TLC

Unless you enjoy sticking your fingers in a light socket, and you're happy and more than satisfied with those nearly 50 years of experience with it, I'd suggest being a bit careful drudging up more muck than you can possibly wash off with one rinse. Quite frankly, I don't really think there's much more to say about it aside from what's been covered in the last couple of posts. I only brought it up here to ask Raf a few questions about it that would give me a little better perspective on whether (or how) it may or may not have been considered elsewhere, while avoiding some on the unnecessary turmoil it might stir up elsewhere, and it seems things cut to the chase rather quickly. (check out the video link Steve just posted... lol.) You like it, believe, and/or benefit from it? Well then, by all means, don't let anyone stop you or talk you out of it. (Just be careful trying to convincing others here that it's the real deal, and that you're actually speaking in tongues...) I don't know if there is a thread here (but there may be) that's more appropriate to ask questions like you did about what you've done or observed for 50 years, but it does seem inappropriate for this thread. (And if there is such a thread, it would still likely be subjected to heavy skepticism and scrutiny anywhere on GSC.) If it's a personal question that you only want my opinion on, your welcome to PM me. And if not (or if you have more questions about it), well... there's some 109 page thread somewhere here to start reading through. (no, I didn't. but what I did gave me a headache.)

Sure, it can be seen as that. And for some, it might be just that. Then again, it might be thinking outside the box.

It all appears to be relative, Raf. Even if a professional linquist could or did identify whatever is spoken as a bona fide language, it would still require confirmation that it was an unknown language to the speaker, and (dare I even say it) that it wasn't a product of the devil. (Talk about opening a can of worms...)

Whether it does or doesn't is a subjective matter. If for you it doesn't, then it doesn't. If for me it does, then it does. SIT is a "one way" (or "in one direction") venue of communication, as it is plainly written that the speaker does not understand what is spoken (or verbalized.) The direction of it is also clearly stated. It is toward God, not men. (1Cor.14:2) Not that many here are likely to agree with this, but to purport that any and every genuine "unknown tongue" MUST abide by or conform to the same format or limits of intelligibility as any known language of men locks God in a box and appears (to me) to elevate the ability (i.e., intelligence) of man above the abilities and intelligence of God. Further to that, it is written in 1Cor.4:5 to judge NOTHING before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. So, I guess that's where I see this matter being best left at. I agree, believing wasn't taught right. But I don't see that automatically nullifying everything else that was said or taught. It takes a lot of effort to separate the good from the bad. (And if anyone never really learned how to "think," a good place to start is in their own head.)

Backing up to the beginning of my earlier post, I noted the possibility that two realities for it can and do exist because of how reality is perceived. Given that it produces the same intended effect or benefits (if it does), is proof enough of the authenticity or "realness" of it. Not proof or verification to everyone, that's for sure. But it can be (or is) to the one doing it.

God does seem to have a peculiar sense of humor (or so it seems, in Psalms 2:4.)

The point is, if the effect or benefits of it are the same (whether genuine or not), then what actual difference does it make?

...and maybe to confound the wise. Some purport that 1Tim.1:15 speaks to the nastiness of Paul's sin. However, that's not how others see it. Change the word "chief" to "first," and he becomes the lead in to the new economy. The pattern for what was ahead.

Considering the possibility that "two realities" can exist (one in the mind of person A, another in the mind of person B... each being the result a different frame of reference), I wonder what your response would be to the following. Regardless of whether speaking in tongues is an actual language or gibberish, I'm inclined to think that this makes no significant difference from the perspective of the speaker (who would not understand either one and view both as being unintelligible.) If, in their innermost being, they do not believe that they are speaking to God, then it's hard to picture what sort of benefit or reason they would have for doing it. If, on the other hand, they do believe that they are speaking to God, then it's hard to picture what practical difference it makes to the person speaking, who doesn't know or recognize any difference between the two. In other words, consider that there is a logical sequencing of possibilities (regardless of whether it is or isn't speaking to God.) 1) There is no benefit to SIT. 2) There is no benefit to gibberish. 3) There are benefits to SIT. 4) There are benefits to gibberish. If there's no benefits (to either), then it makes no difference if it is or isn't a language. (However, it is contrary to scripture to say there is no benefit to SIT.) It there are benefits (to either), then it's: 1) Because something changes in or with God. 2) Because something changes in the hearers. 3) Because something changes in the speaker. If it's because something changes in or with God, who knows the thoughts and intents of the heart of man, why would it matter if it is or isn't a language? If it's because something changes in or with the hearers, then it raises the question of what difference (if any) it would make that the hearers can or must identify it as a language. Some might, but it is virtually assured that many (perhaps most all) either can't or won't make the distinction. It then would be necessary to outline the prospective difference in benefits if they do or don't. Complicating that issue would be the matter of those that accept gibberish (if that's what it is) as a language, those that would not think it a language, and those that sometimes think gibberish is a language and other times don't. Needless to say, it rather quickly gets very complicated and difficult to sort out, much less effectively address WHY either might have such and such effects on hearers, or whether this aspect of it should or would outweigh or overshadow any benefits resulting from #1 or #3. If it's because something changes in the speaker (who we already know doesn't know or recognize any difference between the two), then: 1) The changes in the speaker happen because of SIT, and it is communicating with God. 2) The changes in the speaker happen for some other reason, perhaps being nothing more than the placebo effect of believing they are speaking in an unknown language to God, even though it's only gibberish. When benefits are realized as a result of either of these possibilities, then either: 1) The benefits are indeed the same. 2) The benefits are not the same. If the benefits are the same, then it effectively makes no difference (in relation to the speaker) whether it is or isn't a language. If the benefits are not the same, then it begs the question... when and how does anyone really know that they aren't the same (as they relate to the speaker)? Is there any sensible frame of reference for comparing them? (Because I'm drawing a complete blank here.) Furthermore, who's purpose does it serve to eliminate said placebo effect, if or when it is observed or declared by others to be nothing more than that? Do you think that the effects of it should or would be any less effective or "real" to the one experiencing it?

Yeah, I got that. Simply a poor choice of words on my part. It's not always easy to sort out what parts of what he taught that might be right (or closer to being right) from what resulted from it.

we undoubtedly know each other... I agree that certain aspects of it weren't necessarily taught wrong, but (as attested to elsewhere here) the elevated stature (i.e., egos) and hierarchy that resulted from ordination (and the common misperceptions that flourished over what it was about) took a heavy toll.

Well, that may be, Steve, but I've never been officially diagnosed as such. (Though, neither have I been tested for it... lol. Being the class leader and clown in early grade school, they probably would have recommended medicating me if they had such a thing back in the day.) Not that it matters or means much, but always tested on the far end of the IQ spectrum.

Not sure why anyone would be offended, and I am in complete agreement that there is no (genuine) Christianity apart from the resurrection. I suppose we each have our own story, our own reasons for why we do or don't (and did or didn't), believe it. Having said that, I think there is also a scientific (neurological) basis that helps explain how the mind perceives reality, and why what one person takes to be "real" may not be the same as what another does. In other words, what one sees as being "truth" will not be what the other sees. Without a similar basis for reality, it is essentially impossible to reach any agreement on what reality, or truth, is.

It's nothing more than my own curiosity, Raf, but did you at any time in the past know or believe or think (I'm not exactly sure how you might see it) that Jesus Christ was a real person that died, and after 3 days rose from the dead to live forever? And if so, do you know (and/or can you say) why you did?

I don't think there is much question that there was a change that occurred with ordination. If things were aligned more with how things operated in the early church (and from my perspective now, there was a LOT more than just this issue that was badly skewed), it probably would have been far better had there been an ordination of "elders," being distinct and separate from gift ministries. Any "legit" gift ministry sure doesn't need or require any kind of public recognition or acknowledgement (i.e., ordination) for it to operate, and neither do I think it requires a gift ministry for a believer to operate or function the same as one would, should the need in a particular situation merit it. Then again, "elders" set within the structure of the Way Tree (which I think was incorrectly fashioned after the church in Jerasulem, and wasn't fashioned after the gospel that Paul preached) would have undoubtedly encountered similar political pressure, so how much difference just that would have made is rather questionable.

Evidently you see what is posted here as debate, while I don't. Debate is combative, seeking victory in how it expresses its position and persuades others to accept it. I see the discussion here as seeking to identify and communicate what can be (and often are) difficult to identify and verbalize thoughts or positions on spiritual matters. There is no intent in my mind to "win," aside from simply presenting or exposing (i.e., communicating) another way to look at an issue. Perhaps you think my mind thinks in odd ways. Alright, allow me to remove the question in that. It does, and I've know it from my youth (from long before the ministry), and I used to be proud of it. It was difficult for me to eventually (rather late in life, years after my involvement in the ministry) accept that it was not an advantage. I've since recognized it for what it is, a handicap, especially when it comes to certain interactions with other people. Sure, it may allow me to see things from a different perspective than you, or anyone else here, might think possible or reasonable... or in your derogatory implication, honest. But what it also does, is it requires me to look at and consider an issue from a thousand different angles, because I have had to pay careful attention and focus on which of them (if any) you (and other "normal" people) might be viewing it from. No, I don't always get it right, that's for sure. But if allowed to (and there is interest), there's a multiplicity of ways that I can both ask questions, and openly and freely discuss a fair number things. From a debater's perspective, maybe it appears that I "break the rules" of debate (whatever they are, I can't say.) But from the vantage point of discussion, and interest in (or the deeper examination and questioning of) why the other person might have or hold the position that they do, unconventional does not equate to or mean dishonest. So, for any that claim or seem to think that they have really escaped from the "unable to think outside the box" syndrome that is generally attributed here to TWI... TWI wasn't and isn't the only place were such boxes exist.

No, there was absolutely no intent to minimize it. I was addressing that which is not identified or referred to as plagiarism. I've probably read more than you think here. Not everything, by any stretch of the imagination. But certainly enough to be well aware of the documentation of more than a problem or two. Because the statement of intent appeared to me to be pointed more at the doctrine of inerrancy than at Wierwille.

I think we all repackage ideas in our own ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either. The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think? edit change: "our ways" should read "our own ways"

But it's not a gun or bullet that Steve said was intended to stop people from thinking. It was words. If they come to us from a repeator tower, is the repeator tower responsible for them? If there's a gun to fit in here, it's shoot the messenger, not the message. Sure it does. But it's looking at it from a different perspective than you're willing to accept or think possible. Therefore, it means nothing to you.

The book was recommended reading, and sold in the bookstore. Hasn't it been discussed already that most of what he taught on this came predominately from Bullinger's work on it?

Considering it was taught at TWI that it would be one or the other that would result in the downfall of the ministry, yes.

If he's as much a plagiarist as has been revealed that he was, why credit him as the source of the toxicity? I'd say that it's certainly not as fragile from the inside looking out as it is from the outside looking in. Consider, for example, the lives of men like Martin Luther or John Wesley.

Between legalism and liberalism, which do most here see as the main (or more prominent) reason for it's failure?

Regardless of the whether it is translated to denote more of a reason why, it's still indicative of some kind of change, which occurs at a point in time. So, I don't believe the complete disconnect with time that you're suggesting is valid.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, Steve. However, you're putting yourself in a precarious position if you declare it to be much more than that. When Paul wrote that he was the apostle of the Gentiles (verse 13), do you suppose that he was the apostle to only the Gentiles that were in Rome? Of course not. Then why suppose that when he says "I speak to you Gentiles" immediately prior to that, that he was addressing this to only those Gentiles that were in Rome? It appears to me that "the root" here stems back to Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed (Gen.18:18.) The Gentiles (all of them) being grafted in had nothing to do with anything they did to be grafted in, it was a result of the work of the seed of Abraham, the Lord Jesus Christ. And, just as all of Israel (didn't matter whether they did or didn't believe) were considered to be partakers of His goodness (in spite of any of them not being deserving of it), now all Gentiles were positioned to benefit from the goodness of God. (Because they really weren't, prior to this.) An absurd saying on their part, if they said it. (And I have no reason to think they didn't.) Say on. Actually, there are notable differences, especially in context of the present discussion, dispensationalism. So your critique is not only shallow, it's very misleading. Ever read or investigate Feldick's teachings relating to this passage in Roman 11, which Scofield has few notes or comments on? Perhaps you (and Feldick) know more of Scofield's notes than are found here A blithe reference to Feldick's teachings didn't improve your credibility.