Speaking In Tongue's As Evidence Of Salvation

[MiserereNobis]

On 11/13/2017 at 11:45 AM, pogi said:

That certainly is the modern teaching and practice of the Church, but it was not always so.  Joseph often spoke (and sung) in tongues, claiming it to be the Adamic or Pure language which nobody understood.  Joseph believed that the restoration included restoring parts of the Adamic language.

This is intriguing. Is it an accepted thing that Joseph and Brigham spoke in tongues? Or might this be a contested thing, such as the Adam-God theory?

It just seems so incongruous with the Mormonism of my experience that I find it interesting.

[MiserereNobis]

Since gifts of the spirit are brought up here, beyond just tongues, I'll offer my observation again that for a church that claims prophecy and angelic visitation, there's seems to be little of either. Now, I see that people say that there are such things going on but that it is not shared or talked about, but from an outsider point-of-view that makes it kind of meaningless. If I am told, as a Catholic, that one of the unique things about Mormonism is prophecy and the visitation of angels, and then I ask for details and there are none to give me, then those unique aspects of Mormonism don't really amount to much. This is especially true for a Catholic, who sees claims of miracles and visitations all the time.

Perhaps you should rethink your stance that such things are too sacred to talk about. It doesn't seem like they were too sacred for Joseph Smith to talk about. And it comes off to outsiders like an excuse for why they are not really happening, especially for Catholics who have so many stories of the Blessed Virgin and Jesus and Saints and Angels coming to visit and prophecy.

[MiserereNobis]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was going to do Klingon but Elvish has more poetry to it.

Remember, General Chang said that we haven't experienced Shakespeare until we've heard it in Klingon...

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Remember, General Chang said that we haven't experienced Shakespeare until we've heard it in Klingon...

The "original Klingon" so we know how much we should trust his word on that.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Ol' J.R.R. was a devout traditional Catholic...

 

Everyone has their flaws.  

[MiserereNobis]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Everyone has their flaws.  

Yep, I really enjoyed Ender's Game as a teenager, until I found out about the author...

 

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Of course they are there. I still think many have faded.

Not quite sure what you mean. From what I can see they weren't that common in the early Church. It just seems that way due to our reading private journals from key leaders. I'm sure were we reading similar journals of people today we'd find much more. That is there's a certain type of selection bias at play simply due to the sources we're using to make our judgments. It's not really a random or representative sample. More significantly without knowing what leaders are experiencing I'm not sure we could even say much one way or the other.

11 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Read my earlier post, wherein I directly quote the prophet Nephi on this subject, and then kindy offer your comments on what he had to say about true believers having the power to speak in new tongues.

I think you missed my point. Having power and doing it aren't the same thing. But it does happen but it doesn't logically follow everyone must regularly be doing it.  But more to the point, if I not knowing the language am able to speak in say Spanish, that's a new tongue.

Edited November 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing. Is it an accepted thing that Joseph and Brigham spoke in tongues? Or might this be a contested thing, such as the Adam-God theory?

It just seems so incongruous with the Mormonism of my experience that I find it interesting.

It's pretty well established that they did along with many others. Zina Huntington did it even when she was Relief Society President in Utah. So it most definitely happened. In particular there was an event akin to the day of Pentecost during the events at the Kirtland temple.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yep, I really enjoyed Ender's Game as a teenager, until I found out about the author...

 

That the author became an insane nutcase? Yeah, very sad.  

[pogi]

10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing. Is it an accepted thing that Joseph and Brigham spoke in tongues? Or might this be a contested thing, such as the Adam-God theory?

It just seems so incongruous with the Mormonism of my experience that I find it interesting.

It is not contested, it is pretty well documented that they spoke in tongues, and it was a very common practice in the early church.  Mostly up through the 1830's.  But caution was emphasized early:

Quote

 

-- Jul 2, 1833 
A Second Communication to the Brethren in Zion-- This communication to the Brethren in Zion (Missouri) ... 

...As to the gift of tongues, all we can say is, that in this place, we have received it as the ancients did: we wish you, however, to be careful lest in this you be deceived. 

Guard against evils which may arise from any accounts given by women, or otherwise; be careful in all things lest any root of bitterness spring up among you, and thereby many be defiled. Satan will no doubt trouble you about the gift of tongues, unless you are careful; you cannot watch him too closely, nor pray too much. May the Lord give you wisdom in all things. ... (1) 

 

Beginning in 1834, Joseph began to give further explanation of the gift in this interesting exchange:

Quote

 

-- Sept. 8th, 1834 
Minutes of a conference of the Elders of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, held at New Portage Ohio. September 8th 1834. ... 

Brother A. Palmer made a few observations, and proceeded to present a case which had previously occasioned some difficulty in the church. It was that a certain brother Carpenter had been tried for a fault before the church when the Church gave him a certain time to reflect whether he would acknowledge or not. Brother Gordon at the time spake in tongues and declared that brother Carpenter should not have any lenity. He, brother Palmer, wished instruction on this point, whether they had proceeded right or not, as brother Carpenter was dissatisfied &c. 

Brother Joseph then proceeded to give an explanation of the gift of tongues: That it was particularly instituted for the preaching of the Gospel to other nations and languages, but it was not given for the government of the Church. He further said, if brother Gordon introduced the Gift of tongues as a testimony against brother Carpenter, that it was contrary to the rules and regulations of the Church, because, in all our decisions we must judge from actual testimony. Brother Gordon said the testimony was had and the decision given before the gift of tongues was manifest. Brother Joseph advised that [we] speak in our own language in all such matters, and then the adversary cannot lead our minds astray. Brother Palmer then gave a relation of a certain difficulty which took place in a conference He, brother Palmer presided, when several of the brethren spoke out of order and brother J. B. Bosworth refuses to submit to order according to his (brother Palmers) request. He now wished instruction on this point, whether he, or some one else should preside over this branch of the Church, and also whether such conduct could be approbated in conferences. Brother Gordon then made some remarks on the subjects which was at the time before the council. 

Brother Joseph said, relative to the first question, that brother Gordons Tongues in the end, did operate as testimony, as, by his remarks in tongues, the former decision was set aside, and his taken. That it was his decision that brother Gordons manifestation was incorrect, and from a suspicious heart. He approved the first decision, but discarded the second. Brother Joseph Keeler said that in the former decision he had acted hastily himself in urging brother Carpenter to make acknowledgement without having time to reflect. He asked forgiveness wherein he had erred. Brother Gordon said he discovered that he was in an error, and was satisfied with this council, & was willing to ask forgiveness of the brethren and of the Lord. Decision was then given on the second question that brother J. B. Bosworth was out of his place in opposing brother Palmer, when he (brother Palmer) ordered the council. A vote was then taken whether the conference was satisfied with the two decisions. Passed by unanimous vote. A motion was then made and passed by unanimous vote that a letter be written to brother J. B. Bosworth informing him of the last decision, That he has acted out of place in opposing brother Palmer in a former council, when requested to take his seat, that the business might proceed according to order and that such letter be signed by the clerk of this conference, by the direction of the same The case of brother Milton Stow was then brought up when it was proven that he had delivered prophecies at two differnt times which were not true. At one time in saying that Zion was redeemed, and at another in saying that brother Carpenter was cut off forever, and also in saying, that sister Carpenter was dead. When it was decided by vote that brother Milton Stow be, and by the decision of this conference is suspended from the priveleges of the Church of the Latter Day-Saints and from acting in the authority of an Elder in said Church of the Latter Day-Saints till he appear before the Bishops council at Kirtland and make proper satisfaction. Conference closed by prayer of the Clerk. 

Oliver Cowdery 

Clerk of Conference 

 

It is apparent however that it was still practiced, even by Joseph after this:

Quote

 

-- Jan 17, 1836 
[Joseph Smith Diary] 17th Sunday morning the 17th Attended meeting at the schoolhouse at the usual hour. A large congregation assembled. I proceeded to organize the several quorums present. First the Presidency, then the Twelve [Apostles], and the Seventy, all who were present. Also the Counsellers of Kirtland and Zion. 

President Rigdon then arose and observed that instead of preaching the time would be occupied by the Presidency and Twelve [Apostles] in speaking each in their turn untill they had all spoken. The Lord poured out his spirit upon us and the brethren began to confess their faults one to the other. The congregation were soon overwhelmed in tears and some of our hearts were too big for utterance. The gift of toungs [tongues] come upon us also like the rushing of a mighty wind and my soul was filled with the glory of God. ...

 

This next entry seems to be more in line with how the gift is understood and practiced today:

Quote

-- Jan 19, 1836 
[Joseph Smith Diary] 19th Tuesday the 19th Spent the day at School. The Lord blessed us in our Studies. This day we commenced reading in our Hebrew Bibles with much success. It seems as if the Lord opens our minds in a marvelous manner to understand his word in the original language. My prayer is that God will speedily indu [endow] us with a knowledge of all langnages and toungs [tongues] that his servants may go forth for the last time to bind up the law and seal up the testimony. 

 

I think Joseph began to have a distaste for the expression of the gift without translation or practical use.  I think he sensed that it was widely being abused and misused. 

Quote

-- June, 1839 
Beginning in 1839, Joseph Smith begins to deemphasize "ecstatic tongues [or tongues for purely spiritual purposes], while at the same time limiting glossolalic practice to xenoglossia, or the ability to speak foreign languages." (3) 

Quote

 

-- Jun 27, 1839 
[Joseph Smith Sermon] Other important items of doctrines fromJoseph given in Commerce Ills 

... Tongues. 

Were given for the purpose of preaching among those whose language is not understood as on the day of Pentecost &c , & it is not necessary for tongues to be taught to the church particularly. for any man that has the Holy Ghost, can speak of the things of God in his own tongue, as well as to speak in another, for faith comes not by signs but by hearing the word of God. ... (4) 

 

Things began to change after that.

I think this evolution is similar to the evolution of the practice of the gift in Catholicism.  There are "a number of early Christian references are made to speaking in tongues, including Tertullian (207 AD), Novatian (360 AD), Justin Martyr (150 AD), Eusebius (339 AD) Chrysostom (407), and Augustine of Hippo (430). (1)"

Quote

 -- 12th century
Hildegard of Bingen is reputed to have spoken and sung in tongues. Her spiritual songs were referred to by contemporaries as "concerts in the Spirit."

By 1265, understanding of the gift had evolved in the Catholic Church in the same way that it has evolved in the restoration:

Quote

-- 1265 
Thomas Aquinas wrote about the gift of tongues in the New Testament, which he understood to be an ability to speak every language, given for the purposes of missionary work. He explained that Christ did not have this gift because his mission was to the Jews, "nor does each one of the faithful now speak save in one tongue"; for "no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations". (1)

Thomas Aquinas's explanation is exactly how the Mormon Church understands and uses the gift today. 

 

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Not quite sure what you mean. From what I can see they weren't that common in the early Church. It just seems that way due to our reading private journals from key leaders. I'm sure were we reading similar journals of people today we'd find much more. That is there's a certain type of selection bias at play simply due to the sources we're using to make our judgments. It's not really a random or representative sample. More significantly without knowing what leaders are experiencing I'm not sure we could even say much one way or the other.

I think you missed my point. Having power and doing it aren't the same thing. But it does happen but it doesn't logically follow everyone must regularly be doing it.  But more to the point, if I not knowing the language am able to speak in say Spanish, that's a new tongue.

Please read Nephi’s words and then comment on what HE has to say. What do you think he means when he testifies that believers-are empowered by the Spirit to speak in new tongues? 

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me. (2 Nephi 31)

And again:

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do. (2 Nephi 32)

[pogi]

12 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Since gifts of the spirit are brought up here, beyond just tongues, I'll offer my observation again that for a church that claims prophecy and angelic visitation, there's seems to be little of either. Now, I see that people say that there are such things going on but that it is not shared or talked about, but from an outsider point-of-view that makes it kind of meaningless. If I am told, as a Catholic, that one of the unique things about Mormonism is prophecy and the visitation of angels, and then I ask for details and there are none to give me, then those unique aspects of Mormonism don't really amount to much. This is especially true for a Catholic, who sees claims of miracles and visitations all the time.

Perhaps you should rethink your stance that such things are too sacred to talk about. It doesn't seem like they were too sacred for Joseph Smith to talk about. And it comes off to outsiders like an excuse for why they are not really happening, especially for Catholics who have so many stories of the Blessed Virgin and Jesus and Saints and Angels coming to visit and prophecy.

It is interesting to compare the two cultures surrounding the topic of miracles, visions, visitations, etc. and our level of openness in discussing our experiences.  I served my mission in the Philippines which is predominantly Catholic.  I recognize that the culture of Catholicism in the Philippines may not be representative of the larger church, but It was incredibly surprising and shocking to me to hear claims of visions and sightings of Mary and Jesus happening on a daily basis almost.  They would see Mary in rose pedals, rocks, tree trunks, and yes, even dog poo.  When you saw some of the things they claimed were images of Mary or Jesus, even you would roll your eyes Miserere.  We would hear stories of miraculous faith healings being performed by faith healers, exorcisms, etc. On top of that, they also believed in mythical creatures called aswangs (shape-shifters), duwendes (dwarfs and goblins), and fairies.

Once, after a signal 5 super typhoon hit my mission, we gave all of our time to assisting the community in cleaning up the debris and rebuilding their homes.  I removed a felled tree from one persons property and was surprised when this person cursed me for removing the tree.  He was really, REALLY angry at me.  He said that a duwende lived in the tree and that I would bring his family bad luck for removing it.  They were a deeply superstitious people..  They would commonly ask for signs from us missionaries to prove that what we taught was true.  They would say, "I'll believe it when God shows me a sign".  We would ask them to pray, but they would say that it was not necessary, that God would show them a sign if it was true.  In fact, it was fairly common for new converts to claim miraculous visions which led to their conversion to Mormonism.  Many of which I viewed with suspicion simply because it was so cultural for them to believe that a sign was required.  I had one woman claim that she saw Jesus in the clouds smiling down upon her as she contemplated baptism into the LDS Church, that to her was a sign that the church was true.  She made a big deal of it and told everybody she knew of what she saw.  I instantly felt that there was something amiss and felt no spiritual witness whatsoever that this was indeed a miracle.  I had to caution her that while seemingly miraculous, true and lasting conversion comes only through an inner witness and testimony of the spirit.  I encouraged her to continue to pray and seek an answer from the spirit  before she agreed to baptism. 

I share this to show why the LDS might caution against sharing such sacred experiences.  As an outsider to this Catholic culture in the Philippines, I viewed these experiences as superstitions of a sign-seeking culture.  It was WAY over-the-top-wacko (and that is coming from a Mormon!).  Much like the gift of tongues, these "miraculous" occurrences can easily be viewed with suspicion and dismissed when such things are culturally expected, and so common that they become easy to doubt and discredit - obvious fabrications.  We saw this a lot in the early Church with many members fabricating the experience of the gift of tongues by speaking gibberish.  That is not to say that some were genuine experiences, but the fabricated experiences became so common that caution was advised.  

I am by no way dismissing all miraculous experiences though.  Generally they are not broadcast to the world to attract attention to themselves, but are for private edification.  Christ taught that we should not appear unto others to be fasting in order to receive praise from men, but advised us to pray in our closets and in secret and that our Father would reward us in "secret".

Contrast that experience with an investigator claiming miraculous conversion with this one.  On another occasion, I had an investigator who when we first met said "I was born a Catholic and I will die a Catholic".  The first discussion didn't go very well.  Upon returning to our second discussion, I was not expecting what would happened next.  She welcomed us in very warmly, had us sit down, and said that she wants to be baptized.  Our jaws hit the floor as we stuttered in amazement.  She continued to explain that she did as we asked and read from the BoM and prayed about it (to our surprise).  That night she had a dream that she explained was so real that she was sure that she was awake in it.  The details of the dream are fuzzy to me now, but I have recorded it in my journal and may give the details later.  Suffice it to say that when she explained her dream, the spirit was so palpable in the room that we were all weeping.  Her entire countenance changed, and her once stubborn and hard heart melted away because of one dream.  I knew that it was of God because of the Spirit that bore witness to me powerfully that day.  She did not broadcast her dream to the world to draw attention to herself, but held it sacred.  

MiserereNobis, I have journal after journal filled with experiences from personal prayer/meditation, they are full of visions and manifestations that are so powerful and undeniable to me that I cannot deny the Lord's hand in them.  I don't share them with anyone because they are so personal to me and sacred.  I don't want to be perceived to boast and I don't want to cheapen the experiences.  I know that many would trample upon them, and I don't want that.  I want to keep them "secret" as Christ taught.  I have only shared these experiences when I feel prompted by the spirit to do so for the benefit and edification of others.  Sometimes that does happen, but it is the exception.  Also, to share many of these experiences would require me to share intimate details about me personally that I don't feel comfortable sharing with everyone, in order to understand the visions.  Personal revelation comes to me in miraculous ways "line upon line, precept upon precept".  Each of my experiences and journal entries is like a puzzle piece which opens my eyes to greater understanding of the workings of the Lord, it is a deeply intimate experience with the Lord that I want to keep in my secret closet as he asked.  

  

 

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That the author became an insane nutcase? Yeah, very sad.  

Didn't OSC have a stroke or something that kind of changed his personality? There's a pretty big difference between the books from the 80's and 90's and those thereafter.

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Please read Nephi’s words and then comment on what HE has to say. What do you think he means when he testifies that believers-are empowered by the Spirit to speak in new tongues? 

I'm sure the way you read it is obvious to you but I'm afraid not knowing how you read it nor why I'm just not following you at all. Could you explain how you are interpreting those passages and why? Because I confess I'm not seeing what you seem to be seeing. I assume you are thinking "tongue of angels" implies glossolalia but I don't see it as saying that.

Part of the problem is that Nephi already explains what he means by that phrase. "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ." From my perspective he's talking of personal revelation where the Holy Ghost tells us "all things what ye should do." (v. 3) The chapter is pretty clear in its emphasis on personal direction as being the focus after one enters in the way. More significantly though, this applies to Nephi himself as he gives the sermon. Note how he stops because "the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance" (v7)

I think there's a compelling case to be made that this is also a step on a process of becoming like God. Neal Rappleye has an interesting paper on that. However I'm not sure that's the only defensible reading. I think one could read this as a kind of glossolalia but not the sort that I think you are pushing. 1 Enoch talks of the speech of angels in chapter 40. This is after a heavenly ascent (much like Rappleye suggests Nephi is alluding to) and Enoch is brought into the presence of God. There were angels who showed Enoch the "hidden things" (2) They then give praise. More significantly is chapter 71 with strong echoes of Nephi's visit with the Spirit in 1 Nephi 11.

Quote

 

And it came to pass after this that my spirit was translated And it ascended into the heavens: And I saw the holy sons of God. They were stepping on flames of fire: Their garments were white [and their raiment], And their faces shone like snow. And I saw two streams of fire, And the light of that fire shone like hyacinth, And I fell on my face before the Lord of Spirits. And the angel Michael [one of the archangels] seized me by my right hand, And lifted me up and led me forth into all the secrets, And he showed me all the secrets of righteousness. And he showed me all the secrets of the ends of the heaven, And all the chambers of all the stars, and all the luminaries, Whence they proceed before the face of the holy ones. And he translated my spirit into the heaven of heavens, And I saw there as it were a structure built of crystals, And between those crystals tongues of living fire.

[...]

And I saw angels who could not be counted, A thousand thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand, Encircling that house. And Michael, and Raphael, and Gabriel, and Phanuel, And the holy angels who are above the heavens, Go in and out of that house.  And they came forth from that house, And Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel, And many holy angels without number. And with them the Head of Days, His head white and pure as wool, And His raiment indescribable. And I fell on my face, And my whole body became relaxed, And my spirit was transfigured; And I cried with a loud voice, . . . with the spirit of power, And blessed and glorified and extolled.

12 And these blessings which went forth out of my mouth were well pleasing before that Head of Days. And that Head of Days came with Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel, thousands and ten thousands of angels without number.

 

Now of course we can debate the actual relationship of 1 Enoch (and similar Jewish texts from the same eras) to Nephi. Nephi is clearly writing centuries earlier. But I think it a mistake to read this just in terms of 19th century charismatic performances. 

The point is though that when you look at these texts (1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, Assumption of Isaiah, etc.) there's a clear reference to each order of angels have their own language. The language of heaven is unintelligible to mortals and they have to learn it so they can understand the angels. It's then worth considering Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's vision in D&C 76 were arguably they see similar things.

Now again, I think this happened at the temple in Kirtland (see D&C 109). I think in limited situations it may still happen although I've not seen it. However I don't think it follows from Nephi's text that people speak in glossolalia when spiritual born again.

Getting back to the topic at hand, while I fully agree there was glossolalia in the early LDS church onward, I think the interpretation is a bit more complicated. For instance the John Corrill account of his conversion talks about entering a room where people were speaking in tongues. But what's interesting is his description. "Persons in the room...declared, from the knowledge they had of the Indian languages, that the tongues spoken were regular Indian dialects, which I was also informed, on inquiry, the persons who had spoke had never learned." (Corrill, A Brief History of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints)

This was also reported by Jesse Crosby who said, "The holy Ghost was poured out insomuch that many were healed of their infirmities and prophesied, some saw visions, other spoke in different languages by the gift and power of God as on the day of Pentecost. The language or dialect of various tribes of the American Indians was spoken, and that too by persons who had never spoken with an Indian in thier lives. I will own, that though I believed, I was astonished, but will add that I have since traveled among various tribes of Indians in the central and uncultivated parts of America and have recognized not only the language, but the gesture and very manner in which it was spoken." (Autobiography of Jesse W. Crosby)

I bring this up just to note that the situation even in early Mormonism is much more complicated than it appears at first glance.

Edited November 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Bobbieaware]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Didn't OSC have a stroke or something that kind of changed his personality? There's a pretty big difference between the books from the 80's and 90's and those thereafter.

I'm sure the way you read it is obvious to you but I'm afraid not knowing how you read it nor why I'm just not following you at all. Could you explain how you are interpreting those passages and why? Because I confess I'm not seeing what you seem to be seeing. I assume you are thinking "tongue of angels" implies glossolalia but I don't see it as saying that.

Part of the problem is that Nephi already explains what he means by that phrase. "Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ." From my perspective he's talking of personal revelation where the Holy Ghost tells us "all things what ye should do." (v. 3) The chapter is pretty clear in its emphasis on personal direction as being the focus after one enters in the way. More significantly though, this applies to Nephi himself as he gives the sermon. Note how he stops because "the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance" (v7)

I think there's a compelling case to be made that this is also a step on a process of becoming like God. Neal Rappleye has an interesting paper on that. However I'm not sure that's the only defensible reading. I think one could read this as a kind of glossolalia but not the sort that I think you are pushing. 1 Enoch talks of the speech of angels in chapter 40. This is after a heavenly ascent (much like Rappleye suggests Nephi is alluding to) and Enoch is brought into the presence of God. There were angels who showed Enoch the "hidden things" (2) They then give praise. More significantly is chapter 71 with strong echoes of Nephi's visit with the Spirit in 1 Nephi 11.

Now of course we can debate the actual relationship of 1 Enoch (and similar Jewish texts from the same eras) to Nephi. Nephi is clearly writing centuries earlier. But I think it a mistake to read this just in terms of 19th century charismatic performances. 

The point is though that when you look at these texts (1 Enoch, Apocalypse of Abraham, Assumption of Isaiah, etc.) there's a clear reference to each order of angels have their own language. The language of heaven is unintelligible to mortals and they have to learn it so they can understand the angels. It's then worth considering Joseph Smith's and Sidney Rigdon's vision in D&C 76 were arguably they see similar things.

Now again, I think this happened at the temple in Kirtland (see D&C 109). I think in limited situations it may still happen although I've not seen it. However I don't think it follows from Nephi's text that people speak in glossolalia when spiritual born again.

Why all the presumption? And why not simply offer your opinion as to what it is you think Nephi is teaching in the verses I quoted? 

Isn’t it quite obvious Nephi is teaching us that those who are truly converted unto the Lord have power given them that they might speak the words of Jesus Christ (aka, the tongues of angels)? He is teaching us that those true believers who have been empowered by the Holy Ghost are able to bring for words that are tantamount to scripture, and not necessarily in any language other than their own native language. The new tongue is speaking words in any language that are  inspired by the Holy Ghost.

1 My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speakas they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68)

Edited November 15, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[RevTestament]

On 11/13/2017 at 5:54 AM, LittleNipper said:

I concur that tongues in not a sign necessary to demonstrate one is saved and more importantly there must be a translation or the whole thing is only a disruption in the church and again it becomes a W O R K and not the G R A C E of GOD.

God forbid one work for God...

[RevTestament]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is intriguing. Is it an accepted thing that Joseph and Brigham spoke in tongues? Or might this be a contested thing, such as the Adam-God theory?

It just seems so incongruous with the Mormonism of my experience that I find it interesting.

Not at all. I have heard missionaries say they learned how to speak Polynesian or some other language while giving a talk... It has happened in the Church. The Pentecostals and some other churches give the gift of tongues a bad rap.  Been there done that. I don't know who they are channeling, but it's not God.

[LittleNipper]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

God forbid one work for God...

Nothing wrong with devotion to GOD; however, that devotion is not to be considered payback or GOD will not respect it.

[RevTestament]

Just now, LittleNipper said:

Nothing wrong with devotion to GOD; however, that devotion is not to be considered payback or GOD will not respect it.

Nonsense. Payback for what? What is wrong with obedience? Do you not believe we should love our neighbors?

I don't love my neighbor's to try to earn salvation. I love my neighbors because I believe that leads to happiness, and because the Father and Son ask me to. Is that not a work? I find the Pauline Christian hangup on works to be annoying. If you want to believe you are only saved because of your belief, I cannot stop you though. Do you believe you will be saved for your belief, while beating up your neighbors?1

[LittleNipper]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Nonsense. Payback for what? What is wrong with obedience? Do you not believe we should love our neighbors?

I don't love my neighbor's to try to earn salvation. I love my neighbors because I believe that leads to happiness, and because the Father and Son ask me to. Is that not a work? I find the Pauline Christian hangup on works to be annoying. If you want to believe you are only saved because of your belief, I cannot stop you though. Do you believe you will be saved for your belief, while beating up your neighbors?1

Payback for salvation. There is nothing anyone can do to be saved!

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Payback for salvation. 

No.  You don't pay back a gift.  

2 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

There is nothing anyone can do to be saved!

Accepting Christ is an action.

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Why all the presumption? And why not simply offer your opinion as to what it is you think Nephi is teaching in the verses I quoted? 

It was conclusion not presumption. I thought I was even pretty clear others can read it in different ways. And I thought I did give my opinion on the verses. In fact I thought that was most of the comment you were responding to.

19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Isn’t it quite obvious Nephi is teaching us that those who are truly converted unto the Lord have power given them that they might speak the words of Jesus Christ (aka, the tongues of angels)?

Right but that was the part I agreed with. The question is what that entails. As I argued I read this as implying revelation not glossolalia. To me he clarifies within the chapter what he means. I'm not opposed to other readings, such as the heavenly ascent motif I mentioned. But I think the primary way to speak with the tongue of angels is to speak as moved upon by the Holy Ghost which is usually in the language you normally speak and others can understand. So when I am bearing my testimony accompanied by the Holy Ghost I'm speaking with the tongue of angels. Why? Because angels when they come (as happens earlier in Nephi's narrative) they are giving the word of God. i.e. when acting in the Holy Ghost you are like an angel - a messenger from God.

The scripture you quote (again without explaining how you read it) seems to support this reading of mine.

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

No.  You don't pay back a gift.  

Accepting Christ is an action.

I believe it is the Holy Spirit that initiates  faith.  However, simply accepting Christ Jesus is not like writing a book, building a sanctuary, or carving a statue. It is saying here I am Lord...

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I believe it is the Holy Spirit that initiates  faith.  However, simply accepting Christ Jesus is not like writing a book, building a sanctuary, or carving a statue. It is saying here I am Lord...

Here is the thing LN. In the Hebrew way of thinking, if one believes, one follows or does. In the Greek way of thinking one can simply believe Jesus died for us, and one is saved, and they can go about being their old sinning self. But Paul really doesn't say that. Yeshua will tell that person if they go beat their neighbors, that they did not believe in Him. To Yeshua saying I believe is not enough.  A belief without follow through is meaningless. Thus, James, Yeshua's brother, teaches us that faith without works is dead, being alone. It is true that one can simply love their neighbor and not be saved. But they are not damned to Hell for eternity either. They need to accept their Messiah and repent in order for their salvation to completely kick in. No amount of works will do that for us. This is the ultimate meaning of the scriptures. If you agree then, we're good. The idea that we should despise good works or forget about them is heresy. Yeshua said to let your light shine, so that your good works can be seen by all.

[LittleNipper]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Here is the thing LN. In the Hebrew way of thinking, if one believes, one follows or does. In the Greek way of thinking one can simply believe Jesus died for us, and one is saved, and they can go about being their old sinning self. But Paul really doesn't say that. Yeshua will tell that person if they go beat their neighbors, that they did not believe in Him. To Yeshua saying I believe is not enough.  A belief without follow through is meaningless. Thus, James, Yeshua's brother, teaches us that faith without works is dead, being alone. It is true that one can simply love their neighbor and not be saved. But they are not damned to Hell for eternity either. They need to accept their Messiah and repent in order for their salvation to completely kick in. No amount of works will do that for us. This is the ultimate meaning of the scriptures. If you agree then, we're good. The idea that we should despise good works or forget about them is heresy. Yeshua said to let your light shine, so that your good works can be seen by all.

People cannot become saved and then not be changed by the moving of the Holy Spirit. Such is an impossibility and this is exactly what James refers to.

[Jane_Doe]

10 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

I believe it is the Holy Spirit that initiates  faith.  However, simply accepting Christ Jesus is not like writing a book, building a sanctuary, or carving a statue. It is saying here I am Lord...

Accepting = an action.

Saying = an action.