Archaic Pronouns In L D S Prayer - Doctrine, Policy Or Something Else?

[Five Solas]

The distinction between doctrine and mere policy has been highlighted by the recent LDS Church pronouncement regarding African ancestry and certain offices/ordinances.  So curious what folks here think about why archaic pronouns persist in LDS prayer protocol (thee, thy, thou, etc.).  Is it doctrine?  Is it policy?  Should we understand it some other way?  Does it even matter?  Please vote & share why you voted as you did. 

 

--Erik

 

PS.  This is my first attempt at a poll on this site - so apologies in advance if I mess it up

:0)

[Bernard Gui]

Most languages have different ways to speak to another person. For example, in Spanish, there are 2 forms of address...formal and familiar...usted vs. tu, ustedes vs. vosotros (you singular and plural). The usted is used to address strangers, superiors, in business and formal situations. The tu is used with family and friends and deity.

These two forms also exist in English....you vs. thou, etc. I like the distinction and wish it were still general usage in English.

To me, addressing deity with the thou forms sets the conversation apart from the world.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Rob Osborn]

Its a pretty gray line between policy and doctrine on how and what prayer language should be. Whereas there is church policy in the Church Handbook of Instructions on prayer in church meetings, nothing is said of private prayers. It gets sticky though because you have children who pray, handicpped who pray and new members who pray who know not there is some policy on prayer or know not the language of prayer (if there really be such a thing). It also gets sticky because we may not know how to use each word properly and instead of praying with our heart we spend all our energy with getting it right grammatically. There are times in the english language when a heartfelt "you" is appropriate and carries the right humble attitude of prayer. I can understand that the church wants reverence in prayer in a world quickly decaying in irreverence. At the same time I think that we shouldnt be counting our steps on Sunday either if you get my drift.

[The Nehor]

Don't we already have this thread?

[Scott Lloyd]

Don't we already have this thread?

That's what I thought.

 

This one is entirely extraneous.

[daz2]

The difference is that this one includes a poll.

[Five Solas]

The difference is that this one includes a poll.

Yes, indeed--thank you, daz2.  I thought it was pretty obvious, but it seems you can't take much for granted around here. 

;0)

 

The subject of this thread is solely whether the instructions from LDS leadership regarding usage of archaic pronouns in prayer constitutes doctrine, policy or something else.  And that's all I wish to discuss/understand here.  Not the merits (or lack thereof) of their instructions.   

 

Hopefully that helps.  Very interestingly over 100 views and absolutely nobody (so far) thinks the instructions constitute doctrine...

 

--Erik

[The Nehor]

Very interestingly over 100 views and absolutely nobody (so far) thinks the instructions constitute doctrine...

I would vote doctrine but I have a moral objection to voting in discussion board polls. It would be more accurate to say 17 votes and no one voted that way.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would vote doctrine but I have a moral objection to voting in discussion board polls. It would be more accurate to say 17 votes and no one voted that way.

The fact that out of all the people who have bothered to view the thread, only 17 cared enough to vote indicates the underwhelming interest this thread carries.

[WmLaw]

The fact that out of all the people who have bothered to view the thread, only 17 cared enough to vote indicates the underwhelming interest this thread carries.

Does each 'view' indicate a unique user?  

 

Interestingly, your comments account for 20% of all comments made on this thread.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Does each 'view' indicate a unique user?  

 

Interestingly, your comments account for 20% of all comments made on this thread.  

No each view does not indicate a unique user. It represents the sum of how many times this page has been loaded. I just refreshed the page 8 times and the number of views increased by 8. 

[Five Solas]

No each view does not indicate a unique user. It represents the sum of how many times this page has been loaded. I just refreshed the page 8 times and the number of views increased by 8. 

Okay, in light of this, I'm prepared to concede Nehor's point (post # 8 ) that views aren't a useful indication of much of anything.  I regret & retract my use of that number in post # 7.  Now that we've gotten that business cleaned up...

 

I included the option, "cultural legacy" really as an afterthought on completion of the draft--and yet it's proved highly popular among the 24 participants so far (thank you!), drawing the overwhelming majority.  To me, that phrase implies no real authority behind leadership's instructions.  I see it as a sort of hierarchy. 

 

Doctrines are the top level, highest authority (presumably directed to top LDS leadership from God Himself). 

 

Policies also carry authority, but to a lesser degree.  They might be a rule, such as regular Coca Cola can't be sold on Church property such as BYU (that might be a bad example--but hopefully illustrates the point).  Policies aren't directly from God, but created by the men who lead the LDS Church--and can be enforced by that organization (e.g., privileges withheld for noncompliance). 

 

Cultural legacy implies no real authority at all.  We've always done it this way and never seriously debated the alternative.  You could depart from the standard at any time with no real consequence (except, perhaps a few raised eyebrows).     

 

For any who voted "cultural legacy"--do you see it differently?

 

--Erik

[Rob Osborn]

Okay, in light of this, I'm prepared to concede Nehor's point (post # 8 ) that views aren't a useful indication of much of anything.  I regret & retract my use of that number in post # 7.  Now that we've gotten that business cleaned up...

 

I included the option, "cultural legacy" really as an afterthought on completion of the draft--and yet it's proved highly popular among the 24 participants so far (thank you!), drawing the overwhelming majority.  To me, that phrase implies no real authority behind leadership's instructions.  I see it as a sort of hierarchy. 

 

Doctrines are the top level, highest authority (presumably directed to top LDS leadership from God Himself). 

 

Policies also carry authority, but to a lesser degree.  They might be a rule, such as regular Coca Cola can't be sold on Church property such as BYU (that might be a bad example--but hopefully illustrates the point).  Policies aren't directly from God, but created by the men who lead the LDS Church--and can be enforced by that organization (e.g., privileges withheld for noncompliance). 

 

Cultural legacy implies no real authority at all.  We've always done it this way and never seriously debated the alternative.  You could depart from the standard at any time with no real consequence (except, perhaps a few raised eyebrows).     

 

For any who voted "cultural legacy"--do you see it differently?

 

--Erik

I see "doctrine" as something kind of strictly enforced or stated quite thoroughly as a common teaching for which there is no other alternative accepted. Policy is similar but doesn't carry the same weight as it pertains to actual salvation and is something usually reserved for how one practices. For example- policy deals with things like not using the gym on Sundays for playing sports. It could also be things such as Bishops must be married when they are first called to be bishops. I also see church policy as being world church wide. Policies thus have not much to do with salvation. Prayer speech doesn't really fit either of these two because it isnt something strictly enforced nor is it a set in stone amongst all church membership.

Cultural legacy fits here because we know that words change as with culture. This is something similar to the cross as a symbol worn. LDS typically do not have cross symbols in their homes or wear jewelry with a cross on it. This is because of cultural legacy of our past generations also not having them. You see these kinds of trends in clothing and even art selection in our churches. Have you ever been to another Christian church and seen the same artwork and even sang the same song in sacrament? Its also true that you can see artwork in other churches that you would never see in our churches and also sing songs you would never sing in our churches. Does this make it wrong or disrespectful? No. Church language is thus the same- we tend to run around saying "hey brother Smith, how ya doing" but if we saw them the next day at the gas station waiting in line we are more inclined to say "hey John, how ya doing". This all is tradition and not policy nor doctrine with how we address people inside or outside the church. We do have set prayers which cannot be changed such as the sacrament prayers but that is an actual church doctrine or policy and not just a traditional legacy. They also are the same across the board for all members in any culture.

[Five Solas]

I see "doctrine" as something kind of strictly enforced or stated quite thoroughly as a common teaching for which there is no other alternative accepted. Policy is similar but doesn't carry the same weight as it pertains to actual salvation and is something usually reserved for how one practices. For example- policy deals with things like not using the gym on Sundays for playing sports. It could also be things such as Bishops must be married when they are first called to be bishops. I also see church policy as being world church wide. Policies thus have not much to do with salvation. Prayer speech doesn't really fit either of these two because it isnt something strictly enforced nor is it a set in stone amongst all church membership.

Cultural legacy fits here because we know that words change as with culture. This is something similar to the cross as a symbol worn. LDS typically do not have cross symbols in their homes or wear jewelry with a cross on it. This is because of cultural legacy of our past generations also not having them. You see these kinds of trends in clothing and even art selection in our churches. Have you ever been to another Christian church and seen the same artwork and even sang the same song in sacrament? Its also true that you can see artwork in other churches that you would never see in our churches and also sing songs you would never sing in our churches. Does this make it wrong or disrespectful? No. Church language is thus the same- we tend to run around saying "hey brother Smith, how ya doing" but if we saw them the next day at the gas station waiting in line we are more inclined to say "hey John, how ya doing". This all is tradition and not policy nor doctrine with how we address people inside or outside the church. We do have set prayers which cannot be changed such as the sacrament prayers but that is an actual church doctrine or policy and not just a traditional legacy. They also are the same across the board for all members in any culture.

Appreciate the thoughtful response explaining your "cultural legacy" choice.  It sounds like you may also see some hierarchy of pronouncements in the LDS Church/tradition (the obvious analogy to me is the hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).  Be interesting to explore that in further depth (LDS Church pronouncements - not GAAP), perhaps on another thread.   

 

--Erik

[Scott Lloyd]

Does each 'view' indicate a unique user?  

 

Interestingly, your comments account for 20% of all comments made on this thread.  

My point exactly.

 

And I just boosted the sum total of comments on the thread by another substantial percentage.

[Five Solas]

duplicate

Edited January 27, 2014 by Five Solas

[Five Solas]

And since you're determined to make this thread about the maths, I note you increased your own posting record by 0.00609%

 

As attributed to Joseph Stalin--"quantity has a quality all its own."  No kidding...

;0)

 

--Erik

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

One thing is for sure I am quiting this church and joining the folks over at Mars Hill.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram