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

[ERayR]

Too much pressure to talk with our God in a particular way, when all he wants is you, not your words.     

 

I don't know, words do have meaning and are quite convenient for communication. That is if one doesn't try to redefine them for convenience.

[Rob Osborn]

I think the bottom line is that we should use language we are comfortable with and know. In my prayers I use a mixture of both thee and thy and pretty much never use "thou" because it rolls off my tongue unaturally. For instance- I maight pray about a problem I am facing and ask "what would you have me do?" Because it is hard for me to put words together that sounds like- "what wouldst thou have me do?" Is this wrong? Even though the church counsels us to use thee thine thy and thou when addressing our Heavenly Father in prayer it is just their opinion and not an official doctrine that is binding or makes prayers not effectual if not used in these words. When was the last time you heard of the bishop correct someone because they used the word "you" or "your" in a prayer? Never! And, they all said Amen and didn't think twice of it for the most part. Its whats in the heart and nothing more, nothing less. The church at some point may indeed drop this from the english language speaking members of which it only applies.

 

Then again, I am a "born again" Chritsian even though the church doesn't recognize that language in our own definitions.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the bottom line is that we should use language we are comfortable with and know. In my prayers I use a mixture of both thee and thy and pretty much never use "thou" because it rolls off my tongue unaturally. For instance- I maight pray about a problem I am facing and ask "what would you have me do?" Because it is hard for me to put words together that sounds like- "what wouldst thou have me do?" Is this wrong?

That's a matter between you and God.

 

Even though the church counsels us to use thee thine thy and thou when addressing our Heavenly Father in prayer it is just their opinion and not an official doctrine that is binding or makes prayers not effectual if not used in these words.

 

I can't be so dismissive about teaching that comes from anointed servants of God that is clearly intended to be followed.

 

Personal prayers are one thing. But when it comes to public prayers, I think it is incumbent upon us to use appropriate and approved liturgical forms insofar as we are able. In such instances, it is not just a personal communication of the one saying the prayer. He or she is understood to be speaking for the entire congregation or group or class or whatever the setting might be.

 

I wouldn't make an issue of this if the Brethren didn't. But, as it happens, they do.

 

 

When was the last time you heard of the bishop correct someone because they used the word "you" or "your" in a prayer? Never!

 

No, I've never observed such a thing, and I don't expect to. The bishops I have known are too kind and sensitive to risk embarrassing someone in that manner.

 

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to observe instruction that is given out generally from the pulpit and in approved curriculum materials.

 

The church at some point may indeed drop this from the english language speaking members of which it only applies.

 

 

Maybe, but it hasn't happened so far. And it's hardly wise to govern our obedience to instruction by the notion that it might get dropped in the future.

 

Then again, I am a "born again" Chritsian even though the church doesn't recognize that language in our own definitions.

 

Actually, that is a Biblical term that is occasionally used in LDS vernacular, along with synonymous terms or phrases such as "being spiritually born of God," "spiritual rebirth" and having a "mighty change of heart."

Edited February 10, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

At the risk of ticking everyone off I find the arguments that God sees what is in the heart or our true intentions or that we are following the spirit of the law rather then the letter to be facile justifications. Of course He knows all that. Usually though people aren't saying it as a statement of fact; they are appealing to an authority to get out of dealing with something they don't like.

 

It is great to be spiritually in tune with God but we are not pure spirit. We already passed that part of the testing to get this far. Now we are amphibians, half-spirit and half-flesh. This is why we kneel when we pray. We want both the heart and the body in tune. When praying we want both the words and the spiritual intent to be correct.

 

I see the use of "thee" and "thou" to be akin to dressing in white for the temple. It is consciously putting normal modes of communication to the side and adopting a (relatively easy) new vocabulary much as changing our clothes is designed to put our bodies in a new frame of reference in the temple as our spirits transition as well. We lay on hands for blessings. We eat and drink as part of the Sacrament (or pagan blood feast where we eat the flesh and drink the blood of a dead but living God if you want the fun interpretation).

 

Does it somewhat arbitrary? Yeah. God could have commanded us to pray in Tolkien's Elvish and probably created a very similar effect. Note: probably. We imagine that we see through things we do not. One of the curses of humanity is that we spiritualize everything and then think we can chuck the physical acts or that they are less important. Maybe there is something to old English that omniscience knows and we do not. Maybe it was given the semi-holiness it is often ascribed for a reason we do not understand.

 

I am going to go with what the apostles say on the topic. Chalking it up to being their opinion is a copout or that it will eventually go away is a copout. It is like getting married to a member of the same sex because one day the Church might approve it or taking up drinking because the Word of Wisdom is temporary and may go away. In the Book of Mormon a bunch of people tried to get out of the Law of Moses early and had to be rebuked and brought back into line. Sounds easier to just stick with those God has put in charge of dispensing this stuff.

[Scott Lloyd]

At the risk of ticking everyone off I find the arguments that God sees what is in the heart or our true intentions or that we are following the spirit of the law rather then the letter to be facile justifications. Of course He knows all that. Usually though people aren't saying it as a statement of fact; they are appealing to an authority to get out of dealing with something they don't like.

 

It is great to be spiritually in tune with God but we are not pure spirit. We already passed that part of the testing to get this far. Now we are amphibians, half-spirit and half-flesh. This is why we kneel when we pray. We want both the heart and the body in tune. When praying we want both the words and the spiritual intent to be correct.

 

I see the use of "thee" and "thou" to be akin to dressing in white for the temple. It is consciously putting normal modes of communication to the side and adopting a (relatively easy) new vocabulary much as changing our clothes is designed to put our bodies in a new frame of reference in the temple as our spirits transition as well. We lay on hands for blessings. We eat and drink as part of the Sacrament (or pagan blood feast where we eat the flesh and drink the blood of a dead but living God if you want the fun interpretation).

 

Does it somewhat arbitrary? Yeah. God could have commanded us to pray in Tolkien's Elvish and probably created a very similar effect. Note: probably. We imagine that we see through things we do not. One of the curses of humanity is that we spiritualize everything and then think we can chuck the physical acts or that they are less important. Maybe there is something to old English that omniscience knows and we do not. Maybe it was given the semi-holiness it is often ascribed for a reason we do not understand.

 

I am going to go with what the apostles say on the topic. Chalking it up to being their opinion is a copout or that it will eventually go away is a copout. It is like getting married to a member of the same sex because one day the Church might approve it or taking up drinking because the Word of Wisdom is temporary and may go away. In the Book of Mormon a bunch of people tried to get out of the Law of Moses early and had to be rebuked and brought back into line. Sounds easier to just stick with those God has put in charge of dispensing this stuff.

Very well said.

 

And I, for one, was not ticked off. 

[teddyaware]

At the risk of ticking everyone off I find the arguments that God sees what is in the heart or our true intentions or that we are following the spirit of the law rather then the letter to be facile justifications. Of course He knows all that. Usually though people aren't saying it as a statement of fact; they are appealing to an authority to get out of dealing with something they don't like.

 

It is great to be spiritually in tune with God but we are not pure spirit. We already passed that part of the testing to get this far. Now we are amphibians, half-spirit and half-flesh. This is why we kneel when we pray. We want both the heart and the body in tune. When praying we want both the words and the spiritual intent to be correct.

 

I see the use of "thee" and "thou" to be akin to dressing in white for the temple. It is consciously putting normal modes of communication to the side and adopting a (relatively easy) new vocabulary much as changing our clothes is designed to put our bodies in a new frame of reference in the temple as our spirits transition as well. We lay on hands for blessings. We eat and drink as part of the Sacrament (or pagan blood feast where we eat the flesh and drink the blood of a dead but living God if you want the fun interpretation).

 

Does it somewhat arbitrary? Yeah. God could have commanded us to pray in Tolkien's Elvish and probably created a very similar effect. Note: probably. We imagine that we see through things we do not. One of the curses of humanity is that we spiritualize everything and then think we can chuck the physical acts or that they are less important. Maybe there is something to old English that omniscience knows and we do not. Maybe it was given the semi-holiness it is often ascribed for a reason we do not understand.

 

I am going to go with what the apostles say on the topic. Chalking it up to being their opinion is a copout or that it will eventually go away is a copout. It is like getting married to a member of the same sex because one day the Church might approve it or taking up drinking because the Word of Wisdom is temporary and may go away. In the Book of Mormon a bunch of people tried to get out of the Law of Moses early and had to be rebuked and brought back into line. Sounds easier to just stick with those God has put in charge of dispensing this stuff.

This is a spectacular post! The insight and wisdom shown here puts this post in the top ten posts (at least)I've read on this board.

Edited January 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................  

.   But if it were up to me, I would make LDS pray using an authentic American dialect from the 1860s.

Could you please give an example of what that might be like?  And don't crib from the Gettysburg Address.

[Robert F. Smith]

And then we have the temple language which tells us the true order of prayer but yet no one I know prays like that outside of that certain prayer in the temple endowment...

Actually, prayer circles used to be held quite commonly among Mormons in their homes even during my lifetime, although I haven't heard of one being held in a private home in recent decades.

[Senator]

Actually, prayer circles used to be held quite commonly among Mormons in their homes even during my lifetime, although I haven't heard of one being held in a private home in recent decades.

I have and the participants were excommunicated.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have and the participants were excommunicated.

My guess is that there was more to the story than merely holding a prayer circle.

[omni]

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:

 

This is in direct contradiction to how the church teaches its members to pray in many if not most non-English languages.  They are directed/commanded to pray in the informal language much like how you would speak to a child, friend, family member or in Elder Oaks' example, a "fellow worker or employer".

[omni]

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.

 

 

For some reason the following phrase keeps coming to mind while reading this thread.

 

"When the prophet has spoken, the debate is over."

[Thinking]

Read the Elder Oaks talk already cited.

I've read the talk and I was a Spanish speaking missionary. Spanish members are taught to pray using informal language. I still remember the flip chart.

 

Nuestro Padre Celestial

Te damos gracias...

Te pedimos...

En el nombre de Jesucristo, Amen

[Robert F. Smith]

...........................................................................   

 

That being said, my daughter came home excited this week because a recently returned sister missionary had shared with the YW that she decided her prayers were more effective if they were done with raised hands and looking to heaven, so that is how she prayed through her mission.  We now have a bunch of young women praying that way.  Maybe there is something to our traditions.  

 

Reminds me of the disastrous Church of the Firstborn heresy in the LDS French Mission over 50 years ago.  They also had the missionaries praying with arms raised heavenward.  I have also seen Evangelicals do that in their church meetings.  The ancient Egyptians also raised their arms in prayer, as do the Muslims during the annual Hajj in Mekka.  In Judaism, the priest raises his hands in blessing (netiat kapayyim), during the Amida, the same prayer that the heretical Zoramites pray with arms raised (Alma 31:14).

[Rob Osborn]

At the risk of ticking everyone off I find the arguments that God sees what is in the heart or our true intentions or that we are following the spirit of the law rather then the letter to be facile justifications. Of course He knows all that. Usually though people aren't saying it as a statement of fact; they are appealing to an authority to get out of dealing with something they don't like.

 

It is great to be spiritually in tune with God but we are not pure spirit. We already passed that part of the testing to get this far. Now we are amphibians, half-spirit and half-flesh. This is why we kneel when we pray. We want both the heart and the body in tune. When praying we want both the words and the spiritual intent to be correct.

 

I see the use of "thee" and "thou" to be akin to dressing in white for the temple. It is consciously putting normal modes of communication to the side and adopting a (relatively easy) new vocabulary much as changing our clothes is designed to put our bodies in a new frame of reference in the temple as our spirits transition as well. We lay on hands for blessings. We eat and drink as part of the Sacrament (or pagan blood feast where we eat the flesh and drink the blood of a dead but living God if you want the fun interpretation).

 

Does it somewhat arbitrary? Yeah. God could have commanded us to pray in Tolkien's Elvish and probably created a very similar effect. Note: probably. We imagine that we see through things we do not. One of the curses of humanity is that we spiritualize everything and then think we can chuck the physical acts or that they are less important. Maybe there is something to old English that omniscience knows and we do not. Maybe it was given the semi-holiness it is often ascribed for a reason we do not understand.

 

I am going to go with what the apostles say on the topic. Chalking it up to being their opinion is a copout or that it will eventually go away is a copout. It is like getting married to a member of the same sex because one day the Church might approve it or taking up drinking because the Word of Wisdom is temporary and may go away. In the Book of Mormon a bunch of people tried to get out of the Law of Moses early and had to be rebuked and brought back into line. Sounds easier to just stick with those God has put in charge of dispensing this stuff.

I am still going to continue to pray the way I have always prayed and I agree with most of what you say. However, I am still in some doubt here and question the whole why of it. I say this in respect to my family member who has a very pure heart, perhaps moreson than anyone I know, inside or outside the church. He prays with great power! But, he has always used the phrase "we love you with all our heart" and I am inclined to believe he is speaking the tongue of angels. Who is to deny? This one instance causes me deep profound thought on the matter because it isn't all cut and dried. Elder oaks talk seems to be the principled point the church bases its beliefs upon but it really comes down to the "why" of it, not that it gives more power or somethng like unto that. Mostly its seen as a reverence thing but I am not so sure that this is properly conveyed in its proper light. Its all mental. I sometimes wonder if we dont worship all of ou r rules and particulars instead of worshiping God with our hearts.

[Tacenda]

I am still going to continue to pray the way I have always prayed and I agree with most of what you say. However, I am still in some doubt here and question the whole why of it. I say this in respect to my family member who has a very pure heart, perhaps moreson than anyone I know, inside or outside the church. He prays with great power! But, he has always used the phrase "we love you with all our heart" and I am inclined to believe he is speaking the tongue of angels. Who is to deny? This one instance causes me deep profound thought on the matter because it isn't all cut and dried. Elder oaks talk seems to be the principled point the church bases its beliefs upon but it really comes down to the "why" of it, not that it gives more power or somethng like unto that. Mostly its seen as a reverence thing but I am not so sure that this is properly conveyed in its proper light. Its all mental. I sometimes wonder if we dont worship all of ou r rules and particulars instead of worshiping God with our hearts.

I think you're right, and would like to add, HF probably wants us to behave like His children not strangers.  Yes, give Him all the respect for sure, but if certain words become difficult or uncomfortable maybe even time consuming, it can put a wedge in, at least personally speaking.  I can see a public prayer needing to be more proper, but personal prayer not so much. 

[blooit]

For some reason the following phrase keeps coming to mind while reading this thread.

 

"When the prophet has spoken, the debate is over."

 

I am very orthodox when it comes to obedience, however, I don't think it is that simple.  As we have clearly seen, prophetic counsel is given within the filter of contemporary society.  There comes a time when past counsel is outright revoked, and times when it fades away.  Sometimes this is to our condemnation, at other times it is for our benefit.  Blacks and the priesthood, the status of women, birth control, politics, etc. are all examples of dramatic changes in prophetic counsel.  Perhaps the fact that we haven't been directed to pray with certain language in over 20 years means that it is no longer prophetic counsel.  On the other hand, it could also mean that our leaders have much bigger fish to fry and we have issues.  

[Senator]

So what do you think Five Solas, after all that has been said?

[cdowis]

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.

 

I think it is a matter of respect, reverence, or walking on sacred ground.

[Yirgacheffe]

This is in direct contradiction to how the church teaches its members to pray in many if not most non-English languages.  They are directed/commanded to pray in the informal language much like how you would speak to a child, friend, family member or in Elder Oaks' example, a "fellow worker or employer".

 

 

I think it is a matter of respect, reverence, or walking on sacred ground.

 

If it's a matter of respect, reverence, or walking on sacred ground, then why is it only required of those who speak English?  Why are those who speak languages that actually have a formal form of address not admonished to use the formal form that is in current use.  It doesn't make sense to let those with formal and informal use the informal while requiring those who don't have this distinction to use an ancient form  as some sign of respect. 

 

[Five Solas]

So what do you think Five Solas, after all that has been said?

Thank you for asking, Senator

:0)

 

I didn't have high expectations following the first few posts--several posters seemed intent on rubbishing my experience & perspective (see posts #2, #11, #13).  But they didn't prevail, the thread didn't die and some good discussion ensued.  To be perfectly frank, I've enjoyed catching up this evening and seeing that it grew to 6 pages in < 48 hours.  It all gives me some additional perspective, useful when I dialogue with my extended family (a number of whom are staunch LDS), which admittedly is my primary motivation for posting here. 

 

Regards,

 

--Erik

[The Nehor]

For some reason the following phrase keeps coming to mind while reading this thread.

 

"When the Nehor has spoken, the debate is over."

 

FTFY

 

I have no qualms with apostles and prophets ending debates. I do disagree with the "thinking being done" one though. It takes a lot of thought after receiving a commandment to implement it, explore it, understand it, and internalize it.

 

If it's a matter of respect, reverence, or walking on sacred ground, then why is it only required of those who speak English?  Why are those who speak languages that actually have a formal form of address not admonished to use the formal form that is in current use.  It doesn't make sense to let those with formal and informal use the informal while requiring those who don't have this distinction to use an ancient form  as some sign of respect. 

 

Well, I am guessing because English is the one language I know of that has an obsolete tense that is familiar but has acquired a sense of reverence over time so you get the intimacy and the reverence/respect. Basically it is because English is awesome.

[Yirgacheffe]

FTFY

 

I have no qualms with apostles and prophets ending debates. I do disagree with the "thinking being done" one though. It takes a lot of thought after receiving a commandment to implement it, explore it, understand it, and internalize it.

 

 

Well, I am guessing because English is the one language I know of that has an obsolete tense that is familiar but has acquired a sense of reverence over time so you get the intimacy and the reverence/respect. Basically it is because English is awesome.

Well the awesomeness of English aside, it still doesn't explain why others with an actual formal (respectful) form of address are allowed to be disrespectful, irreverent and stomp all over holy ground in dirty shoes.  Talking with someone in a stilted, manufactured formal manner is not intimate.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Yirgacheffe

[The Nehor]

Well the awesomeness of English aside, it still doesn't explain why others with an actual formal (respectful) form of address are allowed to be disrespectful, irreverent and stomp all over holy ground in dirty shoes.  Talking with someone in a stilted, manufactured formal manner is not intimate.

 

Well, the English is not actually formal though. While there was some shifting around the time of King James Translation it was a term of endearment. You would use "thee" for friends and lovers while using "you" for people in the street. The meaning paradoxically shifted and became more formal as it fell into disuse. So it is intimate and also formal. A weird combination. I kind of like it.

 

In a lot of other European languages both the formal and informal tenses have survived so they do not have an equivalent and we stick with the familiar. In English we get the best of both worlds.

 

I have no idea what you mean by "stilted" and "manufactured". Speech is stilted when the user uses language wrong and all language is manufactured. Unless you are a Pentecostal speaking in unknown tongues language is not spontaneously created.

[Damien the Leper]

What Five Solas sister said was incorrect. The LDS way of prayer versus contemporary forms is no more and no less sacred to the relationship between the Creator and the created. If there is an official prayer then it should be the Lord's Prayer whether it is classic English or contemporary English. This really should be a non issue.

I will say that Eucharistic Prayer C of the Book of Common Prayer is rather heretical because of the universalism that is evident and I refuse to take Communion as I don't believe that it has a valid epiklesis and anamnesis. Without valid forms of those then the Communion is not valid as pneumatic presence communion is a heretical product of the Reformation.

Sorry to tangent.