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

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Hopefully most people understand that asking questions and trying to understand why things are done, is not the same thing as debate or a battle of wills.  The topic of this thread isn't 'what is the well-established pattern of prayer.'  It's 'why do we pray the way we do'?  

As previously stated, King James English was already generally considered to be  the sacred language of America in Joseph Smith's day. In seeming acknowledgment of this well-established fact, the Prophet Joseph Smith was inspired of God to translate the Book of Mormon into King James style English. This further solidified the preexisting impression in the minds of LDS converts that King James English was the sacred scriptural language of their day. Further, Joseph Smith was inspired of God to use King James English in the production of the modern-day volume of scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants. Finally the sacrament  prayer and other prayers recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants were all written and, when applicable, delivered orally in King James style English.

All the above points of fact quite naturally led the leaders of the Church to pray using what the Latter-Day Saints now call the "language of prayer." Following the examples found in the scriptures and following the examples of their leaders, rank and file members have since the early days of the Restoration prayed to the Lord using this same widely accepted sacred language.

It doesn't matter that at one time King James English may not have been looked upon in the same reverential way it is today. All that matters is that it evolved to become the sacred language and from the beginning our living apostles and prophets have set the example by using that form of language when praying to God and they, in turn, have counseled us to use the reverential language of prayer when we petition our Father in Heaven. This is done to create a reverential barrier between ourselves and the living God so that we don't speak to him informally as we would any stranger or acquaintance in the street. If there was no sacred language in Joseph Smith's day, it's likely he would have had to invent one.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is done to create a reverential barrier between ourselves and the living God so that we don't speak to him informally as we would any stranger or acquaintance in the street.

But how to deal with languages that have both pronouns? Should those people pray to God using the formal pronoun (which, incidentally, would be the pronoun you would use with the stranger in the street)?

If the argument in the English language is that there needs to be a barrier and a formality in prayer, then that argument also should extend to other languages.

Should there be a barrier and a formality in prayer in ALL languages, or just English? If the answer to this is yes, all prayer should be formal, then why isn't that taught in other languages?

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

As previously stated, King James English was already generally considered to be  the sacred language of America in Joseph Smith's day. In seeming acknowledgment of this well-established fact, the Prophet Joseph Smith was inspired of God to translate the Book of Mormon into King James style English. This further solidified the preexisting impression in the minds of LDS converts that King James English was the sacred scriptural language of their day. Further, Joseph Smith was inspired of God to use King James English in the production of the modern-day volume of scripture called the Doctrine and Covenants. Finally the sacrament  prayer and other prayers recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants were all written and, when applicable, delivered orally in King James style English.

All the above points of fact quite naturally led the leaders of the Church to pray using what the Latter-Day Saints now call the "language of prayer." Following the examples found in the scriptures and following the examples of their leaders, rank and file members have since the early days of the Restoration prayed to the Lord using this same widely accepted sacred language.

It doesn't matter that at one time King James English may not have been looked upon in the same reverential way it is today. All that matters is that it evolved to become the sacred language and from the beginning our living apostles and prophets have set the example by using that form of language when praying to God and they, in turn, have counseled us to use the reverential language of prayer when we petition our Father in Heaven. This is done to create a reverential barrier between ourselves and the living God so that we don't speak to him informally as we would any stranger or acquaintance in the street. If there was no sacred language in Joseph Smith's day, it's likely he would have had to invent one.

You keep making these kinds of statements, but i haven't seen any references to back them up.  I would love to see them if you have them.  

For example, I'd love to see where it says that God inspired JS to use KJV language.  Or references to support that the KJV language was considered sacred in America in the early 1800s.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I wonder if this is by design.

I see Alma speaking to his wayward son with a mixture of consternation, stern indignation, frustration, care and loving counsel. Given the mixture in attitudes, is it any wonder that there would be a variation between the more formal and the more familiar forms of address?

We don't even know if Alma was speaking in a language that differentiated between the formal and informal forms of address, do we?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A former co-worker of mine spoke with annoyance of a missionary companion he had. They were serving in the Kirtland area, and the guy continually mispronounced it as "Kirkland" in prayers and such. He was right there in the city and he couldn't even get the name right.

 

Autocorrect doesn't help.  I can keep hitting the x and next letter I type, it still reverses it.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We don't even know if Alma was speaking in a language that differentiated between the formal and informal forms of address, do we?

No, we don't know if he was or if he wasn't. I only offer it as a suggestion.

But such differentiation seems to be common to many languages of ancient origin, including French, Spanish, German and my own second language, Swedish. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Nephite language of the day could have had such a characteristic.

I think it's one of the shortcomings of our contemporary English language that we don't have such differentiation, particularly with regard to singular vs. plural pronouns, though it would seem that English once did have such differentiation.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You keep making these kinds of statements, but i haven't seen any references to back them up.  I would love to see them if you have them.  

For example, I'd love to see where it says that God inspired JS to use KJV language.  Or references to support that the KJV language was considered sacred in America in the early 1800s.  

Doesn't it go without saying?

Why would Joseph have done it if he wasn't inspired to do so?

And the King James phrasing was the language of scripture in the day as there were not yet any other contemporary Bible translations in wide use.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Autocorrect doesn't help.  I can keep hitting the x and next letter I type, it still reverses it.

Autocorrect is no excuse for the spoken word, though. And for the error made in the days before computer word processing was common.

 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, we don't know if he was or if he wasn't. I only offer it as a suggestion.

But such differentiation seems to be common to many languages of ancient origin, including French, Spanish, German and my own second language, Swedish. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Nephite language of the day could have had such a characteristic.

I think it's one of the shortcomings of our contemporary English language that we don't have such differentiation, particularly with regard to singular vs. plural pronouns, though it would seem that English once did have such differentiation.

 

I wonder if they exist in Hebrew or Egyptian.

[stemelbow]

Here's my take (way late to the party).

The devil tricked the larger culture from which Mormonism sprang, saying, it is so respectful to use the pronouns thee and thine and that's what God wants.  That cunning one realized if he got people to think that way, particularly those of the famed coming restoration, then average joes will go around condemning those amongst them who don't use the pronouns.  The pharisaic attitude would make it's way in.  Thus the devil tricked humanity again.  now we're so deep into pharisaism, if you will, we can't seem to escape.  God needs to fix us.

[Bobbieaware]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You keep making these kinds of statements, but i haven't seen any references to back them up.  I would love to see them if you have them.  

For example, I'd love to see where it says that God inspired JS to use KJV language.  Or references to support that the KJV language was considered sacred in America in the early 1800s.  

What more proof do you need that to know that the Book of Mormon was translated but the gift and power of God, and that that gift and power inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to translate the Nephite dacred writimgs into King James English? This fact is as obvious obvious as can be and if you can't see this reality for what it is I can't help you. It's like saying the sun isn't shining when there isn't a cloud in the sky at noon-day. Why do you think Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into King James English? Just for the heck of it? Or do you think God had a purpose behind it?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn't it go without saying?

Why would Joseph have done it if he wasn't inspired to do so?

And the King James phrasing was the language of scripture in the day as there were not yet any other contemporary Bible translations in wide use.

No, I don't think it goes without saying, and neither do others.  I previously linked to a great article on the subject, but I don't think anyone bothered to read it.  it was written by Eric D. Hunstman, a professor of ancient scripture at BYU.  The topic is how the KJV of the bible influence the language that JS choose to use when recording other scripture.

Here are a couple of quotes from it-

Quote

 

The issue of the influence of the King James Bible upon the revelations first contained in the Book of Commandments and then published and augmented in the subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants is, in many ways, similar to that of the KJV’s relationship to the English text of the Book of Mormon. As in that discussion, one of the first considerations is a reflection on the fact that the idiom of the King James Bible was for Joseph Smith and his contemporaries both the accepted and expected language of scripture and, in fact, for the translation of ancient texts in general—at least for religious and most classical texts. Further, when biblical language was quoted or alluded to in a new volume of scripture, those quotations would only easily be recognizable if they appeared in their familiar forms.

On the other hand, the Doctrine and Covenants (aside from section 7) is not a translation of an ancient document or collection of ancient texts. Therefore, the continuing resonance of some passages of the Doctrine and Covenants with the King James Bible seems to have arisen from other factors. One of these seems to be a result of some biblical passages’ serving as catalysts for specific revelations. But in other instances, the influence of the King James seems to be seen most in the fact that for both Joseph’s time and even in our own, basic patterns of Jacobean prose have taken on the sense of “holy language,” as seen in attempts to render spiritual expressions and, more particularly, the voice of the Lord himself into English. In this, Richard L. Bushman has sensed the development of what he calls Joseph’s “prophetic voice” as the words of the Lord are represented emotionally and intellectually outside of Joseph’s own persona. [1]

Still, in producing this holy language, Joseph was not always seen as being uniformly successful, not even in his own day. And yet among both his internal critics and his trusted scribes and editors, there came to be a recognition that the Prophet’s rendering of the words of Jesus Christ carried a certain power that could not easily be duplicated. Significantly, other Church writings at the time—such as Joseph’s letters, articles in newspapers, and editorials—did not affect such a scriptural tone. In the end, the prophetic language of the Doctrine and Covenants seems to be largely about difference in linguistic register, particularly when passages are considered orally. Creating this sense of the divine seems to have been one of the objectives of the translators of Hampton Court from 1604–11, and this, more than any particular idiom, is what they and the Restoration prophet in the 1820s–40s seem to have shared.

 

Quote

 

"But the fact that sometimes Joseph’s revelations were not in King James idiom may have been one of the precipitating causes of dissatisfaction with them. In the Lord’s own preface to the Book of Commandments, now section 1, he had observed: “Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding” (D&C 1:24). Clearly Joseph’s lack of formal education was a factor in this. The fact that he established a review committee to prepare the revelations for publication was both an acknowledgment of and an inspired response to what the Prophet might have lacked in terms of grammar, orthography, and expression.

But one wonders if some of his freer articulations of divine speech, ones not as clearly reminiscent of the expected Jacobean language, may have led some, like William McLellin, to feel that they could do a better job. We have not preserved McLellin’s failed attempt to write a better revelation, so we do not know that it was necessarily one that attempted to be more like the sonorous phrases of the King James in style and tone."

 

Here's the article in full.

There are a lot of different reasons possible for why JS sometimes/usually used Old English when writing revelations.  There is no reason to assume that he chose the language that he did because God revealed to him that he should.

[Oliblish]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was surprised you would say this immediately after quoting these words from Elder Oaks:

Was Elder Oaks lying or merely mistaken when he said this?

I guess I should have explained myself better.  I feel that it is entirely appropriate to use polite language when addressing deity.  At the same time I dislike the idea that there are rigid rules that tell us that we need to use the language of a specific translation of the bible (KJV) or that there are specific pronouns that must be used in prayer.  I think as the decades go by language evolves and clinging to old rules makes less and less sense to me.

I think the language of prayer is a very personal matter.  I see these sorts of teachings fading in the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Here's my take (way late to the party).

The devil tricked the larger culture from which Mormonism sprang, saying, it is so respectful to use the pronouns thee and thine and that's what God wants.  That cunning one realized if he got people to think that way, particularly those of the famed coming restoration, then average joes will go around condemning those amongst them who don't use the pronouns.  The pharisaic attitude would make it's way in.  Thus the devil tricked humanity again.  now we're so deep into pharisaism, if you will, we can't seem to escape.  God needs to fix us.

I would think the above was entirely toungue-in-cheek if it hadn't been that you had made similarly outlandish declarations (i.e. that gay "marriage" will one day be approved of God) and been in dead earnest when you made them.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

What more proof do you need that to know that the Book of Mormon was translated but the gift and power of God, and that that gift and power inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to translate the Nephite dacred writimgs into King James English? This fact is as obvious obvious as can be and if you can't see this reality for what it is I can't help you. It's like saying the sun isn't shining when there isn't a cloud in the sky at noon-day. Why do you think Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into King James English? Just for the heck of it? Or do you think God had a purpose behind it?

Check out my response to Scott.  You could read the entire article I linked to as well if you want to understand more.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But how to deal with languages that have both pronouns? Should those people pray to God using the formal pronoun (which, incidentally, would be the pronoun you would use with the stranger in the street)?

If the argument in the English language is that there needs to be a barrier and a formality in prayer, then that argument also should extend to other languages.

Should there be a barrier and a formality in prayer in ALL languages, or just English? If the answer to this is yes, all prayer should be formal, then why isn't that taught in other languages?

 

We're only talking here about the English language and the King James English used in the LDS canon. Although the LDS scriptures do contain some modern personal pronouns, when praying to the Lord in English we are taught to eschew those modern pronouns and use only the archaic pronouns that are noe components of what we LDS call "the language of prayer." 

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would think the above was entirely toungue-in-cheek if it hadn't been that you had made similarly outlandish declarations (i.e. that gay "marriage" will one day be approved of God) and been in dead earnest when you made them.

Consider it a mix of both tongue-in-cheek and not.  I'm serious about the pharisaism.  I think it's heavily practiced amongst in our Church.  I'm less serious about the devil doing it.  There's nothing outlandish about gay marriage being approved by God.  it is, even today.  I think God joins those who want to be joined in matrimony.  He ain't against it.  It's people who don't get each other and yet pretend to who are against it...you know those like you

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

We're only talking here about the English language and the King James English used in the LDS canon. Although the LDS scriptures do contain some modern personal pronouns, when praying to the Lord in English we are taught to eschew those modern pronouns and use only the archaic pronouns that are noe components of what we LDS call "the language of prayer." 

yep.  mostly so we can act snooty to those who aren't in the know, or don't think it matters. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

No, I don't think it goes without saying, and neither do others.  I previously linked to a great article on the subject, but I don't think anyone bothered to read it.  it was written by Eric D. Hunstman, a professor of ancient scripture at BYU.  The topic is how the KJV of the bible influence the language that JS choose to use when recording other scripture.

Here are a couple of quotes from it-

Here's the article in full.

There are a lot of different reasons possible for why JS sometimes/usually used Old English when writing revelations.  There is no reason to assume that he chose the language that he did because God revealed to him that he should.

I haven't yet read the article in full. I will eventually.

But I don't see how your quotations contradict the idea that God inspired him to use the phrasing he did. He may have used the reasoning and judgment suggested by Huntsman, but even if he did, what of it? Couldn't God have guided him in that reasoning and judgment?

I still don't see why he would have gone to that effort if he did not believe it was the will of God that he do so. We're talking about the translation of sacred scripture, after all. Few tasks are as important and solemn as that. I can't think there would be anything whimsical about the manner in which Joseph approached the task.

 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I haven't yet read the article in full. I will eventually.

But I don't see how your quotations contradict the idea that God inspired him to use the phrasing he did. He may have used the reasoning and judgment suggested by Huntsman, but even if he did, what of it? Couldn't God have guided him in that reasoning and judgment?

I still don't see why he would have gone to that effort if he did not believe it was the will of God that he do so. We're talking about the translation of sacred scripture, after all. Few tasks are as important and solemn as that. I can't think there would be anything whimsical about the manner in which Joseph approached the task.

 

1-Yes, God could have inspired Him, but do we have any references of evidence that God did?  Or did God allow JS to do the best that he could with the language he chose?

2-Your opinion on it is great, but it's not convincing for anyone else.  Knowing what you think about it is awesome, but doesn't address my questions.  I want to know what information we have on it so that I can decide what I think about it. 

3-The idea that either God inspired JS to use KJV language or JS was "whimsical" about it makes no sense (which I know you know since you're a smart guy).  There are obviously many options between those two. It's not a 'God revealed'/JS chose at random' dichotomy.   

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Consider it a mix of both tongue-in-cheek and not.  I'm serious about the pharisaism.  I think it's heavily practiced amongst in our Church.  I'm less serious about the devil doing it.  There's nothing outlandish about gay marriage being approved by God.  it is, even today.  I think God joins those who want to be joined in matrimony.  He ain't against it.  It's people who don't get each other and yet pretend to who are against it...you know those like you

 

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

yep.  mostly so we can act snooty to those who aren't in the know, or don't think it matters. 

Funny thing about perceived judgmentalism: It is very often a two-way street.

I can see something awfully judgmental about condemning as "snooty" and "pharsaical" the earnest efforts of others to follow the teachings of anointed prophets and apostles of God pertaining to using the language of prayer.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

But how to deal with languages that have both pronouns? Should those people pray to God using the formal pronoun (which, incidentally, would be the pronoun you would use with the stranger in the street)?

If the argument in the English language is that there needs to be a barrier and a formality in prayer, then that argument also should extend to other languages.

Should there be a barrier and a formality in prayer in ALL languages, or just English? If the answer to this is yes, all prayer should be formal, then why isn't that taught in other languages?

 

This is unique to English.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

1-Yes, God could have inspired Him, but do we have any references of evidence that God did?  Or did God allow JS to do the best that he could with the language he chose?

2-Your opinion on it is great, but it's not convincing for anyone else.  Knowing what you think about it is awesome, but doesn't address my questions.  I want to know what information we have on it so that I can decide what I think about it. 

3-The idea that either God inspired JS to use KJV language or JS was "whimsical" about it makes no sense (which I know you know since you're a smart guy).  There are obviously many options between those two. It's not a 'God revealed'/JS chose at random' dichotomy.   

I think there's merit in the declaration that Bobbieaware cited from Joseph Smith, that he translated the Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God." I have to believe that "gift and power" includes the phrasing into which the translation was rendered.

 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there's merit in the declaration that Bobbieaware cited from Joseph Smith, that he translated the Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God." I have to believe that "gift and power" includes the phrasing into which the translation was rendered.

 

If you have to believe that, that's fine.  But no one else has to believe that.

In the opening to the D&C, the Lord says that the revelations "were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."

God doesn't say that He chose the language because it was sacred, or that He provided the exact words that JS should always use.  God just wanted to make sure that unlearned men and women could understand them.

Why argue that something must be a certain way when you have nothing but "because this is what I believe about it" to back it up?   

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Funny thing about perceived judgmentalism: It is very often a two-way street.

I can seem something awfully judgmental about condemning as "snooty" and "pharsaical" the earnest efforts of others to follow the teachings of anointed prophets and apostles of God pertaining to using the language of prayer.

 

Thems the frailties of living in this world, huh?  When something needs fixin' we offend someone.