Talk:Speaking in tongues

message: Anyone has any reference to McKenna talking about Glossolalia in one of his books? Twipley (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terence McKenna 

message: I removed a portion that stated "shunda" and its equivalents "shindar", "shinda", etc. were universal in the tongue-speaking world. A closer inspection of the source says the contrary (find it by searching 'tikitiki'). Whoever originally posted it misread the second half of the sentence, I suppose. There's also no mentions of conjugations of the word, so I have no idea where they made that up =/ . Here's the original source they...'used': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#cite_note-kavan-17 . --a guest  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.196.188.66 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: small edit

message: (I may be late, but I have only just come across this page.)
The term: "Speaking in Tongues" is the term generally used by:
(1) Those who do it, 
(2) Those who argue against it,
(3) The vast majority of the population who have any reason to want to know anything about it.
The term: "Glossolalia" is generally only used by theologians and (allegedly) scientific researchers.
  
Most ordinary people would have absolutely no idea what "Glossolalia" means.
I propose we go with the people on this one.  That's who Wikipedia is for.
(Just in case anyone wants to know: Yes, I'm a plain ordinary bog-standard Christian who does it.) Darkman101 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Glossolalia exists in non-Christian contexts too, though.  I believe "glossolalia" is used because it's more culturally neutral whereas the term "(speaking in) tongues" is mostly used by Christians.  —Soap— 22:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking at the other language wiki's. 84.106.101.44 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the Requested Move: I want to vote in favour

message: This article needs audio samples to illustrate the practice of glossolia. Else, it is too windy.Sindhbadh (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An audio sample with singing in tongues: https://message-for-you.net/heavenly-sounds-english/ 77.3.173.163 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio

message: Has this shown up in anime? I think wikipedia should discuss Glossolalia in Anime. --86.148.74.171 (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're serious, then you could do that: find reliable sources, create a new section above "See Also" called "In the media", and describe and cite your reliable source in that section. You don't have to do it perfectly - but good enough that people take it seriously and improve it, rather than delete it. "In the media" sections do tend to survive pretty well though.-Tesseract2(talk) 16:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: In Anime

message: All of the information I have been able to find about this topic focuses on religion or spiritual aspects of the event. What about when it occurs in people without any religious context? 
-Is there a seperate term for that? 
-Many definitions mention a "trance-like state" - what about when a person doesn't "trance", just suddenly shifts into an alternative verbal pattern without any accompanying physical/emotional/situational change?
-Have there been any studies done of the behavior without it being in a faith-invoked/involved setting?
- Are there currently any studies being done that do not involve a religious element?144.124.243.172 (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any. But just to clarify, within Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, speaking in tongues is not dependent on any "trance-like state". It can be done at will and is understood as the person yielding his or her vocal chords to speak whatever the spirit desires to be spoken. The content of the utterance is spontaneous, one doesn't determine what one says, but the timing is not necessarily spontaneous and no ecstatic emotional state is required. Ltwin (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-religious study and interpretation

message: I removed the following footnote cited in several places in the article:  "Personal Interview with Deborah Cox. Professor of Writing about the Bible as Literature. 4 May 2009. Lonestar College Library. Conroe, Texas, 77384[verification needed]". Wikipedia's guidelines on No original research is clear. Since "personal interviews" are not published, they are not verifiable. Ltwin (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation removal

message: The OED seems to show the latter preposition is the standard. Why then the most frequent preposition in the phrase in the article is "in" ?
c.II.8.c The knowledge or use of a language. Esp. in phrases gift of tongues, to speak with a tongue (tongues), in reference to the Pentecostal miracle and the miraculous gift in the early Church; also simply tongues (pl. in collect. sense). 
   1526 Tindale [see 2 a].    ― 1 Cor. xii. 30 Do all speake with tonges?    Ibid. xiii. 8 Though that prophesyinge fayle, other tonges shall cease, or knowledge vanysshe awaye.    1533 Gau Richt Vay 48 The halie spreit‥gaif to thayme ye gift to speik with al twngis.    1538 Cromwell in Merriman Life & Lett. (1902) II. 144 Ioynyng wyth you Maister Mason‥to declare your purpose for that having the tongue he may doo‥it more fully thenne you could percace easly vtter the same.    1593 R. Harvey Philad. 3 Neither can you proue that hee had not wealth enough to serue his vses, or tongue enough in euery place of his trauell.    a 1637 B. Jonson Underwoods, Execration upon Vulcan 75 Their‥bright stone that brings Invisibility, and strength, and tongues.    1879 Farrar St. Paul I. 96 The glossolalia or ‘speaking with a tongue’, is connected with ‘prophesying’, that is, exalted preaching.   1965 Sunday Mail (Brisbane) 5 Dec. 31/5 Some parishioners have complained to the Diocesan authorities‥about Mr. Schofield's interest in speaking with tongues.    1972 S. Tugwell Did you receive Spirit? v. 40 Some manifestation, usually tongues, is generally expected; indeed, strict Pentecostals demand it.    1976 Church Times 5 Mar. 14/2 Tongues is a personal and devotional gift as opposed to the others, which are intended to help people. 
9.II.9 transf. in biblical use: A people or nation having a language of their own. Usually in plural: all tongues, people of every tongue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.121.155.250 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speaking '''in''' tongues or '''with''' tongues ? 

message: I was raised in Russian Orthodoxy, & when I stumbled to this page, I was surprised that the term glossolalia is in the Greek, as opposed to the more frequently used form „speaking in tongues.“ The occurrence could be read in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 2. Which made me wondered, „Why is not the Greek Christian or any other Eastern Church have a section on this page?“ So I accompanied the matter with some research, & I did find some interesting perspectives about the speaking in tongues from Orthodox sources.
Here are a few that I found reliable to start a section:
*http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7112/
*http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/misc/nicozisin_tongues.htm
*http://www.sfaturiortodoxe.ro/orthodox/orthodox_advices_cleopa_speaking_in_tongues.htm
*http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/on-the-gift-of-speaking-in-tongues.aspx
*http://oca.org/questions/teaching/speaking-in-tongues-miracles
*http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/11/
Here are some blogs that cover the subject:
*http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=14851.0
Here is an extensive sermon [video on the website YouTube,] which I am not sure is reliable but dœs cover the perspective:
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrFHVQTvCA
A podcast:
*http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_gift_the_gifts_and_glossolalia
Thank you for your time reading my question, I hope & am seeing into the construction of an Orthodox perspective section. 序名三「Jyonasan」 TalkStalk 04:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would it be appropriate to present the tradition on the phenomena of glossolalia in the Eastern Christian perspective? 

message: It seems that on April 10, 2012, someone added the section on Catholicism. Why does Catholicism get its own section when it seems that the way the article is outlined is by time period, not by Christian denomination. Furthermore, the section asserts that "Glossolalia is the miraculous ability to speak in a foreign language so that foreigners can hear the Gospel." If this is indeed the "Catholic" definition of speaking in tongues, then it belongs at the article xenoglossia. One more thing, it contradicts the very real and vibrant charismatic movement within the Catholic Church, which has official papal approval. These blanket statements that glossolalia is always understood as speaking a foreign language and never as speaking a heavenly or sacred language cannot be supported. The current teaching of the Catholic Church on this charism is much more nuanced than this section leads one to believe. For this reason, I am removing this section. Ltwin (talk) 08:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholicism?

message: Totally church biased, the whole article is. There is a point "science" missing as psychology and medical sciences have a very different opinion which is absolutely neglected and practically not mentioned in the article. The majority - by far - of the Western world population does not see glossolalia as anything religious but as something not working right in the human brain. Also, the majority of "Protestants" rejects glossolalia as something not being part of the religion and not belonging in a church. Only pentecostals and a few other fringe sects see glossolalia as part of religion and church service.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4958:D783:24E7:F51E:26FD:9ACC (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite accurate. Scientists have much to say on the issue of glossolalia, but the notion that it is seen as "something not working right in the human brain" is outdated and not supported by science. Rather they use their brains in different ways when utilizing glossolalia-which aligns with what glossolalists have described about their own behavior. Science has shown that people who speak in tongues are not emotionally or physically disturbed as was once assumed. In addition, there are many Protestants who believe in glossolalia, not just Pentecostals and not simply "fringe sects." The current Archbishop of Canterbury has a background in the charismatic movement after all. Ltwin (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing: Science / Article completely biased 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Glossolalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081217141421/http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf to http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4185_spirit-filled_life.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I suggest adding a section on secular interpretations of the phenomenon. An example reliable reference is:  The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during glossolalia: A preliminary SPECT study See: http://www.amebrasil.org.br/html/Newberg2006.pdf 
Also, chapter 6 of book "How Enlightenment Changes your Brain" by Andrew Newburg discusses this in some depth. Glossolalia is likely one of many forms of "enlightenment" that can be induced by various secular practices of meditation and other secular rituals.
Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secular Interpretations 

message: There seems to be some disagreement over the first sentence of the article. Since at least 2013, the article has opened with essentially the following sentence, "Glossolalia or (speaking in tongues) is the fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning, in some cases as part of religious practice.[1]." As of this edit, the article begins with "Glossolalia or (speaking in tongues) is the religious phenomenon of persons speaking languages not known to them." I have two problems with this sentence. First, it is vague and doesn't actually describe what the article is about. It could be referring either glossolalia or xenoglossy. Second, we discuss what xenoglossy is before we even define glossolalia. It is only at the end of the paragraph that we actually find out what glossolalia is as opposed to xenoglossy. Whatever the etymology of the word, as it is used today it is not simply "speaking languages not known to them" but speaking what are believed to be non-human languages. The reader shouldn't have to read the entire lead section before they understand the difference. Ltwin (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Glossolalia is first a religious phenomenon.  That has been its meaning since the term was coined.  The psychological interpretation of this is important but to state this as the lead sentence is to disregard the historical significance and derivation of the term.  Taxee (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we disregarding it simply because the first word after "speaking in tongues" doesn't mention religion? The entire paragraph is about its religious associations. We even cite Scripture in the lead. Ltwin (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why can't you live with the obvious solution of providing the predominant meaning of the term first.  If it was a psychological term (which it is not) then I could understand your point.  It is, in fact, a religious term  which derives directly from the Bible, and therefore, that should figure first in its introduction.  Providing a psychological explanation for something that is not a psychological term is inappropriate.  According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.  That's not what the lead section currently does.  Taxee (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the lead as favoring a "psychological" definition over a "religious" definition. You are the one splitting hairs. The first sentence currently starts out by describing what glossolalia is first, what it "sounds" and "looks" like and what it means to the people who speak it. As a Pentecostal Christian who speaks in tongues, and probably does so "more than you all" lol, I'm not understanding why you see the current lead sentence as privileging a psychological definition over a religious one. It's not vague and simplistic like "speaking in an unknown language" is, but I think that's actually a good thing. Ltwin (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Glossolalia lead sentence

message: The history section should probably include a proper reference to the Pythia. This is a contemporary reference that was popular to those in the Greco-Roman world and actually sets the stage for why this behavior would be accepted and found to be intriguing to them in the first place. This citation references what is likely the origin of this practice.69.40.38.162 (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Pythia|Oracle of Delphi]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Glossolalia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/tongue1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mormonwiki.com/Speaking_in_Tongues
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050429071428/http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm to http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/31-35/31-1-05.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708052546/http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GerlachGlossolalia.pdf to http://www.wlsessays.net/files/GerlachGlossolalia.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010619205618/http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/ to http://www.bible411.com/glossolalia/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://www.davidcrystal.com/?fileid=-4204
(The original article is apparently http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014610799502500304).
In short, the author relates the proposition that the Apostles spoke in non-prestigious languages (Aramaic & Greek) in a situation where others expected them to speak in the prestigious language of the place (Hebrew). This would explain why detractors ridiculed them as drunkards, and not (as was the case with Jesus in the Gospels) denounced as possessed by demons. 37.190.146.24 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article with an alternative (both religious and scientific) interpretation of glossolalia in Acts 

message: So after all that religion, all we have is two sentences of actual medical science???
2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:AD1B:7F60:7F8F:70B6 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tongues. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tongues" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: In the History section, what's the strange box at the bottom of the Classical antiquity subsection doing there? It's unsourced and I'm not sure how it fits with the preceding text. JezGrove (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the box has been deleted now...! JezGrove (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box at the bottom of the Classical antiquity subsection 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k0JeEKR3Do 98.4.118.65 (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Because nothing I've ever seen so clearly (and positively) depicts the subject . It will satisfy both those who disapprove and approve (of glossolalia) , as I've seen comments on yt attest although the latter are ofc conflicted in their appreciation. Usually it's depicted as a freak show but POGO's treatment conveys the feeling of getting caught up in a thing. 98.4.118.65 (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoo Ba Ba Kanda should be in external links