prisonchaplain

Thank you Outshined. Besides, wasn't this supposed to be MY string...about polygamy in Canada?

I got your back, Red. Look out! Duck! Whew! That was close I think I found the same information you did, Red...but here it is, for those who want to know. http://www.carm.org/diff/1Sam17_50.htm P.S. I'm guessing the main source for this answer, Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, will probably have answers to many of these types of questions.

I'm sure there are a few details like this throughout Scripture. There are answers too, and google proves a wonderful tool. In this case, the culprit seems to be a copyist. http://www.carm.org/diff/1Sam17_50.htm

BUT, weren't you suppose to wait for the resurrection? I've said this elsewhere. Those churches who have allowed religiosity to pervade their culture will experience heavy depression in those who are the most devoted to the facade. Jesus said we are to mourn with them that mourn. We are to treasure and care for the weaker ones. We are to rejoice with them that rejoice. We are to bear one another's burdens. We are to pray for the sick. Too often, instead we demand that all believers be ever happy. We have the truth, we have the gospel, we will live forever with God, we must always be 'fat, dumb and happy.' The solution? As they say behind the wall (in jail/prison), Let's keep it real!. Another slogan I heard from a group called Christians in Recovery (most are former addicts) is: NO PERFECT CHRISTIANS ALLOWED! REALITY -- THE ANTIDRUG! Perhaps more smiley icons and shorter quotes would help? Just a thought.

How interesting. I seem to remember viewing one or two of the episodes, but never really had time to become a fan of the show. Then, about a month ago, I rented the remake of the pilot. And, yes, there were some subtle underpinnnings there. It's not unusual though. I was told as a teenager that Star Wars has many Buddhist themes running through it.

Ben asked me how my beliefs differ from active LDS ones. I'll use the same questions, but put my understandings. 1. What had I heard about Mormon soteriology? (Beliefs about salvation) Salvation comes with repentence and confession of faith in Jesus Christ. The believer must endure to the end, or can lose their salvation. However, the losing of salvation is not an easy rode, because God chases after us, drawing us back. Nevertheless, we are called to work out our salvation daily, and repeatedly to endure to the end (especially in Revelation 2-3). 2. What had I heard about Mormon beliefs about the nature of God? The key differences are that I believe that God the father is Spirit, and does not have a body. That His nature has not changed--not even from before time. While in many ways believers will become more like God after the resurrection, they will never become gods, such that others might worship them. Jesus has always been the Son of God, and was not created. He also has always existed as God. He did experience the incarnation--becoming God in the flesh. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but are one being. In contrast, humans are not immortal, and I do no believe we existed prior to conception. So, the bottom line is that I would see a greater distinction between God and man, and a less rigid separation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 3. What had I heard about the Mormon restored gospel? While I would accept that the church experienced its share of heresies, ungodly actions, etc. throughout its 2000 year history, I do not see a universal apostasy that required a radically different set of beliefs, and a whole new institution, that would be considered the only true hold of the latter day gospel. I believe the apostasy that Scripture prophecies will occur during the Tribulation, when the Antichrist brings about a great delusion, and a one-world religion. 4. What had I heard about Mormon views of authority? I believe Jesus gave authority to all believers to represent him, to win souls, to do his work. I view my role as a clergyperson as coaching the members in how to be ministers to a lost and dying world. This belief is something the Baptists tend to call, "The Priesthood of all Believers."

You do realize that if that ever happens it will be my 4th? Infant baptism in Lutheran Church (parents were not church going, but grandma was appeased) Believer's baptism at 16 Baptism in the Holy Ghost at 14 No, I'm not leaving. I suppose sacharrine gratitudes can sound like goodbye speeches. I had understood that Mormon women could NOT become gods. I'm less certain that is so, now. Other than that, just the typical: having lots of children, marry young, and yes, all the latest media hype about depressed Utah women (ironically, I believe anti-Mormons have been trafficing that theme for at least two decades). Nothing like that. It was kinda strange. What I told them was that I had heard some things, but was satisfied with our current church. Then they asked if I needed anything, to which I said, "Not really." That was it. B) I guess my old high school teacher will have to retract my good grades, and change them to an F+/D-! Can't somone say thanks without people offering to pack my bags?

I recall that about three months ago two female Mormon missionaries came to my door, and one asked, “So, what have you heard about our church?” She asked with a smile, but was probably ready either way. Well, in light of having read “How Wide the Divide,” and having spent three months hashing out our different understandings of key doctrines, I thought it would be healthy to look at what I had heard, and what I have come to understand. It might help some here see the fruit of the time and effort they put into this site. 1. What had I heard about Mormon soteriology? (Beliefs about salvation) I had heard that Mormons believe in three heavens, that only married Mormons get into the highest heaven, that all sincere religious people get into the 2nd heaven, and that those that were not very righteous or god-fearing, but who had not been truly wicked would be assigned the 3rd heaven. Only the truly evil persons, like Hitler would be damned to the outer darkness. How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand the importance for Mormons of temple work on behalf of the dead, so that many who might not be Mormons in this life, still might embrace the restored gospel in the afterlife–though many would suggest that only those who did not have a good opportunity to embrace Mormonism in this life would be afforded such an opportunity. Furthermore, it is not the only truly wicked who go to the outer darkness, but those who had a testimony and knowledge of the truth, but abandoned it, or even opposed it. 2. What had I heard about Mormon beliefs about the nature of God? I had heard that Mormons are polytheist–that they believe that God was once a man, and that Mormon men are trying to become gods. Also, that God has a physical body, and lives on a planet near KOBOL. That God is limited and changing in nature. How has my understanding changed? I’ve come to understand that Mormons consider themselves Trinitarians and monotheists. They believe that God is three in one, but that these three are not only distinct personalities, but distinct beings. Furthermore, while Mormons may believe there are other gods, they only worship the God of the Bible, and further believe that while they may become gods, they will always worship the God of the Bible for all eternity. Finally, they do not believe God has changed, because they argue that both God and humanity are immortal. Thus, even if God was once a man, he always was, is, and always will be. 3. What had I heard about the Mormon restored gospel? I had heard that Joseph Smith claimed that all Christian churches, preachers and professors were apostate, and an abomination to God, and that only the Mormon church is the true Christian church today. How has my understanding changed? I now understand that Joseph Smith, and modern Mormons, were most enraged by what they saw/see as the elevation of creeds and Greek theological definitions over the plain truths of Scripture. It is this insistence on flawed interpretation–especially the use of such against Mormon distinctives that Smith and the Church considered abominable. Many progressives now consider Christians, especially evangelical Christians, to simply be wrong, and in need of greater truth (as was Apollos, in the New Testament). Some Mormons are still wary of the level of goodness in evangelicalism, especially in light of the many evangelical anti-Mormon organizations and initiatives. 4. What had I heard about Mormon views of authority? I add this question, because my answer is, “Not much.” I only knew that Mormons had two priesthoods, the Aaronic and Melchezidek (sp?) orders, and that the latter was for more mature members. What have I learned? That for the members who have wrestled with the intellectual appeal of Mormonism, this issue is quite often the crux of their decision to follow the LDS Church. The teaching is that after the apostles, the church fell into apostasy, and never really came out of it until the Latter Day truths were revealed to Joseph Smith, and the true gospel was restored. As such, only Mormons have the ultimate authority from God to represent Christ and carry out his work. While there are some significant differences, this teaching is not as strange as it first sounds to evangelical ears, because Roman Catholics also teach apostolic succession, and claim that only the Roman church has the ultimate spiritual authority. Conclusion: As an outsider, not sufficiently versed in Mormon Scriptures, I’m sure I still explain Mormon ideas with a good deal of clumsiness and imprecision. However, I’ve probably garnered a better understanding than I might have had I read the totality of anti-cult or specifically anti-Mormon material that is out there. Thanks to all that have helped me grow in understanding here, and blessings to you that have taken the time to engage my inquiries, as well as my explanations of my own faith tradition.

You do? You agree with Traveler, who said: It is not that I do not think such things are good and that they take place or that they edify? I do not want to overstate Traveler's viewpoint. If I read him correctly, he seems to believe that Pentecostals may err on the side of ostentation and spiritual pride in the exercise of the blessing of tongues-speech. BUT, he does at least acknowledge the potential for blessing--even with private prayer. So, do you really agree with Traveler, or were you trying to create the appearance of people siding with you? Yeah, I didn't think you were really agreeing with Traveler. You add to your litany of accusations and generalizations, the insinuation that I practice "dead works." It would be all but impossible to prove interpretation did not happen, but the context does not lend itself to thinking it was. In the most direct incident, the Gentiles are baptized in the Holy Ghost, the Jewish believers question how the disciples can be so certain that such a blessing could really be so, and they respond that they spoke in tongues as we did. The key evidential factor was the tongues-speech. So, in addition to practicing "dead works," I'm also engaging in unintelligible yammer, and I am heaping upon myself the glory of the Pharisees? Personally, I'm not too concerned that Sybil does not approve of my religious practice, but IF I am right, the Holy Ghost might be none too pleased with someone who claimed to be a His follower, who was despising the gifts He bestows.

Paul was doing two things: affirming that praying in tongues is a blessing, and rebuking the Corinthians for praying loudly and ostentatiously in tongues in public. Pentecostals agree with Paul and the Scriptures on both points. As for why God does not use tongues in the production of Scripture, no the Bible does not indicate that this was done. That was not God's purpose for tongues. Are you suggesting therefore that tongues is not a blessing? The Holy Ghost had not yet come when Jesus walked the earth. In fact, He said it was good that he returned to the Father, so that the Holy Ghost would come!

I was trying to figure out why the vehemence, but ultimately the Holy Ghost will have to work those issues out in your heart. You've not demonstrated the Scriptural fallacy of my beliefs, nor do I believe that you have even shown that your opposition to tongues as a prayer language is a strong Mormon position. As I said, in my several months here, you are the only one to say: 1. My faith is of the lowest quadrant 2. My prayer in the Spirit is of the Devil 3. I am selfish 4. I deserve your reproach 5. I have pride in dead works--this is my greatest need. How many different ways can I say, "Wow. Tell me how you really feel?" You don't even know me, yet you believe have me all figured out. So, I speculated that maybe there was somebody you did know who was Pentecostal--or perhap you had experience for awhile yourself. I'll put both verses here, so the context is clear: I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. 1 Corinthians 14:18-19 What do we learn here? 1. Traveler's belief that Paul never spoke in tongues did not prove accurate. Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone in his audience. BTW, that was my only point in citing verse 18--to show that Paul had done so. Verse 19 addresses a broader concern, which I'll address, since Syble is interested, and I desperately want to help satiate her obvious hunger for more knowledge about this blessing. Amen, it does. 2. It demonstrates my point that there is a private time, outside the church at which Paul thrills at speaking in tongues. 3. There is a distinction between this and the gift of tongues, in the church, which requires interpretation. Paul reminds the Corinthians that the bottom line in congregational worship is that the believers be built up. Thus, he encourages interpretation and direct prophecy. I am repeatedly amazed at the attempts of Anti-pentecostals to disparage the gift of tongues, by quoting Scriptures about it being a lesser gift, or by comparing it with prophecy and interpretation. All good things are from God. Tongues are a blessing. And, quite frankly, the reason some people do not seek the gift is spiritual pride. They do not want to submit their tongues to what seems outlandish, or foolish. However, God truly does use the foolish things to confound the wise.

There's no competition between the love of 1 Corinthians 13 and speaking in tongues, as described in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14. In fact, those who have obtained the blessing of praying in the Spirit ought to be more empowered to love. Apparently the Apostle Paul did NOT feel as you do. I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all 1 Corinthians 14:18

I'm sorry to strain this gnat, because your overall post at least party makes my point. However, in the five cases in the book of Acts, where Spirit-baptism takes place, ONLY in Acts 2:4 did the tongues appear to be human. Also, if I'm not mistaken, many of the "foreign languages" spoken were dialects, and most of the audience had the ability to understand the disciples without the tongues speech. My point is that there is no case in the New Testament where speaking in tongues is used to aid a missionary/apostle in presenting the gospel in a foreign language. Even in the Acts 2:4 case, they were glorifying God in tongues, not offering any plan of salvation--that came later, with Peter's defense. I remember hearing somebody mention Mormons and an Adamic language, but never studied what this phenomenon was about. Thanks for the insight. There do seem to be some parallels here with the Pentecostal/Charismatic understanding of tongues used as a prayer language. Three views on tongues and Spirit-baptism within Pentecostal and Charismatic movements: 1. Tongues is one possible sign, but not the only or even most important one. (Charismatics) 2. Tongues are the initial, physical evidence of Spirit-baptism. However, all Christians "receive the Holy Ghost" at salvation. Baptism in the Holy Ghost is a "second work of grace," that brings greater power. For example, all the Christians in the New Testament received the baptism in the Holy Ghost AFTER salvation. (Classic Pentecostalism) 3. Tongues are the evidence of baptism in the Holy Ghost, and they are a requirement of salvation. Furthermore, some argue you must be baptized in the name of Jesus only (not Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) to be saved. (United Pentecostal Church, and a few independent churches). Such interpretations often come from groups that deny the Trinity, and are strongly disavowed by the first two groups. To hold mainstream Pentecostals and Charismatics responsible for the erroneous teachings of a few in group three would be akin to non-Mormons blaming your church for the illegal polygamy of fundamentalists groups that happen to use the Sacred Works to justify their practices. It is true that not everyone will have the GIFT OF TONGUES, which is always accompanied by interpretation, and is meant for the church to hear. However, tongues that comes with Spirit-baptism, and is used for prayer is accessible by all.

I could be wrong, but I've never seen such an impassioned opposition to tongues as a prayer language (except perhaps at some fundamentalist "anti" site--yes they have them for Pentecostals too ). 1. Perhaps you used to be in a Pentecostal church and had bad experiences? 2. Maybe you have a family member who's Pentecostal? I'm not pretending to know. However, most LDS members here save their spiritual fervor for defending Mormonism, not for opposing a religious practice that is distinctive to one particular non-LDS branch of Christianity. I find the tone of your opposition most curious , and frankly sad . My prayer is that the Heavenly Father will grant you a double-portion of blessing in your area of greatest need.

I'm obviously not qualified to discern who is right here. However, as an outsider with some skills in analyzing religious writings, you've posed an interesting question. I'll rephrase it for my own denomination, so I can more intelligently deal with it: Which would have more theological weight to it--writings for our Gospel Publishing House (Assemblies of God publisher) Sunday School curriculum, or the writings of one of our brightest theologians at the Assemblies of God Theological Seminary (who are often consulted when doctrinal papers are written)? So, you cite the teaching manual, and suggest it has more authority than the writings of a Mormon professor who teaches religion at the Church's flagship university. Maybe you are right. However, unless I knew that, I might consider the works of a scholar to be more theologically meaty. Obviously, I'm biased here, in favor of the more welcoming interpretation. However, how many evangelicals indeed have actually had the LDS plan of salvation explained to them by LDS representatives who had authority to do so?

Well, yeah. If you having seen my introduction (General Topics forum, introductions--latest one I believe), then, I'll just share that I came to one in particular. We have three lovely daughters now, and visit the homeland every few years. There are principles in these religions that we can use to build bridges to the gospel. However, the basic drive of looking for the good within is misdirected. All that is good comes from without--from God. And quite often, those religions will keep people busy and distracted with good details, while blinding them to the one true and living God. Kind words. Many thanks. Folk like you keep me coming back for fruitful give and take. You know how we complain that newspapers always report bad news and controversy, and never any of the uplifting good stuff? Now, here I went and did the same thing. MEA CULPA You're an encourager...which is perhaps one of the loveliliest gifts of the Holy Ghost.

In these passages God gives a message, and the recipient(s) pray from the heart. In the five incidents of baptism in the Holy Ghost in the book of Acts, recipients are filled, speak in tongues, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF A MESSAGE, OR OF AN INTERPETATION. I think your complaint is with the Holy Ghost, not me. You don't have much respect for other religious practices, do you? Yet, you would probably be none to pleased of somebody mocked your sacred ceremonies, rituals, etc. Why can't you disagree with being disagreeable? In this passage you're referring to the gifts are all public ones, meant for the church as a whole. We've already discussed tongues used in private prayer, without interpretation. You're a feisty one, aren't you? Now I'm selfish and from the devil? Look, you don't need to be Pentecostal to go to heaven or the Celestial Kingdom. However, IMHO you'd have more joy if you were. Why didn't they teach me that in seminary? I have access to them. I simply do not have a testimony that they are Scripture. Oh yeah Well...well...you're not very nice. Oh, I know about the Lord's Hallelujah for it! I thank God when I want to praise and thank him for it, and am at a loss for words, and I can begin to pray and sing in those Holy Ghost-given tongues, and express from my spirit, what my mind is too limited to put to words.

And your Scripture reference for that claim? Haven't you ever burst into tears because you didn't even know what to say? Oh well...you're just blubbering now--nothing intelligible. Crying must not be from the heart. There's plenty of Bible to show that praying in tongues is from the Holy Ghost. Your intuitive rules can't trump the clear examples from the Word of God. Again, the Scripture verse that says if something is sensational it's not of the Savior? BTW, your partially right. It's not from the Savior--it's from the Holy Ghost. So you do worship Jesus? Not just revere, but worship? Perhaps I was wrong. I thought McConkie had said that only the Heavenly Father received worship. Where do you get these rules you keep saying? I've given you Scripturual accounts to show you that translation is not required for private prayer. I have to stick with the Bible over this rule you keep saying as though it were Scripture.

I was 14 and had just returned from Bible camp. My joyful report to my Sunday school teacher was, "I was filled with the Holy Ghost--I spoke in tongues!" Her response, "So, are you finding it easier to practice the FRUITS of the Holy Ghost?" (See Galations 5:22-23) The "sign" of tongues is sort of like have your new car registration. It may be "proof," of ownership, but most people want to go for a ride! That would be the love, joy, peace, etc. :)

The short answer is because he generally doesn't. God is sovereign. There is no model in the New Testament for believers who are PRAYING IN TONGUES privately to seek to interpret their own prayers. What needs interpreting on messages in tongues given to the church. In all five cases in the books of Acts, where believers are baptized in the Holy Ghost and speak in tongues, never is there an instance of someone interpreting or seeking an interpretation. Why? These are not instances where a MESSAGE in tongues is being offered. 1. Speaking in tongues is not the central theme of Pentecostals. It is a sensational distinctive, and so garners a lot of attention. 2. While Jesus may be an important theme in Mormonism, didn't President McConkie say that only the Heavenly Father is to be worshipped? Jesus is revered, but should not be worshipped. 3. The enlargement of the soul DOES come from the Spirit. Since the Spirit gives us the tongues, praying with them enlarges the Spirit. Actually the words are different, and the meanings are different. See the references below. It's akin to the difference between translating and teaching. http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...65616-4163.html http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/wor...65750-7210.html

My bigotometer just went off. Me thinks you gots El Diablo on the brain. Lighten up - Prison Chaplain comes across as more spiritual than you. Well, I'm doubly confused. #1. Syble says that the D&C potentially counts as blessed the public operation of the gift of tongues accompanied by the gift of interpretation in non-LDS Pentecostal churches. I find that incredibly NOT BIGOTED. On the other hand, I'm wondering how this meshes with the teaching that those same non-LDS churches are apostate? #2. Syble says that tongues-speech must ALWAYS be accompanied by interpretation--even during private prayer. Otherwise, it is demonic. First, do Mormons practice speaking in tongues, and then offering interpretations? I wasn't aware that this was a practice in the LDS Church. Second, Scripture does not back up this interpretation. The biblical injunction is to "Pray in the Spirit and with understanding," not to "Pray in the Spirit, and then with interpretation." By praying in tongues, my spirit communicates directly with God. There is no hinderance, no filtering, no subconcious motives. When I pray with understanding (in English), I know what I am asking, and my faith is built as God brings his answers. Both prayers edify the believer.

I think what some LDS folk, and many other curious individuals are wondering is whether or not polygamy would be reinstated in the Mormon Church, should the practice be legalized in the United States. One LDS poster here suggested that the polygamy was not condemned as a practice by the Church, but merely suspended. Since same-sex marriage has always been condemned by most churches, included the LDS, legalization would have little impact.

Okay, I'm willing to back up. Do you believe that when someone speaks in tongues and then there is an interpretation in English, during a Pentecostal service, that the Holy Spirit has just communicated (at least in most cases)? If you do, and you grant us the benefit of the doubt, I apologize. I assumed that a reasonable extension of the doctrine of the Restored Gospel, is that non-LDS churches would not likely be able to truly operate in the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Second, your hasty and rather harsh conclusion is hardly supported by Scripture, or the experience of the church. Did you not say that when I pray in tongues, and there is no interpretation, that my prayers are 'of the devil?' Am I unreasonable to say your assessment is hasty and harsh? I testify to you that my 'prayers in the Spirit' are from the Holy Spirit. You said that if there is tongues without interpretation, that it is of the devil. Pentecostals 'pray in the Spirit,' which by its nature (since it's private) does not include interpretation. So, am I wrong in concluding that you believe Pentecostals are praying 'of the devil?' Furthermore, LDS doctrine is that non-LDS Christians are apostate. Am I wrong to assume that Mormons would be skeptical of apostates truly operating in the gifts of the Holy Ghost? Well, I do this. So, if you are saying that what I am doing has no righteous purpose, then to me you seem harsh. There is a righteous purpose in it, because this is of God. If you read any of the sources I offered, or my explanation even, you would have at least understood the difference between the public gift of tongues for the church, and the private practice of praying in tongues. You might disagree, which is fine. But, you've gone further and declared what I do to be unrighteous. I take strong exception to you labeling praying in tongues as gibberish. Gibberish is when we speak nonsense of our own effort--not of the Spirit. Tongues-speech is intelligible by the Holy Ghost. I would simply argue that you speak of that which you knoweth not. I would not take it upon myself to comment on Mormon Temple rituals and activities, because, despite what second-hand sources I might be able to read, I have not been there, and do not know for myself about them. Likewise, praying in the Spirit is a sacred practice for Pentecostals. To borrow and LDS phrase, the speech is not secret, but sacred. When it is public, there is an interpretation. However, when it is prayer and private, such interpretation is not necessary. My spirit is communicating directly with the Father, through the Holy Ghost. It would be too strong to say that I sensed demonic influences from the temples. It was more that it was simply not of God. My fear about Buddhism is that it could distract practioners from the simple pursuit of the one true and living God, in favor of inner peace and mental development. I was a campus missionary in Korea for six years, working primarily in Taejon.

There are two possible reasons why you felt the way you did. 1. You were right. These people were demon-possessed, and the Holy Spirit was warning you. 2. You were predisposed to be skeptical of religious practices outside your own. That mixed with fear of the unknown could easily make you frightened. How many non-LDS people do you suppose have visited SLC, walked the Temple grounds and felt "doom sweep over them, horrific pain in their head, and the need to flee?"--particularly if they had a strong religious upbringing of their own. Quite frankly, I had those same feelings when I visited Buddhist Temples in Korea. So, when you say, "By their fruits ye shall know them," what are the fruits of Pentecostalism? 1. Many have actually been delivered from demons. 2. Many have been delivered from drug addiction, through programs like Teen Challenge. 3. Many have received physical healings. 4. Many have reported a dramatic power that's been added to their spiritual practice. One incident, in particular strikes me. During an "altar service" (a time around the front, where people are praying, seeking God, being prayed for, etc.) a woman was laughing quite loudly. One of the older elders went to the pastor and began to complain about it. The pastor immediately told him to shush--and explained that this woman had been through incredible trauma in her life, and had never once laughed! The Holy Spirit had replaced her sorrow with joy! If you did not know her story, and you were used to quiet "respectful, reverent" services, you might think Satan was at work. In fact, it was God.

First, if I may, your response is somewhat disingenuous, in that I doubt that you believe that even when there is an interpretation in a Pentecostal service, that the gifts are truly of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I understand that Mormons believe Pentecostals are counted amongst the apostate. Second, your hasty and rather harsh conclusion is hardly supported by Scripture, or the experience of the church. Does an interpretation always have to accompany tongues-speech. The short answer is NO. There are two types of tongues speech. 1. Praying in tongues. In 1 Corinthians 14:15 Paul contrasts PRAYING in the Spirit with praying with understanding. Prayer is usually private, and so would require no interpretation. My spirit communes with God. However, so that my faith is built up (especially when God answers prayer), I must also pray with understanding. 2. The gift of tongues, or speaking publically in tongues. Here, there is a message from the Spirit for the congregation, so an interpretation is necessary. This first link describes in a generally the contrast between these types of tongues-speech, from the point of view of the General Council of the Assemblies of God, considered the largest of the classic Pentecostal fellowships in the United States. http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_in_the_h...ivatepublic.cfm This link describes the role of interpretation of tongues, again from the Assemblies of God perspective. http://ag.org/top/beliefs/baptism_in_the_h...erpretation.cfm This last link offers a little more depth on the topic of praying in tongues. http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/tonguespray.htm