SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[WordWolf]

All right. Next point of discussion in this topic, since we are as Raf put it "measuring what man produces" not what scripture says.

In the poll in this post, 50% of the options, or 3 out of 6, include the words "I lied about it". Further elaboration on this communicates that people are admitting to "faking it" as well.

Now up to this point, we have had zero scrutiny on those answers. We have simply relied on whatever a person tells us in this category to be true. However, we are not doing this for ANYTHING on the other side of the argument. For instance, anecdotes where people in worship meetings understood the tongue in their native language. We don't believe the people relating these accounts until they are proven.

So my next area to scrutinize is those answering "I lied an faked". Do we just immediately trust that they are telling the truth? Do we immediately trust that even if they are telling the truth to the best of their ability, that when they SIT in TWI that what actually was happening was they were not producing languages?

A number of us have posted on the thread.

I said rather clearly "I lied."

I meant well, I didn't mean to deceive myself,

but I did.

Of course, you've already determined that nothing could possibly weaken your case,

so either I'm lying about having lied,

or I was never born again,

or some other dismissive carp like that.

I say no. I've run quite a number of INT classes. I've seen faking. I've seen people struggling. In my opinion, there is way too little time when people are practicing in a worship meeting between when they SIT and when they interpret for them to completely construct the sentences in the interpretation. I've seen people ALL THE TIME interject a few words they thought up into the message instead of crafting the whole message in their mind. Sometimes what they interjected was weird and embarrassing to them, other times it fit in. I have done this myself, interjecting a couple words.

If a professional in Cognitive Psychology chimed in with that one,

I'd weigh it heavily.

As it is, I know full well that messages that sounded just like the ones

we regularly heard in fellowship can be constructed "on-the-fly"

at conversational speed with a little practice,

or an "excellor session."

Does this mean THE ENTIRE MESSAGES provided by interpretation and prophecy are made up? I say it is not. I say it is way too much information of praise and way too little cognizant brain engagement for the message to have been ENTIRELY made up. So you are left with a dilemma. How to handle it? Well, the most noted linguist study we have from Samarin handles this by developing a position that he marvels at the intricacies of the subconscious mind, how it can craft sounds with cadence, sentence, phrase, and word structure like real languages contain. Did he really say that? Yes he did. I know that portion of his research has been de-emphasized to non-existence, but it's there.

I am not so gung-ho on the innate power and ability of the human mind. My views on that are that I hear what comes out of man's mouth, so I'm not as impressed with his thoughts.

It's certainly possible that every single message like that I've heard was faked that way.

People darned well CAN fake a message like that.

(Personally, I think that at least a minority of those I've heard or spoken could POSSIBLY

have been faked but were not. As to the majority, we meant to praise God, we meant to

bring forth messages from Him, and we brought them forth from ourselves.

That's how I see it.)

So, all you liars and fakers out there. Prove that you faked it. Explain to us exactly how it was you crafted long entire TIP messages for worship meetings. And prove that when you SIT in TWI, it did not produce a language. I mean I'm sure that the very LAST THING that you want to be doing is to be convincing yourself and others that they are liars and fakers if you all did not do this in fact.

More fun, everyone!!!!

P.S. What's really needed here is more exposure to the methods of linguists identifying languages. All we have to date is consonant maps (where a linguist writes down the consonant letters in a language and then maps the sounds of an unknown sound byte to those consonants), and Hockett's 16 attributes of a language. The only article I have on that is one of Samarins, which is shorter and intented for public consumption, and surely less elaborate than any of his 4 books related to the topic. Nothing else from other linguists on methods I've seen. Post up links here or in doctrinal on SIT reading room thread if you have an article with more language definition practices on it.

Oh - one more thing. Suggestions to contact linguists are nice, but if you have that suggestion, why don't you contact the linguist you are suggesting and ask about their methods for identifying language and post up their response and any linked resources?

This has got to be a joke.

Look- everyone else has seen pages and pages explaining how it works.

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. Calling us "liars" when that's the

case all around is not exactly fair. I mean, all men are liars at some point but we reserve

the term for exceptional cases. The same goes for "fakers".

But you did get one thing right-

I would have been happier thinking I was doing God's will the entire time- if I actually HAD

been. I'd rather face the truth either way, but I prefer my truths to be pleasant ones that

make me look less foolish.

You've never done studies in metacognition-I have. I'm no expert, but I can follow along when

an expert explains things, and I know the basics.

[chockfull]

A number of us have posted on the thread.

I said rather clearly "I lied."

I meant well, I didn't mean to deceive myself,

but I did.

Of course, you've already determined that nothing could possibly weaken your case,

so either I'm lying about having lied,

or I was never born again,

or some other dismissive carp like that.

No, that's not the case. However, we have equally well-intentioned people on the other side of the argument that have told us stories about being in meetings where the tongue that was spoken was understood.

So for equity and balance on both sides of this argument, you don't get a free pass for saying that you lied and faked. That also has to be proven.

If a professional in Cognitive Psychology chimed in with that one,

I'd weigh it heavily.

As it is, I know full well that messages that sounded just like the ones

we regularly heard in fellowship can be constructed "on-the-fly"

at conversational speed with a little practice,

or an "excellor session."

My experience is different. So in the absence of any proof you provide for this, that is the extent of what we have. Different experiences around the worship manifestations, you say people can make up full 10 sentence messages on the fly, having them flow perfectly with scripture and make sense. I say that's highly questionable from what I have seen and what I personally could accomplish. I think they are not making them up, and the extent is that they get stuck and insert some words.

It's certainly possible that every single message like that I've heard was faked that way.

People darned well CAN fake a message like that.

(Personally, I think that at least a minority of those I've heard or spoken could POSSIBLY

have been faked but were not. As to the majority, we meant to praise God, we meant to

bring forth messages from Him, and we brought them forth from ourselves.

That's how I see it.)

So your use of the words "darn well" you are presenting as proof here of some sort?

This has got to be a joke.

Look- everyone else has seen pages and pages explaining how it works.

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.

Of course we have all seen pages and pages of rhetoric, opinion stated as fact, and research that doesn't prove anything. I think the fact that I've seen all that is a joke, for sure, as opposed to proof and realistic conversation. But I can't do anything about that.

I can see you seem honest about how things worked in your mind. When you say "no immediate revelation", my understanding of interpretation and prophecy in a worship setting is that it doesn't work via revelation. It works speaking it forth very similar to how you SIT. I would take issue with the phrase "I reached into my subconscious mind". If it's subconscious, then reaching into it is a conscious act, hence making it not the subconscious mind. Of course you may BELIEVE NOW that your subconscious mind is producing the interpretation or prophecy. But that is not proof or a guarantee that is actually what occurred.

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. Calling us "liars" when that's the

case all around is not exactly fair. I mean, all men are liars at some point but we reserve

the term for exceptional cases. The same goes for "fakers".

Your intentions and what actually happened are not necessarily tied together. You could not mean to lie or fake it, and actually be lying and faking it. You could also not mean to lie and fake, and NOT have any of that involved.

But you did get one thing right-

I would have been happier thinking I was doing God's will the entire time- if I actually HAD

been. I'd rather face the truth either way, but I prefer my truths to be pleasant ones that

make me look less foolish.

So in other words whoever convinced you that you were lying and faking has made you less happy?

You've never done studies in metacognition-I have. I'm no expert, but I can follow along when

an expert explains things, and I know the basics.

You're losing me - I don't see a link to any study related to metacognition.

I'd say, when I was in twi, that some 90% or nearly 100% of all messages were variations

on about 6 messages we heard regularly.

I didn't find that at all. And that includes hearing messages on the teaching service hookups. That doesn't validate the teachings were any good. Messages were different, varied, and edifying.

When I was a Roman Catholic, I found repeating the same Scriptures on schedule once a year,

every year to be a bit repetitive by the time I was about 11.

Hearing the same message twice a week was only inspiring because I was supposed to

be inspired. (It was only partly effective.)

You know, interestingly enough there is a Charismatic Catholic movement.

And as far as being inspirational, I would listen to manifestations at any meeting over listening to those clowns pray with their understanding. I felt like I needed a shower after that.

[WordWolf]

I lost you about metacognition because you're making claims about metacognition NOW.

The whole subject of how thinking works and what goes on, I've done work in it.

So, I know what I know on the subject, and I know what I don't know on the subject.

I've also done work in Theater, Human Communications, and Sociology.

I can speak on each in limited capacities-and I'm aware of what I do and don't know

in each.

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.

If it was real, honest scrutiny would RE-ENFORCE THIS, not THREATEN IT.

[cman]

stories about being in meetings where the tongue that was spoken was understood

Who said that?

Not me. If any think I did.

[Raf]

Cman,

Socks said it on this thread, Tom said it on another thread.

You said something, but you didn't elaborate. I don't think anyone is counting your story in those anecdotes purely on the basis that you didn't tell it.

WordWolf,

I didn't even think of the whole "slain in the spirit" phenomenon. Here you have people claiming a spiritual overpowering, with TWI saying it's not of God. But they're asking God for a fish. Are we to suppose that God is allowing a demonic force to overpower these people because they want something spiritual? They ask God for a fish and he gives them a scorpion? Or is the more likely explanation that they are doing these things themselves and attributing their "wacky" behavior to God?

Interesting parallel.

[WordWolf]

No, that's not the case. However, we have equally well-intentioned people on the other side of the argument that have told us stories about being in meetings where the tongue that was spoken was understood.

So for equity and balance on both sides of this argument, you don't get a free pass for saying that you lied and faked. That also has to be proven.

You misunderstand the difference between the situations.

Anecdotes that, decades ago, some people other than the speaker claimed something about

understanding something someone said that they supposedly didn't understand is not able to be scrutinized.

We can't bring in the speaker and confirm they didn't know the language.

We can't bring in the person who supposedly made off-hand comments about understanding it.

In a court of law, that would be laughed out if someone tried to bring it as proof of anything.

That's why socks, for example, didn't offer it, saying "You should consider this a refutation of your point."

socks understood that-even IF every single thing he thought happened, and he reported it 100% accurately-

(and we have no way to test any of it), it should convince us of nothing other than that it convinced

socks at the time. socks wisely left it at that.

As for me saying I lied and faked it, well, that's different.

You only need one person's testimony- that of the liar and faker.

Having an eyewitness would reinforce that.

Each of us testifying we lied should be sufficient.

(What would be sufficient proof we lied, supposing you believed there was such a thing?)

Raf says he lied about it and faked it.

He has an eyewitness to that- me.

I saw him lie about it and fake it.

I said I lied about it and faked it.

I have an eyewitness to that-him.

He saw me lie about it and fake it.

Both of us were HONESTLY MISTAKEN. We didn't MEAN to lie. We did so UNINTENTIONALLY.

So, you have both the liar and the eyewitness. In 2 directions.

About multiple incidents over multiple years.

In the previous examples, you have neither.

And again, when this thread began, I was firmly thinking "I was doing what God wanted and didn't lie."

In a court of law, my testimony that it was a fake would carry MORE weight because I didn't WANT to believe it.

(It's like a man who hates another man, but steps forth with proof of the second man's alibi that

he's innocent of a crime.)

I don't expect you to get the difference. Everyone else will.

My experience is different. So in the absence of any proof you provide for this, that is the extent of what we have. Different experiences around the worship manifestations, you say people can make up full 10 sentence messages on the fly, having them flow perfectly with scripture and make sense. I say that's highly questionable from what I have seen and what I personally could accomplish. I think they are not making them up, and the extent is that they get stuck and insert some words.

Your experience is nonexistent.

I'm speaking of a point that waysider made, and I also made.

You lack experience and training in Theater.

I don't know who waysider studied under. My limited education on the subject came under

the late Kevin O'Connor. I have had further experience working with improvisational

actors and theater students, in a few different contexts.

Thus, my claim is that actors can produce both the sounds-referred to here as "free vocalization"

but would mean the same thing without a name- and the speeches- referred to as "interpretation"

or "prophecy" with a little practice and a little context. I've done scenes where "free vocalization"

was done instead of dialogue. (In fact, O'Connor complimented me directly on how well I did in that

scene.) Lots of others have as well. In fact, a more advanced exercise has actors switching back

and forth between their native language and gibberish at an instant, on command. I've seen

stand-up comedians with acting backgrounds do that one.

waysider could probably tell you more about both.

If you question what improvisational actors really CAN do, then ask to sit in on a class of them.

If you like, I can design the "experiment" for you. You can choose the class. You can choose

the day and time. You can personally observe the results. And it will look JUST like an old

twig meeting's manifestation time.

So your use of the words "darn well" you are presenting as proof here of some sort?

It's been established on this thread to a reasonable degree.

It hasn't been established on this thread to your satisfaction-

primarily because nothing would get us there short of Jesus Christ himself logging

in, proving it was him to you, and certifying everything that was said.

Of course we have all seen pages and pages of rhetoric, opinion stated as fact, and research that doesn't prove anything. I think the fact that I've seen all that is a joke, for sure, as opposed to proof and realistic conversation. But I can't do anything about that.

There's been realistic conversation and there's been evidence.

Please stop exchanging the word "evidence" for the word "proof."

There's enough EVIDENCE to weigh everything to one side.

That the research showed you nothing in the way of evidence, we can't do anything about that, either.

I can see you seem honest about how things worked in your mind. When you say "no immediate revelation", my understanding of interpretation and prophecy in a worship setting is that it doesn't work via revelation. It works speaking it forth very similar to how you SIT. I would take issue with the phrase "I reached into my subconscious mind". If it's subconscious, then reaching into it is a conscious act, hence making it not the subconscious mind. Of course you may BELIEVE NOW that your subconscious mind is producing the interpretation or prophecy. But that is not proof or a guarantee that is actually what occurred.

chockfull,

with no background in Formal Psychology,

you honestly can't speak with even lesser authority on how the subconscious

and the conscious work.

The entire subject of metacognition requires some formal education.

(Or years of dedicated, independent study from formal sources.)

That you've never had even an introductory level is obvious from the fact that you

didn't recognize what the word "metacognition" meant- it comes up in university in

the Introductory class, and is VERY introductory. (In fact, I accidentally re-invented

the term in class once, which showed I understood the subject and hadn't read the

assigned chapter which was CALLED "metacognition" before walking into class that morning.)

So, when you explain to me how the subconscious mind and how the conscious mind work,

I take that like I take correcting our resident poster (I forget who has the Mathematics degree)

if I try to correct him on mathematics. He's studied it a LOT more than me and honestly

should understand it a LOT more. On subjects you've studied formally that I have NOT, I'd expect

you know them far better than I. Psychology is not one of them. Metacognition is a particular

interest of mine, from all perspectives (including Biological, and Sociological influences

on same.)

So, when I say that I understand how the subconscious works and that's what happened,

and you say "You're wrong and clearly don't understand how the subconscious works",

well....

Your intentions and what actually happened are not necessarily tied together. You could not mean to lie or fake it, and actually be lying and faking it. You could also not mean to lie and fake, and NOT have any of that involved.

Exactly. We ALL meant well.

So in other words whoever convinced you that you were lying and faking has made you less happy?

No, in other words, like anyone else I'd like to believe I'm always right and never need to

apologize or correct my positions on things. I'm just brutally honest with myself about that part.

(Examining my own thoughts and how I get there has been a hobby for decades.)

Given 2 choices, I'd accept being always right over being sometimes wrong.

Since I prefer truth over ego, I'd accept correcting my errors over concealing them daily if necessary.

(In fact, that ties into how I became a Christian. I knew I had to choose between brutal truths I

despised, and lies I wanted to believe, and the answer would determine who I'd become.)

So, I'm chagrined that I lied and faked it.

I'm glad I can see that and face it now, and won't do it again tomorrow.

I'm a tiny bit more truthful, a tiny bit improved for it.

Edited November 11, 2012 by WordWolf

[waysider]

"I don't know who waysider studied under."

I served an apprenticeship with a well known Equity company.

(Which means I exchanged my services in the set shop for an opportunity to study under the tutelage of veteran actors and play bit parts.)

BTW...Dinner is served.

Edited November 11, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

So what I'm getting from WordWolf is that if you have experience in acting, faking interpretation and prophecy isn't that hard. OK. So those with acting backgrounds could more easily fake it. I don't have an acting background. So I couldn't easily fake it. The vast majority of people in TWI don't have acting backgrounds (except for trying to act like they were happy). So for the vast majority, faking it would be exactly like I describe it.

I DO have some background in formal psychology, but the details of that are remaining private. I was bringing up you mentioning metacognition. Your little snide insults are cute, but really what I was pointing out was that you made some kind of obscure reference to a term outside of any context of what you brought up, and failed to mention your evidence or supporting article for bringing up metacognition.

Also, that's a nice little analogy about your constructed society there. It COULD be a plausible explanation to what happened in TWI. However, so could a hundred other things. Without proof or supporting evidence, it remains that. A nice little story. And your opinion.

As to the veracity of your claims that you were lying and faking, again I see 2 options: 1) You are accurate about having lied and faked it. 2) You are writing history post revisionist and NOW saying it's a lie and fake because you have renounced TWI and turned your back on anything that might have been taught related to TWI. Which is true? We need evidence, not anecdote.

My opinion on what happened in TWI is different. I think in TWI you had a group of young people that wolves in sheep clothing preyed upon. I think in many of the young people's hearts and minds in TWI they were serving God and loving God. I think that God looks on the heart, like He says in scriptures, and rewards those even in the midst of the clutches of the wolves. So I think Christians in TWI had genuine experiences because God looked out for them. I don't think God would rip the rug out from under them in their private prayer lives or in their prayer meetings by all of a sudden stopping to energize SIT. What, did He roll a pair of dice beforehand, it came out under 7, and all of a sudden, NO SIT or interpretation and prophecy? Whereas before in the church it was genuine? That's as plausible of an explanation as anything your side of the argument has presented on WHY it would be genuine in the 1st century yet fake today.

Edited November 11, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

"So what I'm getting from WordWolf is that if you have experience in acting, faking interpretation and prophecy isn't that hard. OK. So those with acting backgrounds could more easily fake it. I don't have an acting background. So I couldn't easily fake it. The vast majority of people in TWI don't have acting backgrounds (except for trying to act like they were happy). So for the vast majority, faking it would be exactly like I describe it."

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

This is a false conclusion. Session 12 of PFAL and the Intermediate Class provide all the necessary "background" to make faking it rather simple. Specifically, they provide the culturalization that facilitates it. You do not need specialized theatrical training to do it. What specialized theatrical training has done for me is to help me recognize what I was seeing.

Edited November 11, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

"So what I'm getting from WordWolf is that if you have experience in acting, faking interpretation and prophecy isn't that hard. OK. So those with acting backgrounds could more easily fake it. I don't have an acting background. So I couldn't easily fake it. The vast majority of people in TWI don't have acting backgrounds (except for trying to act like they were happy). So for the vast majority, faking it would be exactly like I describe it."

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

This is a false conclusion. Session 12 of PFAL and the Intermediate Class provide all the necessary "background" to make faking it rather simple. Specifically, they provide the culturalization that facilitates it. You do not need specialized theatrical training to do it. What specialized theatrical training has done for me is to help me recognize what I was seeing.

That makes absolutely no sense. Session 12 of PFAL, people like prayed in tongues out loud once or twice together. INT class, they got 3 practice sessions in doing worship manifestations. The first one, they practiced SIT only and new mouth sounds. The second two, they practiced interpreting and prophesying in a prayer meeting. The entire duration of these 3 sessions is about 90 minutes.

Somehow, a "culturization" occurs in this process whereby people are able to perform extemporaneously and make up large volumes of prayer speech on the fly?

If that's true, then the Way is totally missing its target market for the Int. Class. They should sell the cr@p out of that to aspiring Hollywood actors. After all, just one short class and you can immediately perform under pressure not only delivering memorized lines, but making up new ones on the fly perfectly extemporaneously. All this with about 90 minutes of hands-on training.

[WordWolf]

"I don't know who waysider studied under."

I served an apprenticeship with a well known Equity company.

(Which means I exchanged my services in the set shop for an opportunity to study under the tutelage of veteran actors and play bit parts.)

BTW...Dinner is served.

Yowza.

Ok, waysider...

You're currently the best-informed in the room about acting and theater.

If you'd be so kind, can you please outline for everyone else how this works?

I know chockfull is going to say it makes no sense, but for everyone else,

it should be informative.

The specialized training of actors gives them the experience and so on

to do these sorts of things more easily, but they're trainable skills

for most people to some degree.

I can go into the socialization and culturalization a bit more, though.

[chockfull]

Yowza.

Ok, waysider...

You're currently the best-informed in the room about acting and theater.

If you'd be so kind, can you please outline for everyone else how this works?

I know chockfull is going to say it makes no sense, but for everyone else,

it should be informative.

I'd be especially interested to hear how acting and theater training help those people who never had any background in it fake TIP manifestations in TWI after 90 minutes of hands-on instruction. That should really be informative.

[waysider]

There's not much to tell. It's part of the hands-on training that takes place in improv. class. It's not a textbook sort of thing. The director will instruct you to make up a language and sell a prop or have a conversation with another actor, etc. Earlier, I posted a

of Andy Kaufman (as Latka) telling a joke to Danny DeVito (as Louie). You've probably seen similar things if you have ever watched Whose Line Is It Anyway? It's not much different than session 12 or an excellor session in that you just "let yourself go" and do it. The difference is in the context it's placed in and the sort of coaching you're given to overcome your inhibitions. Edited November 11, 2012 by waysider

[geisha779]

WordWolf,

I didn't even think of the whole "slain in the spirit" phenomenon. Here you have people claiming a spiritual overpowering, with TWI saying it's not of God. But they're asking God for a fish. Are we to suppose that God is allowing a demonic force to overpower these people because they want something spiritual? They ask God for a fish and he gives them a scorpion? Or is the more likely explanation that they are doing these things themselves and attributing their "wacky" behavior to God?

Interesting parallel.

You and WW both make a good point and lots of questions people might not want to deal with can arise from considering. There are all kinds of sincere seeking people who claim things about God in their lives.

Joseph Smith claimed to have SIT and at the same time he married 14 year old girls behind his wife Emma's back. When she complained, he simply wrote into their scripture that God would destroy her if she didn't accept polygamy. Smith had over 30 wives and some of them were already married to other men when he secretly coerced them into marrying him. But. . . . he SIT.

Mormon's in general, are very zealous for God and very earnest people who pray. Most will readily give their "testimony" and proclaim things true because of "a burning in their bosom". They often relate that God has proved the Mormon church is the only true church through answered prayer and their experiences with Him in their life. That God was once a man who completed eons of the "exaltation process" to become God and lives on a planet close to the planet Kolob....hardly enters the conversation. Mormons are very sincere and moral people. Many of them will tell you they were seeking for God and a Mormon missionary knocked at the door, so, it must be God answering their prayer.

Taking one or two verses like scorpion for an egg or bread for a stone....ripping it from the context and the whole and applying it to what we perceive is an answered prayer is short-sighted. So is claiming because it feels right it must be from God or because such and such happened this other thing must be true. My opinion is that scripture shouldn't be read into our lives like this....we need to let it speak to us and there is context to clarify how different things are meant.

The thing about the Pentecostals who are slain in the spirit or SIT with fanfare is at least they are present in the moment and showing some kind of emotion relevant to the occasion. With all the things we claimed SIT meant......doing it while driving, laundry, or in the shower and mentally disconnected seems inappropriate to such a momentous event. Praising God? Prayer? Worship? Don't these things issue from an overflowing abundant heart? Doesn't God's holy presence knock us to our knees and compel us to worship because He is God? That holiness, love, and perfection causes emotion in us.....we are designed to worship God and we find satisfaction in this.

I know people say it is our spirit that was created in us communing with God.....so apparently we can be MIA during the process. Then I have to wonder.....is it special secret words God desires in praise? Does He need to be built up and edified by a secret language only He can understand? Does He need to understand mysteries and have them repeated back to Him? I thought even the stones would cry out. There are angels who sing before the throne. God will be praised not because He needs an ego stroke, but because He is God. I thought the whole point was that it was His goodness to share Himself with us and He went to extraordinary lengths to see this happen. He does give us the best and that is Him. Then He says....in order to perfectly worship me you can't understand what is being said and can be mentally and emotionally absent from the process?

I don't think God needs our worship, I believe because He is so good He allows us to worship and be satisfied. The heart needs to be engaged for our benefit. God is complete and needs nothing, but He is good and allows us to be included. How are we included when we don't even know what is being said and practice our perfect prayer and praise before an All Mighty God. . while emptying the trash?

[OldSkool]

You've never done studies in metacognition-I have. I'm no expert, but I can follow along when

an expert explains things, and I know the basics.[/b]

And knowing about knowing should never be confused with "to know that you know that you know."

[chockfull]

Taking one or two verses like scorpion for an egg or bread for a stone....ripping it from the context and the whole and applying it to what we perceive is an answered prayer is short-sighted. So is claiming because it feels right it must be from God or because such and such happened this other thing must be true. My opinion is that scripture shouldn't be read into our lives like this....we need to let it speak to us and there is context to clarify how different things are meant.

But that isn't what is happening - taking one or two verses like scorpion for an egg or bread for s stone and ripping them from context. What is happening is people are constructing entire belief systems based upon the entire topic in scriptures, then when acting on their beliefs they are comforted by some simple clear verses in scripture to encourage them.

For example, I Cor. 12 - 14. People are working those scriptures and applying them, coming to conclusions about gifts and manifestations. At least they are on the affirmative side of the argument that SIT works as the Bible describes. On the other side of the argument where people believe that SIT is human faking and lying, I mostly see people avoiding discussing those verses, and avoiding them altogether. They focus on problems in the Corinthian church, they focus on that Corinthians is a reproof epistle, they focus on scientific studies purporting to show fraud, they focus on anything besides looking at those scriptures directly and living them in their personal modern lives like they describe.

In my opinion they are doing this because of a superstitious premise that SIT died with the apostles, or what is sometimes commonly termed "cessationist theory" in Christianity. However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer. People seem to gravitate towards that theory also because of abusive practices in TWI, some of them related to this practice.

To me that seems a lot shakier ground to stand on than being comforted by a couple simple scriptures assuring you that God answers prayer.

Edited November 12, 2012 by chockfull

[waysider]

"However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer."

I thought the answer was rather obvious. The record in Acts talks of people speaking in languages that were understood by some the hearers. People, today, doing what they assume to be a replication of what happened at Pentecost, are unsuccessful in producing languages that are understood by any of the hearers. Can there possibly be an answer that's more straightforward than that?

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

"People are working those scriptures and applying them, coming to conclusions about gifts and manifestations. At least they are on the affirmative side of the argument that SIT works as the Bible describes."

But, SIT doesn't work the way the Bible describes. That's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? If SIT worked like the Bible describes, there would be understandable languages being produced by the speakers. That isn't happening. If it is happening and I'm not aware of it, please call my attention to it.

Edited November 12, 2012 by waysider

[chockfull]

"However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer."

I thought the answer was rather obvious. The record in Acts talks of people speaking in languages that were understood by some the hearers. People, today, doing what they assume to be a replication of what happened at Pentecost, are unsuccessful in producing languages that are understood by any of the hearers. Can there possibly be an answer that's more straightforward than that?

The OTHER records (note the plural there) in Acts do not indicate the tongues were understood natively, but needed interpretation. Thus the need for instruction on what consists of interpretation of tongues and prophecy in I Cor. 14. People today are NOT trying to replicate Pentecost, insomuch as they are trying to live the instruction given in I Cor. 14. Pentecost was the initial outpouring of the gift of HS, and had special miracles going on like pictures of tongues like fire and all the audience understanding the speech in their native languages.

But, SIT doesn't work the way the Bible describes. That's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? If SIT worked like the Bible describes, there would be understandable languages being produced by the speakers. That isn't happening. If it is happening and I'm not aware of it, please call my attention to it.

Not without interpretation. Even in Bible times. The letters to Corinth were circulated 53-56AD. Here's a link to Paul's chronology for reference - http://www.bombaxo.com/paulchron.html So interpretation of tongues was in practice in Corinth in that timeframe.

[waysider]

Ahh, yes. Interpretation. Who is able to interpret something that they don't understand?

[chockfull]

Ahh, yes. Interpretation. Who is able to interpret something that they don't understand?

Well, you guys have been doing a pretty good job of that with all the research ever since we started the thread discussion.

[waysider]

What is it you think I don't understand?

[WordWolf]

(snip)

On the other side of the argument where people believe that SIT is human faking and lying, I mostly see people avoiding discussing those verses, and avoiding them altogether. They focus on problems in the Corinthian church, they focus on that Corinthians is a reproof epistle, they focus on scientific studies purporting to show fraud, they focus on anything besides looking at those scriptures directly and living them in their personal modern lives like they describe.

In my opinion they are doing this because of a superstitious premise that SIT died with the apostles, or what is sometimes commonly termed "cessationist theory" in Christianity. However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer. People seem to gravitate towards that theory also because of abusive practices in TWI, some of them related to this practice.

To me that seems a lot shakier ground to stand on than being comforted by a couple simple scriptures assuring you that God answers prayer.

I'd like to point out that I find your approach BACKWARDS.

That's because I started from one yes or no question-

"Is Biblical SIT the same as modern SIT?"

That's something observable and testable.

So, like a scientist, I observe, and make my conclusions AFTER my observations.

What if I don't understand WHY something is true?

An honest scientist (like any honest observer) will most likely check again.

After some re-checking, they sometimes end up at the same point, more definitively.

It's clear something is true, it is unclear WHY it is true.

LATER, after more observations, more discussion, more tests, understanding follows.

But first comes observing what is, THEN comes understanding.

You're saying that "If I can't see a reason for there to be a change, there can't possibly be a change."

I'm saying "I see evidence there are 2 different things. I do not know WHY they are 2 different things."

I'm not afraid of "I don't know." I'm concerned about deciding what I think I know is the sum total

of what there IS to know, and stopping before I learn something important that changes everything.

I'm also definitely NOT a "cessationist." If there's Biblical SIT now, I want to know where, and I

want IN. I know where it ISN'T. As for the rest-divine revelation, etc, nobody can convince me

it doesn't happen.

P.S. You seem to have missed discussions of the verses you claim were skipped.

[cman]

I like that link chockfull.

Very cool.

http://www.bombaxo.com/paulchron.html

It has me thinking these letters took more then just a few minutes to write.

Maybe even decades.

[Raf]

Personally, I'm not "avoiding" a discussion of scriptures on the subject. My view is that the scriptures are not in contention. The first scriptural question is, what should SIT produce? I thought the answer was rather obvious, then got harassed like a delinquent taxpayer until I laid out my response. The second question is, if I'm right, what changed? It should be noted that the question of whether I'm right or wrong is completely independent of my ability to answer the question of what changed. Maybe there's a "how to" that we're all missing. Maybe we err in thinking SIT is at our will and not at God's direction. Maybe it's not available anymore. Tongues shall cease. Unlike prophecy and revelation, the cessation of tongues is NOT directly tied to "when that which is perfect has come" in Corinthians. Maybe that's a more significant clue than we've previously recognized.

Whether I successfully answer what changed or not, the veracity or lack thereof of SIT is unaffected.

[Raf]

After considering how to respond to Chockfull’s recent post (1742) requesting proof of fakery, I have decided that I must decline to answer. I decline in large part because there is no way to respond without quickly inviting another round of contentious namecalling. I will reduce the response I would have given to these brief points:

First, there is no parity between an admission of fakery and an assertion of a true demonstration of miraculous spiritual power. The former is an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence. An admission by the speaker suffices, in my opinion. This is firsthand testimony of the person doing the faking. No greater authority exists. The latter is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. An assertion is not good enough, especially one coming from neither the speaker nor the person or persons who understood the utterance, and especially considering we can’t even get the same story told the same way twice on the same thread by the same person. If you really believe the requirement for proof is equal in both cases, I humbly but firmly disagree with you.

“I saw someone else do something impossible without direct divine intervention. Couldn’t tell you who it was, but wow, it left such an impression on me!”

“I believe you, because you said so.”

VS.

“I didn’t do anything extraordinary.”

“PROVE IT!”

…

I’m sorry, what?

Second, this thread has shown, on one side, a steady refusal to accept the legitimacy of free vocalization as an innate human ability, the mechanism of fakery. Proving fakery without being able to cite the mechanism for such fakery is not possible, because a crucial “given” is taken away by fiat.

Third, this thread has shown, on one side, a steady refusal to accept the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether any utterance, including gibberish, is or was a language to someone, somewhere at some time. Any string of sounds uttered by anyone under any circumstances is impossible to “disprove” as a language, or so the argument goes.

So anything uttered might be a language. And faking it is impossible. With those premises as givens, proving fakery is impossible.

Therefore, it is impossible for me to prove that I faked speaking in tongues because there is no evidence that would be accepted as such proof. We can’t analyze the output, and the mechanism, accepted by experts in the field of linguistics and articulated most efficiently by someone with a significant background in both linguistics and Christian theology, is rejected on this thread by fiat.

As such, I cannot respond to the demand for proof of fakery unless I am permitted to reject the givens.

It's not that I don't want to. It's simply because the demand for proof is coming from someone who has demonstrated no willingness to accept any proof that is offered. It’s like asking someone to prove they can drive a car by blindfolding him and putting him in the back seat of a vehicle that has had the tires, steering wheel and engine removed.

This is not a valid challenge and does not merit being handled as such.

As for interpretation and prophecy being faked, I think I have already stated that it's impossible to prove this one way or another, which I suspect is why this thread has focused almost entirely on SIT. That a human being is capable of extemporaneously improvising a lengthy message "from God" is, in my view, self-evident. Testing this is rather simple: you give someone a character to emulate who is NOT God, and you have the person speak in character as that person. It is difficult, at first, but with practice and increased familiarity with the character (call it "excellor sessions," if you wish), the speaker's ability to do this will improve. What you would expect to see with such an experiment is a stilted beginning followed by greater and greater proficiency as the practice continues and familiarity with the character grows. This is demonstrated, for example, in the movie "Like Crazy," which was filmed entirely without a script. The actors improvised all their lines on set, knowing the backgrounds of their characters.

In interpretation and prophecy (which we were taught using methods that are conspicuously absent from the Bible, by the way), we have the character: God. Improv does not require expert training to begin. Anyone can do it, given the proper instructions. TWI gave us those instructions. They are not in the Bible. TWI taught us to improvise the character of God and bring forth messages in His voice.

We have oodles of background information on Him. And we are told what kinds of messages we will bring forth (words of edification and exhortation and comfort). Voila! Guess what we produce? Then along comes CES/STFU... I mean, STFI, and they tell their followers that interpretation and prophecy will produce message types that are distinct from each other, and Voila! Guess what happens?

Stilted or abruptly discontinued messages, in my view, do more to demonstrate fakery than they do to demonstrate the validity of the practice!

Proof? No, not an ounce of proof. But humanly possible to fake? Absolutely, the protestations of those who insist it's impossible notwithstanding. I do not ask anyone to prove their words of interpretation and prophecy were genuine, nor can I prove they were not. All I can do is demonstrate that faking such messages is far from impossible. I believe I have done that here.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Raf