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

[thesometimesaint]

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:

 

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.

 

But I'm somehow less of a Saint because I don't use thee, thine, thou except in the three set prayers in the Church?

 

Ask a present day Kosher following Jew, or Halal following Muslim to have about specific instructions from God.

[The Nehor]

But I'm somehow less of a Saint because I don't use thee, thine, thou except in the three set prayers in the Church?.

Yes.

[volgadon]

The church doesn't tends not to instruct members in other languages to use the informal pronouns as much as it instructs them to use the conventional scriptural/devotional language of whatever tongue the members speak. Russian, for example, uses the conventions found in the SYnodal Version.

[Senator]

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. 

 

It's simply a notion that has been given legs.  If you don't like it, tough. You can always decline to pray in public when asked.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Senator

[Senator]

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

Good to hear!

[blooit]

It's simply a notion that has been given legs.  If you don't like it, tough. You can always decline to pray in public when asked.

 

Maybe I will just avoid the whole controversy and when asked to pray, pray in Spanish.  

[cdowis]

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

To put this into context, how do you view on a regular basis wearing a white shirt and tie to church v "informal" clothes such as flip flops and T shirt.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I have followed this thread with some amusement. It seems obvious to me that the reason we pray using thee/thou is because that is what was done in the early church. Why did the early church do it that way? Not because of some special revelation. It was done that way because that's how people around Joseph Smith grew up praying. Its a tradition from our forefathers. The reasoning that has grown up around it just seeks to support continuing the tradition (similar to the reasoning that grew up around the priesthood ban if you will). Like many traditions, you can come up with good reasons to continue and good reasons to discontinue. 

 

Ultimately just as an all Latin bible, and Latin mass were discontinued, I think we will eventually discontinue the use of the KJV bible and its archaic language. As the scriptures say:

 

 

For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

Edited January 22, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Damien the Leper]

To put this into context, how do you view on a regular basis wearing a white shirt and tie to church v "informal" clothes such as flip flops and T shirt.

One's devotion to Christ and the Gospel cannot be determined by the clothes they wear to church on Sunday. That is just silly.

[halconero]

One's devotion to Christ and the Gospel cannot be determined by the clothes they wear to church on Sunday. That is just silly.

 

I remember on my mission there was this one guy who would show up at the YSA war that I covered wearing black shirt and black pants. I swear...it was like darkness itself had come walking into the chapel, bearing with it contention, debate and a profound, yet obviously deceptive understanding of the scriptures. I remember of my companion and I being wary of such a man, immediately circling the wagons, calling in the sheep, and getting the shepherds' staffs ready should this obvious wolf seek to attack. 

[Damien the Leper]

I remember on my mission there was this one guy who would show up at the YSA war that I covered wearing black shirt and black pants. I swear...it was like darkness itself had come walking into the chapel, bearing with it contention, debate and a profound, yet obviously deceptive understanding of the scriptures. I remember of my companion and I being wary of such a man, immediately circling the wagons, calling in the sheep, and getting the shepherds' staffs ready should this obvious wolf seek to attack. 

That is a much different scenario. Was that at the Union Hills ward?

[mfbukowski]

When you ordain someone to the priesthood, you are addressing the one being ordained, not Heavenly Father.

 

That's an important distinction, because no one has ever mandated that we use scriptural pronouns in addressing individuals who are being ordained or blessed.

 

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).

This is a problem I see a lot in our stake for some reason.  Brethren give blessings as if they are prayers, sometimes directly addressing HF which is in appropriate, as you are pointing out.  "Heavenly Father, please bless Jimmy....." is an inappropriate form.  That is a prayer, not a blessing.

 

In giving blessings and ordinations, the correct form is "I bless you"  "I ordain you" etc.

 

Yes the authority is through the priesthood, but it is through the priesthood of the speaker.  We need to learn to be not so timid as to think that we personally cannot pronounce blessings- in fact that is precisely what we are supposed to do.

[mfbukowski]

 

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).

 

Well of course we can see where that comes from in an LDS context with just a little thought about it.   But of course it is still inappropriate.

[mfbukowski]

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. 

 

Clearly they are just not as good as English speakers. 

[mfbukowski]

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.

You are a dear soul.

 

A little weird, but a dear soul. 

[mfbukowski]

I remember on my mission there was this one guy who would show up at the YSA war that I covered.....

That bad, hey? 

 

Freudian slip? 

Edited January 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

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".

But there are analogs in at least one non-English language with which I am acquainted, perhaps in others as well.

 

In Swedish, the second-person pronoun you in its object form is dig. That is the familiar form. The formal and/or plural would be er.

 

In scriptures and in prayers, when addressing Deity, one uses dig. However, speakers in the Church are admonished to pronounce it "deeg." That contrasts with the way it is pronounced in everyday conversation, which is "day." The reason for this, of course, is to show respect and reverence. So, we have a situation where the intimate, familiar form is used, but is pronounced in a way that sets it apart from everyday conversation and serves to reflect reverence and respect.

 

This is not unlike the convention in English where we use what in times past was the familiar form of second-person pronouns (thee, thy, thou and thine) but the reason we do is to show respect and reverence.

 

So, as it pertains to Swedish, at least, there is not quite the "direct contradiction" that you suppose.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It's simply a notion that has been given legs.  If you don't like it, tough. You can always decline to pray in public when asked.

Or, alternatively, he can pray in public when asked and try to observe the approved liturgical conventions, confident that if he doesn't quite succeed in the attempt, no one is going condemn or reproach him.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

But I'm somehow less of a Saint because I don't use thee, thine, thou except in the three set prayers in the Church?

 

I certainly never said that.

 

You are challenging me on things I never said and thus bearing false witness. Stop it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Maybe I will just avoid the whole controversy and when asked to pray, pray in Spanish.  

My guess is that there are approved conventions when praying in Spanish as well that one is admonished to follow.

 

But that's only a guess. My second language is Swedish.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a problem I see a lot in our stake for some reason.  Brethren give blessings as if they are prayers, sometimes directly addressing HF which is in appropriate, as you are pointing out.  "Heavenly Father, please bless Jimmy....." is an inappropriate form.  That is a prayer, not a blessing.

 

In giving blessings and ordinations, the correct form is "I bless you"  "I ordain you" etc.

 

Yes the authority is through the priesthood, but it is through the priesthood of the speaker.  We need to learn to be not so timid as to think that we personally cannot pronounce blessings- in fact that is precisely what we are supposed to do.

Yes, I have observed this in times past as well.

 

I try to be patient, but I find myself wishing that the one assigned to give the blessing had a better understanding of what it is he is undertaking, that in that instance, he is giving the blessing on his own authority under the power of the priesthood, not offering a prayer to Heavenly Father. There is quite a distinction.

 

To use an illustration, it is inappropriate in giving someone a priesthood blessing to say, "I pray that..." or "I ask that ...."  Rather, it should be "I bless you that ..."

 

And I agree with you that this probably stems from one's unwarranted timidity in exercising the priesthood power that he is entitled to.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

I certainly never said that.

 

You are challenging me on things I never said and thus bearing false witness. Stop it.

 

But you keep on saying that only children, new members should be permitted to not use old English in addressing Deity in a public settings. I am neither a child, nor a new member. I find the whole thee, thine, thou thing an unwarranted affectation. But if someone wants to use those words I have no objection. It is the demanding that it be done THIS WAY, and only THIS WAY. That I'm somehow a child, or new member that doesn't know any better that is irksome.

[Scott Lloyd]

But you keep on saying that only children, new members should be permitted to not use old English in addressing Deity in a public settings. I am neither a child, nor a new member. I find the whole thee, thine, thou thing an unwarranted affectation. But if someone wants to use those words I have no objection. It is the demanding that it be done THIS WAY, and only THIS WAY. That I'm somehow a child, or new member that doesn't know any better that is irksome.

All I've done here is point out what the Brethren have repeatedly counseled the Latter-day Saints to do. I haven't called you a child or a new member. I haven't demanded anything of you.

 

On the other hand, you and others have shown contempt and ridicule for what the Church leaders have asked us to do. The citing in a disparaging manner of the very helpful Ensign magazine article by Don Norton is a case in point.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

That I'm somehow a child, or new member that doesn't know any better that is irksome.

 

No, I am pretty sure that you know better.

[thesometimesaint]

No, I am pretty sure that you know better.

 

Please let me get up on my own Rameumptom.