waysider

New??? Nah. It's like a rotting carcase in a cornfield. Well, I guess if you're a buzzard, looking to chow down on carrion, you might consider that new.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Linguistics The syllables that make up instances of glossolalia typically appear to be unpatterned reorganizations of phonemes from the primary language of the person uttering the syllables; thus, the glossolalia of people from Russia, the United Kingdom, and Brazil all sound quite different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively. Many linguists generally regard most glossolalia as lacking any identifiable semantics, syntax, or morphology. [15] SOURCE Here is the [15] citation: CLICK ..................................................................................... Sure, it SOUNDS like it has a structure. That's why it's so convincing.

Raf: Mind you, I'm not suggesting no samples exist. Plenty exist, and insofar as they have been examined by competent linguists, they have all been dismissed as non-languages (not archaic, not angelic, not foreign, not languages). Chock: Can you document this claim for me? I'd like to see the actual evidence before coming to a conclusion on how widespread fakery in this area is. And this does seem to be a statement that would have some factual evidence to support. ................................................................................ HERE (page 3 or 4, I think.)

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

I've still got boxes and boxes of SNS tapes, buried in with the rest of the clutter in my cellar. Did those have mannies on them? It's been too many years since I listened to them to remember. Edit: I'm not even sure I still have a machine that would play them.

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

You could probably write one about LCM and call it "Old Yeller".

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

Your target audience would be limited to those who have a willingness to connect the dots

I think it would have to be a coloring book. (only black and white crayons allowed)

Food for thought: The Way taught that TIP is God talking to you. Along comes a splinter and teaches that, no, it's you talking to God. At the very least, one one them must be wrong. So, here's my question. If you are one of the people who did it both ways, did you ever sense at some point that you might be faking it? Because, logic dictates you must have been.

It's a learned behavior. (Not necessarily the actual words or sounds, but, the behavior itself.) If the example group does it in a frenzied, chaotic sort of fashion, that's the behavior you'll adapt. If the example group does it in an orderly, regimented fashion, that's the behavior you'll adapt.

“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” ........Friedrich Nietzsche

Much obliged, Miss JJ.

The question is a bit obtuse. It confuses intent with result. It would first need to be established that speaking in tongues is, in fact, a form of perfect prayer.

Take it from an old theatre hack, it's always good to know what your audience expects.

"The missing link there is that glossolalia may very reasonably be looked at as a gibberish counterfeit for tongues" If glossolalia is the counterfeit, where shall we find evidence of the genuine? Furthermore, if glossolalia is the counterfeit, there must have been an awful lot of counterfeit going on in The Way because there was an abundance of glossolalia.

Sure, that's why so many people are convinced it's real. But, when it's put to the test, it proves to be lacking in cohesive structure. HERE is an interesting study of this particular facet of the discussion. 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)

It's never okay to cough up a lung.

O.K But, is it documented (or substantiated) in scripture that what we witness today being represented as speaking in tongues is the same thing found in Acts 2? People understood them in that account. They spoke a language(s). Today's version of speaking in tongues is not a language(s). If it is, it should be provable, using standards of linguistic identification.

Chock It's a flawed analogy...apples and oranges, if you will. No one is asking God to prove anything or for anyone to prove God. What's under scrutiny here is the veracity of speaking in tongues.