Talk:Speaking in tongues/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive of discussions from Talk:Glossolalia created August 1, 2011. Note: discusssions may be refactored.

Syntactically viable glossolalia?

The interesting thing about glossolalia is that it appears syntactically viable!. Do I need to provide a scholarly reference from a linguist, published in an archival, peer-reviewed journal to support this claim? [Unsigned comment]

Some support, yes, and even then, the article must state that others disagree with the claim. Please see neutral point of view. Your claim directly contradicts several things I read online earlier today, and in this reading I saw no mention of any claim that glossolalia often, or ever, has anything like a syntax. I find it extremely implausible, on its face, but I'm willing to be taught on this point. --LMS

I think there is some confusion over terminology here. See above.

Glossolalia and mental illness

If glossolalia is also associated with mental illness, it would be nice to have another paragraph, preferably written by someone with some exposure, if not training with this aspect of mental illness. [Unsigned comment]

Another paragraph or several are definitely in order. But I disagree that the person who writes them needs to have exposure or training; he or she needs only to be able to do some good basic research. According to several sources online, which you can find out for yourself by following the links I've added, it is used by the psychiatric community. --LMS

These links do not point to archival literature.

A search on the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association websites returned 0 results on the query glossolalia. How shall I assess your claim? [Unsigned comment]

I'm sure you can be creative; the fact that those websites search engines do not return results for that term proves nothing. Try searching Google.

I will continue to change that definition back to what it should be, because it is manifestly wrong. Glossolalia does not even appear to be syntactically viable language. Who thinks so, besides you? More importantly, consider the merits of your definition as a definition. The essential feature of glossolalia is not that it "utterance of what appears to be syntactically viable language, sometimes as a form of religious worship (religious glossolalia), and sometimes by the mentally ill." According to that definition, the English language would be glossolalia; it certainly appears to be syntactically viable (unlike glossolalia), and it is sometimes used as a form of religious worship (e.g., preaching), and sometimes by the mentally ill. No, the distinguishing feature of glossolalia is that it appears to be nonsense. Now, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about whether it is nonsense or not; but it's just a fact about what the word means that it appears to be nonsense. --LMS

Ok, you win. [Unsigned comment by 198.144.199.xxx 05:09, 12 July 2001]

I got 69 hits for a search on "glossolalia" from the social science, science and arts citation indices of peer-reviewed journal articles (not books, book chapters, and so forth) with the earliest in 1972. I didn't look at medical journals which might pull in some more. A quick glance through showed both religious studies and psychological reasearch. I've added a little bit to the Current Christian section from one of these.147.188.128.117 01:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for writing about schizophrenic glossolalia

Moving this suggestion here from the main page:

We need a few good paragraphs about schizophrenic glossolalia...

[Unsigned comment by User:Wesley 08:43, 23 August 2002]

Nonsensical paragraphs?

Moved from the page:

"(I am not aware of any literature which studies the cognative dissonance displayed by Christian fundamentalists. How do they reconcile the fact that what they observe is the precise opposite of what they claim to observe? Can someone add some references and info?)" -- (followed sentence beginning "This is the precise opposite of what is described in the New Testament...")

[Unsigned comment by [[Special:Contributions/200.165.239.87|200.165.239.87] 19:03, 13 November 2002]

"Curiously, however, Christian fundamentalists in the last two centuries have developed a definition of this term that is the precise opposite of what is described in the New Testament."

Whoever wrote this seems to have overlooked that glossolalia, apart from being described in Acts.2, is mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament, most importantly in 1Cor.14. And there are important differences between what Acts.2 and 1Cor.14 say about glossolalia.

As a historical source to the manifestations of the primitive church, 1Cor. is the more reliable. Even the most critical scholars accept that letter as written by the apostle Paul (who died in the 60s). As for Acts, that book is now often dated to 90-110, and the story in ch. 2 cannot well be an eyewitness account.

S. [Unsigned comment by 217.168.172.132 09:37, 28 November 2002]

Questions of historical accuracy aside, the paragraph was simply incorrect. Removed. MrJones 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Other discussion

"which neither English speakers nor non-English speakers understand". Can someone find a better phrase because this works in any langage. Ericd 13:02 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please use sections and usernames

'nuff sed? MrJones 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes - please use the default level 2 sections unless the context requires another level. To insert a new section use the + to the right of edit this page in the top menu. DFH 19:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Belief, Speaking in Tongues and Glossolalia

The definition here is correct, however there is a confusion of two uses it seems. I think it would be clearer if there were separate articles on Glossolalia and speaking in tongues with links to each other.

This article should explain the controversy in Chrisitan circles about whether speaking in tongues is genuine or not and the Linguistic and psychological definition. The two should not be confused, as they are different things. I may come back here and do this some time.

MrJones 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Response: Well, the very claim that the two are 'different things' is itself POV. The website you reference claims they are, a large body of Pentecostal literature (however much you may disagree with it) claims the opposite. For NPOV, both viewpoints should be documented accurately. [Unsigned comment by 12.2.37.231 15:20, 27 May 2006]

Some suggestions

Two suggestions. I would consider either taking the list of biblical passages and converting them to links, or possibly, including the relavent sections of the bible directly in the text.

Second, I think I would feel much better if this block:

From a linguistic point of view, 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, Britain, and Brazil all sound quite different from each other, but vaguely resemble the Russian, English, and Portuguese languages, respectively. Linguists generally regard most glossalia as lacking any identifiable semantics, syntax, or morphology—i.e., as nonsense and not as language at all.

Had some sort of cite. It's fine if the cite goes in the discussion, although placing a reference to a research paper in the main text would be preferable. Neither the Christian nor the atheist interpretation, alone, is NPOV. A link to another website that claims this is not really a good reference --- what happens with these is that one web site makes a very weak claim, another picks it up, etc. until it is claimed as fact. The above text certainly sounds plausible, but it's hard to evaluate for correctness without a cite. (I got no username). [Unsigned comment by 24.128.50.209 14:12, 1 May 2005]

This is a familiar paraphrase to me -- it may be from W. Samarin, "Tongues of Men and Angels. The Religious Language of Pentecostalism," Macmillan (1972). [Unsigned comment by 12.2.37.231 15:15, 27 May 2006]

I believe that quote about the morphemic makeup of glossolalia may be from David Crystal (Encyclopedia of the English Language, 2003) or derived from it... could someone put that quote in properly? Zach Beauvais 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerns about Neutrality

This may only be the way that I, as someone who believes in the gift of Tongues, read this, but to me this article seems to lean on the point of view that Glossolalia is fake. But maybe it's just me. Thudgens [ 65.67.76.209 03:32, 1 August 2005]

No, that is just what sane people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.177.146 (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had this problem with many other pages about controversial topics, as well as pages about famous people who are known for controversial opinions. It seems to me that an encyclopedia entry should use the greatest portion of its space in giving information about the topic, with identification that there are criticisms of it as a uniquely headed section toward the end of the section. This seems a good across-the-board rule. It's just nonsense to pepper a description of a topic with criticisms. They interrupt the attempt to describe the topic and create a sense that the entire article is POV against the topic. Qinah [ Qinah 21:00, 30 August 2005]

Qinah writes: "It seems to me that an encyclopedia entry should use the greatest portion of its space in giving information about the topic, with identification that there are criticisms of it as a uniquely headed section toward the end of the section. This seems a good across-the-board rule."

It is a good rule. Unfortunately, in Wikipedia it's only applied to LIBERALS as far as I have been able to discern in my short time here.

A non-liberal's article will be CHOCK FULL of every tiny little nitpicking thing some lefty thinks they can slime them with.

It's pathetic and, as a result, most reasonable people know they can't trust Wik in it's present state.

That's too bad, when it could so easily be fixed.

Ps I actually think the version of Tongues in Wik is pretty good and well written.

I take exception to the following excerpt as it seems a gratiuitous cheap shot, but I'll hold my fire until I do some more research:

"...Glossolalists tend to have more need of authority figures and appeared to have had more crises in their lives."

Ps Is he talking about tongue talkers or Oprah-watchers? lol!

Big Daddy 11:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

If conservatives want their articles to be treated with more respect they should try being wrong less often.65.0.173.146 (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I find this section to be argumentative, and have a non-neutral POV (emphasis added):

Hundreds of examples of the linguistic authenticity of tongues result from the documented occurrences of someone speaking or praying in an unknown tongue while there is someone else present that understands the language. Seventy five such instances of this are recounted by Ralph Harris in the work Spoken By the Spirit published by Radiant Life/GPH in 1973. Other examples are well-known, some of which even involve deaf and dumb individuals who via tongues spoke perfectly a language others recogized immediately. This negates the limited studies of William J. Samarin, a linguist from the University of Toronto, who published an assessment of some Pentecostal glossolalia that became a classic work on its linguistic characteristics from the perspective of a detractor.[10] His assessment was based on samples of glossolalia recorded in public and private Christian meetings in Italy, Holland, Jamaica, Canada and the USA over the course of five years; his wide range included the Puerto Ricans of the Bronx, the snake-handlers of the Appalachians, and Russian Molakans in Los Angeles.

[Unsigned comment by 71.140.126.224 06:14, 19 September 2008]

Do you have primary resources that document any of these occurrences? There have been anecdotes on this page in the past regarding such stories, but since no references were provided, the stoies were removed. These would best be first-hand accounts, rather than stories like, "a missionary in Africa once is said to have spoken in tongues, and was understood by a local citizen as speaking in his dialect". While these stories are interesting, and perhaps even true, I have found it extremely difficult to find reports more solid than anecdotes. If you have quotations available, please provide them and their references here. I don't think the lack of these citations however, warrants a dispute on neutrality; it is not as if folks have prevented them from being provided -- I just don't think they have been supplied as yet. Brad (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

After three weeks without response, I am removing the neutrality flag. Those concerned about neutrality can feel free to return it with recommendations for better NPOV. Brad (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Terminology

There are problems in the article, of confusing or ambiguous terminology. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Pentecostalism

The article says "Pentecostalism is the fastest growing sect ". Pentecostalism is not a sect, but related streams of recent traditions and comparable schools of interpretation which arose from the Holiness movement. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed that sentence today DFH 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalism and glossolalia

The Fundamentalist movement rejects speaking in tongues. Neo-evangelicals were open to associating with Trinitarian Pentecostals and Charismatics, but the Fundamentalists (from whom they distinguished themselves by this kind of openness) were not. "Fundamentalist" then, is being used in the popular, imprecise and biased sense, of "not Liberal". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Bona fide

The article says, "Charismatic/Pentecostal and Evangelical Christians more readily agree that the original instances of Christian glossolalia, as reported in the book of Acts, exemplified bona fide instances of actual human languages." The words "more readily" and "bona fide" here, render the statement false on several counts.

• Evangelicals do not believe in the continuation of the gift of tongues, unless they are Charismatic or Pentecostal Evangelicals.
• Evangelicals who are not Pentecostal or Charismatic are more likely to believe that the Biblical speaking in tongues exemplifies a miraculous gift of bona fide (actual) human languages.
• Pentecostals and Charismatics are just as likely as other Evangelicals (and other Christians, too) to believe that the glossolalia in Acts (specifically) is speaking in a human language.
• Evangelicals are more likely to believe that the speaking in tongues found in the Corinthian churches was FALSE, nonsensical utterances, and not the spiritual gift.
• Evangelicals are more likely than Charismatics and Pentecostals to believe that IF the gift of tongues found among the Corinthians was an acutal spiritual gift, the speakers spoke in actual human languages. In contrast, the P and C are more prone to believe that the Corinthians had a different gift, perhaps angelic languages, or a language for use in prayer - an "unknown language" - which can be interpreted only by those who have the gift of interpreting the secret language, and NOT a human language.

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Several things

First off, there are two main branches of Glossolalia. The first is phonetic and syntactical, but apparently "nonsensical". This form of Glossolalia is the one most commonly encountered by people studying the phenomenon, for a variety of reasons. The second type of Glossolalia is much more musical than phonetic, and is probably the type Y'shua ben yeoseph actually used, because it has a very real ability to induce Theta waves. The first kind of Glossolalia is a shallow parroting of the second. In order for the second type of Glossolalia to come off, there has to be probably a minimum of two dozen voices, each generating an independant and yet related staccato melody of very, very, fast beats. Prometheuspan 03:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A few changes

• I found the device ("from a <adj> point of view") distracting, so I changed headings, etc.. I hope the intended meaning is preserved here. Also, not sure there exists a "linguistic point of view" or a single perspective that could claim to be the "Christian point of view."

• Added {{Fact}} templates in some of the places that could use references.

• Removed "non-Christian," which conveyed POV.

• "Modern psychology" section was incoherent to me, so I removed it. Heading suggests that this was a perspective you might find in Psychology Today, but as written I couldn't understand. Also, if this section returns, citations (outside of Wikipedia) to back up whatever is being said here would be helpful.

Joelsmith 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarity between 'Baptism of the Spirit' and Glossolalia

There needs to be a better understanding between "Baptism of the HS" and Glossolalia. They are not the same thing.

- Ephesians 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you too were called to the one hope of your calling, 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

- 1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body – though many – are one body, so too is Christ. 12:13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body. Whether Jews or Greeks or slaves4 or free, we were all made to drink of the one Spirit.

Let's not confuse the 2 please. A careful exegesis of these passages shows that any true beleiver is baptized into the body of Christ by the HS. Many charismatics have been using "Filled with the Spirit" for some time. And for good reason. People who don't understand theology will become confused on what the baptism of the HS is, if used this way.

--Nathanimal 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Today's edits

Some of the paragraphs were either confusing or unclear. In my editing today, I have tried to improve the general sense and flow of the page, without drastically altering the sense of what was there already. A citation is required for my statement about how early Pentecostals viewed their own Speaking in Tongues. I plan to provide this later. DFH 20:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. DFH 14:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The controversy

It seemed an odd omission that the main article had not previously reported that glossolalia is a highly controversial issue for many Christians. I have therefore inserted a new sub-heading, so that this controversy (and its effects) may be further described by other contributors. This new section will require close attention to adhere to a NPOV. DFH 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have given references to just two books from the 1960s. No need to proliferate references; a couple of examples suffice. For a more extensive bibliography, refer to the page on cessationism. DFH 16:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Tongues prior to Pentecostalism

Lacking from the main article is any information about the historic instances of glossalia in the centuries before the birth of modern Pentecostalism. Just as an example, there is yet no reference to Edward Irving and the Catholic Apostolic Church in the earlier half of the nineteenth century. Such a serious omission needs to be remedied. DFH 21:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New sub-heading Tongues in church history inserted. Earlier examples could be added to the list. DFH 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is only one documented occurence before the 20th century, does this really deserve its own section? Is one example really a "serious omission"? [Unsigned comment by Anthonyp 16:42, 23 May 2006]

I have added several other examples - there more, but this should serve as a start. It was indeed a serious ommission, as there is a sizable body of original sources discussing 'tobgues-speaking'. [Unsigned comment by 12.2.37.231 15:25, 27 May 2006]

Contemporary Christian glossolalia

The first sentence of this, which refered to some Christians "claiming to have practiced or witnessed glossolalia" was unecessarily hedged, I think. The debate is not over the existance of glossolalia but over its source and status. None of the published literature that I've seen questions questions the fact that Christians practice glossolalia. I've edited the first couple of sentences to this effect.147.188.128.117 02:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved part of this section (about early Pentecostalism) to the Church history section. The text in the reference for this is really interesting but could do with a date. I've tried to tidy the section up so that it narrowly provides a NPOV summary of contemporary belief and practice in the charismatic mainstream (i.e. "typical" charismatic / pentecostal belief and practice). Apologies for the lack of username - I'm the same person as above. I'll have to sort one out. 86.30.236.6 21:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Context and Terms section

I can't see any previous discussion about this section, but it seems to me that it provides neither context nor a definition of terms. The long quote from acts is context if and only if you happen to be a Christian who already believes that tongues should be part of contemporary Christian experience. I'm not clear that context is needed at all beyond the opening paragraph to the entry. Leaving aside "alternative science" (which is both debatable and fairly irrelevant, I think) the rest reads like Biblical exegesis rather than impartial discussion of a phonomenon. For what it's worth, I'm a Chrisitian who uses tongues and believes that they're God inspired. However, I don't think we do ourselves any favours by using this a platform to preach from, even in the mild form that, I think, was present in this section 86.30.236.6 22:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

decide terms

Ok I've read this article, and I'm not a stupid person but could someone actually tell me what glossolalia really is? the section from acts states that everyone in the crowd could understand what was being said. hence "speaking in tongues" seems to mean that everyone, regardless of language, could understand what was being said. everything else here seems to be saying that glossalia is exactly the opposite in that whatever the person is saying, be it a real phenomena or faked or mental instability or religious experience, is NOT understood by the audience. my account wont leave me signed in so you get an IP address. --66.82.9.82 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The people from Acts.2 were all Jews and bilingual. Imagine a congregation of Americans all able to speak a second language not all the same suddenly start speaking this language at the same time. An ordinary person knowing that they are bilingual would therefore assume they were drunk. What happened in Acts.2 though was that a Jew who knew no Elamite spoke supernaturally Elamite via the power of the Holy Spirit. The casual observer not knowing what was going on thought that this Jew speaking Elamite was speaking his second language TongueSpeaker 16:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the key features of glossolalia are (a) that it is language-like, in the sense that it uses the same kinds of sounds as might occur in natural-language speech and (b) the speaker is not able to indentify the meaning of their utterance in the same way as they would if they'd spoken in their own langauage. I think there might be a third element, to do with the fact that the speaker is able to generate glossolalia fluently and relatively efforlessly. Issues about whether or not glossolalia is a real langauge, results from mental instability, comes from God, is sometimes understood by listeners, and so forth, are the focus of debates amongst, variously, linguists, psychologists, and Christians. You're confusion reflects that state of the debate, I suspect. Mark Willott 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tongues as a sign

The section I inserted some days ago under the heading Tongues as a sign was deleted on the grounds that User:Bzehr thought it was POV. Using this approach will get us nowhere when quoting Biblical passages in Wikipedia. It is an undeniable fact that the passage in 1 Corinthians 14 describes tongues as being "for a sign". To report this in an encyclopedia page was not being POV; it is merely reporting the Biblical data. That the apostle Paul explains it was "a sign for unbelievers" is also quite clear from the passage. That the quotation from Isaiah proves it was a sign for judgment rather than for attestation is also clear. I have the impression that a more likely reason the section was deleted is because User:Bzehr disagrees with the apostle. DFH 19:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we describe what some Christians believe or disbelieve about these matters, there must be room for a clear description of the Biblical data. It is pointless to keep changing such statements to "some Christians believe that the NT teaches that ...." when the quoted verses are unambiguous and not difficult to understand. If you wish to change these sections, please first discuss them in the talk page. DFH 21:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tongues and their interpretation

Again I assert that what I just re-inserted was not POV, merely reporting the Biblical data and describing it using modern terminology such as requirement and procedure. The fact that thousands of Pentecostalists and Charismatics choose to ignore these apostolic instructions is no reason to remove the description of them from such an encyclopedia article. DFH 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor was the section redundant, as User:Bzehr asserted, when he wrote, interpretation of tongues already covered under 'Contemporary Christian glossolalia. Though that later section touched on the point, it made no reference to the NT passages. It makes better sense to have the point about the requirement for intepretation stated under the heading Tongues in the NT, particularly as this quotes the actual NT passages being referred to. If anything the section on Contemporary Christian glossolalia is still rather POV, even though it does describe what many Pentecostalists and Charismatics practice. DFH 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Before we describe what some Christians believe or disbelieve about these matters, there must be room for a clear description of the Biblical data. It is pointless to keep changing such statements to "some Christians believe that the NT teaches that ...." when the quoted verses are unambiguous and not difficult to understand. If you wish to change these sections, please first discuss them in the talk page. DFH 21:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Bzehr keeps reverting my edits in this section and the one above, yet he doesn't even have a userpage! Is this guy a sockpuppet ? DFH 21:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was responsible for the last big edit of the CCG section and thought it ended up being reasonably NPOV. Tell me why it still reads to you as POV and I'll see if I can put it right. Mark Willott 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. Need time to think about that, and hope to come back later. As it is, I've been away for a few days. DFH 21:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking in Tongues in Christian Traditions

I've more or less reverted the edit by 203.236.3.241 to the introductory paragraph to this section because I didn't understand its purpose, and I thought the resulting paragraph was both untrue and rather incoherent. Mark Willott 23:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Additions

There are two POV sections on "Tongues and interpretation" and "Tongues are for a sign" that have now been inserted twice. They are poorly written, and biased to one, particular viewpoint. These two sections both need to be cleaned up - I deleted them wholly once, and have edited them since they re-appeared, but they are out-of place, mostly redundant, and need to be edited or removed. [Unsigned comment by User:Bzehr 21:12, 15 July 2006]

After editing attempts to attempt to bring some NPOV to a very POV slant tp these two sections, David Halsm reinsterted the POV slant, claimimg, "(rvt. vandalism by 74.129.240.26 (an attempt to water down a much clearer description of the NT quotation))". POV is not 'clearer'. It should not be up to Wikipedia to declare what the "New Testament teaches" but rather what the New Testament may actually say. Christians of all ilk, non-Christians, Muslims, etc., will all differ on what they claim it actually teaches.

And lastly, the Contemporary Glossolalia section handles both intepretation and sign discussion in a clearlly written and NPOV manner. The redundant discussion here is unnecessary, as well as POV, and deserves removal. [Unsigned comment by User:Bzehr 21:31, 15 July 2006]

Removed Neuroscience Section

This longer section was removed by an editor who requested citation of source and 'less general summarizing' - I am preserving the section here for discussion on merits of the removal. Brad 01:07, 15 August 2006

Neuroscience

- In 2006, at the University of Pennsylvania, researchers, under the direction of Andrew Newberg, MD, completed the world’s first brain-scan study of a group of Pentecostal Practitioners while they were speaking in tongues. Newberg found that the brain responds very differently than when nuns pray or Buddhists meditate. Several significant findings were identified. First, although the practitioners spoke in a coherent language-like way, activity in the language centers of the brain actually decreased, which raises the question of where the language was coming from. This suggests that the brain contains other unidentified language circuits.

- In this form of spiritual practice, Pentecostal practitioners temporarily suspend their system of beliefs (generated by frontal lobe activity, which decreases during glossolalia). This is similar to how creativity works in the brain; we basically enter altered states of consciousness, and this gives us a new perception of the world.

- Other differences were found: Pentecostalists maintain a sense of God’s otherness, whereas Eastern meditation traditions dissolve the self/other sense. Those practitioners tend to feel “at one” with the universe or God (the parietal lobe activity decreases). The emotional strength of glossolalic experiences also would leave a lasting imprint on the brain. In essence, different forms of prayer and meditation allow for different experiences of the world, reality, and the ultimate nature of God or the universe.

- The brain scans also showed a permanent unusual asymmetry in thalamic activity, which was also found in Newberg's scans of nuns and Buddhists. This supports the theory that either intensive prayer permanently alters the brain, or that people with an abnormally functioning thalamus are more prone to having spiritual/religious experiences. It also suggests that intensive focusing on any idea stimulates a series of circuits in the brain that turn the object of contemplation into a physical reality. The study will published in the journal PSYCHIATRY: NEUROIMAGING in the fall of 2006, and is fully described in Newberg's book, WHY WE BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE. Newberg is Associate Professor, Departments of Radiology and Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania and Staff Physician, Division of Nuclear Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System.

New York Times wrote about the study today, it has been published in Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, Volume 148, Issue 1, 22 November 2006, Pages 67-71. Kjetilho 23:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"..spoke in a coherent language-like way..." What does the actual recordings sound like? Can one lookup their words on Google or is it a pseudo language like Marjoe Gortner engaged in? TongueSpeaker 15:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If this section is to be rewritten, editors should also consider these information sources. The ABC News story includes tongue speaker Gerry Stoltzfoos as a participant in neuroscience study and Andrew Newberg as the neuroscientist studying him.

• May 2007 ABC News Vid on Neuroscience and Speaking in Tongues
• Gerry Stoltzfoos's Freedom Valley Worship Center
• Andrew B. Newberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.115.254 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Since tongues almost always refers to this, I changed moved the tongues page about an obscure rap album to Tongues (Esham) and created a redirect to here. Now, that means that this page has to have the redirect information at the top, which makes it a little cluttered, but I don't see a way around that. Thanatosimii 16:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Folks: Thank you for the education. I've read and understood Acts as a depiction of the early church development. In my understanding, many of the miracles performed in Acts were necessary because of the very reason that an early church required miraculous things to get the attention of the yet to be believers. Therefore, it is my opinion that speaking in toungues (being a necessary miracle of God through the Holy Spirit) is a (or was a) miracle of a time that seems to be replicated by people claiming to boast of the Holy Spirit as a sort of badge of holiness. Am I judging? Maybe so. However, why is this not part of the debate/discussion? It seems a very revelent piece that should be referenced. Is this not the place for it?84.166.94.219 04:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Book list on Tongues

• "Speaking in Tongues A cross-cultural Study on Glossolalia" - Felicitas D. Goodman

She describes Glossolalia on page xxi as always being associated with altered states of consciousness TongueSpeaker 21:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Quotation Removed

I removed the following reference to an uncited quotation from the Tongues in the Church History section:

* 150 AD - Justin Martyr refers to tongues-speaking as practiced in his day in his Dialogue with Trypho, "If you want proof that the Spirit of God who was with your people and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick and hear Him speak in tongues and prophesy." [citation needed]

I had placed this section there some time ago when I made various edits based on notes I had taken during library research, and meant to come back at a later time to provide the correct citation. It seems, however, that I cannot find a citation for this anywhere than on a single other website: http://www.1335.com/hsbaptism.html:

2) Justin Martyr, around 150 A.D.
"Come into our assemblies and there you will see Him cast out demons, heal the sick and hear them speak with tongues and prophecy"

purportedly quoting a certain ALAN CAMPBELL B.A, of Belfast.

The quotation therefore seems in all probability spurious, so I removed it.

Brad 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have since found the source of this quotation. The exact quote is as follows:

"If you want proof that the Spirit of God, who was with your people, and left you to come to us, come into our assemblies, and there you shall see Him cast out devils and heal the sick, and hear Him speak in tongues and prophecy."

It appears on page 50 of the 19th century book by Francis Sitwell, The Purpose of God in Creation and Redemption. And the Successive Steps for Manifesting the Same in and by the Church. The quotation purports to be from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, and Sitwell annotates it thus: "Dial. c. Try., p. 306, 315, 316". I have been unable to locate any portion of the text of this quote in currently available translations of the Dialogue online.

Francis Sitwell (1797-1864) was the brother-in-law of the archbishop of Canterbury and an apostle for Spain & Portugal of the Catholic Apostolic Church (CAC), one of 12 new apostles of that church in 1835. Brad 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Flowery word study paragraph

This paragraph (below) adds very little to the article -- it seems to be a quote from someone's draft undergraduate thesis. If there is something of value here, perhaps someone who knows what is intended by it can rewrite it in a number of separate sentences?

Fundamental to Biblical interpretation is the appropriate transliteration of primitive terms, and just as the term "spirit" comes from "breath" or "vapour", the term "tongues of fire" is almost certainly a use of fire as a metaphor for markedly increased and radiant powers of speech during the Pentecost.

For good measure, I made some (I hope) minor changes to reflect the difference of opinion between the spoken languages vs heard languages interpretations. Sittingduck123 13:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Section Removed

The section below made little sense in the 'Glossolalia In Other Religions' sections, as it is focused entirely on Christianity (as well as having several difficult constructions). If anyone would like to clean this up and reinsert it in a logical section, it has been preserved here:

Christians have been know throughout time to have the gift of “speaking in tongues”. There are certain Christians that do not believe that speaking in tongue is a gift from God. Skepticism amongst Christians have become the result of splitting the church or preventing members, that practice speaking in tongues, from being promoted to certain positions in the church.

According to the Washing Times 10/20/06, Southern Baptist International Mission Board says that they will no longer appoint missionaries who use a “private prayer language”. Therefore, if private prayer language is an ongoing part of his or her conviction and practice the candidate has eliminated him or herself from being a representative of the IBM of the SBC. This is one example of skepticism in result of speaking in tongue.

Acts 2:1-21 describes the Feast of Weeks; when the Apostles and other followers were gathering in a house in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit descended upon each of them. The Apostles began to speak with other tongues and other men from other nations were able to understand the Apostles in their birth language. The part of the audience was in amazement, other followers in the audience said that the men were drunk. Even then there were skepticism, a lot of people seem to be most skeptical because not everyone is able to speak in tongue or able to understand the language. The Feast of Weeks is one of the first reporting of men speaking in tongue.

According to Tom Brown the Pastor of a church in El Paso, Texas says that speaking in tongues edifies oneself. In speaking in tongues it builds you up or recharges you. He also states that “those who believes in him will speak in tongues”.

References:

Brown, Tom (2006). Speaking in Tongues. retrieved October 31,2006. from http://www.tbm.org/tongues.htm

(2006, October 23). Baptists renounce speaking in tongues. The Washington Times on the web. Retrieved October 30, 2006. from http://www. washingtontimes.com/national/20061019-111226-2628r.htm

Brad 01:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Section

I removed the following section, which is from a single point of view written as fact, and placed it here for discussion or correction:

The purpose of tongues during the establishment of the Lord's church was to teach the gospel since there was no written New Testament from which to teach at that time. Interestingly, there is no biblical example of anyone speaking tongues unless they were touched by either Jesus, the Apostles, or someone who had been touched by the Jesus or the Apostles. It is also written in First Corinthians that all tongues would cease after that which is perfect or complete (the New Testament or perfect word of God) had come, seriously questioning the need for and truthfulness of tongues after the completion of this text. This scripture, combined with Galatians 1:7-8, which states that anyone who teaches a gospel contrary to what was taught by the Apostles is to be accursed, should bring serious doubt on tongues used during present times.

Brad 00:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. While this might be a valid viewpoint on the part of some, it is still nothing more than one person's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13. "That which is perfect" could refer to a lot of things; I don't believe it to be appropriate for that person, or any person for that matter, to declare to the rest of us, with finality, what that is. This would appear to be a perfect example of someone picking and choosing a few words and taking them out of context. Might I interject this scriptual warning, for the person's consideration, from Proverbs 30 verse 6: "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Vince 66.210.33.200 08:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was humbly reminded that Wikipedia is not a forum, and removed a statement that I probably should have left out in the first place. Vince 66.210.33.200

Reversion of neuroscience edit

I took the liberty of removing a questionable edit in the Neuroscience section which changed the idea that there was "decreased" activity in the language centers of the brain to "no" activity. Somehow I question, without any source, having zero activity. --Joe Sewell 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed 'Hagbard Cline' bullet

I removed the following bullet from the section Glossolalia#Glossolalia in popular culture:

Hagbard Cline saves the day near the end of Illuminatus! by speaking to a multinational crowd in tongues (explained as the 'Pentecostal Gimmick' by Malaclypse the Elder, who claims to have taught it to Jesus in the first place.

as it's wrong in most every respect. (1) "Hagbard Celine", not "Hagbard Cline". (2) Celine speaks using the "pentecost trick", which is a way in which everyone, no matter their native language, heard Cline as speaking that language. This would seem pretty much the opposite of glossolalia. -- Charlie (Colorado) 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychological Study on Glossolalia

I added some text on the 'psychology' section of the article. The original text was this:

A 2003 statistical study by the religious journal Pastoral Psychology concluded that, among the 991 male evangelical clergy sampled, glossolalia was associated with stable extraversion, and contrary to some theories, completely unrelated to psychopathology.

I checked the reference for this study and found that the study was conducted by a journal called "Pastoral Psychology" (Vol. 51 #5). I think this is a biased source, since it is a religious publication. I do not think a publication such as Pastoral Psychology is fully able to look at the study of glossolalia or other religious phenomena objectively because they have an obvious bias that it is not associated with mental illness. I do not know if this study has been peer-reviewed or if the larger scientific community agrees with it. Just because a study was published in a scientific or religious journal does not mean it is the general consensus of the scientific community. There are several published studies arguing that global warming is not real, for example, but the consensus of the majority of the scientific community believes that it is.

I also saw a suggestion in another discussion about this topic and I believe it would be helpful to do what this person suggests: "This article should explain the controversy in Chrisitan circles about whether speaking in tongues is genuine or not and the Linguistic and psychological definition. The two should not be confused, as they are different things." [Unsigned comment by 71.167.106.33 18:43, 25 January 2007]

I reomved the following POV assessment of an unregistered user, who wrote the unsigned comments above: " It should be noted that, as a primarily religious publication, Pastoral Psychology may not be an objective source on this matter." I left in that editor's addition that referenced Pastoral Psychology as a "religious journal", which is helpfulfor readers in determining a context for that journal's published research. Brad 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed NY Times Link

I removed the following link from the Neuroscience section (regarding one author of the study who speaks in tongues) as it required a login in order to read it: [1]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bzehr (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Removed Biased Statement

"This is the only true form of tongues. It is an unscriptural practice when it is practiced as an estatic language as the Pentecostals and others claim it to be."

I cannot see these two sentences as anything other than a religious bias based on the opinion or interpretation of one person or religious faction. How can this be seen as an objective statement in keeping with WP:NPOV? I am not certain if it warrants rewording, so at this point I have removed it from the article. 66.210.33.200 07:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Vince

Uncited anecdote removed

This kind of story is told often, but requires a citation:

* 1960s--A retired US Soldier traveling abroad visited a charasmatic church in Germany. During the service, a lady stood up and started mumbling in an "unknown tongue." He stood up and left the service. His friends later asked him why he had left. He related to them that he had learned ancient Mandarin as a code language to use. He stated that the woman who was oblivious to what she was saying stood up and was cursing Jesus Christ in ancient Mandarin.

Brad 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Simplex communication comment

"Nicholas Spanos described glossolalia as an acquired ability, for which no real trance is needed (Glossolalia as Learned Behavior: An Experimental Demonstration, 1987). It is also known as a simplex communication."

It's not clear in this line whether the writer is saying that "simplex communication" is a term used in the paper "Glossolalia as Learned Behavior: An Experimental Demonstration" or is just making an off-the-cuff remark. It needs to be cleared up or removed. The term "simplex communication" could be offensive to some as it suggests that Christians just babble away and God never answers them, which contradicts Christian beliefs. Pbhj 22:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous statement. By your rationale, you could say that ANY statement that questions the validity of a given organized religion's beliefs could be considered 'offensive' on the grounds that it suggests that followers of said religion are believing in a nonexistent diety. Wake up, that is the central criticism of any organized religion, and OF COURSE a statement that is skeptical of Christian (or any other religion)) faith is going to contradict Christian beliefs. A LOT of things contradict Christian beliefs when you look at them logically (that is, with regard to FACTS, not FAITH), should we not mention ANYTHING that offends Christians because it runs counter to their beliefs? If so, we'd better stop studying dinosaurs, because it contradicts that whole 'Adam and Eve' story. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.33 (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

So everytime Wikipedia mentions a point of faith it should be refuted? I think it's clear from the article that most non-christians don't believe in glossolalia but in order to call it simplex communication you'll need to prove that no higher being has ever answered - and that kind of thing is probably not going to fit into this article. Pbhj 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Simplex communication line must stay because it is the truth. Virtually every single Glossolalia utterance is a load of rubbish. You can't have one set of ilnguistics standards for Glossolaliasts and another for the rest of humanity.TongueSpeaker 20:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Is 'simplex communication' a term used by Nicholas Spanos in the quoted article? If not, I agree it should be removed. Brad 01:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Virtually every single Glossolalia utterance is a load of rubbish" sounds a little unbalanced. I'm assuming that you haven't heard every single utterance. Also using a standard logic then it only takes a single instance to be answered in order to refute your position. By saying virtually you appear to be leaving the gate open, but then that destroys the rest of your sentence ... "Virtually every single" is internally contradictory. Hey ho. Pbhj 21:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Popular culture" section

Are any of those items useful or encyclopedia? I propose deleting the entire section. Peter Ballard 07:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The article will be improved when that section is deleted. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 21:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections, so I'm removing it. Just because something in the popular media mentions speaking in tongues, it doesn't mean it needs to be in the encyclopedia article. Peter Ballard 09:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Biblical References" section

I removed the Jude 20 passage, it is not a primary text for the discussion and does not directly mention tongues. [Unsigned comment by 64.213.195.10 14:03, 6 July 2007]

I am not sure who wrote this and removed Jude 20. But what I feel is that this verse has a meaning which, without mentioning tongues, is seen as a direct reference to the use of glossolalia by members of some religious groups. It would be a little odd to reference a reference to say why it is a reference, but there you go.

Specifically, the phrase "praying in the Holy Ghost/Spirit" as it is rendered in most translations has a doctrinal implication in many Churches to mean, "pray in tongues." I believe there is even a song that goes something like this, sung in at least three verses: "Lord help me walk in the Spirit (etc.) ...talk in the Spirit (etc.) ...pray in the Spirit (etc.)" I am adding it back as a reference. If you feel this is not a main reference, then why don't you make it an auxiliary reference? Will you please ignore me? 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Biblical References" section is questionable, since it refers simply to "speaking in tongues," which could include xenoglossy, not just glossolalia. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, when you consider that "speaking in tongues" redirects here. You are arguing implicitly for separate articles for glossolalia and "speaking in tongues", which has been rejected by a majority of editors.Brad (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not arguing for separate articles. I merely wondered about the Biblical reference section since it applies to two already-separated articles. I take your point, though, about the redirect. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line / yes or no

Southern Baptist. Does the Holy Spirit have or let people speak in tongues today? Is there anything written that says yes or no? [Unsigned comment by Trussee1 03:51, 7 July 2007]

(gk = charismata)

I've removed '(gk = charismata)' from the 'Controversy' section because it is unintelligible to a non-specialist. If someone knows what it means, could they put it back in an expanded form? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Modern 20th Century history of tongues

The paragraphs that I added today were in response to my judgement that this article needed to discuss the relationship betweeen tongues, the baptism of the HS, Pentecostalism, and the foundations of the doctrines relating to it (i.e. its modern origins in culture). It was my intention that these are all related to a general discussion on glossolalia. There is already quite a large section devoted to the period between A.D. 100 and 1900 that the modern era (post 1900) seemed very lacking. And so then, when I expected the article to mention 20th century ideas and chronology, I found no discussion of the source of tongues (its terminology and its manifestation) in the early 20th century -- so I added a large amount of historial information using some online sources and references.

I would say that there could be some POV problems with it, but not intentionally so. It was meant to be written with terminology used in modern Christian circles or in historical points of view (which should be appropriate for a Christian topic with a Christian subheading speaking of Christian doctrines). I would say that the rest of the section that I wrote in (Contemporary Christian) could be cleaned up, but I left it for now as it was. Will you please ignore me? 22:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Uruiamme, I've removed this section, and pasted it below. I think what you have written is interesting, and it made me wonder about the 20th century history of glossolalia in the church. However, for the following reasons I think it was inappropriate as it stood in the article. (a) It deals in detail with the history of one church movement between 1900 and 1915 and so does not appear to fit in a section on contemporary practice. (b) It is references only the website of the movement whose history it describes. You (and they) may well be right that this was the first contemporary Christian use of glossolalia, but this needs to be independently supported by a more scholarly source. (c) although what you have written makes reference of glossolalia, its focus is, I think, more on baptism in the spirit. I accept that the two may be linked, but I think the focus is wrong. (d) Its length is such that it dominates the section providing a massively more fine-grained account than the paragraphs that follow, to which it doesn't link. Generally, I think modern history of glossolalia is important and interesting and deserves its own (possibly long) section. However, it needs to be properly researched and referenced (a task that is certainly beyond me). Alternatively, you might think about a separate article about the Original Apostolic Faith Movement, in which your text would very much at home. Mark Willott 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Willott:

(a) The section was essentially a follow-up of the previous date-line section of pre-1900 history, which is pretty uninteresting for numerous reasons. The main reason is that the historical glossolalia in the Church were poorly documented and did not continue until the present day. On the contrary, all modern Pentecostal churches can point to the Topeka->Azusa->permanent movement chronology. Look at the host of in-line Wikipedia articles as evidence of this (with their sources). (I.E. if you think widespread glossolalia began Russia in the 1920s, show us the sources and write about it.)

Indeed, the section which you removed includes assertions that present-day major denominations (see their respective articles to see how major) of the Church were basically birthed from this glossolalia outbreak beginning in 1901. The fact that these churches were birthed in the glossolalia outbreak conditions of the early twentieth century is not evidence that these present-day churches teach, preach, or practice glossolalia, although there seems to be evidence from external sources that they do all three.

In other words, the section has merits for (1) continuing the pre-history into modern history, at least for documented Christian glossolalia. (2) demonstrating an outbreak, or trend if you will, of glossolalia within churches that had explosive growth in the 20th century. These churches were founded as a direct result of Azusa and the events described.

(b) This is an interesting reason to remove six paragraphs. There are quite a number of sources for the information summarized here. Are you really saying that there are no more sources available which would describe the same chronological events? That is absurd. The sources for Azusa street are endless. The sources for Parham and his church still have surviving newsletters written by him. You are likely penalizing the content for the fact that there are only a few references in-line with the text. If so, the correct procedure (if you have no reason to doubt veracity) is to ADD SOURCES YOURSELF, or at the minimum, place a wikipedia tag that says "needs sources" instead.

However, I did not write 6 paragraphs without some support, even if it is weak. As I said above, the other Wiki articles referred to have their own set of documentation. I am not saying that Wikis should use weak and circular references, but that adding duplicate references for sake of constantly documenting every article is a bit obtuse. Using fresh sources, which I did by finding some which Wikipedia had not used, is a good way to extend the bibliographics of the project. Using references to other wikis is a good way of saying, "go look there and come back." If you look at it this way, I am jamming in a lot of cross-references and citations this way. i.e. I did not write unsourced banter, did I?

(c) The purpose (see above) was to pinpoint what people refer to as baptism of the HS and how this came about. It had a rich history, and this is how baptism of the HS became eternally linked to glossolalia -- it was one of the primary beliefs of those who began the movement. For you see, these people began a "movement of the spirit," began an outbreak of glossolalia, and began a denominational shift in what used to be called the Holiness movement. These three are linked.

The purpose was to keep separate the ideas, or combine them, or to contrast them, using the sources at hand.... The sources used seemed to combine the ideas -- baptism of the HS and glossolalia were seen as closely-related. My POV might say that this is still the case, but yet this could be documented.

(d) You didn't have a (d). But for your information, there are a number of topic headings which redirect to glossolalia, and many make reference to it. (Speaking in tongues and tongues both redirect here.) This means that this article should very well include ways in which the term applies. It would be foolish to say that the term has nothing to do with baptism of the HS, as we have evidence that shows it to be related.

I sought to answer, "How in the world can Wikipedia describe how glossolalia is related to baptism of the HS as used in modern Christian circles?" My answer was an historical account, with references. Splitting this into another article is a fine idea, but are you the one who will do this? Will you leave glossolalia high and dry with no discussion of the terms together?

(e) The intention was to allow others to add to the article sections which might combine historical facts with modern thought or practice. The latter was already in the article, and IMHO, is a more difficult, subjective problem to deal with on a Christian topic. Making difficult statements of what certain people believe or what denominations do or think.... these are more prone to POV, undocumented banter, and matter which should be removed or placed elsewhere. You somehow removed a section which is historical, has sources, and connects itself with things pre-1900 and modern Christian beliefs.

I would point out that the article on Baptism with the Holy Spirit is a long article without a lot of mention of glossolalia except the links here. The glossolalia article needs to carefully sort out what is meant by the term, how it relates to Pentecostalism, and how it was essentially unknown for a few thousand years but today it is widespread in modern Christianity. How is it that glossolalia is widespread now in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches yet there are only a few mentions of it prior to 1900? Well, it sprang out of a place, a movement, and some ideology/theology/spirituality of the time between 1900 and 1915. This is the crux of why I wrote it. Widespread global glossolalia did not evolve out of thin air, it had a birth somewhere.

See my new categorization. Hope you like it. Will you please ignore me? 06:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I accept much of this, and thanks for taking the time for such a detailed response. I'm embarassed by my ignorance of Pentecostal history. Your changes to the headings are definitely an improvement.

I remain concerned that the section 1915 to present actually now comprises a short paragraph stating that events at Azusa Street are the source of modern day Christian use of glossolalia, and then a non-history section summarising (very briefly) modern day Christian practice. I suggest we deal with this by moving the first paragraph of the 1915 to present section to the end of the previous section, and reinstating the contemporary Christian' heading for the remaining non-historical current-practice section. I'll do this when I have a moment, unless anyone objects.Mark Willott 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the ideal situation would balance the history lesson with modern research, and actual statements of present Charismatic or Pentecostal events, from the news, recent magazines, the scholarly journals, etc. I am more interested in expanding the content rather than removing it. The categories were heading towards this concept ... more research to come. I don't know if I will do anything further for now, but just so you know... a lot could be said of what is going on in churches, small groups, the third world, the controversies, etc. It would not be hard to dig up some articles even on the Internet. It is a complicated subject and not an easy one to present on Wikipedia, however. Some of the articles I contribute to have a much lower bar as far as what is acceptable research, or otherwise this could be done without a lot of effort. As it is, this needs to be done with a serious effort. I spent hours writing the content I just re-added, for example, combining many sources. Will you please ignore me? 01:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Charismatic_Christianity tag

I've removed this. This is not in any sense for anti-Christian or anti-Charistmatic reasons (I would describe myself as both) but simply because glossolalia is not, in itself "charismatic" or "christian" and does not sit well with the other topics in Charismatic Christianity Project. I think it's apropriate that Christian references to and uses of glossolalia are a key feature of this article. However, the topic is broader and keeping it rigorous and NPOV is not well served by it being headed with the Charismatic Christianity Project tag (I think). Mark Willott 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Willott: Your statements ignore the fact that some major Charismatic topics redirect here. Speaking in tongues is one example. The article is apparently about both a term used exclusively in the church about a religious experience (tongues), and abut a generic term invented for it (Glossolalia). (The term would never have been coined without the religious experience described in the Bible.) Just because the term is generic doesn't mean it is out of place to be used in Charismatic tags. If baptism was redirected to immersion, then the same would be true... we would place the Christian tags on the immersion article, even though they probably referred to baptism. But in the case of glossolalia and speaking in tongues, there is not enough difference to warrant two articles. So IMHO, we need to put the Charismatic tags where they logically must appear. This isn't a Christian view, this is because in Wikipedia we need to keep like terms together and different terms separate.

The alternative is to completely compartmentalize Glossolalia and speaking in tongues, which I doubt makes sense... It would be like saying suicide attack and trying to use another article about religious suicide attackers and reserving the generic term for only secular/political suicide attackers. Will you please ignore me? 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed from introductory section

I've removed the following paragraph which is true, well written and so forth, but doesn't seem apropriate at this level in the article. I was going to add it to the Christian Practice section, but I think that what it says is covered there already. Mark Willott 23:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the modern charismatic Christian concept of speaking in tongues is the miracle of Pentecost, recounted in the New Testament book of Acts, in which Jesus' apostles were said to be filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in languages foreign to themselves, but which could be understood by members of the linguistically diverse audience.

Controversy Section

The second paragraph of this section had been edited to the point of not really saying much, I think. I've edited it down and then combined what was left with the contemporary practice section. There is definitely scope for a more detailed controversy section, possibly as part of a recent church history section, but I don't think the current paragraph warants its own header.Mark Willott 00:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Hymn

Can anyone provide a citation for the statement about the Orthodox hymns comparing Pentecost with Babel? I'd love to see those. 72.74.11.108 (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Glossolalia in the Moravian Church

I have in my possession several manuscripts from the 1700s which have references to the Moravian Movement and the gifts of the Spirit. I discovered these ancient documents in Germany and was able to purchase them. However most of my German colleagues are unable to properly translate them due to the archaic German used in these manuscripts. If anyone is able to assist me in translation it would greatly contribute to the history of glossolalia throughout the centuries. CWatchman (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cwatch, Would you please report the results of your findings when these scripts are translated? Chuwils (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Joel 2:28-29

An anonymous user added Joel 2:28-29 as a Bible reference for glossolalia. The verse, in the translations I checked, simply referred to "pouring out [God's] spirit," not to the subject matter at hand. Since the idea that the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" must be followed with tongues, which I assume is the assumption being made with the reference, I've undone the change. --Joe Sewell (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to New Testament section

The New Testament section containing Biblical interpretation is poorly presented. The arguments are a drop in the ocean of interpretation for or against tongues, for or against ALL being able to speak in tongues etc. It would be better to just state that the main section is 1Cor 12,14. Rather than place arguments about interpretation, why not try to list the conclusions of major denominations - whether they are all for tongues, cesationalists, open to many interpretations?

I think it would be best to take out ALL interpretation - and to take out those starts of sentences that say "some believe" and then (for the writer's prefered slant?) "Many believe" - Take out the whole lot and have a fresh approach. Jas.C.Brooke (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to represent the New Testament section along the lines suggested. The following section is a lengthy paragraph from the old section that I thought I ought to preserve, although it is full of interpretation from a single point of view.Mitchelltd (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Apostle Paul commands church brethren, "Do not forbid speaking in tongues" (1 Cor 14:39), and that he wishes those to whom he wrote "all spoke with tongues" (1 Cor 14:5). He further claims himself to speak with tongues more than all of the church at Corinth combined, though indicates in the church more value is found in understandable teaching so that the church may receive edifying, saying that with speaking in tongues, only the individual is edified (1 Cor 14:18-19). Paul discourages simultaneous speaking in tongues in the presence of unbelievers or the unlearned; believers are to prophecy and be understood rather than speak unintelligibly. As 1 Corinthians 14:22-25 says, "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth." In 1 Cor 12:7-11 and 1 Cor 12:28-30 some find that Paul indicates that not all believers speak in tongues, although some state that Paul was talking about a gift of "diverse tongues", not all tongues, as the gift of "faith" is also here mentioned, and all believers must have faith by definition. There are some who believe that many followers have the ability to speak in tongues (Mark 16:16-17) as a form of prayer, based on 1 Cor 14:14, Eph 6:18 and Jude 20. Paul also refers to the prophecy of speaking in tongues written by Isaiah (Isa 28:11-12).

Desperate need of re-write / expert attention

I tried to tone down some of the POV-pushing, weasel wording and references to pseudo-science / biased research, but hardly anything in the current article is salvagable. The "Christian practice" section is considerably longer and more detailed, while other religions have practically no coverage. The section also reads like an extensive biography. The sciences section is chock-full of biased research, though I've toned down some of the POV-pushing by removing bad references. At any rate, the entire article would benefit from a re-write. 74.242.120.127 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like the Christian section to be shortened (see Wikipedia:Summary) or the other sections to be lengthened? What sort of biased research is in the sciences section? What sort of POV-pushing existing for you to tone down? What bad references did you remove (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources)? How should the article be rewritten? Hyacinth (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

More Scientific Input Needed

This article is rather slim on bona fide scientific (read: skeptical) input on the subject. I am quite certain that if one reads the test studies done, one will find that the glossolalia does not show any signs of being a language in any recognizable sense. This should be more strongly reflected in the scientific input section of the article. I don't know if James Randi ("The Amazing Randi") has done any specific studies on this (I'll research); but if he has then those studies should be included in this article. Also, the views in opposition to tongues from other Christian denominations (such as fundamentalist Baptists) should also be included. In my opinion, this article is still too biased in favor of the Pentecostal view. Kevin Scott Marcus (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a considerable amount of scientific material. I've incorporated the scientific material already present into the new sections I have created. 'Definition' covers etymology and the meanings that people attach to the key terms - 'speaking in tongues' in particular is disputed, and I have tried to cover the various meanings it is given in a neutral way. 'Description' covers the scientific material that merely attempts to describe what happens in glossolalia, from a linguistic point of view. 'Material explanation' is my attempt at a neutral summary of the scientific arguments about the physical and psychological causes of glossolalia; it puts the question of whether glossolalia is a gift of the Spirit to one side.Mitchelltd (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will re-write the Linguistics of Pentecostal glossolalia portion to indicate that the support is believed to exist by followers as opposed to existing in the scientific community. This section states beliefs as facts instead of beliefs. Any objections? (I do not wish to belittle the belief system, but it ought to be portrayed as a faith instead of a scientific fact or theory.) Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 22:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote in the 500-1900 section

We could just remove the quote altogether, though if we keep it, the more excised version is better. However, I question it's status as a RS for the claims it makes. It's obviously written from a Catholic POV--the tone is not that of a contemporary scholarly source. And it has no sources for saying those saints spoke in tongues. I've read Bonaventure's Life of Francis and don't remember anything of the kind, though I could be wrong. There's no indication that for the relevant part of the quotation, this is a RS. So I suggest we remove it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Christian Practice Section Misses Majority Group of Tongues-Speakers

It seems to me that the 'Christian Practice' section excludes completely the group that anectodal assumption tells me is the largest among Christian tongues-speakers: those who believe that their speaking in tongues is a 'language of the spirit', or a 'heavenly language', rather than an unlearned, "real" earthly language, and that it differs from the tongues of Pentecost in this regard. They believe that "no man understands" the tongues, not simply becuase a native speaker is not present, but that the tongues themselves are intended for God alone. I have met hundreds of Christians who practice tongues-speaking, and not a single one, to my understanding, believed that they were speaking in a natural, earthly language they had never learned -- but rather a heavenly language understood by God alone. I was loathe to add a fourth category, because I was not sure whether the category names had been coined by the Wikipedia editor. Whether that or in the texts cited by that editor, the glossolalist position seems more of a xenoglossist position to me. Further, this absence causes the section to be significantly out of harmony with the opening paragraph which defines glossolalia as "speech-like" non-speech, and would put "glossolalists" immediately at odds with glossolalia itself...12.2.37.134 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the position that you mention was meant to be covered in the first of the groups - the 'glossolalists'. It is certainly covered in the opening paragraphs of the article. Perhaps the 'Christian Practice' section needs to explicitly mention the fact that many "believe that their speaking in tongues is a 'language of the spirit', or a 'heavenly language', rather than an unlearned, "real" earthly language, and that it differs from the tongues of Pentecost in this regard". I've put in an edit to reflect this. However this is not the only glossolalist position. The official position of the AoG (I think the largest Pentecostal denomination) is that Pentecostals "speak in languages which they have not learned" - see the edit. Mitchelltd (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is what would differentiate this article from xenoglossy. --Joe Sewell (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Meaning removed

I removed this entire 'Meaning' section, as it repeated again the definition provided in the introduction, but changed it somewhat, which was confusing, and was merely quoting the definition from another source. It was also poorly written ("various people that are dependent on their viewpoint"); it restates the reference to xenoglossy in the introduction without tying the two sections together. I think the sentiments here could benefit the article, but they seem ill placed and do not flow with the rest of the article. Thoughts? Brad (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Glossolalia is "utterances approximating words and speech, usually produced during states of intense religious excitement". The word is applied to similar phenomena in various religions.

'Speaking in tongues' is given various meanings by various people that are dependent on their viewpoint. Those who consider the outward appearance of the phenomenon understand 'speaking in tongues' to be the glossolalia practised by some Christians; that is, it consists of utterances that approximate words and speech, rather than being words and speech. Others, usually Christians themselves, dispute that understanding of the practice and therefore dispute the meaning of 'speaking in tongues'; they may assert that when people 'speak in tongues' they "speak in languages which they have not learned" (xenoglossia), perhaps the language of angels. Among such, what is spoken is understood to be a 'message from God', although some limit it to "prayer or praise".

Well thats all well and good but I'm guessing, as is the case in every single case, you have absolutely no defintivie evidence to suport this. Im really good with language, and can spout off chains of false structure. Its not hard. Especially when you just copy the structure of other languages that the listener will not be familiar with. In Waynes World, both wayne and cassandra were speaking in "Cantonese", a chinese dialetc. The words they used were made up, and sounded as if from two wholly different languages.

Until anyone, anywhere, can come up with a non-religious definition of glossolalia that is distinguishable from gibberish, then all forms of non-religious glossolalia should be directed to the Gibberish page. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Example of actual tongue recording

Media:tongueTemp.ogg [[Media:tongue12feb.ogg] I have created http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker with my tongues.TongueSpeaker (talk) 14:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neuroscience section is incoherent

the article says, "Activity in the language centers of the brain decreased, while activity in the emotional centers of the brain increased. There were no changes in any language areas, suggesting that glossolalia is not associated with usual language function. " one sentence says language center activity decreased, the next says that there was no change. what's going on? - glocke01 2-11-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glocke01 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Please change

"but in a holy language"

Can someone please change that to something like "aledged holy" or "considered holy"? Alessio Aguirre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.231.177.146 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-religious aspects??

Why is there nothing on speaking tongues in the arts, in media, in non-religious situations? Surely there has been music made by singing like this, and surely there is something to say about it other than what various religions do with the phenomenon? Not necessarily a lot, but enough for some kind of sub-section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.231.183 (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Diamanda Galas is one performer I can cite who has made extensive use of glossolalia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.107.160.107 (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is nowhere near enough focus on non-religious glossolalia here. Not sure of the correct terminology here, but I have been "glossolalic" for most of my life, but it is not the least bit a religious or spiritual experience for me at all. Other than the fact that I can do it, I know little about it. I would love to understand it better, but the info here was not very helpful to me. Unless I've missed something here, I wish there was some reference to who studies this phenomenon (linguists at some university, perhaps?) to help me find more info about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.250.11 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think theres any reason to include non-religious versions of tongues. Mainly because, theres already a section for this subject: See Gibberish. Without reliigon, Gibberish is all thats left. Well, and insanity. But that just changes the source of the gibberish. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to channelling?

Are these people channelling anything? What do Christians that have glossolalia say about whether they're channelling or not? Seems highly apropos. 74.13.31.196 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)