LDS Speaking in Tongues

[_Cardinal Biggles]

Brigham Young and David W. Patten reportedly spoke in tongues at the Kirtland Temple dedication. In which tongues did they speak? Was it some foreign language? Was it some unknown language? What was the purpose of this speaking in tongues? Did anyone present understand what they said? Was anyone supposed to understand?

[_jon]

They were drunk, allegedly, and only drunk people can understand what drunk people are saying.

[_harmony]

They were preparing for general conference.

[_cinepro]

Brigham Young and David W. Patten reportedly spoke in tongues at the Kirtland Temple dedication. In which tongues did they speak? Was it some foreign language? Was it some unknown language? What was the purpose of this speaking in tongues? Did anyone present understand what they said? Was anyone supposed to understand?

It was "glossolalia", where people speak in an unknown language. It seems to have been relatively common in the church until the late 1800's.

Teryl Givens said this in his podcast at FAIR, and I think it applies to "Speaking in Tongues":

I think there's no question, just as the gifts faded in the primitive Church, so there seems to be a diminishment of the spiritual manifestations and gifts in the restored Church. To some extent, that's a function of any church that becomes institutionalized...normatized over time. And to some extent that was a deliberate strategy on the part of Church leaders who wanted to de-emphasize spiritual gifts.

I think it's a natural process, I think Mormons have accommodated themselves in some ways by changing the lexicon of scriptural resources that they use to identify or define the nature of spiritual experience. For example, instead of focusing on those Book of Mormon episodes where we have angelic visitations or interaction with angelic beings, we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

And that has become the template, if you will, for revelation. So that's one way Mormons have accommodated themselves to a less charismatic church.

(15:18)

Here's what one Church member said in 1904 in the Improvement Era:

James X. Allen, an early Utah physician, expressed his concerns in an Improvement Era article entitled "Passing of the Gift of Tongues":

I was somewhat startled a few days ago, while in conversation with a young brother who had just returned from a mission to Scandinavia, by hearing him remark that he had never in his life heard anyone speak in tongues.... He has filled an honorable mission, and is today strong in the faith, and yet, he has never heard and experienced one of the most common gifts of the gospel, as enjoyed years ago.

The remark was somewhat of a shock to me; because in the early days of the Church--where I was reared—there were so many of the Saints who enjoyed the gifts, and there were none among my acquaintances who had not heard the sweet sound of the gift of tongues. Many times there would be both speaking and singing in tongues, in the same sacrament meeting. The interpretation of tongues was equally as common as the tongues themselves. In fact, we were wont to regard the speaking in tongues, the interpretation of tongues, the relating of dreams and prophesying, as an essential part of the latter-day gospel.

If men now think they can get along without the gifts of the gospel, may not the time come when they may believe they can get along without its ordinances? (Allen 1904, 109, 111)


Dialogue, Vol.24, No.1, p.25

[_just me]

I vote for the cinepro answer.

[_LDS truthseeker]

James X. Allen, an early Utah physician, expressed his concerns in an Improvement Era article entitled "Passing of the Gift of Tongues":

...the relating of dreams and prophesying, as an essential part of the latter-day gospel.

My favorite part. Dreams? Yeah, just how can you tell if a dream is a prophecy or not? That's so crazy. So a prophet has an intense dream (just like we all do) and it becomes revelation. Crazy.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

I had numerous seminary teachers, and religion professors at BYU, who criticized the "incoherent babbling" that passed as "speaking in tongues" in some Christian churches. These teachers all told me that truly speaking in tongues requires speaking in an actual known language that someone can understand--like the missionaries who go to foreign countries do, they said.

But it appears that Young and Patten might have been engaging in the same kind of incoherent babbling that my teachers so harshly criticized.

[_moksha]

Teryl Givens said this in his podcast at FAIR, and I think it applies to "Speaking in Tongues":

... we emphasize those verses that originally were given to Joseph Smith to describe the translation process, that have to do with feelings and impressions and stupors of thought.

While we might not all experience glossolalia, we all have feelings, impressions and stupors of thought which emphasize our commonality.

[_sock puppet]

They were preparing for general conference.

I too usually have to get drunk if I'm preparing for general conference.