Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

[presidente]

SarahM777,

Historical writings like this need to be interpreted in light of scripture. According to the Bible, the Spirit gives various gifts to the church. Now, if someone who lived 110 years ago or so happened to know someone who was a megolomaniac, or happened to know someone who knew someone who was a megolomaniac, does that mean that God wouldn't answer his prayers?

Let's suppose someone in your church or your family turned out to be a terrible fornicator or adulterer. You had hung out with this person, gone to church with this person, gone to religious conferences and activities with this person-- does that mean that you are a false Christian, that the Holy Spirit will have nothing to do with you, and that God won't answer your prayers?

From what I've read, Parham knew Sandford and visited his ministry, but stopped spending time with him after joining him on an evangelistic crusade in Canada and seeing some things he did not approve of. Back during that time, there was a great interest in healing, and it is not surprising if people with similar ministry interests should go to the same conferences. If you were Reformed and went to a conference where Mark Driscoll showed up, would you consider yourself a false person, a false believer, or something like that? (Btw, you are the one who accused him of being a false pastor, and I'm not endorsing your view, just making a point.) Luther hung out with Carlstad. Does that make him an Anabaptist? Calvin had a conversation with Servetus when he was younger. Does that mean he shared his view on the Trinity?

Some of these historical writings are pretty drab and depressing. I appreciate Vinson Synan's research, but it's pretty drab reading in some ways. It talks about conflicts but not the good stuff. When I read about Seymour, I'd rather read about him ministering to a man with an arm taking off in a mill accident and it growing back, than his getting locked out of a church that disagreed with him. Synan was writing a history dissertation, so he wrote boring stuff. Even if you look at Acts, it's also a historical record, but if all it had was stuff about Paul's dispute with Barnabas and Paul rebuking Peter, the figures in the Bible could be perceived as rather unspiritual.

 

[presidente]

Membership Covenant | Mars Hill Church < click

would you "covenant" with Mars Hill Church?

No, I don't believe in the 'church covenant' concept. The Bible says swear not at all lest you fall into condemnation. I usually don't read external links. The thread is long enough. Is there a particular quote from the page you wish to share?

 

[brmicke]

However, it would appear that tongue speaking in the manner it was practiced by disciples of Sandford, was understood as miraculously imparted true foreign languages, and this was confirmed by Sandford himself in his book entitled Tongues of Fire, published around 1897. As Sandford was to live until well into the 1950’s, he was later to repudiate the idea of tongues restoration, but the documentation for his sect’s practices before the turn of the century are simply overwhelming:
[/QUOTE]

After reading the entire series of postings, the paragraph pasted above was particularly interesting to me. My opinion is then that in trying to refute this spurious doctrine of Tongues, the opponents of the glossolalia movement turned to the opinion that speaking must have been speaking in an earthly language which was possibly unknown to the speaker, such as French Swahili etc.,.

This however is equally untrue. Scripture does not define the true gift of speaking in Tongues as speaking in a foreign language. This was the opinion adopted by those that opposed the glossolalia movement. They were correct in that they knew that the glossolalia movement was unbiblical, but they chose as an alternative another unbiblical alternative. The foreign language concept is not accurate either. The real truth is of course scriptural --

Acts 2:11 explicitly identifies what those who spoke in tongues said --

Ac 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

It is very plain and completely clear. The people who spoke in tongues spoke of the "works" of God.

Simply because some people cannot understand and explain how the doctrinal concept of speaking about the "works" of God fits into 1 Cor 14 and similar verses mentioning the gifting of tongues, does not in any way invalidate the fact that speaking in tongues is scripturally identified in Acts 2:11 as speaking about the "works" of God.

I have many times posted a step by step explanation of this gifting. Please don't ignore this simply because you don't like my opinions.

video summary - Speaking In Tongues Explanation Video, 20130214112442.mpg - YouTube

point by point written explanation - http://brmicke.yolasite.com/tongues.php

Brian

 

[Cobus]

Indeed had the gifts ceased! ALL OF THEM, but only to non-believers. To the ones that believeth on Chrsit (IN CHRSIT) this is still as true as the day HE SPOKE IT..... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father

About prohets and prophecies. God says His prophets are sent by Him, appointed by Him, and MOVED BY HIM. And WHATSOEVER THEY SAY WILL TRANSPIRE...
Well I have to ask this... God says in Revelation that there will be two witnesses that will prophesy in the City called Sodom spiritually. And they will prophesy for 1260 days. Now my question is, WILL THESE PROPHETS WORDS COME TRUE? YES! And where is it written WHAT THEY WILL PROPHESY? It is not written down YET!

Oh and look unto them is given the POWER to shut the heavens and it will NOT RAIN! WOW! I also shut the heavens over George a few years ago! God said to me.... ANYTHING YOU ASK NOW, COBUS, I will give you. And a thousand things flashed before my eyes, and I said... Not my will Lord but thou will be done..... And the last thing that passed slowly before my eyes were.... DROUGHT OVER GEORGE. And our city George had the worst drought in 200 years... It was still not 1260 days.

Jesus still gives and DO EVERYTHING a believer asks! EVERYTHING! There is NO difference in the power of prayer of a righteous person in Paul's days, or in our days. This verse is as true then as NOW! The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

WOW! Look no use we do fervent prayers and we are NOT RIGHTEOUS! And look it is EFFECTUAL prayer. EFFECTUAL means it has an effect.... That effect is exactly what the righteous man asks! God HIMSELF is the righteous man that asks.... God will NEVER deny Himself. NOT EVER. And the gifts will cease, they will, when God is finished with this world the last GIFT will be givent o this earth.... DESTRUCTION!

I healed many people when I attended a church of man. I performed many miricles and did great wonders.... BUT WITHOUT GOD! However, I also did wonders AFTER I got to know God! And when I asked Him..... Lord when will I preach Your Truth to people? He said.... Sorry son, I will be occupying that body for that part!

All God's people for ALL time did not do God's Work. God did HIS OWN WORK IN THEM FIRST, and then HE DID HIS WORK THROUGH THEM. Still God doing the Work. Even the ones Jesus did, WAS ALL GOD! If you can understand that, you have a little faith in TRUTH!

 

[presidente]

[Ac 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

It is very plain and completely clear. The people who spoke in tongues spoke of the "works" of God.

Simply because some people cannot understand and explain how the doctrinal concept of speaking about the "works" of God fits into 1 Cor 14 and similar verses mentioning the gifting of tongues, does not in any way invalidate the fact that speaking in tongues is scripturally identified in Acts 2:11 as speaking about the "works" of God.

So you think the Bible defines speaking in foreign languages as speaking about the "works" of God?

That does not make much sense logically. Glossalalia has an actual meaning in Greek.

I have many times posted a step by step explanation of this gifting. Please don't ignore this simply because you don't like my opinions.

'Tongues' means languages. Your theory seems to ignore that. Acts tells what they were speaking in tongues, but it doesn't say that is what tongues/languages means.


video summary - Speaking In Tongues Explanation Video, 20130214112442.mpg - YouTube

 

[SarahM777]

SarahM777,

Historical writings like this need to be interpreted in light of scripture. According to the Bible, the Spirit gives various gifts to the church. Now, if someone who lived 110 years ago or so happened to know someone who was a megolomaniac, or happened to know someone who knew someone who was a megolomaniac, does that mean that God wouldn't answer his prayers?

Let's suppose someone in your church or your family turned out to be a terrible fornicator or adulterer. You had hung out with this person, gone to church with this person, gone to religious conferences and activities with this person-- does that mean that you are a false Christian, that the Holy Spirit will have nothing to do with you, and that God won't answer your prayers?

From what I've read, Parham knew Sandford and visited his ministry, but stopped spending time with him after joining him on an evangelistic crusade in Canada and seeing some things he did not approve of. Back during that time, there was a great interest in healing, and it is not surprising if people with similar ministry interests should go to the same conferences. If you were Reformed and went to a conference where Mark Driscoll showed up, would you consider yourself a false person, a false believer, or something like that? (Btw, you are the one who accused him of being a false pastor, and I'm not endorsing your view, just making a point.) Luther hung out with Carlstad. Does that make him an Anabaptist? Calvin had a conversation with Servetus when he was younger. Does that mean he shared his view on the Trinity?

Some of these historical writings are pretty drab and depressing. I appreciate Vinson Synan's research, but it's pretty drab reading in some ways. It talks about conflicts but not the good stuff. When I read about Seymour, I'd rather read about him ministering to a man with an arm taking off in a mill accident and it growing back, than his getting locked out of a church that disagreed with him. Synan was writing a history dissertation, so he wrote boring stuff. Even if you look at Acts, it's also a historical record, but if all it had was stuff about Paul's dispute with Barnabas and Paul rebuking Peter, the figures in the Bible could be perceived as rather unspiritual.

You missed the point and I feel sorry for you. Again it goes to the source of where Sandford was getting the tongues from because Parham NEVER dealt with the fact that Sandford was false. Parham used some of the same teachings. It was under Sandford that he saw the "tongues". Parham learned these things under a false prophet. He never distanced himself from those teachings.

There is a huge difference between restoring brothers and sisters who have erred,people who are lost to begin with and hanging around with false prophets and using their teachings.

I don't go to conferences in the first place. Nor would I even entertain the notion to go to conferences where the person speaking has serious issues that have not been addressed. You refuse to see the problems with Driscoll and that is your choice,personally I would never have a pastor that comes across as dissing some of the saints in the Bible,uses links on his church website that could be viewed as being pornographic. I don't think the Lord told Christians to put up links on one's web site that sells items that are X rated.

Most people find Leviticus,Numbers and Deuteronomy boring but it's there for a reason. Most people find doctrine pretty boring stuff.

 

[SarahM777]

No, I don't believe in the 'church covenant' concept. The Bible says swear not at all lest you fall into condemnation. I usually don't read external links. The thread is long enough. Is there a particular quote from the page you wish to share?

UMM If you don't read the stuff that is being posted about in the links then how can you even comment on it when you have no idea what is being said? That explains why some of your comments make no sense what so ever on the some of the things because you never read it in the first place.

 

[zone]

It's a theory, not that they 'ceased' over this, but they were suppressed because of it. If a church doesn't allow the prophets to speak, how would you even know if there were any? Not from going to church, unless the prophet is bold enough just to obey scripture in opposition to the congregation, or the Lord may not move Him to speak in this situation. That's up to the Lord.

so, since apparently you have prophets standing up every day in your church; have you determined any to be false?

- what has your church done with the false prophets?
- have you posted anything on www to warn the broader church, since you apparently would now have their names?
- or do you just let them wander into the next congregation?
- how much time is spent listening to prophets trying to determine who is true or false?
- have you learned a single thing from any of them that you really need to know?
- if so, have you posted it all on the www for the broader church so they can also know?

if you haven't:

Re: Churches that Don't Allow Tongues and Prophecy in Meetings disobey Bible

why are you being so disobedient?

 

[zone]

Some of these historical writings are pretty drab and depressing. I appreciate Vinson Synan's research, but it's pretty drab reading in some ways. It talks about conflicts but not the good stuff. When I read about Seymour, I'd rather read about him ministering to a man with an arm taking off in a mill accident and it growing back, than his getting locked out of a church that disagreed with him.

this pretty much says it all.

 

[zone]

No, I don't believe in the 'church covenant' concept. The Bible says swear not at all lest you fall into condemnation. I usually don't read external links. The thread is long enough. Is there a particular quote from the page you wish to share?

would God be speaking directly to someone audibly, setting him up to be an inspired leader (like the Apostles) - directly commissioning him......then the (inspired) guy comes up with an unbiblical cultic covenant?

who cares though - if an inspired prophet today tells a story about God running graphic illicit sexual imagery through his mind (because God LOVES to give these guys the "gift" of reading other people's X-rated mail), or a story about someone growing an arm, that's what matters.

we won't tell the people that the church covenant is a cult covenant, because we want to hear the stories, too.

 

[SarahM777]

Let me get this straight......... Are you getting ready to make a point that if they are wrong in one are two places of their theology, or that one is wrong and the other is right, that a big portion of it is wrong? I'd just want to see the point you're trying to make. Make your point, and we'll go from there.

Stephen,

It's beginning to dawn on me what part of the problem is with us talking to each other. I think we can both agree that the AOG's and CMA's (Of which I was a member of both at one time) came out of the movement,but I am beginning to see that part of this is the difference in doctrine between them and the Pentecostal's. I do apologize for not trying to understand what those differences are. I'm sorry.

 

[presidente]

You missed the point and I feel sorry for you. Again it goes to the source of where Sandford was getting the tongues from because Parham NEVER dealt with the fact that Sandford was false. Parham used some of the same teachings. It was under Sandford that he saw the "tongues". Parham learned these things under a false prophet. He never distanced himself from those teachings.

And you know this, how? That 'Beniah at a crossroads' article, which I am familiar with from a few years back, is apparently working with scant information, a few letters here and there, some newsletter articles, and a bit of guesswork that maybe this Brother Dowerty might be the same Brother Dowerty mentioned in someone else's newsletter, that sort of thing. You can't know what Parham said about Sandford back then if it wasn't written down. And Sandford went off to the coasts of Africa at some point, far from Parham.


Did Sandford speak in tongues or claim to? I'm no expert on the man, but I don't recall reading that. Something else to remember about people who go off the right track is that they may not have started out that way. Paul warned elders whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers that of their own number men would arise speaking perverse things and leading people after themselves.

The real issues is whether speaking in tongues is a Biblical gift of the Spirit. If Agnes Ozman prayed and received a real Biblical gift, then how would someone who went to Sandford's school a few years earlier speaking in tongues make her tongues fake? Does the story of Sandford make the apostle Peter's speaking in tongues fake?

There is a huge difference between restoring brothers and sisters who have erred,people who are lost to begin with and hanging around with false prophets and using their teachings.

Using their teachings? Doctrines are true on their own merits. There are people who in error who teach all kinds of true doctrines. Their error does not make the true doctrines false. Paul taught that divers tongues were among the gifts of the Spirit. Sandford believe in speaking in tongues. Does Sandford make Paul false?

Did the things Sandford did exempt those who disobey the Lord's commandments for church meetings from being disobedient to the Lord and His word? I don't see how that could be the case.

I don't go to conferences in the first place. Nor would I even entertain the notion to go to conferences where the person speaking has serious issues that have not been addressed. You refuse to see the problems with Driscoll and that is your choice,personally I would never have a pastor that comes across as dissing some of the saints in the Bible,uses links on his church website that could be viewed as being pornographic. I don't think the Lord told Christians to put up links on one's web site that sells items that are X rated.

I don't know what external links you are talking about. Maybe you posted a link. I don't usually follow links. The forum is 50 pages long. Reading links makes it exponentially longer. If people have something to say, they can post it themselves or include the relevant portions of the links.

Most people find Leviticus,Numbers and Deuteronomy boring but it's there for a reason. Most people find doctrine pretty boring stuff.

I like reading those books.

 

[BradC]

You are big on the scriptures to support what you believe. Show me and others in the scriptures where anyone, who came to Jesus Christ by faith to be healed of an affliction or illness or the casting out of an evil spirit for themselves or by proxy for others, that he ever turned down and did not give them their request? When he ascended to the Father did he take his healing with him and cease to make people whole according to their faith? Did he stop telling people through the written word, 'Be it unto you according to your faith'? Show me one person who came to him by faith that he refused? When you can't find a single person, then tell me with your faith that God is not in the business of healing those who come to him by faith believing that he can do it? Is the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ seated at the right hand of God a different Lord Jesus Christ that walked among men? If he is different then tell me how? Is his mercy and compassion on the multitudes different now then when he was here as the God man? Where is your proof?

Zone, I am still waiting. Where is your proof? You have been quiet on this matter lately. Don't you believe it to be a bit foolish and presumptuous to ask someone who believes that God heals people to have them go to the hospitals and others places where people are sick and heal them all? When the disciples were given a command of the Lord to heal the sick, that made it possible for the sick to be healed in the name of Christ. Do you go out as the Lord's disciple and let the Jew and Gentile know that the kingdom of God is at hand? Do you preach the gospel of the kingdom as you believe Paul and the other apostles did? If healing by the finger of God is part of the kingdom coming unto the people of this world presently, where is your faith in that kingdom you believe to be reigning with Christ? The kingdom comes not in word only but in power. The disciples had the power to heal the sick do you? Is it the will of God to heal some and not others who come to him believing? Where do you find that in the scriptures? There are others on this site that believe as you do, where are they on this matter? For some who have demons they can only be cast out with prayer and fasting, do you believe that, it's in your Bible (Mt 17:14-21). Here's the story take a look.

14 And when they were come to the multitude, there came to him a certain man, kneeling down to him, and saying,
15 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water.
16 And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
17 Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me.
18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Jesus says some revealing things about that generation don't you think. How about our generation? When the disciples asked why they could not cast them out what did he tell them? You read verse 20,21 and see what conclusion you come to. Don't you think it also a bit funny that any gift or virtue of healing that a believer may have of the Lord was cancelled when what happened? Can you refresh my recollection? You might remember this, when those who had been bitten by those fiery serpents, some died and others were near death, Moses was told by God to erect on a pole a brazen fiery serpent and those who would look or gaze upon the serpent would be restored to health and live (Numbers 21). The people were bitten by these serpents because of their constant complaining against being brought into the wilderness and in tempting Christ by telling him that they did not like his plan (1 Cor 10:9). Should we be fearful to lay hands on those who are sick and come to Christ by faith to be healed? Should our faith be conflicted with thoughts that have concluded that God may or may not heal or is that just unbelief on our part and good for nothing?

 

[SarahM777]

And you know this, how? That 'Beniah at a crossroads' article, which I am familiar with from a few years back, is apparently working with scant information, a few letters here and there, some newsletter articles, and a bit of guesswork that maybe this Brother Dowerty might be the same Brother Dowerty mentioned in someone else's newsletter, that sort of thing. You can't know what Parham said about Sandford back then if it wasn't written down. And Sandford went off to the coasts of Africa at some point, far from Parham.


Did Sandford speak in tongues or claim to? I'm no expert on the man, but I don't recall reading that. Something else to remember about people who go off the right track is that they may not have started out that way. Paul warned elders whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers that of their own number men would arise speaking perverse things and leading people after themselves.

The real issues is whether speaking in tongues is a Biblical gift of the Spirit. If Agnes Ozman prayed and received a real Biblical gift, then how would someone who went to Sandford's school a few years earlier speaking in tongues make her tongues fake? Does the story of Sandford make the apostle Peter's speaking in tongues fake?
[/COLOR]

Using their teachings? Doctrines are true on their own merits. There are people who in error who teach all kinds of true doctrines. Their error does not make the true doctrines false. Paul taught that divers tongues were among the gifts of the Spirit. Sandford believe in speaking in tongues. Does Sandford make Paul false?

Did the things Sandford did exempt those who disobey the Lord's commandments for church meetings from being disobedient to the Lord and His word? I don't see how that could be the case.





I don't know what external links you are talking about. Maybe you posted a link. I don't usually follow links. The forum is 50 pages long. Reading links makes it exponentially longer. If people have something to say, they can post it themselves or include the relevant portions of the links.



I like reading those books.

Please explain how someone involved in a cult would receive the true gift of tongues? How does a Hindu.Mormon,Voodoo worshipper,witch,Muslim dervise,some Native American Shamans receive the true gift of tongues? The woman that receive the gift of tongues was in a cult. Sandford was a cult leader. Parham saw this in a cult. How hard is that to understand? Cults are NOT Christian whether one likes it or NOT.

 

[presidente]

would God be speaking directly to someone audibly, setting him up to be an inspired leader (like the Apostles) - directly commissioning him......then the (inspired) guy comes up with an unbiblical cultic covenant?

If there was a man who was creating division in a church, for example, by only eating the Lord's Supper with Jewish believers but not Gentiles, who had at one point denied every knowing the Lord, and He claimed Jesus had given him the keys of the kingdom of heaven and commissioned him as an apostle, would you believe him? (The text doesn't say the Lord's Supper, but it's conceivable that was the issue.)

who cares though - if an inspired prophet today tells a story about God running graphic illicit sexual imagery through his mind (because God LOVES to give these guys the "gift" of reading other people's X-rated mail),

Do you have one lick of evidence that God would exclude those sorts of things from visions. If Ezekiel could see idolatry, why couldn't someone else see adultery in a vision? Is adultery any worse?

And what about that priest that went into a tent when two people were likely having sex, or getting ready to on purpose. He was a priest, and he did that. He may have even peeked a bit to get a good aim before jabbing it through both of them into the ground. God did not remove Him from the priesthood for going into a room that had people doing sexual things. He made a covenant with him.

In I Corinthians, the unbeliever or unlearned who hears prophecy hears the secrets of his heart made manifest. A lot of people keep their sex lives secret. God apparently let Nathan know that David had had sex when he wasn't supposed to, and Jesus got a revelation that was related to a Samaritan woman's sex life.

or a story about someone growing an arm, that's what matters.

I can only think of a handful of references to disputes among believers in Acts, but there are several references to healing miracles, and various references to people coming to faith, and being baptized. It's not a dry book of bland facts and lists of all the conflicts every individual mentioned had.

we won't tell the people that the church covenant is a cult covenant, because we want to hear the stories, too.

Cult covenant? Like I said, I don't read all the external links. I think it's tacky to expect readers of a forum to read pages and pages instead of summarizing and quoting relevant portions. If you have something in there you consider to be 'cultic', post it. My concern with church covenants is that I don't see scripture for the practice and I see 'swear not at all' in the teachings of James and Christ.

 

[presidente]

Please explain how someone involved in a cult would receive the true gift of tongues? How does a Hindu.Mormon,Voodoo worshipper,witch,Muslim dervise,some Native American Shamans receive the true gift of tongues? The woman that receive the gift of tongues was in a cult. Sandford was a cult leader. Parham saw this in a cult. How hard is that to understand? Cults are NOT Christian whether one likes it or NOT.

So are you saying if Voodoo and Mormons do something similar to speaking in tongues, which they may even call speaking in tongues, that speaking in tongues is false? Would you accuse the apostles of speaking in false tongues?

If, as the scripture teaches, there are genuine gifts of the Spirit, and believers pray in faith and receive them, is the fact that some cults practice similar things is no reason to assume a Christian who prays and receives a spiritual gift is false.

And there are different kinds of cults. There are those that deny the basic doctrines of the faith. There are also those that are sociological cults where one person dominates others in an unhealthy way. I haven't deeply researched Sanford's group enough to know what their beliefs were. I have read that the churches started by Sanford are not part of the Pentecostal movement.

 

[presidente]

UMM If you don't read the stuff that is being posted about in the links then how can you even comment on it when you have no idea what is being said?

I comment on what I read, not on what I don't read. Isn't it kind of tacky to post a link to 75 pages or 15 minutes of things when you could just post relevant portions? If you've read the parts you think apply yourself, why not write them up or post them? The forum takes enough time to read as it is.

 

[zone]

The real issues is whether speaking in tongues is a Biblical gift of the Spirit. If Agnes Ozman prayed and received a real Biblical gift, then how would someone who went to Sandford's school a few years earlier speaking in tongues make her tongues fake? Does the story of Sandford make the apostle Peter's speaking in tongues fake?

what is the gift of tongues?
was it known human languages?
if it was, why are you continuing to promote any other idea?

if it was incoherent noises, how can you ever tell what's true and what's fake?
can you just address this straight-up for once please?

 

[zone]

I comment on what I read, not on what I don't read. Isn't it kind of tacky to post a link to 75 pages or 15 minutes of things when you could just post relevant portions? If you've read the parts you think apply yourself, why not write them up or post them? The forum takes enough time to read as it is. [/COLOR]

why don't you take a week off and actually read the documents?
then you'll have both sides of the story.

 

[zone]

So are you saying if Voodoo and Mormons do something similar to speaking in tongues, which they may even call speaking in tongues, that speaking in tongues is false?

uh....hello?

Would you accuse the apostles of speaking in false tongues?