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

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I admit I didn't read it.  It wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with Elder Oaks, and I'll read it later and see if this is going to be another of those times.

When I pray in German, which I do from time to time, I use the form of "you" which a German-speaker typically uses to address one's own parent: the familiar "Du".  There is no "sacred You" in German.  Or Spanish.  I don't know why praying in English has to be "special".

I'm usually quite happy to sustain the Brethren on all matters great or small, but with this one I'm a bit mulish.

As has been explained here, it is done to promote a sense of reverence and sacredness. 

I've said earlier on this thread that praying in Swedish is like you describe praying in German or Spanish, but there are other conventions that are followed that have to do with pronunciation and word choice. Again, it is to promote reverence and sacredness. 

As with many other things, I choose to follow the Brethren on this point. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As has been explained here, it is done to promote a sense of reverence and sacredness. 

 

Believe it or not, I don't need to do something special to promote a sense of reverence.  Now, granted that I have been praying thou, thee, thine for decades, perhaps I am getting the benefit without realizing it -- and I don't think a comparison study is in order here -- I'm sorry that I find it so hard to buy into this as a "Thing". 

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've said earlier on this thread that praying in Swedish is like you describe praying in German or Spanish, but there are other conventions that are followed that have to do with pronunciation and word choice. Again, it is to promote reverence and sacredness. 

As with many other things, I choose to follow the Brethren on this point. 

Well, I'm following the Brethren on this point, but I just don't see it as a "Thing".

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Believe it or not, I don't need to do something special to promote a sense of reverence.  Now, granted that I have been praying thou, thee, thine for decades, perhaps I am getting the benefit without realizing it -- and I don't think a comparison study is in order here -- I'm sorry that I find it so hard to buy into this as a "Thing". 

Well, I'm following the Brethren on this point, but I just don't see it as a "Thing".

 

'Twould be better if you could do it without murmuring. 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As has been explained here, it is done to promote a sense of reverence and sacredness. 

I've said earlier on this thread that praying in Swedish is like you describe praying in German or Spanish, but there are other conventions that are followed that have to do with pronunciation and word choice. Again, it is to promote reverence and sacredness. 

As with many other things, I choose to follow the Brethren on this point. 

If, when you pray, you personally have that reverence and sacredness, does it matter what form you use?  I can see it mattering when you do a group prayer, because some will feel the way you do, but I don't see why it would matter in a personal prayer. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

'Twould be better if you could do it without murmuring. 

Someone else brings up the topic and he makes a comment that he disagrees with it as a necessity.

Hardly murmuring.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

If, when you pray, you personally have that reverence and sacredness, does it matter what form you use?  I can see it mattering when you do a group prayer, because some will feel the way you do, but I don't see why it would matter in a personal prayer. 

It matters in that prophets and apostles have repeatedly taught and counseled the people to use what they've called "the language of prayer." I believe we are blessed when we try to follow their inspired guidance, even if we don't at the moment understand the full reason for it. 

I hasten to add that I believe God hears any sincere prayer, however awkwardly expressed, but blessings do follow obedience. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone else brings up the topic and he makes a comment that he disagrees with it as a necessity.

Hardly murmuring.

Any comment here, even one made in response to prior comments, carries its own risk of being disagreed with. We all know that. 

But beyond what I've already posted, I'm not going to go further in criticizing Stargazer, whom I like and respect as a poster. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

'Twould be better if you could do it without murmuring. 

Scott,

With regard to this issue, I believe I may have found a smoking gun of sorts. I've been combing through all four of the standard works and discovered that even though our modern personal pronouns are found throughout each of the books, the fact of the matter is that each and every time anyone is found praying to God the archaic personal pronouns of the 'language of prayer' are used exclusively. This being the case, the inescapable question that comes to mind is why would this be so? If our modern personal pronouns are used regularly throughout each of the texts, and they were available for use anywhere within the texts, why is there not one instance where modern personal pronouns are used when someone is addressing deity? It's interesting that this pattern remains consistent throughout the King James Bible, but especially intriguing that this same consistent pattern is found in each and every instance of prayer found in the three volumes of restoration scripture.

It's seems undeniable that there was a very conscious effort to be sure that even though the modern personal pronouns were available for use, only the archaic personal pronouns of language of prayer were ever used when in the scriptures an individual is either speaking to God directly, as in a vision, or engaged in prayer. So the invariable scriptural pattern Is that the archaic personal pronouns of King James English are the only pronoun forms ever used when a character in the scriptures is communicating with deity. Because it happens in every single case it appears this cannot be accidental.

So if the scriptures are consistent on this point, that God was only ever addressed with the language of prayer, why should any English speaking member of the Church think he has the right to break the very firmly established pattern of using the scriptural language of prayer when communicating with God, especially when the leaders of the Church have counseled him that he should not do so?

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Scott,

With regard to this issue, I believe I may have found a smoking gun of sorts. I've been combing through all four of the standard works and discovered that even though our modern personal pronouns are found throughout each of the books, the fact of the matter is that each and every time anyone is found praying to God the archaic personal pronouns of the 'language of prayer' are used exclusively. This being the case, the inescapable question that comes to mind is why would this be so? If our modern personal pronouns are used regularly throughout each of the texts, and they were available for use anywhere within the texts, why is there not one instance where modern personal pronouns are used when someone is addressing deity? It's interesting that this pattern remains consistent throughout the King James Bible, but especially intriguing that this same consistent pattern is found in each and every instance of prayer found in the three volumes of restoration scripture.

It's seems undeniable that there was a very conscious effort to be sure that even though the modern personal pronouns were available for use, only the archaic personal pronouns of language of prayer were ever used when in the scriptures an individual is either speaking to God directly, as in a vision, or engaged in prayer. So the invariable scriptural pattern Is that the archaic personal pronouns of King James English are the only pronoun forms ever used when a character in the scriptures is communicating with deity. Because it happens in every single case it appears this cannot be accidental.

So if the scriptures are consistent on this point, that God should only be addressed with the language of prayer, why should any English speaking member of the Church think he has the right to break the very firmly established pattern of using the scriptural language of prayer when communicating with God, especially when the leaders of the Church have counseled him that he should not do so?

What an interesting finding! Thank you for going to all that work.

[MiserereNobis]

Great!

Now, if I only could get you all to pray the "Hail, Mary." I assure you, in both English and Latin, it is in the language of prayer, pronouns and all:

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.

Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen.

 

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

'Twould be better if you could do it without murmuring. 

Would it?  

Sorry!

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I've addressed this issue elsewhere in the thread:

"If a language other than English has no equivalent to the English language's archaic sacred language of prayer, then you make due with what you've got. But LDS speakers of foreign languages who learn how to speak English (and as you know, there are more and more of these) are under the same counsel to use the English sacred language of prayer when they pray in English. Having a sacred language of prayer is beneficial but not essential. Simple as that"

If it absolutely MUST be a Thing, then fine.  But calling it the "archaic sacred language of prayer" is ridiculous.  English does NOT have a sacred language of prayer! It never had a sacred language of prayer! English has an archaic form of the second person singular pronoun that is no longer used in common speech!  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

If it absolutely MUST be a Thing, then fine.  But calling it the "archaic sacred language of prayer" is ridiculous.  English does NOT have a sacred language of prayer! It never had a sacred language of prayer! English has an archaic form of the second person singular pronoun that is no longer used in common speech!  

 

Tell that to Elder Oaks and others of the Brethren who've referred to "the language of prayer." Then, if you please, report their response to us. I'd be very curious to hear it. 

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Scott,

With regard to this issue, I believe I may have found a smoking gun of sorts. I've been combing through all four of the standard works and discovered that even though our modern personal pronouns are found throughout each of the books, the fact of the matter is that each and every time anyone is found praying to God the archaic personal pronouns of the 'language of prayer' are used exclusively. This being the case, the inescapable question that comes to mind is why would this be so? If our modern personal pronouns are used regularly throughout each of the texts, and they were available for use anywhere within the texts, why is there not one instance where modern personal pronouns are used when someone is addressing deity? It's interesting that this pattern remains consistent throughout the King James Bible, but especially intriguing that this same consistent pattern is found in each and every instance of prayer found in the three volumes of restoration scripture.

It's seems undeniable that there was a very conscious effort to be sure that even though the modern personal pronouns were available for use, only the archaic personal pronouns of language of prayer were ever used when in the scriptures an individual is either speaking to God directly, as in a vision, or engaged in prayer. So the invariable scriptural pattern Is that the archaic personal pronouns of King James English are the only pronoun forms ever used when a character in the scriptures is communicating with deity. Because it happens in every single case it appears this cannot be accidental.

So if the scriptures are consistent on this point, that God should only be addressed with the language of prayer, why should any English speaking member of the Church think he has the right to break the very firmly established pattern of using the scriptural language of prayer when communicating with God, especially when the leaders of the Church have counseled him that he should not do so?

1

There is no smoking gun here.  

I believe that your lack of knowledge of Early Modern English  is leading you astray.  The King James translators made a particular point of using the personal pronouns that were common in "Early Modern English", but even at that time going out of style.  They even preserved verb endings that were going out of style (the old "thou mayest" kind of thing). It may be true that "thou/thee/thy/thine" are always used when a prayer is recorded, but that isn't because it's especially for use with Deity. The second person pronouns "thou/thee/thy/thine" are all singular and informal. So, of course, every prayer to God is going to use them and only them, but it isn't because they are sacred, it is because God is singular and we address God in informal language. The plural and formal second person pronouns are "ye/you/your/yours", and they are never going to be used when talking to God, because God is not plural, and we don't address God using formal language.

I've not examined the restoration scriptures closely for this particular aspect, but after a quick perusal of the first few chapters of the Book of Mormon I didn't find anything that contradicted the above.

[Stargazer]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Tell that to Elder Oaks and others of the Brethren who've referred to "the language of prayer." Then, if you please, report their response to us. I'd be very curious to hear it. 

I'm sure that would do me no good.  Thanks for the recommendation, however.

In case you missed the turn, note that in the text you quoted I was responding specifically to Bobbieaware's claim that English has a "sacred archaic language of prayer", something which he also claimed he had found a "smoking gun" for.

All I'm trying to say is that the English language does not have a sacred language of prayer, archaic or not.  The KJV translators held closely to the then obsolescent second person pronouns when rendering the text of the Bible, and as I explained above, the Early Modern English (EME) second person singular informal pronouns were used in the KJV when talking to Deity, not because they were prayer language, but because they are singular, as is God, and we speak to God in informal language.

If the Brethren want to ordain that we must, as a policy, use EME second person singular informal pronouns when praying to God, then fine.  But I get really annoyed when the REASON for doing so is patently false.  And claiming that English has a special set of pronouns that was historically intended to be used for prayer is a falsehood.

"Do as I say, because I say to do it that way" is better than giving a bogus justification.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Stargazer

[Bobbieaware]

12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

If it absolutely MUST be a Thing, then fine.  But calling it the "archaic sacred language of prayer" is ridiculous.  English does NOT have a sacred language of prayer! It never had a sacred language of prayer! English has an archaic form of the second person singular pronoun that is no longer used in common speech!  

 

Please read Elder Dallin H  Oaks General Conference address titled 'The Language of Prayer' and then take up your argument with him. I happen to believe and agree with what Elder Oakes has to say on this subject. If after reading Elder Oaks' address you still don't happen to agree with him, that's fine.

I will only add that King James English became the de facto sacred language form FOR THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS after the sacred texts of the Book of Mormon, most of the Pearl of great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, and the temple endowment were all produced by the gift and power of God and inspired to be presented in the style of King James English. All of these sacred texts are written in the style of King James English in what must be seen as in an obvious attempt to underscore the sacred nature the restoration scriptures when compared to all other non-scriptural English books and writings.

Since each and every prayer found in the LDS scriptures is written in what has evolved to become the FORMAL FORM OF SACRED EXPRESSION for the English speaking saints, it seems only natural that members would be encouraged to use the LDS scriptural language of prayer when communicating with deity.. Remember, the prophet Joseph Smith started this trend when every prayer recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of modern scripture, was written in what is now called the language of prayer. Why do you think the prophet eschewed the use of informal. non-King James language in his modern-day prayers?

Perhaps you should make it a point to one day ask the prophet Joseph Smith why he bothered to pray in what we now call the language of prayer. You can ask him if it was done deliberately toward some positive end or if he did it just for the heck of it?

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[mnn727]

On 7/22/2017 at 3:48 PM, Bobbieaware said:

I tell you what - since Apostle Dallin H Oaks explains these principles with much more cogency and more authority than I do, read the following General Conference address of his on the "Language of Praye" and then send him a letter telling him his ideas "make zero sense." Maybe he'll respond to you. But as for Yours Truly, I'm delighted to say I'm in Elder Oak's camp.

 

Do you think I don't listen to General Conference? and constantly read old GC talks?

I know what they say about this, I still reject it.

[mnn727]

20 hours ago, Thinking said:

It's the same reason my parents thought their popular music was better than my 80's music - which I know is much better than my children's music.

Sorry, but the 80's didn't have any real music - just a lot of screeching (apparently I'm your parents age)

[Gray]

Personally I've found that it's easier to get into the spirit of prayer without the archaic language. But that's just me. I say do whatever works for you.

I can understand how someone who reads scriptures generally translated or phrased using Early Modern English would come to associate that kind of language with sacredness. But, at least when I read the Bible, I've moved to contemporary translations. If anything I associate that style more with high fantasy genres than I do with religion.

[Gray]

On 7/21/2017 at 2:12 AM, 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)

Joseph Smith wasn't terribly consistent with his pronouns. "Ye" is the plural form of you, but I don't think he understood that at the time.  "Thou standest in need... thy brothers" would be correct, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure that would do me no good.  Thanks for the recommendation, however.

In case you missed the turn, note that in the text you quoted I was responding specifically to Bobbieaware's claim that English has a "sacred archaic language of prayer", something which he also claimed he had found a "smoking gun" for.

All I'm trying to say is that the English language does not have a sacred language of prayer, archaic or not.  The KJV translators held closely to the then obsolescent second person pronouns when rendering the text of the Bible, and as I explained above, the Early Modern English (EME) second person singular informal pronouns were used in the KJV when talking to Deity, not because they were prayer language, but because they are singular, as is God, and we speak to God in informal language.

If the Brethren want to ordain that we must, as a policy, use EME second person singular informal pronouns when praying to God, then fine.  But I get really annoyed when the REASON for doing so is patently false.  And claiming that English has a special set of pronouns that was historically intended to be used for prayer is a falsehood.

"Do as I say, because I say to do it that way" is better than giving a bogus justification.

I may be taking this idea way wrong, but something sparked when you said, "the Early Modern English (EME) second person singular informal pronouns were used in the KJV when talking to Deity, not because they were prayer language, but because they are singular, as is God."

Is part of what you are saying by them using the pronouns because they are singular have something to do with a belief in the trinity? 

[Guest]

On July 20, 2017 at 3:29 PM, bluebell said:

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?  

It is true, what was quoted. But since the 1611 KJV was printed, and as it became the most widely used English edition for centuries, (even still) these pronouns have become the both the reverent and that of familiarly (or is it familial?). Either way it carries the sound of the sacred, as it is used in scripture, all scripture that make up the "Standard Works". So even modern day scripture, in the Doctrine and Covenants, it would seem a form is that favored by God himself, be He God the Father, or His Son Jesus Christ. It is a form of prayer that requires those making their petitions to God, to give forethought to those prayers, to depart from other forms of speech, which allows those who pray to "change their focus or mindset", if you will. At least that is what it does for me.

I grew up in the Baptist Church, where for the most part (especially is the hot muggy South) only the Deacons and Pastors worn entire suits. When very young, most men at least wore shirt and ties, and certainly the women wore dresses. One day when I was about 12-13, I decided that I was going to sneak out in jeans and a shirt. When my Grandmother saw me, she asked where I was going, I told her to Church. She then began asking, so you're  not going to Theron's house, are you; you're not going to Mark's house are you? Finally she asked, who's house are you going too? My reply was short while walking back to my room to change, "the Lord's House". Now every time I drive past a small or large Baptist Church, it looks like (when services have ended) like a swap meet or flea market has just closed. Even when I visit my childhood Church, or other for funerals, I am told, well Bill, you didn't have to dress up. Short end to the story, prayer, just like the way we dress is an issue of reverence, and out of fear that my Grandmother might be watching. 

All the things we do, be it dress, speech or prayer, it is the turning aside, "setting the shoes from off our feet", and listening and being heard at the burning bush. At least from what I have been taught all the days of my life. 

[Bobbieaware]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure that would do me no good.  Thanks for the recommendation, however.

In case you missed the turn, note that in the text you quoted I was responding specifically to Bobbieaware's claim that English has a "sacred archaic language of prayer", something which he also claimed he had found a "smoking gun" for.

All I'm trying to say is that the English language does not have a sacred language of prayer, archaic or not.  The KJV translators held closely to the then obsolescent second person pronouns when rendering the text of the Bible, and as I explained above, the Early Modern English (EME) second person singular informal pronouns were used in the KJV when talking to Deity, not because they were prayer language, but because they are singular, as is God, and we speak to God in informal language.

If the Brethren want to ordain that we must, as a policy, use EME second person singular informal pronouns when praying to God, then fine.  But I get really annoyed when the REASON for doing so is patently false.  And claiming that English has a special set of pronouns that was historically intended to be used for prayer is a falsehood.

"Do as I say, because I say to do it that way" is better than giving a bogus justification.

The sacred language of prayer, of which I speak, more particularly applies to the English speaking Latter-Day Saints and not necessarily to the English speaking Christian world in general. To deny that the English speaking LDS Church has a special language of prayer,  based on the prayers in the sacred rexts of the LDS canon, is to deny what the Church has been teaching for years. Or do you think that the Church has to get the permission of the English speaking world before it can approve  of its own form of sacred language?

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

It is true, what was quoted. But since the 1611 KJV was printed, and as it became the most widely used English edition for centuries, (even still) these pronouns have become the both the reverent and that of familiarly (or is it familial?). Either way it carries the sound of the sacred, as it is used in scripture, all scripture that make up the "Standard Works". So even modern day scripture, in the Doctrine and Covenants, it would seem a form is that favored by God himself, be He God the Father, or His Son Jesus Christ. It is a form of prayer that requires those making their petitions to God, to give forethought to those prayers, to depart from other forms of speech, which allows those who pray to "change their focus or mindset", if you will. At least that is what it does for me.

I grew up in the Baptist Church, where for the most part (especially is the hot muggy South) only the Deacons and Pastors worn entire suits. When very young, most men at least wore shirt and ties, and certainly the women wore dresses. One day when I was about 12-13, I decided that I was going to sneak out in jeans and a shirt. When my Grandmother saw me, she asked where I was going, I told her to Church. She then began asking, so you're  not going to Theron's house, are you; you're not going to Mark's house are you? Finally she asked, who's house are you going too? My reply was short while walking back to my room to change, "the Lord's House". Now every time I drive past a small or large Baptist Church, it looks like (when services have ended) like a swap meet or flea market has just closed. Even when I visit my childhood Church, or other for funerals, I am told, well Bill, you didn't have to dress up. Short end to the story, prayer, just like the way we dress is an issue of reverence, and out of fear that my Grandmother might be watching. 

All the things we do, be it dress, speech or prayer, it is the turning aside, "setting the shoes from off our feet", and listening and being heard at the burning bush. At least from what I have been taught all the days of my life. 

I don't have any problem with using Thee and Thy in prayer or scripture.  But I don't agree that because JS chose to frame D&C revelations in KJV language (or at least tried, even if he didn't get it correct all the time) that means God prefers it.

I allow my kids to do things their own way lots of times, even if it's not exactly my preference, as long as their way is good enough and accomplishes my bigger goals for them.  

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The sacred language of prayer, of which I speak, more particularly applies to the English speaking Latte-Day Saints and not necessarily to the English speaking  Christian world in general. To deny that the English speaking LDS Church has a special language of prayer  based on the prayers sacred rexts of the LDS canon is to deny what the Church has been teaching for years. Or do you think that the Church has to get the permission of the English speaking world before it can approve  of its own form of sacred language?

This doesn't make any sense to me.  If having a sacred language of prayer is important to God, why is it only important to Him for English speakers?