Literary: We have yet another shift in the narrative focus of Moroni’s discourse. Now he returns to addressing believers in Christ, but believers who deny important aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In this instance, he speaks to those who say that there are no more “revelations, nor gifts, nor healing, nor speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues.” The denial of these gifts of the spirit is tantamount to denying the spirit in the world.
[speaking with tongues, and the interpretation of tongues]: The modern reading of “speaking with tongues” is the gift of languages. This is the definition Robert Millet is espousing:
“So speaking a foreign but known tongue is a manifestation of the gift of tongues. We have numerous examples of this phenomenon in the history of the Church, times when either the speakers or the listeners were actuated by the Spirit of the Lord, when a foreign language was spoken or understood, and thus when communication and edification followed. This happens regularly with our full-time missionaries. By hard work and consistent effort and practice—and, most importantly, through a rich endowment of the Holy Ghost—elders and sisters are enabled to acquire language skills in a miraculously short period of time. They recognize and understand and feel things that would normally require many years to master. It is an everyday occurrence that staggers the learned and the wise of the world.” (Robert L. Millet, Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 130 - 131.)
It is absolutely true that there is a miraculous gift of tongues represented in the missionary efforts of young men and women who learn to preach powerfully in a language that is new to them. However, the combination of speaking in tongues and interpreting tongues tells us that the practice Moroni is describing is more akin to the phenomenon technically known as glossolalia. This is the experience of spontaneously expressing oneself in an unknown language. This is a language that is basically unintelligible. However, to be truly edifying, it required the presence of one who was able to understand and translate the divine message.
Joseph Smith said:
“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 the their own tongues.” (Documentary History of the Church. Deseret Press, 1949, 6:31).
Joseph Smith tells us the Brother Millet is correct that the speaking of foreign languages is the intent of the gift, but that is not the context in which the early saints were coveting that gift. For them, the gift was the same kind of glossolalia that was present in the churches from which they had been converted. It is for this reason that Joseph tells them that they need to have an interpreter. It is this dual context of unintelligible expression and required translation that we see the experience recorded by Eliza R. Snow:
“The Saints were humble, and through our united faith, the Spirit of God was poured out in copious effusion, and, for one hour, we enjoyed pentecostal refreshings from on high. On these occasions the gifts of the Gospel were powerfully manifest—speaking and singing in tongues, the interpretation of tongues, the gift of healing and of prophecy, were freely exercised. These monthly fast meetings were so interesting, and so very enjoyable, that people came long distances to attend them.” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1884], 12 - 13.)
The combination phrasing in Moroni suggests that this dual aspect of tongues is the reference that Joseph understood when translating Moroni’s text.