“Be not so curious about tongues, do not speak in tongues except there be an interpreter present; the ultimate design of tongues is to speak to foreigners, and if persons are very anxious to display their intelligence, let them speak to such in their own tongues. The gifts of God are all useful in their place, but when they are applied to that which God does not intend, they prove an injury, a snare and a curse instead of a blessing.”
– Editorial in Times and Seasons (presumably by Joseph Smith), 15 June 1842
Cite Keepa
Regrettably, meanies have stolen content from Keepa in the past! I'm confident you will choose honesty and cite this page like this:
MLA: Parshall, Ardis E. "On Speaking in Tongues." Keepapitchin.org, 13 Feb 2018, https://keepapitchinin.org/2018/02/13/on-speaking-in-tongues/.
APA: Parshall, A. (2018, Feb 13). On Speaking in Tongues. Keepapitchinin.org. https://keepapitchinin.org/2018/02/13/on-speaking-in-tongues/
HTML: <a target="_new" href="https://keepapitchinin.org/2018/02/13/on-speaking-in-tongues/">On Speaking in Tongues</a>
3 thoughts on “On Speaking in Tongues”
Huh. Interesting contrast with Orson Pratt, writing forty-ish years later: “The members of the church were confirmed and strengthened in their faith by the enjoyment of this gift [tongues]. . . . They would have had reason to doubt whether they were true beleivers; but when they received tongues, together with all other promised blessings, they were no longer in doubt, but were assured, not only of the truth of the doctrine, but that they themselves were accepted of God.” (Pratt, A SERIES OF PAMPHLETS ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL, 1884, quoted in Lee Copeland, “Speaking in Tongues in the Restoration Churches,” DIALOGUE, 24 no. 1: 21.)
Jane James spoke in tongues pretty regularly in Retrenchment Society and Relief Society meetings in the latter part of the 19th century, and she was not unusual in doing so.
The quotation sounds to me as though it is addressing a particular situation (like those letters occasionally read in sacrament meetings where we can tell some rumor is being squelched, without our having heard the rumor in the first place). Presuming Jane and her sisters were “applying” the gift to “that which God [DOES] intend.”
That’s my story, anyway, and I’m sticking to it.
It could easily just be a tension between different interpreations (ha) of the gift of tongues, which has featured in many an upstart Christian movement (see: Methodism, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, charismatic Catholicism, etc.) but has been left by the wayside as an impediment to middle-class social acceptance.
Notice that while it includes the Pauline injunction to speak in tongues in congregational settings only with an interpreter (1 Cor 14; glossolalia), it takes the professed purpose of tongues from Acts 2: proselytization to those who speak unfamiliar languages (xenolalia). It’s this latter, practical explanation that has survived and displaced the former one.
Huh. Interesting contrast with Orson Pratt, writing forty-ish years later: “The members of the church were confirmed and strengthened in their faith by the enjoyment of this gift [tongues]. . . . They would have had reason to doubt whether they were true beleivers; but when they received tongues, together with all other promised blessings, they were no longer in doubt, but were assured, not only of the truth of the doctrine, but that they themselves were accepted of God.” (Pratt, A SERIES OF PAMPHLETS ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE GOSPEL, 1884, quoted in Lee Copeland, “Speaking in Tongues in the Restoration Churches,” DIALOGUE, 24 no. 1: 21.)
Jane James spoke in tongues pretty regularly in Retrenchment Society and Relief Society meetings in the latter part of the 19th century, and she was not unusual in doing so.
The quotation sounds to me as though it is addressing a particular situation (like those letters occasionally read in sacrament meetings where we can tell some rumor is being squelched, without our having heard the rumor in the first place). Presuming Jane and her sisters were “applying” the gift to “that which God [DOES] intend.”
That’s my story, anyway, and I’m sticking to it.
It could easily just be a tension between different interpreations (ha) of the gift of tongues, which has featured in many an upstart Christian movement (see: Methodism, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, charismatic Catholicism, etc.) but has been left by the wayside as an impediment to middle-class social acceptance.
Notice that while it includes the Pauline injunction to speak in tongues in congregational settings only with an interpreter (1 Cor 14; glossolalia), it takes the professed purpose of tongues from Acts 2: proselytization to those who speak unfamiliar languages (xenolalia). It’s this latter, practical explanation that has survived and displaced the former one.