History of using Thee, Thy, Thou, etc. in prayers

[bluebell]

Just now, strappinglad said:

If we were to ask the average LDS member why we use thee , thou, thine etc. , ( and often incorrectly ) , most would indicate that it is a more ' formal/respectful ' form of prayer. What the forms were used for in the past is irrelevant .Language changes based on the perception of people , so it matters not that  they used to be informal or formal 500 years ago. If people ' think ' there is a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning. The word " meat " used to cover all non liquid food. Now it is reserved for flesh of animals. Good luck getting it to mean what it used to mean. Maybe in 500 years... ya'all will be more appropriate.

But why do they think it's more formal and more respectful?  The only answer that I have found is 'because someone incorrectly told them it was.'

 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If we were to ask the average LDS member why we use thee , thou, thine etc. , ( and often incorrectly ) , most would indicate that it is a more ' formal/respectful ' form of prayer. What the forms were used for in the past is irrelevant .Language changes based on the perception of people , so it matters not that  they used to be informal or formal 500 years ago. If people ' think ' there is a particular meaning, then it has that particular meaning. The word " meat " used to cover all non liquid food. Now it is reserved for flesh of animals. Good luck getting it to mean what it used to mean. Maybe in 500 years... ya'all will be more appropriate. Y'all  ???

You know, if people actually read carefully, which obviously they do not, virtually everything said on this thread so far is contained in the Elder Oaks talk quoting President Kimball, who actually said everything that has been said here in this whole thread so far

Quote

 

Modern English has no special verbs or pronouns that are intimate, familiar, or honorific. When we address prayers to our Heavenly Father in English, our only available alternatives are the common words of speech like you and your or the dignified but uncommon words like thee, thou, and thy which were used in the King James Version of the Bible almost five hundred years ago. Latter-day Saints, of course, prefer the latter. In our prayers we use language that is dignified and different, even archaic.

The men whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have consistently taught and urged English-speaking members of our Church to phrase their petitions to the Almighty in the special language of prayer. President Spencer W. Kimball said, “In all our prayers, it is well to use the pronouns thee, thou, thy, and thine instead of you, your, and yours inasmuch as they have come to indicate respect.” 

 

 

 The terms have come to indicate respect.

We have no honorific or familiar terms in modern English

Latter Day Saints prefer to use words which have come to indicate more respect, even if they are archaic.

That summarizes all the hot air so far.  Done.

In short, you nailed it.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thee and thine would never be used to address royalty back when those words were in common usage though.  There's a reason shakespeare used those words-they were the informal usage-more appropriate and understandable for barmaids and the working class types.  

 

I remember being taught that thee, thy, and thou were to show respect. But after learning the same thing as you have here, now I'm not really worried about using those words like that anymore. 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, if people actually read carefully, which obviously they do not, virtually everything said on this thread so far is contained in the Elder Oaks talk quoting President Kimball, who actually said everything that has been said here in this whole thread so far

 The terms have come to indicate respect.

We have no honorific or familiar terms in modern English

Latter Day Saints prefer to use words which have come to indicate more respect, even if they are archaic.

That summarizes all the hot air so far.  Done.

In short, you nailed it.

No it hasn't, because neither Elder Oaks nor president Kimball have explained why we should consider those words to be more respectful or sacred.

[strappinglad]

If Christ was standing on a street corner and you wanted His attention, would you call out " Hey ,you ! " or " Excuse me, Lord " ? Why? In court we refer to the judge as " your honor " . In some legislative assemblies the politicians are referred to as " the Honorable..." often with a sarcastic overtone. Why?

[hagoth7]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for sharing.  It just goes to show that we are all over the map with this issue, and we have an American culture where 'thee and thy' are formal, respectful, and sacred, but we have nothing to explain why we should consider those words to be such.

It seems to be completely based on tradition.   

Or...England and Sweden still have monarchies. 

Latin America, for example, does not.

If that establishes a baseline...

Could be that language, directed through the brethren, was intentionally adapted to maintain respect for local forms of government, akin what the AoF says we belive in sustaining.

As to English, most English-speaking countries, including Canada, NZ, the British Isles and Australia are part of the Commonwealth, and defer to the crown even if only on a few matters o respect and coinage. (Render unto Caesar.)

If I'm parsing it correctly, *if* America's main language was something other than a crown language, (fx. if  in future generations Esperanto, or Icelandic, Low German, or Frisian) , it would be interesting to see if that assertion carried through. But if the brethren still maintained the formal useage  it might even be done with prophetic reason they might not fully know or might not deem appropriate to share.

Factor in the additional reality that  most smaller nations don't have the benefit of an LDS version of the bible like we do. (On the Danish mission, I used the standard Lutheran translation.) And I'm guessing the brethren want to avoid creating cognitive dissonance & duscord over that jot and tittle.  

Consistency with the needs of the local population is my guess.

Edited July 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If Christ was standing on a street corner and you wanted His attention, would you call out " Hey ,you ! " or " Excuse me, Lord " ? Why? In court we refer to the judge as " your honor " . In some legislative assemblies the politicians are referred to as " the Honorable..." often with a sarcastic overtone. Why?

I would obviously speak to him in very respectful words and actions.  For a Spanish member of the church, following what they have been taught, that would be to address Him as an honored loved one (using the informal pronouns).  Why should English speakers be taught that they need to address Him differently?

This isn't about whether or not we should be respectful and reverent when addressing God.  That's an obvious given.  This is a question of why do we consider "thee" and "thy" respectful?

So far, it seems to be completely based on tradition.

Edited July 20, 2017 by bluebell

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Where did the idea come from that praying using those old english words was more formal/respectful and that's why we need to pray like that.  

One example of such teaching was expressed by Elder L. Tom Perry in General Conference-

"Second, use the sacred language of prayer. We should always address Deity by using the sacred pronouns thou, thee, thy, and thine. The late President Stephen L Richards gave us this wise counsel:

“We have discovered … a lack of proper teaching with reference to prayer. I know that I myself have been shocked out in the mission field as I have heard missionaries called on for prayer who seem to have had no experience or training whatever in the use of the language of prayer. …

“I think, my brethren, that in the quorums and in the classes, you would do well, as in the homes also, to teach the language of prayer—‘Thee and Thou,’ rather than ‘you.’ It always seems disappointing to me to have our Father in Heaven, our Lord, addressed as ‘you.’ It is surprising how much we see of this. … I think you might make note of it, and avail yourselves of any opportunities that may come in order to teach the sacred and reverential language of prayer.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1951, p. 175.)"

Old English words such as thee and thine were originally the less formal way to address someone (it was used to express familiarity, for example).  The formal or proper language was actually "You" and "your" etc.  I know that in spanish, people are taught to pray using the familiar form of "tu" instead of the formal "usted".  

Why is it different in English, and why is the usage of thee and thine even a thing that our leaders push?  

The answer is very simple. We pray using the same sacred form of English that's found in all four books of LDS scripture so that our prayers sound like the scriptures and, hopefully, impact the human heart and mind like the scriptures. Read the following first four verses from the Kirkland Temple dedicatory prayer, given in 1836, and it becomes obvious the Lord inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to compose that prayer using what was then considered throughout America to be the sacred and formal form of English found in the King James translation of the Holy Bible. 

1 Thanks be to thy name, O Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and showest mercy unto thy servants who walk uprightly before thee, with all their hearts—

2 Thou who hast commanded thy servants to build a house to thy name in this place [Kirtland].

3 And now thou beholdest, O Lord, that thy servants have done according to thy commandment.

4 And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom, in whose name alone salvation can be administered to the children of men, we ask thee, O Lord, to accept of this house, the workmanshipof the hands of us, thy servants, which thou didst command us to build. (D&C 109)

The scriptures are deliberately not translated into modern English so that there is a reverential barrier that separates the form of the English language used in our sacred writings and prayers and the informal form of English used in our everyday lives.

Edited July 20, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[hagoth7]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

If Christ was standing on a street corner and you wanted His attention, would you call out " Hey ,you ! " or " Excuse me, Lord " ?

MIght be more polite to simply ask. His preferences might have changed. Or the answer you might get might be different based on your needs. 

Fx., IIRC, Truman Madsen mentioned a general progression in the D&C of Joseph being referred to first as servant..and a gradual transition towards words that were more close/intimate.

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Why? In court we refer to the judge as " your honor "

Shouldn't happen in an American court. Granting/recieving titles of distinction is against the Constitution. Specifically/explicitly says so.

So any judge who insists (or even allows) that level of genuflection is in violation of the law he swore to uphold. This is a country based on the foundation of equality.

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

In some legislative assemblies the politicians are referred to as " the Honorable..." often with a sarcastic overtone. Why?

Either because they feel the person isn't honorable...and/or because deep down inside they know that such titles shouldn't be used.

Most Senators and Congressmen/women know the law, many of them having had to pass the bar exam in their previous profession.

Edited July 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[hagoth7]

I think it helps to keep in mind in scripture when people knelt or bowed for dvine messengers. But even in such ancient Empires and Kingdoms, the one genuflecting was corrected to get up, with the explanation  they are fellowservants.

My guess is that when one kneels before Christ, king of kings, and servant of servants, it will either be because one has opted to initially do so, or has been requested to do so.

Yet if one kneels first, my belief is that one will likely either be encouraged to stand, with an explanation of why. Or Christ will kneel too...in prayer. As we read in 3 Nephi. (And as leaders/pastors at times do beginniing a meeting or when any of their flock seeks counsel.)

Cue: MercyMe: "I can only imagine."

Edited July 21, 2017 by hagoth7

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The answer is very simple. We pray using the same sacred form of English that's found in all four books of LDS scripture so that our prayers sound like the scriptures and, hopefully, impact the human heart and mind like the scriptures. Read the following first four verses from the Kirkland Temple dedicatory prayer, given in 1836, and it becomes obvious the Lord inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to compose that prayer using what was then considered throughout America to be the sacred and formal form of English found in the King James translation of the Holy Bible. 

1 Thanks be to thy name, O Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and showest mercy unto thy servants who walk uprightly before thee, with all their hearts—

2 Thou who hast commanded thy servants to build a house to thy name in this place [Kirtland].

3 And now thou beholdest, O Lord, that thy servants have done according to thy commandment.

4 And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom, in whose name alone salvation can be administered to the children of men, we ask thee, O Lord, to accept of this house, the workmanshipof the hands of us, thy servants, which thou didst command us to build. (D&C 109)

The scriptures are deliberately not translated into modern English so that there is a reverential barrier that separates the form of the English language used in our sacred writings and prayers and the informal form of English used in our everyday lives.

Why is that form of English suddenly sacred?  It wasn't when it was first made into scripture.  And why should we assume that God dictated the language JS chose to use for the prayers?  (not trying to be snarky, honest question).

[bluebell]

This is a good article on how the KJV influenced the language in the D&C.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No it hasn't, because neither Elder Oaks nor president Kimball have explained why we should consider those words to be more respectful or sacred.

So you want them to explain nuances of English- to essentially write something on why individual words mean what they mean and how words are nuanced??

These folks are not in the business of writing dictionaries and noting connotations of words and why they have connotations- who even knows why some words connote what they connote??

I don't think there is a person on this board who does not take those words in modern usage to be "more respectful" than "you"- which is clear from the posts on this thread.  Why would they have to justify their understanding of the English language when it is obvious.

You don't think "Thou" is more respectful sounding than "You"?

I am not expecting an answer about why one sounds more respectful or if it makes a difference, but surely your ear hears that doesn't it??

Why does "lady" connote a more respectful term than "woman" and why are feminists against the use of the word "lady" then?  I think the distinction is clear enough there to oppose the use of the words simply because they DO connote more respect which feminists oddly do not want.

Edited July 21, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Bobbieaware]

41 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why is that form of English suddenly sacred?  It wasn't when it was first made into scripture.  And why should we assume that God dictated the language JS chose to use for the prayers?  (not trying to be snarky, honest question).

The English translation of the Book of Mormon set the standard. By virtue of its very usage as the divinely-inspired language found in the Book of Mormon, King James English quite naturally became the sacred form of English of scripture and prayer for the Latter--Day Saints. More often than not the prophet Joseph Smith spoke and wrote using modern English, but when he produced scripture or prayed he used what was THEN -- AND NOW -- considered by our prophetic leaders to be the sacred form of English to be used in the scriptures and, hopefully, our inspired prayers.The prophet Joseph Smith set the example and since his day we have been consistently taught to follow his example by using one form of English for everyday use and another more sacred and reverential form for scripture and prayer. It's like the difference between street clothes and temple dress.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[MiserereNobis]

The hypothetical question is: if English still used both pronoun forms (the informal "thou" and the formal/plural "you"), which would you pray with?

Also, if other languages use the informal pronoun to pray, wouldn't the reason given in the talks quoted fall apart? Someone should find a translation of those talks in Spanish (or any language that uses both pronoun forms) and see if the translation is arguing that speakers of those languages should shift to the formal pronoun, since the reasoning in the talk was that we should use formal respectful pronouns.

Seriously, someone who knows one of these languages and knows where to find official translations, it would be great if you could find us the translated talk.

In Czech, the informal pronoun that you pray with is also used to talk to animals and anything you consider beneath you. It is also disrespectful to use that informal pronoun with someone with whom you are not already informal with. For example, in the Academy Award winning film Kolya, the main character is being interrogated by the secret police and the interrogator begins to use the informal. The character says with a bit of surprise "I didn't know we were using the informal." The interrogator retorts, "we are not using the informal. I am using the informal to you." (my quick translation)

I would assume the reasoning in these languages to use the informal is because we are having an close and intimate discussion/prayer with a being who knows us better than we know ourselves. The distance the formal pronoun would create would seem strange to such a relationship, like using the formal pronoun with your spouse.

Edited July 21, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you want them to explain nuances of English- to essentially write something on why individual words mean what they mean and how words are nuanced??

These folks are not in the business of writing dictionaries and noting connotations of words and why they have connotations- who even knows why some words connote what they connote??

I don't think there is a person on this board who does not take those words in modern usage to be "more respectful" than "you"- which is clear from the posts on this thread.  Why would they have to justify their understanding of the English language when it is obvious.

You don't think "Thou" is more respectful sounding than "You"?

I am not expecting an answer about why one sounds more respectful or if it makes a difference, but surely your ear hears that doesn't it??

Why does "lady" connote a more respectful term than "woman" and why are feminists against the use of the word "lady" then?  I think the distinction is clear enough there to oppose the use of the words simply because they DO connote more respect which feminists oddly do not want.

But why more respectful in English when in other languages the more intimate/less respectful pronoun is used? The argument that we need to be more respectful in the English language but not in other languages seems rather arbitrary..?

ETA: Which is why it would be interesting to see what the instructions are in other languages for prayer pronouns.

Edited July 21, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, hagoth7 said:

For a being who prefers to be called Father...I'm not quite sure what you're saying about form and formality, or how that at all aligns with the reality of a Father who loves his children. Nor does this "form" or "formality" seem to meet the needs of the rising generation...at all.

You speak of an outward form of respect, but lacking the substance of what the fathers I know want most. To simply love, and be loved in return.

Cloesness. Not abstract titles or jargon that create distance.

Or so says the chief hypocrite of fathers...

Cue: Sia. To be human.

Father, can you just let me go and travel to Europe? 

Vs.

Father, could I beg your approval for me to go and travel to Europe.

The former makes the father no better than the son. It only aknowledges the need for father's approval but presumes the son to be just as important as the father. Thr latter aknowledges the need to recoeve father's approval and the son seems willing to accept whatever the father decides. The latter shows much more respect than the former. We call Hod Father but we are to always aknowledge our unworthiness before Him. That we are nothing and He everything. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Darren10 said:

The former makes the father no better than the son. It only aknowledges the need for father's approval but presumes the son to be just as important as the father. Thr latter aknowledges the need to recoeve father's approval and the son seems willing to accept whatever the father decides. The latter shows much more respect than the former. We call Hod Father but we are to always aknowledge our unworthiness before Him. That we are nothing and He everything. 

But what about in languages where you address your father and God using the same pronoun?

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I would obviously speak to him in very respectful words and actions.  For a Spanish member of the church, following what they have been taught, that would be to address Him as an honored loved one (using the informal pronouns).  Why should English speakers be taught that they need to address Him differently?

This isn't about whether or not we should be respectful and reverent when addressing God.  That's an obvious given.  This is a question of why do we consider "thee" and "thy" respectful?

So far, it seems to be completely based on tradition.

The informal pronouns in Spanish like te, and tu are used to show intimacy:

"More specifically, the singular informal tú (as the subject of a sentence) is used when speaking with family members, children, pets, friends or close acquaintances, while usted is used when speaking with others. In most types of Christianity, at least, túalso is used when addressing God in prayer. Tú can also be used contemptuously when speaking to a stranger; for example, a criminal may use the informal in addressing a victim as a way of belittling."

https://www.thoughtco.com/formal-and-informal-you-spanish-3079379

I think using thee and thine and the such helps retain the idea of intimacy with God includong wanting to know God first hand. If you can pull that off using you and your Indo not think there's any prohibition against your using those pronouns though my guess is that using them would make it slightly more difficult to teach by example to others the need to show respect and have an open desire to know God. 

 

[Darren10]

27 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But what about in languages where you address your father and God using the same pronoun?

If there is no option, the choice is easy. 

[MiserereNobis]

I found something interesting, but, first of all, I now declare myself a master of google search in multiple languages

I decided to take my own instruction and use my knowledge of Czech and try to figure out what the Mormon teaching is in Czech about prayer pronouns. I searched for Oaks' talk on prayer in Czech. I didn't find it directly, but I found it as a footnote in what I have now learned is an April 2009 talk by Russel Nelson. It is interesting to see what Nelson said and how it was translated into Czech.

Here's the quote from Nelson:

Quote

Our prayers can be enhanced in other ways. We can use “right words”35—special pronouns—in reference to Deity. While worldly manners of daily dress and speech are becoming more casual, we have been asked to protect the formal, proper language of prayer. In our prayers we use the respectful pronouns Thee, Thou, Thy, and Thine instead of You, Your, and Yours.36 Doing so helps us to be humble. That can also enhance our prayers. Scripture so declares, “Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers.”37

The Czech translation can be found here.

Here it is translated back into English. I used google translate because my Czech is rusty and I wanted to go fast.

Quote

We can also enrich our prayers otherwise. If we speak to God, we can use the "right words" 35 - certain pronouns. While the mundane way of dressing and speaking becomes more and more careless, we have been asked to protect the official and appropriate language of prayer. For example, in prayer in English, special pronouns are expressed. 36 This helps us to be humble. It can also enrich our prayers. The Scriptures declare: "Be humble; And your Lord God will lead you by the hand and give you the answer to your prayers. "

Notice the bold is not what Nelson said. I'm sure the Czech translators realized it wouldn't make any sense in Czech to say that the informal pronouns are more respectful or makes be more humble, nor would it make any sense to translate "thee, thou, etc" as the formal pronouns, because 1) it would be an incorrect translation and 2) Czechs don't pray that way.

Now, if we can only find Oaks' talk or some sort of instruction on how to pray in one of these languages that uses both pronouns. I'm done with my google searching on this for the evening, so I leave it to others here

 

 

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So you want them to explain nuances of English- to essentially write something on why individual words mean what they mean and how words are nuanced??

These folks are not in the business of writing dictionaries and noting connotations of words and why they have connotations- who even knows why some words connote what they connote??

I don't think there is a person on this board who does not take those words in modern usage to be "more respectful" than "you"- which is clear from the posts on this thread.  Why would they have to justify their understanding of the English language when it is obvious.

You don't think "Thou" is more respectful sounding than "You"?

I am not expecting an answer about why one sounds more respectful or if it makes a difference, but surely your ear hears that doesn't it??

Why does "lady" connote a more respectful term than "woman" and why are feminists against the use of the word "lady" then?  I think the distinction is clear enough there to oppose the use of the words simply because they DO connote more respect which feminists oddly do not want.

You honestly think that the ex-mormons and atheists on this board view the word 'thy' as the most respectful way to address someone worthy of honor?  Or is that Christians see them as the most respectful because we've been trained to see them that way?  I don't mind tradition, but neither do i want to be ruled or judged by it.

And that's my point.  There is no "understanding of the English language" that teaches that those words are more respectful.  I haven't seen anything to argue against it just being made up--a tradition--and has nothing to do with English or what is or isn't obvious.  

If we had been raised that "you" was more respectful than "thou", you would be saying things like "You don't think YOU is more respectful sounding than THOU" and arguing how obviously it does.  

As to your last example, woman sounds much more loving and respectful to me than lady does.  The Savior called His mother woman, and my husband's most frequent term of endearment for me is to call me woman.  

Lastly, i've never heard of a feminist mission to eradicate the term of 'lady' (and to say that one of the feminists' agendas is to get people to respect women less is just dumb).  It's really weird that you would even interject that topic into this conversation.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

The English translation of the Book of Mormon set the standard. By virtue of its very usage as the divinely-inspired language found in the Book of Mormon, King James English quite naturally became the sacred form of English of scripture and prayer for the Latter--Day Saints. More often than not the prophet Joseph Smith spoke and wrote using modern English, but when he produced scripture or prayed he used what was THEN -- AND NOW -- considered by our prophetic leaders to be the sacred form of English to be used in the scriptures and, hopefully, our inspired prayers.The prophet Joseph Smith set the example and since his day we have been consistently taught to follow his example by using one form of English for everyday use and another more sacred and reverential form for scripture and prayer. It's like the difference between street clothes and temple dress.

I haven't seen that supported anywhere, but if you know of a reference that supports that JS considered old english to be sacred, please share it.  That would be really interesting!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I would assume the reasoning in these languages to use the informal is because we are having an close and intimate discussion/prayer with a being who knows us better than we know ourselves. The distance the formal pronoun would create would seem strange to such a relationship, like using the formal pronoun with your spouse.

I know of so many people that have sincere and significant trouble feeling close to and having a personal relationship with God or the Savior.  Sometimes I wonder if our language during prayer (thees and thous specifically meant to create formal distance between the person and God) is part of the problem.

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know of so many people that have sincere and significant trouble feeling close to and having a personal relationship with God or the Savior.  Sometimes I wonder if our language during prayer (thees and thous specifically meant to create formal distance between the person and God) is part of the problem.

I have a quotation from a former General Authority, now deceased that is similar. In essence he said that as a member of the Church he viewed Temples as being so special and sacred that they were almost "untouchable" and Temple Presidents as being specially endowed. Now he was being called to basically run the Temple Dept. under the direction of the 1st Pres. of course and he felt a sense of "wonder, apprehension and weakness"