First, I have to concur my experience should not be taken as the standard for every other Christian. I am paraphrasing the post. The second post of the person that had a spiritual experience without speaking tongues used his experience as the primary reason why tongues is not necessary. I have to disagree with the methodology.
Second, it appears the person is using reason equated with experience. And, one of your comments is you interpret your experience *by* scriptures. Therefore, my hermeneutic that I am going to use is the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral makes scripture primary with the tripartite hermeneutic of reason, tradition, and experience. In other words, I do not interpret my spiritual experience *by* scripture. I listen to the text primarily, and the meaning informs my experience. Then, I will know that I have a spiritual experience aligned with the historical trajectory of the whole Biblical narrative. Also, I did speak in tongues when I received the Holy Ghost. On the one hand, I will not take my experience and read into the text, and I will not make my experience the doctrine. Any minister that reads into the text is rapping the Biblical text. I know that it is unhealthy bad theology to stand behind a pulpit and condemn with doctrine I come up with even while rapping the text. Therefore, this is the reason why I whole heartily believe in preparation in seminary or education for hermeneutics and theological method. Hence, would you take your baby that needs open heart surgery to a doctor without medical school? Would you take your baby that needs open heart surgery to a doctor without a residency? Would you take your baby to a doctor without any sense of accountability to the overall formal assessment of his/her field? Therefore, I believe it is even more important to prepare for ministry before performing spiritual open heart surgery on souls in the kingdom.
Pastor Gregory Paul Norton