and in doing so encountered a mechanism for "faking it" that I think holds up to scrutiny.

I think the mechanism for faking SIT is free vocalization as described by Poythress, which anyone can do.

I think the mechanism for faking interpretation and prophecy is extemporaneous speech, which, again, anyone can do. With a little practice, you can get very good at it. It doesn't mean you plot out every word you're going to say. It just means you know your subject matter and you're able to speak about it without pre-planning. People do this in speech classes all the time.

The reason this was in About the Way and not in doctrinal was outlined in the first post: I believe these "manifestations" were TWI's way of creating group cohesion through a shared experience that appeared to be supernatural but on closer examination was anything but.

Throughout anything I said in the previous thread or here, if I have stated anything as fact when it is merely my opinion, I apologize. I am declaring all of this to be my opinion.

This summary is unintentionally one-sided. Nobody's perfect. I invite any original thread participants who want to elaborate on their opposition to my thesis to please do so.

Edited February 11, 2016 by modcat5

[Mod Kirk]

I did this on my own, without consulting the other mods. They can smack my hand if I'm out of line, but let me outline my reasoning.

I assent to your actions...

Nice recap!

[Raf]

Personally disappointed in my failure to overcome my bias. I'll add more when I have time.

[MRAP]

I assent to your actions...

Nice recap!

Where's Spock's logic when you need it?

[Oakspear]

I wonder what the percentage was of people in Session Twelve of PFAL (or the equivalent point in Martindale's WayAP class) that did not speak in tongues. That's a rhetorical question, since we'll never know that number, since "nobody gets misssed" right? And records surely were not kept and if they were, we surely won't get to see them!

Over the years I participated in only a limited number of PFAL classes; I can recall for sure only three people who did not speak in tongues at Session Twelve and did not thereafter. One was a guy who was very intellectual about the whole thing, never got into the emotional uproar that takes place at that key point of the session; he always said he was waiting for something to happen that never happened. The second was a lady in her late seventies who loved the social aspect of twig and was like a grandma to all of us, but she never seemed to understand what was being taught, or even make the effort. The third was one of my sons, who was in his early teens. He dug in his heels and just refused to do it - said it didn't make sense. My two older sons were just as non-questioning as their mother and I were, but Oakspear Junior questioned everything and was not at all impressed with what he heard.

Looking back at my own SIT experiences, I didn't think I was faking it back then, and I don't think that I did so intentionally, but it was so easy to get swept up in the emotion and the groupthink

[waysider]

I was involved with classes that had people fail to "manifest" in session 12. It was hidden from the other students. Whether intentional or not, that's one of the benefits of having all the students close their eyes. When it would happen, leadership would work with them privately, after the class had ended, either that night or soon thereafter. As a class instructor, you have to act quickly. The longer you wait to rectify the situation, the less likely it becomes they will manifest. If they didn't succeed, they would usually disappear on their own rather quickly, feeling ashamed and out of place, though I did know someone who took the class multiple times before finally manifesting. It has the potential of being a very devastating experience for both the student and the instructor who was required to file paperwork indicating whether or not every student manifested.

[shortfuse]

Sidebar: This was a fun bit in LCM's class. They were to SIT in session 10, and it was to be done in private with a couple grads. If someone did not SIT it was because they were hard hearted and we were supposed to DROP them from the class before the next session.

[Bolshevik]

I was taught to SIT and prophecy when I was too young to remember. As a kid, it was a game. In children's fellowship everyone was eager.

As a got older, teenager, I remember having more and more reservations to the point of fear. I dreaded fellowship, which was three times a week, largely because of manifestations. I would actually spend much of the day in school worrying about it. At some point, into my twenties, every fellowship I would break a sweat over SIT and prophecy.

It felt wrong, and was not a good experience.

[Raf]

Sidebar: This was a fun bit in LCM's class. They were to SIT in session 10, and it was to be done in private with a couple grads. If someone did not SIT it was because they were hard hearted and we were supposed to DROP them from the class before the next session.

No pressure.

Dag.

[Steve Lortz]

I may have contributed to the discussion on the original thread. I don't remember what specifically. I've been writing some things about tongues in the doctrinal section. I don't think I'm going do much participation on this thread. I've been less interested in the TWI experience and version of tongues than I used to be. For the last year or so, I've been studying Acts and I Corinthians from more of a Wesleyan Holiness point of view. I have a copy of J. E. Stiles' The Gift of the Holy Spirit, and I will go to that if I need a research source. I wouldn't go anywhere near any of Wierwille's writings, not even with a ten-foot pole. His plagiarism is so toxic, it would pollute MY work if I used him as a source...

Thanks for making this stuff accessible to a new generation of Greasespot readers, Raf! I'll be lurking. I've learned a lot already about important things that were suppressed while I was active in TWI, and things that happened after I left in '87, but if I have anything to post, it will probably be somewhere in Doctrinal.

Aloha nui oi,

Steve

Edited February 10, 2016 by Steve Lortz

[WordWolf]

My part in the thread was peculiar, for those who followed the whole thread.

Initially, I avoided participation because I thought the tone was far too

antagonistic. (I figured that, if this is the "After" picture, I can skip

adding more acid to my lifestyle.) Once it cooled off, I kept up reading, mostly.

My initial position was similar to the twi one, but without a depth of conviction.

I hadn't led anyone into it in decades. As the thread proceeded on, the position

that the modern, twi-style was nothing like the Pentecost style proved to be

well-supported, and the other position had nothing to dispute it-

neither anything I could think of, nor that others could think of, could

account for the differences. So, I CHANGED MY POSITION COMPLETELY for the

purpose of this thread's topic.

To clarify: this changed nothing about my convictions about God. This changed

nothing about my convictions about the Bible. This dramatically changed my

convictions about the SIT that twi taught me. I do not know if the Pentecost

style is "available" today. I am convinced I haven't seen it, and the twi

system doesn't teach it. So, if it's not possible, the sooner I divest myself

of the twi style as allegedly that, the better. If it IS possible now, why would

I bother looking for it if I thought I'd been doing it for years? Oh, and

acknowledging all that, I STILL SIT in the modern style. I don't use it for what

twi recommended, and don't believe it's anything that isn't originating from me.

It does have legitimate uses once one gets there.

" Whether or not there is real SIT, the assertion is that the twi style itself

was education in, and practice of, how to COUNTERFEIT the actual experience of

SIT, with social reinforcement filling in the gaps.

(We all wanted to SIT, we were told it was fantastic, we were told this is how

it's done, all our friends wanted us to SIT, we wanted to SIT, so when we

put the twi counterfeit into practice, we were eager to believe it was the

genuine and not the counterfeit, and our friends believed the same.)

Whether or not that's true, the evidence points that way."

Although I DO believe that there were a few incidents with a real message from

God Almighty, I also now think that the TIP instances were mostly mundane.

"That's what I did when I attempted to SIT.

When I meant to interpret or prophesy, I looked for a message to bless the people

at hand, something God wanted them to hear.

With no immediate revelation (in nearly every case, I think), I reached into my subconscious mind

and into my experience WITH these messages in twi

and produced ones that sounded like everyone else's.

And I never MEANT to lie or fake it. I meant to serve God. I meant to bring forth messages

at God Almighty's behest. I meant to do the right thing."

"As to Sociology,

any Sociologist (or competent undergrad student) could design a social structure

for an organization that would have the participants, the members, taught that

free vocalization was divine, and that if they trusted God, both syllables not

connected to any language and lacking the structure of any language would be

directly of God. They then could go on and teach the people that, if they

trusted God, the people could "interpret" that, and that the words in their own

language that immediately followed would be of God, and that God wanted them to.

Then the only things needed would be some samples to acculturate the people so

they "knew how it worked." That's exactly how the "slain in the Spirit" people

work, and the people who "dance in the Spirit." They expect God to deliver,

and they do something and expect God to provide the specifics. They sincerely

believe that's how it works.

Ok, so that's a framework that would provide the expectations. The only missing

things would be the actual utterances. Any improvisational actor can produce

free vocalization. If their instructions were clear, they could free vocalize

and speak in their language after that, insisting that was the translation.

With some preparation and samples to draw from, they could produce results

identical to the twi experience- stand up, speak without a language, then

speak in their language and sound EXACTLY like the expected interpretation.

Any adult could do the same with some training. With the proper mindset,

any adult could be taught to do that and believe it was all directly from God.

As for "prophecy", that's even simpler. They'd just need a sampling to draw

from, so they knew what it sounded like. Any improvisational actor could keep

going as long as needed or instructed. Any non-actor who was convinced it was

of God could do it all the time.

So, COULD it all have been faked?

Yes, it could all have been faked.

We were taught it was real. We had expectations it was real. We expected

that if we uttered syllables, God would provide meaning, and we had samples

of what other people's speech sounded like. (I've noticed that most modern SIT

in twi sounded the same no matter what state the speaker was from.)

As for interpretation or prophecy, yes, with expectations raised, and samples

to draw from, you'd get well-intentioned people who provided them and thought

they were from God. The speakers were primed, the listeners were primed.

Nothing was questioned, nobody WANTED to question it."

"Improvisational actors are trained in a wide variety of skills that would affect their

ability to do this.

However, conmen can do it as well.

And anyone can learn to do it.

It takes longer when someone has to believe they're doing something spiritual rather than

something mundane, but it's easy if you have the right setup.

You need the right patter to prime them

(like when vpw says things for THREE FULL SESSIONS like

"Don't you want to speak the wonderful works of God?").

You need lots of people to provide social context and social pressure.

You need people over at least 3 nights (more is much more effective)

to demonstrate what it looks like "during manifestations."

Months of it is more effective than nights of it.

When Session 12 rolls along, the pigeon/student is primed to go,

and if they don't SIT on cue along with the entire room,

then someone comes over to them directly to get them going,

and takes them aside if that doesn't work.

With more time and practice with the first step, the next steps become easy.

The Intermediate spends a LOT of time on prepping people to believe that

the next thing is of God. One guy I know had been waiting to do for years,

and was complaining that several sessions went by without getting into it-

they just kept getting into "You can do it." "I know I can do it, show me how!"

Each Intermediate had groups where we did it and set up the new students perfectly

to expect to do the same and what it looks like. Instead of an acting instructor,

we had a class instructor, hours and hours of prep to prime our expectations,

then hours in individual groups where people learned more by observation and practice.

One of the most important things, which is easy for some people to forget, is all the

previous exposure to the stuff in meetings, and again there. So, the person knows what

the result is supposed to sound like.

I could design a class exercise for acting students to look the same. The only difference

is that the acting students would know they are faking it. (Ok, the 2nd of 2 differences

would be I'd do it in a fraction of the time because the acting students would know they

are faking it, and I could skip straight to the ingredients of the specific performance-

how to move, how to stay, how to make the SIT sounds, what components to place in the

"interpretation" and what components to leave out, etc.

The result would either look like an Excellors Session, or a full meeting, depending on

what I designed the thing to look like."

"The thing is, when people went/go through the INT class, it's NOT in a void.

They had months of "fellowships" with months of samples of what the "messages from God"

are supposed to sound like and look like. So, they know what to expect, and have social

conditioning that everyone else expects exactly that, too.

THEN comes the "you can do it" pep talks for a few sessions, THEN comes the "how to"

in the sessions/excellor sessions/ small groups.

Also, don't forget that any sampling of people will cover "normal distribution." Some

will lag behind (and may need private sessions on top of months of prep and sessions

of pep talk) and some will surge forward (and may do the stuff with only the exposure

from 12 sessions of pfal or from seeing a few meetings and following the instructions

in the books.) So, there will always be a few examples of people who need very little

exposure. We never really discussed the "slow cases."

What qualifies as a "short period" is different for people who know they're faking it

and people who would be convinced they were doing it supernaturally.

A class of actors could do it in one long session-provided enough examples of material

were provided. Faking a language, pious manner, those are easy. Most of it will be

details of the meeting, then samples of the "messages from God."

So, it COULD all have been faked.

I'm convinced at least some of it was NOT faked.

I'm not sure how much, but SOME.

(Much less than half. Maybe 5%, maybe 1%, maybe less.)"

[And yes, obviously that's a guess on my part.]

Edited February 10, 2016 by WordWolf

[Rocky]

Looking back at my own SIT experiences, I didn't think I was faking it back then, and I don't think that I did so intentionally, but it was so easy to get swept up in the emotion and the groupthink

I second that motion!

One interesting (to me anyway) side note on SIT. I took the FLAP class in June or July 1975. Just under two years earlier, I was in tech training at Keesler AFB, MS. I attended a charismatic fellowship during those months (was there about six months). During that time, they tried to help me SIT but I could never get it. I didn't realize how freakin' easy it was and that all I had to do was "start moving my lips, etc...."

Personally disappointed in my failure to overcome my bias. I'll add more when I have time.

Don't be. You're human. That you are able to be aware of it and admit it demonstrates significant emotional intelligence.

[Raf]

Reading through WordWolf's summary of his own involvement in the original thread, I seem to recall a general agreement that the Biblical results of TIP would not be "testable" in the same sense that SIT was, so while we discussed it, we really didn't argue about it all that much. At least, in comparison.

There was a lot of disagreement over whether SIT is a testable claim. That's what gave rise to the doctrinal threads that were supposed to be about what Biblical SIT actually is.

[Raf]

I really feel underqualified to recap the other side of this argument, but I'll give it a shot.

1. Calling us all "liars" was offensive and out of line. [Conceded]. Making a blanket declaration that we all faked it overstepped the bounds of what I could possibly "know," and to state it as fact is, by implication, calling us all liars no matter how nicely I try to put it. [Conceded to a point: Calling someone a "liar" is accusing them of deliberate dishonesty. I do not believe there was anything deliberate about it. I think it was a combination of a lot of factors, including peer pressure and a genuine hunger to produce what we believed the Bible promises].

2. "Testing" the claims of SIT assumes I am right about the claim being testable. I don't think we ever reached consensus on that. There are verses that indicate SIT will not be understood by those present, and those verses do not make exceptions for linguists. So the failure of linguists to identify languages in SIT does not prove that languages are not being produced. [All true, but I sincerely believe the claim is testable. Again, this part of the argument gave rise to the doctrinal threads, where we discussed what SIT was Biblically and whether the claim really is testable. Because it's a doctrinal difference, I concede that we cannot reach objective agreement about whether I am right about the claim being testable. The "no one understands" verse/verses were also a point of continued disagreement: there are other verses where people who witnessed SIT did understand what was spoken, so a verse that says "no one understands" cannot be applied in a blanket fashion. Understanding SIT would have to be possible, but not universal. We failed to reach agreement on this question].

3. The value of anecdotal evidence remains in dispute. We have all heard of instances in which someone did understand what was spoken during SIT. That's evidence. [My position: that is not evidence. That is a claim that requires evidence to prove it. What we find in these anecdotes, almost universally, is that the people involved typically vanish, making confirmation impossible. Again, I believe we failed to reach consensus on this].

4. Subjecting SIT to a test belittles God's flexibility in giving us languages that will evade detection. Many languages have gone "extinct," and we have no way of knowing what they sounded like. Even the best linguist would not be able to detect it. [My counterargument was that this could account for many instances of SIT, but could not account for all of them, and it only takes one to disprove my position.

I'm sure I left some good points out.

[chockfull]

On the original thread I shared my perspective, which after all of the research gone through seems pretty simplistic. My first experience with tongues was prior to TWI and related to prayer and probably stemmed from Oral Roberts teachings. There was none of the intermediate class manipulation or none of the PFAL buildup and hype. That set the pattern for my story that tongues is basically prayer of sorts.

My TWI experiences were everything all of you had on the negative side of this - rote instruction, INT class "mechanics" practice, and the TWI specific use of them - "Jimmy please speak in tongues and interpret" the way nobody else in Christianity does - all along with a "look down your nose spritual elitist attitude" because you are now "more fully instructed" as a believer.

We examined some theologians - Poythress and Samarin as well as 2 or 3 others. We argued a lot during this portion and didn't agree on conclusions - one of the things positive I took out of that was it actually is a new way of looking at things post TWI colored glasses - examining my attitudes I saw an immediate discounting of theologians because of a spiritual elitist attitude. I had to deal with that before I could objectively get to looking at the idealogy. I like this because as a new pattern of biblical research I check the commentaries rather than ignoring them - in a great attempt to lose the attitude. I will share that this attitude has been particularly pesky to me and hard to get rid of - I see the spiritual elitist creep up at times all over the place.

One of the conclusions that reversed what I originally thought was we had been taught in TWI that the devil can't fake SIT. Abundant evidence to the contrary indicates that not only the devil can fake it, but so can everyone from the Pope to an atheist. Most of the analysis linguistically in the studies we covered referred to a series of tapes of different people purporting to be SIT on tape, and the analysis of what came out.

Several people on the thread shared stories of interpretation of tongues being understood in the prayer meeting by someone else. I think there was at least one firsthand witness to this - I had heard tales of this but had not experienced it personally. The most credible 2nd hand story I encountered involved some of the Zaire contingent in a meeting - they didn't speak English - the story was their tongue was in English and the interpretation French and it was experienced by 10+ people. None of these stories could be reproduced, are on tape, or have conclusive supporting or contradicting evidence in any way.

There also is the topic of glossallalia - which seems to indicate that the Catholics have known about this gibberish for centuries but not said much about it.

There are many many problems with this topic doctrinally, which range from the topic itself to TWI's rote legalistic handling of it missing the point doctrinally. If people want to delve into that side, the Doctrinal forum is open.

My conclusion at the end of the discussion and study wasn't a whole lot different than where I started. I still SIT as part of my quirky way I pray to my God and my Savior. I still have my simplistic faith view. I have a greater realization and appreciation for fraud. I think this topic, like many other divisive topics that TWI originated, was just that - dividing people off of the body of Christ - cause controversy, present VP as THE expert, become a demi-god.

I feel much of this is covered under Paul's statement "no other foundation can be laid except Jesus Christ". Building on a false foundation causes a structure with no real strength or protection.

[Raf]

Thanks, chockfull. We were posting at the same time.

My one quibble with your recap, and it's just a quibble, is that Samarin was not a theologian. He was a linguist. Other than that, I think you have accurately summed up your part of the argument.

It was 100 pages. We both left things out.

Here's another one:

Terminology became an issue because we could not agree on what various things meant, and we were all over the map about it. "Biblical SIT," "modern SIT," "free vocalization" and "glossolalia" were the terms in dispute.

It didn't help that Poythress used "free vocalization" in ways that made perfect sense to him but became confusing when we tried to apply it to this conversation.

For example, strip SIT (as we practiced it) of any spiritual claims, and Poythress calls it "free vocalization." Add the spiritual angle, and he calls it "T-speech." He demonstrates, I think, that T-speech is free vocalization practiced in the context of worship. They are, he claims, the same thing, mechanically. But he leaves open the idea of whether they produce different results, leaning toward saying "yes, they produce the same thing" but stopping short because to do otherwise would be to deny the possibility of God's intervention.

It starts to look like "free vocalization" is a term he made up to deny SIT. That would make sense if he denied SIT, but he didn't.

"Glossolalia" is what linguists call SIT. They're supposed to be synonymous. But linguists, not being bound by Biblical definitions, are free to apply the term to non-Biblical practices. So it became a little confusing for us, because we needed to be sure that linguists were talking about the same things we were.

I do think we ended up agreeing on Samarin's distinction between SIT/free vocalization/glossolalia and "gibberish" [the former aim to approximate what a language should sound like; the latter does not].

Edited February 10, 2016 by Raf

[chockfull]

I really feel underqualified to recap the other side of this argument, but I'll give it a shot.

Your point outlines here besides the doctrinal ones seem pretty accurate to me. The doctrinal ones we are avoiding in this forum, and taking up in the Doctrinal if people want to discuss that.

1. Calling us all "liars" was offensive and out of line. [Conceded]. Making a blanket declaration that we all faked it overstepped the bounds of what I could possibly "know," and to state it as fact is, by implication, calling us all liars no matter how nicely I try to put it. [Conceded to a point: Calling someone a "liar" is accusing them of deliberate dishonesty. I do not believe there was anything deliberate about it. I think it was a combination of a lot of factors, including peer pressure and a genuine hunger to produce what we believed the Bible promises].

The positive way to state this point is that there is absolutely no way you could know the experiences in my life are fake. Your viewpoint is that all of us in TWI were faking it and we were duped. My viewpoint differs in that I agree with you that we were duped on this topic yet I still retain my childlike faith and view this as part of my relationship with my Savior, and that being much more important than "the gift" and "the operation of the gift". In fact I see teachings on "the gift" basically pointing towards yourself as the source of power. That's absolutely wrong. While I can understand your reaction to being duped, I think for me it is vitally important to not further TWI's false work in cutting me off from Jesus.

2. "Testing" the claims of SIT assumes I am right about the claim being testable. I don't think we ever reached consensus on that. There are verses that indicate SIT will not be understood by those present, and those verses do not make exceptions for linguists. So the failure of linguists to identify languages in SIT does not prove that languages are not being produced. [All true, but I sincerely believe the claim is testable. Again, this part of the argument gave rise to the doctrinal threads, where we discussed what SIT was Biblically and whether the claim really is testable. Because it's a doctrinal difference, I concede that we cannot reach objective agreement about whether I am right about the claim being testable. The "no one understands" verse/verses were also a point of continued disagreement: there are other verses where people who witnessed SIT did understand what was spoken, so a verse that says "no one understands" cannot be applied in a blanket fashion. Understanding SIT would have to be possible, but not universal. We failed to reach agreement on this question].

Yes - this investigation, while interesting in its detail, ended up as a wash in proving anything.

3. The value of anecdotal evidence remains in dispute. We have all heard of instances in which someone did understand what was spoken during SIT. That's evidence. [My position: that is not evidence. That is a claim that requires evidence to prove it. What we find in these anecdotes, almost universally, is that the people involved typically vanish, making confirmation impossible. Again, I believe we failed to reach consensus on this].

I read 3 or 4 anecdotal stories and repeated the one 2nd hand story I heard. If any of these were recorded it would be evidence. None were recorded. The only logical conclusion is that there is no evidence either way on this point other than anecdotes. The reason anecdotes aren't evidence is that they could be fictional and invented by the hype surrounding TWI.

4. Subjecting SIT to a test belittles God's flexibility in giving us languages that will evade detection. Many languages have gone "extinct," and we have no way of knowing what they sounded like. Even the best linguist would not be able to detect it. [My counterargument was that this could account for many instances of SIT, but could not account for all of them, and it only takes one to disprove my position.

I do have a feeling that God doesn't operate in a way to stand around and let humans detect Him. There still is the whole freedom of will aspect - where you have to believe and trust. The times personally I have proved God in my life aren't like putting out a fleece, but more like believing and moving and seeing God work as I move.

I'm sure I left some good points out.

I think the main one is that TWI fronted SIT and those manifestations as "proof" of God's existence. You can't really use anything in this world as proof that God exists that will absolutely refute the naysayers.

It has to still boil down to a personal choice.

[chockfull]

Thanks, chockfull. We were posting at the same time.

My one quibble with your recap, and it's just a quibble, is that Samarin was not a theologian. He was a linguist. Other than that, I think you have accurately summed up your part of the argument.

You're right. Samarin was a linguist.

Terminology became an issue because we could not agree on what various things meant, and we were all over the map about it. "Biblical SIT," "modern SIT," "free vocalization" and "glossolalia" were the terms in dispute.

It didn't help that Poythress used "free vocalization" in ways that made perfect sense to him but became confusing when we tried to apply it to this conversation.

For example, strip SIT (as we practiced it) of any spiritual claims, and Poythress calls it "free vocalization." Add the spiritual angle, and he calls it "T-speech." He demonstrates, I think, that T-speech is free vocalization practiced in the context of worship. They are, he claims, the same thing, mechanically. But he leaves open the idea of whether they produce different results, leaning toward saying "yes, they produce the same thing" but stopping short because to do otherwise would be to deny the possibility of God's intervention.

It starts to look like "free vocalization" is a term he made up to deny SIT. That would make sense if he denied SIT, but he didn't.

The terminology is indeed difficult because I think they are trying to differentiate between different elements that had all previously been lumped together. Everything was lumped under glossolalia with no distinction previously. I can appreciate the efforts to delineate. To me I would rather include the logic and detail in my consideration as opposed to censoring it because of some perceived bias.

"Glossolalia" is what linguists call SIT. They're supposed to be synonymous. But linguists, not being bound by Biblical definitions, are free to apply the term to non-Biblical practices. So it became a little confusing for us, because we needed to be sure that linguists were talking about the same things we were.

Some of my struggle in this discussion was trying to come up to speed on the whole field of linguistics. There still is a whole lot more there I don't know. Yes there are different definitions describing similar things that originate either from theology or linguistics. Some of the crossover can be confusing.

I do think we ended up agreeing on Samarin's distinction between SIT/free vocalization/glossolalia and "gibberish" [the former aim to approximate what a language should sound like; the latter does not].

There seemed to be a distinction and everything I learned about basic linguistics indicates an ability to phonetically compare languages by breaking down constructs similar to words and sentences. Linguistics shows a distinction between gibberish and SIT/.../... Yes we agree on this.

[TLC]

I'm hesitant to post in this thread, not merely because I'm more intrigued by the doctrinal side of it, but also because I was somewhat taken back by the differences of experience with it in TWI.

In brief, about all I knew about SIT prior to TWI is what I read of it in the Bible and that some people did it, that all should be able to, and that I wanted to. (I had never actually heard it.)

About all it took was hearing two people in a believer's meeting (and seeing that each had their own unique tongue) to later that day lock myself in a closet (so to speak), pray to God for "the real deal" (in so many words), and then do it. What I did (and heard myself doing) then hasn't changed much in over 40 years. And to be honest about it, I don't believe that anything TWI (or anyone else) could, would or did do after that would ever persuade me any more (or any less) that it is not "the real deal." Because "that deal" always was, and still is, between me and God. And I don't believe He is an Indian giver.

So I don't know, and can't say what others experienced. Other than, it looks like it may have different. (But I don't know.)

[Raf]

TLC,

Don't be hesitant to chime in. The reason for this thread is to bring you, MRAP and any other interested parties a chance to catch up on the previous discussion without having to sift through 100 pages of back-and-forth that turned vitriolic from time to time (although there was a truckload of substance in there that gets lost in the summary, I'd wager that little of it is necessary for any purpose other than to point out we had indeed considered numerous different angles).

It's practically an invitation for you to weigh in.

[TLC]

It's practically an invitation for you to weigh in.

As I did. But aside from stating one's own baseline perspective and experience with it (as seen above), I don't know that I see any more benefit resulting from extolling the genuineness or profoundness or betterment (aka, getting "one up") of what one person's experience might be over another.

It's a very personal thing, from what I see or think of it, unless or until we get to the doctrinal side of it. If it doesn't mean or do anything for someone, then so be it. The only thing that I suppose could or would ever change that is a shift in their doctrinal belief concerning it, which, if happening merely as a result of someone else's stated (and unproveable) experience with it, might just as easily reverse as a result of someone else's testimony concerning it. So, unless or until there is some doctrinal clarity based upon scripture, the variations of personal experiences with it might make for interesting or nice stories (or not so nice "food fights")... but I don' see that they'll be viewed or valued for anything much more significant than that.

[Raf]

Then you see why there was some reluctance to resurrect the thread after all this time. ;)

[Bolshevik]

Claims in TWI that SIT enhances your physical and mental abilities could be tested, right? (If that's off topic, or has been covered, sorry)

[Raf]

Not discussed, and I wouldn't agree with that statement. For a claim to be testable, it has to be falsifiable. That is, you have to come up with a set of criteria that, if true, would invalidate the claim. I suppose you could run all sorts of studies comparing hte overall health of people who SIT to people who don't, but so many other factors come into play with health that it would be impossible to pin anything on the presence or absence of SIT in someone's life.

"When I speak, it will be a language" is testable. You're either producing a language or you're not. We can argue (and OH WE DID) about whether the language can be detected for any number of reasons, but somewhere along the line, someone's got to be able to produce a language and put the matter to rest.

My position, "it's all faked," is also testable. There's an obvious criteria that makes it falsifiable: produce an identifiable language. Boom. Our work here is done.

"Enhances your physical and mental abilities"? I don't know how we can test for that.

[TLC]

"Enhances your physical and mental abilities"? I don't know how we can test for that.

What can it "enhance," considering that it's not understandable? (This actually relates to a question just posted in the doctrinal thread.)

Why suppose that it's either mental or physical? (Beside, I don't recall it was taught that way at TWI.)

Edited February 10, 2016 by TLC