Thee, Thy, Thou - Archaic English - Essential To L D S Prayer

[Scott Lloyd]

Ive got a theory baking here. Suppose that when Jesus was teaching people originally how to pray in Jerusalem and in the Americas that he understood their everyday language and thus taught them to also speak to God in this method because God is not jealous of one over another and certainly we shouldn't change who we are and make it into a flowery eloquent speech. Christ perhaps was showing us that we can speak to our Heavenly Father with everyday speech because He too is personable and loveable and easy to get along with- easy to entreat.

Which doesn't help explain why, through the years, He has inspired his apostles and prophets to admonish the Latter-day Saints to use the "language of prayer" in addressing Heavenly Father.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

I never said I rail against it, and I don't. If you want to use thee, thine, thou be my guest. I certainly won't object. I don't dress up in Elizabethan style clothes when addressing Deity.  That would be pretentious, and rather silly of me to do. Likewise I see no need to talk like them. I just don't get it.

 

If you haven't noticed, the angle of argument has changed. It's no longer a matter of the correctness or rationality of the words used, it's now simply a matter of obedience.

[Scott Lloyd]

If you haven't noticed, the angle of argument has changed. It's no longer a matter of the correctness or rationality of the words used, it's now simply a matter of obedience.

You're going to ignore, then, the very rational and analytical speech I quoted from Elder Oaks a former law professor of distinction and a former state supreme court justice?

 

In case you're having trouble grasping his reasoning, perhaps I can restate it in summation: Having certain conventional standards in how one addresses Deity is a show of respect, affection and awareness of one's position in relationship to God.

 

And yes, obedience, is an element to be considered. Sometimes we obey without fully comprehending the reason for the commandment at first, as did Adam, when he offered sacrifices and, when asked why, responded, "I know not, save the Lord hath commanded it."

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Rob Osborn]

Speaking of the rameumpton, here is an article from the Ensign on using all these special words with "drills" to properly use them in the right context. Talk about complete craziness. I am not the brightest when it comes to proper english and this left my poor head spinning!http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/the-language-of-formal-prayer?lang=kor&clang=eng

[Senator]

You're going to ignore, then, the very rational and analytical speech I quoted from Elder Oaks a former law professor of distinction and a former state supreme court justice?

 

I didn't ignore it at all. I just may not agree with all that Elder Oaks said.

[Senator]

Speaking of the rameumpton, here is an article from the Ensign on using all these special words with "drills" to properly use them in the right context. Talk about complete craziness. I am not the brightest when it comes to proper english and this left my poor head spinning!http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/the-language-of-formal-prayer?lang=kor&clang=eng

 

Wow!

[Scott Lloyd]

Speaking of the rameumpton, here is an article from the Ensign on using all these special words with "drills" to properly use them in the right context. Talk about complete craziness. I am not the brightest when it comes to proper english and this left my poor head spinning!http://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/01/the-language-of-formal-prayer?lang=kor&clang=eng

Thanks for linking to this. It appears to be quite useful, if one intends to be earnest about trying to follow the repeated admonitions of prophets and apostles.

 

Don Norton, at the time this article appeared, was a professor of English at BYU.

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't ignore it at all. I just may not agree with all that Elder Oaks said.

Use of the word "may" indicates to me you haven't really bothered to consider it.

 

I'm only pointing out that the focus of the discussion hasn't shifted altogether to a matter of "do it because the Brethren said so." Elder Oaks here offers reasoning worthy of consideration.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

Use of the word "may" indicates to me you haven't really bothered to consider it.

 

 

 

Then you would be wrong.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Senator

[Rob Osborn]

Which doesn't help explain why, through the years, He has inspired his apostles and prophets to admonish the Latter-day Saints to use the "language of prayer" in addressing Heavenly Father.

Just read the official doctrine given to new members, inactive just returning, etc on how to pray and nothing there speaks of the "language" of how to use certain words in prayer-

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-8-praying-to-our-heavenly-father?lang=eng

[Scott Lloyd]

Just read the official doctrine given to new members, inactive just returning, etc on how to pray and nothing there speaks of the "language" of how to use certain words in prayer-

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-8-praying-to-our-heavenly-father?lang=eng

There is a time and place for everything. The fact that the language of prayer is not included in new-member lessons does not negate the fact that the admonition is out there -- and has been for many years.

 

Don't get me wrong. I believe God will answer a sincere, heartfelt and reverent prayer, no matter how it is expressed. It's just that when we are asked by God and His servants to do a thing, we ought to make an earnest effort at it as time and circumstances allow.

 

By the way, Don Norton makes a good point in the article you linked to:

 

The reason why many of us lack confidence in using the forms of thou is simply that we hear them infrequently—only in oral scripture reading and in a few minutes of prayer weekly. Our ears are incompletely trained in the proper usage. And it is through hearing these forms that we learn their use. Some study and memorization may be helpful, and practice may also be useful; the ear training, however, is essential.

 

As I look back on my life, it occurs to me that my "ear training" in the language of prayer came from continual reading of scriptures and having scriptures read or cited to me. Ergo, here's another good reason for regular scripture reading.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Senator]

 

I'm only pointing out that the focus of the discussion hasn't shifted altogether to a matter of "do it because the Brethren said so." Elder Oaks here offers reasoning worthy of consideration.

 

I'm only pointing out that so often, when resistance to the reasonings is expressed, the fall back position is "well, the Brethren said so, now where does that leave you?"

[blooit]

I'm only pointing out that so often, when resistance to the reasonings is expressed, the fall back position is "well, the Brethren said so, now where does that leave you?"

 

I think there is something to this.  For example, many of those quoted made much more condemning statements against birth control, and in a similar time frame.  Perhaps thees and thous has gone the way of birth control.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think there is something to this.  For example, many of those quoted made much more condemning statements against birth control, and in a similar time frame.  Perhaps thees and thous has gone the way of birth control.

If you listen to the prayers offered in general conference and by Church leaders at other formal, general Church settings, it becomes clear that this expressed preference, desire and admonition has not fallen by the wayside.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe "rail against" is the wrong terminology. You just use sarcasm to ridicule and disparage explicit instruction from the Brethren, as below:

 

By the way, here's the full version of the Dallin H. Oaks talk that was among those excerpted in the link I gave in my post above, which, apparently, you never bothered to click on or consider.

 

Here's a particularly pithy excerpt:

 

I'm not ridiculing the Brethren either. I said and meant  "I don't get it". Language is only as useful as the ideas it is trying to present. I also "Don't get" not eating shellfish, and pork. At one time those may have been useful idea's (A desert climate added to competition for limited food resources makes the raising of pork not a good idea). So I can justify those ancient Hebrews not eating it. But now-a-days in the Christian world it seems archaic. I'm fine with Jews, and Muslims not eating it for religious reason, but please don't tell God is telling me not to too.

 

Pithy or not I don't find Elizabethan English reverential. The Temple clothing, outside of our undergarments, has specific religious meaning and representational value. We really don't wear it outside of the Temple, until we're buried in it.

 

Do you really mean to suggest that when I bow before before the feet of my be loved Lord and Savior he's going to condemn me for not saying thee, thine, and thou in my prayers?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm only pointing out that so often, when resistance to the reasonings is expressed, the fall back position is "well, the Brethren said so, now where does that leave you?"

If and when that happens, it is often because there appears to be no cognizance of what the Brethren have said on the matter or that they have made any expression at all on it.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you really mean to suggest that when I bow before before the feet of my be loved Lord and Savior he's going to condemn me for not saying thee, thine, and thou in my prayers?

Point out specifically where I said such a thing.

 

As a matter of fact, I have explicitly said the opposite.

 

Here, let me repeat it for you by quoting myself:

 

Don't get me wrong. I believe God will answer a sincere, heartfelt and reverent prayer, no matter how it is expressed. It's just that when we are asked by God and His servants to do a thing, we ought to make an earnest effort at it as time and circumstances allow.

And by the way, we're not talking about eating pork. We're talking about explicit instruction regarding the language of prayer that has been given repeatedly by latter-day apostles and prophets.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

On the other hand, there has been very clear and repeated direction to use the language of scripture when talking to God. You may rail against this all you like, but be advised that in doing so, you are contradicting the apostles and prophets (not Pharisees).

 

I think the point some people are trying to make is that there isn't a "language of scripture" or "language of prayer".  It's just Elizabethan English, and the reason some scriptures are written in such language is because that is the time in which they were translated, or they were intentionally written to mirror that language.

 

So if we stopped referring to it by some made-up euphemism and instead encouraged other LDS to pray using "Elizabethan English" or "Shakespearean English", it would be obvious how silly it is. But we may increase the conversion rate among people who fancy Renaissance Fairs and the like.

 

And we don't even go whole-hog; it's really just inserting a few Elizabethan words into an otherwise 21st century vernacular.  I suspect if anyone gave a prayer using a 100% authentic dialect from that period, we would think they were crazy.   But if it were up to me, I would make LDS pray using an authentic American dialect from the 1860s.

Edited January 21, 2014 by cinepro

[Senator]

 

Do you really mean to suggest that when I bow before before the feet of my be loved Lord and Savior he's going to condemn me for not saying thee, thine, and thou in my prayers?

 

No, but he is going to condemn thee for thy disobedience to His servants.  Doth thou see now?

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the point some people are trying to make is that there isn't a "language of scripture" or "language of prayer".  It's just Elizabethan English, and the reason some scriptures are written in such language is because that is the time in which they were translated, or they were intentionally written to mirror that language.

 

So if we stopped referring to it by some made-up euphemism and instead encouraged other LDS to pray using "Elizabethan English" or "Shakespearean English", it would be obvious how silly it is. 

 

And we don't even go whole-hog; it's really just inserting a few Elizabethan words into an otherwise 21st century vernacular.  I suspect if anyone gave a prayer using a 100% authentic dialect from that period, we would think they were crazy.   But if it were up to me, I would make LDS pray using an authentic American dialect from the 1860s.

I think these arguments have already been addressed in the talk given by Elder Oaks. These forms, through continued association, have taken on an aura of respect and veneration that the Brethren have asked us to display by using them in the prayers we say.

 

An interesting thing I learned a few years ago during the 500th anniversary of the King James Translation: The phrasing used in the translation was already somewhat outmoded at the time the KJV first appeared. But it was selected by the King James translators precisely because it had a worshipful sound and cadence somewhat removed from day-to-day vernacular and discourse. It is of no small significance that the phrase "appointed to be read in churches" appears in the front matter of the King James Bible.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Why would it be important to God (whose language is not English anyway) that we address Him using archaic English?

Edited January 21, 2014 by Thinking

[Scott Lloyd]

No, but he is going to condemn thee for thy disobedience to His servants.  Doth thou see now?

So if you can't come up with a good response, just distort what I say.

 

It fits in with the pattern of ridicule you've displayed already on this thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why would it be important to God (whose language is not English anyway) that we address Him using archaic English?

Read the Elder Oaks talk already cited.

[Calm]

 

Don Norton, at the time this article appeared, was a professor of English at BYU.

And an excellent one IMO.

[Stroopwafel]

Orthodox, OTOH, tend to use the familiar personal pronoun, so this isn't particularly a protestant attitude.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I have to say I'm not too familiar with Orthodox, but always looking to learn more about them.

 

Still, although this isn't unique to Protestants per se, in my understanding, the idea of creating and keeping a close relationship stems from Protestant culture and is manifested principally through the use of language reflecting closer relationship.