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

[Duncan]

One thing i've noticed it's hard to get investigators to use, "thee, thou, thine" it's just not how people talk anymore and when to use it properly and it can feed it into that idea that if you don't know the proper words to pray would you even continue doing it? some could it and some may quit and not feel comfortable if called upon

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

 

The "manner of language" of the people in that day was that sacred text was expected to be rendered in the Jacobean phrasing used in the King James Bible. It's what the people were used to with scripture.

Your source, Eric Huntsman, indicates as much when he suggests that William McLellin's problem with Joseph's rendering of some of the latter-day revelations may have been that they did not read enough like the text of the Bible to suit McLellin. It's not unlikely that many others had that same sort of attitude with regard to scripture -- that it had to be phrased in a way they expected scripture to be phrased.

Quote

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?  

This is a discussion board. I'm not arguing so much as trying to reason the matter out, just as you are.

And I think it reasonable to assume that if God is granting Joseph "gift and power" to translate scripture, He is going to guide Joseph in the best way  to render the translation on the printed page, given the time period, circumstances and expectations of the people who would be reading it. If you don't think it reasonable, that's fine. I'm entitled to disagree with you.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

😀 All the prayers given at General Conference are said in the "language of prayer" format, as are each of the Temple dedicatory prayers. Do all these suffice to create a well-established pattern of how the Apostles and Prophets pray? If so, why not just follow in their footsteps and do as they have counseled us to do? Must everything become a subject of debate and a battle of wills?  😏

Of course they pray that way and have been educated since birth to do so

I hope you move to a new country where you have to learn a new language and in addition, entirely new rules for prayers

Oh wait- there are no other countries like that.  I really don't know what you are so upset about- you are the one creating a "battle of wills"

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Most of the criticisms that anti-Mormons bring against the Church of Jesus Christ are much ado about nothing.

Take, for example, the occurrence of adieu in the text of the Book of Mormon. That very definitely is much adieu about nothing.

(Sorry. I couldn't resist.)

Augh!  Pure anguish and pain and hilarity!  

You got me- first time I have heard that one in my long time on earth as a punster.

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The "manner of language" of the people in that day was that sacred text was expected to be rendered in the Jacobean phrasing used in the King James Bible. It's what the people were used to with scripture.

Your source, Eric Huntsman, indicates as much when he suggests that William McLellin's problem with Joseph's rendering of some of the latter-day revelations may have been that they did not read enough like the text of the Bible to suit McLellin. It's not unlikely that many others had that same sort of attitude with regard to scripture -- that it had to be phrased in a way they expected scripture to be phrased.

Exactly!  There is nothing to suggest that kind of language is more sacred or reverent than the other.  God didn't provide JS with which words to use because He cared about the specific words that were used; he wanted people to understand what they were reading, and in JS's day, that's how people were used to reading scripture.  

KJV language was the traditional language used for sacred writings.  Tradition, nothing more.

Quote

This is a discussion board. I'm not arguing so much as trying to reason the matter out, just as you are.

I get that.  I just think that there comes a point where 'because this is what I believe' serves no further purpose, especially when people are asking for information and not beliefs.  

Sometimes that's all we have to offer the conversation (belief) and there's nothing wrong with that, but if that's really all we've got, when people are asking for sources and references, we have to recognize that the discussion has gone beyond what we can contribute and our words aren't relevant any longer.

Quote

And I think it reasonable to assume that if God is granting Joseph "gift and power" to translate scripture, He is going to guide Joseph in the best way  to render the translation on the printed page, given the time period, circumstances and expectations of the people who would be reading it. If you don't think it reasonable, that's fine. I'm entitled to disagree with you.

Definitely.  Disagree away.  I'm a big believer in the need to just 'agree to disagree' sometimes so that the conversation can continue among those posters who still have things to discuss.   

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

Soooo, when you do it, it's because "something needs fixing." When somebody else does it they are being "snooty" and "pharisaical."

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Soooo, when you do it, it's because "something needs fixing." When somebody else does it they are being "snooty" and "pharisaical."

You know what they say, Members of the church believe in both mercy and justice.  Mercy for ourselves, and justice for those we have problems with.  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour 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." 

But the underlying reasoning would apply to all languages, wouldn't it? If the argument is that we should use pronouns that create formality and a barrier, other languages have those pronouns and should use them, right?

It seems weird to say: if you speak English, you should have formality with God, but if you speak Czech (or Spanish or whatever), it's ok to be informal.

So what is it? Should we be formal or informal with God?

If you say formal, then my next question is: should speakers of other languages be formal, too?

And if your answer is no, then please explain why. And if your answer is yes, then please explain why that isn't being taught to other languages.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly!  There is nothing to suggest that kind of language is more sacred or reverent than the other.  God didn't provide JS with which words to use because He cared about the specific words that were used; he wanted people to understand what they were reading, and in JS's day, that's how people were used to reading scripture.  

KJV language was the traditional language used for sacred writings.  Tradition, nothing more.

 

Sacredness and reverence are very much a function of shared perception. And tradition can play a big part in that shared perception.

In other words, something is sacred and deserving of reverence because that's how people perceive it. So I would be careful about discounting or discarding tradition as to the role it plays in worship and liturgy. Whether it be the language of prayer, the music that is used in the worship service, liturgical rites and procedures such as the sacrament of the Lord's supper, if it directs the mind toward God and brings one mentally, emotionally and spiritually closer to Him in reverence and worship, it has value.

Quote

 

I get that.  I just think that there comes a point where 'because this is what I believe' serves no further purpose, especially when people are asking for information and not beliefs.  

Sometimes that's all we have to offer the conversation (belief) and there's nothing wrong with that, but if that's really all we've got, when people are asking for sources and references, we have to recognize that the discussion has gone beyond what we can contribute and our words aren't relevant any longer.

 

Expressing insight and reasoning is more than just saying, "This is what I believe." It is suggesting a way to look at things that might not have occurred to one.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

This is unique to English.

Why do English speakers have to have a barrier of formality with God but non-English speakers don't? If God wants us to have a barrier of formality with Him when we pray, that should apply to all of us, shouldn't it? Why does God only want English speakers to have this?

I'm asking these questions because I don't think the language of prayer is about formality and a barrier, as many are suggesting.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You know what they say, Members of the church believe in both mercy and justice.  Mercy for ourselves, and justice for those we have problems with.  

I can say it even more concisely: Mercy for me and justice for thee.

And look: I made it rhyme, and I used King James language to do it!

[mnn727]

21 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

 

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.

If that were the reason then all languages would use formal forms. But thats not true in most other languages, sorry but your explanation make zero sense in light of that.

 

[MiserereNobis]

As a side tangent, I'm an English teacher and the students I know who are LDS tend to have an easier time with understanding Shakespeare. So, for practical purposes, reading the KJV and praying in KJV language helps high schoolers get better grades in English

 

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do English speakers have to have a barrier of formality with God but non-English speakers don't? If God wants us to have a barrier of formality with Him when we pray, that should apply to all of us, shouldn't it? Why does God only want English speakers to have this?

I'm asking these questions because I don't think the language of prayer is about formality and a barrier, as many are suggesting.

Sacramentum.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But the underlying reasoning would apply to all languages, wouldn't it? If the argument is that we should use pronouns that create formality and a barrier, other languages have those pronouns and should use them, right?

It seems weird to say: if you speak English, you should have formality with God, but if you speak Czech (or Spanish or whatever), it's ok to be informal.

So what is it? Should we be formal or informal with God?

If you say formal, then my next question is: should speakers of other languages be formal, too?

And if your answer is no, then please explain why. And if your answer is yes, then please explain why that isn't being taught to other languages.

 

 

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Why do English speakers have to have a barrier of formality with God but non-English speakers don't? If God wants us to have a barrier of formality with Him when we pray, that should apply to all of us, shouldn't it? Why does God only want English speakers to have this?

I'm asking these questions because I don't think the language of prayer is about formality and a barrier, as many are suggesting.

I served my LDS mission in Sweden.

When we learned to pray in Swedish, we were taught to use the familiar pronouns Du and Dig.

However, we were also taught to use formal pronunciations. That is to say, most Swedes in everyday conversation  pronounce Dig as "day." But in prayers, we were told to pronounce it in the formal way, "deeg."

Also the conversational word in Swedish for ask (as in making a request) is ber. However, we were taught that when we pray we should use the older, archaic form of the verb, which is beder.

So, even though we used the familiar pronouns, there was still that formality.

I'm not acquainted with how Latter-day Saints pray in other languages. Maybe there is something similar.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Sacramentum.

Yes, I'm looking at this through the lens of Latin as the official sacred language of the Latin Rite in the Roman Catholic Church. I say my standard prayers in Latin: Our Father, Hail Mary, Hail Holy Queen, etc (the whole Rosary). My Sunday Mass experience is all in Latin, except for the sermon, and a couple of hymns in polyphony. In my personal petitionary prayers, though, I rarely use "thee, thou."

The purpose to me in praying in Latin is not to create a barrier between me and God. The purpose is to create a feeling of sacredness. Mass in Latin sets it apart from my everyday experiences. It doesn't tell me that I must interact with God formally; it tells me to take off my shoes, because I'm now standing on holy ground. And after one gets used to and comfortable with Latin in some prayers and especially in Mass, it actually creates a feeling of intimacy, of closeness with God, because this is a language I only use with Him.

So, I think the argument that special pronouns should be used in order to create formality and especially a barrier is going down the wrong road. Perhaps special pronouns should be used in order to create a feeling and realization of the sacredness of what is going on which will then, once one is comfortable with it, create a greater feeling of closeness, not a barrier.

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[champatsch]

Directly on topic: I attend a branch in a backwater with mostly converts. You forms are extremely common in prayers; very few thou forms are used. No one worries about it, or even notices it. Besides visitors, I'm probably the only one who notices it, and I make a point of not mentioning it.

A word to the wise: treat most past observations on Book of Mormon and biblical grammar with a high degree of reserve. Very few have adequate knowledge in this arena. Speaking English doesn't mean we understand its grammar. Reading the King James Bible doesn't mean we know the particulars of biblical grammar, and it certainly doesn't mean we know what archaic, extra-biblical grammar was like.

More than 10 years ago Skousen observed in Analysis of Textual Variants that Book of Mormon grammar, though archaic, does not specifically imitate King James idiom.

It is extremely unlikely that the wording of the Book of Mormon came from Joseph Smith's own language, as is assumed in some of the foregoing comments.

The nearby ye ~ thou switching seen in parts of the Book of Mormon can also be seen in this example:

1573, John Foxe (editor), Works of Tyndale, Frith, and Barnes, page 324

Believe in Christ and thou shalt shortly find purgatories enou[gh],
as ye now make other feel.

Tyndale addressed Thomas More here, and he switched pronouns mid-sentence.

If you are studying late Middle English in order to read Chaucer or other early texts, you learn that ye was used for singular address starting in Middle English and carrying through into Early Modern English. Note the following from the OED: "ye: definition 2. Used instead of thou in addressing a single person (originally as a mark of respect or deference, later generally)." Many examples there to consider.  I have encountered lots of ye/you ~ thou switching in a variety of texts in the 1500s and the 1600s.

Another item: subject you was more common than subject ye by the 1570s. The 1611 KJB had lots of subject you--hundreds of them. By the 1769 update virtually all of them had been removed. We read a heavily edited biblical text which is what Joseph was exposed to. His knowledge base doesn't give us Book of Mormon grammar, which again departs from King James grammar in dozens of ways, both large and small, but is nevertheless archaic.  If he was saturated in biblical language, we don't get BofM grammar, which isn't pseudo-biblical grammar. If he wasn't saturated in biblical language, we don't get BofM grammar.

Edited July 21, 2017 by champatsch

[USU78]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, I'm looking at this through the lens of Latin as the official sacred language of the Latin Rite in the Roman Catholic Church. I say my standard prayers in Latin: Our Father, Hail Mary, Hail Holy Queen, etc (the whole Rosary). My Sunday Mass experience is all in Latin, except for the sermon, and a couple of hymns in polyphony. In my personal petitionary prayers, though, I rarely use "thee, thou."

The purpose to me in praying in Latin is not to create a barrier between me and God. The purpose is to create a feeling of sacredness. Mass in Latin sets it apart from my everyday experiences. It doesn't tell me that I must interact with God formally; it tells me to take off my shoes, because I'm now standing on holy ground. And after one gets used to and comfortable with Latin in some prayers and especially in Mass, it actually creates a feeling of intimacy, of closeness with God, because this is a language I only use with Him.

So, I think the argument that special pronouns should be used in order to create formality and especially a barrier is going down the wrong road. Perhaps special pronouns should be used in order to create a feeling and realization of the sacredness of what is going on which will then, once one is comfortable with it, create a greater feeling of closeness, not a barrier.

My own view is that this is what was intended.  You infer barrier from the language choices used to justify the revealed instruction.  Our heads, even prophets' heads, get in the way of adequate and meaningful communication.  I already figured you for a Latin-first kind of guy, and I approve, of course.  The thee/thou/thy/thine is code in English, because of the KJV, for sacred.  Accordingly, in my view of course, we should employ language in our worship, especially our prayers, which invokes that feeling of sacredness.  Sacramentum.

[MiserereNobis]

Another side tangent (kinda):

The English in KJV and Shakespeare is not Old English. Old English is like a foreign language that is unintelligible unless you formally study it. It changed around the 11th century to Middle English, which is intelligible without study but very hard. Middle English changed to Modern English around the 16the century.  The KJV Bible and Shakespeare are all in Early Modern English.

ETA: Here's the first few lines of Beowulf, an Old English epic poem:

Quote

HWÆT, WE GAR-DEna in geardagum, 
þeodcyninga þrym gefrunon, 
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon! 
oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, 
monegum mægþum meodosetla ofteah, 
egsode eorlas, syððanærest wearð
feasceaft funden; he þæs frofre gebad,
weox under wolcnum weorðmyndum þah,
oð þæt him æghwylc ymbsittendra
ofer hronrade hyran scolde, 
gomban gyldan; þæt wæs god cyning!

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I served my LDS mission in Sweden.

When we learned to pray in Swedish, we were taught to use the familiar pronouns Du and Dig.

However, we were also taught to use formal pronunciations. That is to say, most Swedes in everyday conversation  pronounce Dig as "day." But in prayers, we were told to pronounce it in the formal way, "deeg."

Also the conversational word in Swedish for ask (as in making a request) is ber. However, we were taught that when we pray we should use the older, archaic form of the verb, which is beder.

So, even though we used the familiar pronouns, there was still that formality.

I'm not acquainted with how Latter-day Saints pray in other languages. Maybe there is something similar.

Is it formal or is it sacred speech?  I suspect the latter, though people use "formal" when explaining it.  I think that's an incorrect product of fuzzy thinking in explaining the why of the sacredness and awe we experience during worship.

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Another side tangent (kinda):

The English in KJV and Shakespeare is not Old English. Old English is like a foreign language that is unintelligible unless you formally study it. It changed around the 11th century to Middle English, which is intelligible without study but very hard. Middle English changed to Modern English around the 16the century.  The KJV Bible and Shakespeare are all in Early Modern English.

ETA: Here's the first few lines of Beowulf, an Old English epic poem:

And more directly on point (with 2nd person singular pronouns bolded):

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;

Si þin nama gehalgod

to becume þin rice

gewurþe ðin willa

on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg

and forgyf us ure gyltas

swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum

and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge

ac alys us of yfele soþlice

[last couple of lines missing from translation from the Vulgate]

For 25 points and a chance at the prizes behind door number 3, what is this an Old English rendering of?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is it formal or is it sacred speech?  I suspect the latter, though people use "formal" when explaining it.  I think that's an incorrect product of fuzzy thinking in explaining the why of the sacredness and awe we experience during worship.

Now that I've read the immediate past posts of you and MiserereNobis, I very much agree with this.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And more directly on point (with 2nd person singular pronouns bolded):

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;

Si þin nama gehalgod

to becume þin rice

gewurþe ðin willa

on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg

and forgyf us ure gyltas

swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum

and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge

ac alys us of yfele soþlice

[last couple of lines missing from translation from the Vulgate]

For 25 points and a chance at the prizes behind door number 3, what is this an Old English rendering of?

I think I've figured it out. Is the Lord's prayer?

 

[USU78]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I've figured it out. Is the Lord's prayer?

 

Yeppers!

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Thinking said:

You/Thou/Ye could just mix it all up like Alma talking to his son Corianton.

“And I command you to take it upon you to counsel with your elder brothers in your undertakings; for behold, thou art in thy youth, and ye stand in need to be nourished by your brothers. And give heed to their counsel.” (Alma 39:10)

As shown by Stanford Carmack, this mixed style was very characteristic of Early Modern English.