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

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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?  

Probably because he knew English was going to become the modern world's universal language.

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Probably because he knew English was going to become the modern world's universal language.

I would guess most people read the scriptures in their native language.

But, if KJV English was good enough for Jesus, I guess it's good enough for me.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I would guess most people read the scriptures in their native language.

But, if KJV English was good enough for Jesus, I guess it's good enough for me.

A quasi-clever response but too shortsighted and purile to make effective impact. What actually matters is that IN OUR DAY, the age of the Restored Gospel, the resurrected Jesus Christ inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible into King James style English. What's more, the Lord Jesus Christ also inspired Joseph Smith to write the modern revelations and prayers found in the modern Doctrine and Covenants in King James Style English. In addition, the Savior inspired the prophet Joseph, and other servants, to express much of the temple endowment narrative in King James style English. And if all this weren't enough, the Redeemer has inspired his latter-day servants to compose all the temple dedicatory prayers in King James inspired English as well. Finally, in spite of all the willful descenting voices on this thread, the prophetic leaders of today's Church have counseled us that it is by the King James inspired sacred language of prayer that English speaking members of the Church should address and converse with their Father in Heaven. Bottom line? While some contrarian voices here may enjoy the thrills and chills of skating on thin ice, I don't.

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A quasi-clever response but too shortsighted and purile to make effective impact. 

 

Ouch. I meant it to be lightly humorous.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What actually matters is that IN OUR DAY, the age of the Restored Gospel, the resurrected Jesus Christ inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible into King James style English. What's more, the Lord Jesus Christ also inspired Joseph Smith to write the modern revelations and prayers found in the modern Doctrine and Covenants in King James Style English. In addition, the Savior inspired the prophet Joseph, and other servants, to express much of the temple endowment narrative in King James style English. And if all this weren't enough, the Redeemer has inspired his latter-day servants to compose all the temple dedicatory prayers in King James inspired English as well. Finally, in spite of all the willful descenting voices on this thread, the prophetic leaders of today's Church have counseled us that it is by the King James inspired sacred language of prayer that English speaking members of the Church should address and converse with their Father in Heaven.

 

 

Or, Joseph decided to adopt KJV language because in his view that was the "voice" of scripture, and God didn't have an opinion.

Or, the BOM sounds like that because it was translated into English centuries before Joseph Smith (one of the more recent hypotheses).

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Bottom line? While some contrarian voices here may enjoy the thrills and chills of skating on thin ice, I don't.

Skating on thin ice? That's a lot of weight to put on grammar.

[Senator]

13 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

A quasi-clever response but too shortsighted and purile to make effective impact. What actually matters is that IN OUR DAY, the age of the Restored Gospel, the resurrected Jesus Christ inspired the prophet Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible into King James style English. What's more, the Lord Jesus Christ also inspired Joseph Smith to write the modern revelations and prayers found in the modern Doctrine and Covenants in King James Style English. In addition, the Savior inspired the prophet Joseph, and other servants, to express much of the temple endowment narrative in King James style English. And if all this weren't enough, the Redeemer has inspired his latter-day servants to compose all the temple dedicatory prayers in King James inspired English as well. Finally, in spite of all the willful descenting voices on this thread, the prophetic leaders of today's Church have counseled us that it is by the King James inspired sacred language of prayer that English speaking members of the Church should address and converse with their Father in Heaven. Bottom line? While some contrarian voices here may enjoy the thrills and chills of skating on thin ice, I don't.

 

I love this place!

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Probably because he knew English was going to become the modern world's universal language.

Now it sounds like you're just making stuff up.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I understand, I pointed to D&C, because I am not sure he "chose" to frame it in that language. I suspect, it is how God spoke to him. But that is most assuredly "suspect", because I do not know.

[bluebell]

I was going over Elder Oaks talk again, and I noticed that he said that in the church we teach people to pray using the words 'thee and thine, etc.'  I know this talk was given in 1993 so it's been a while and things have changed some since it was given.  I'm wondering, do we still actively teach people to pray like this?

Can someone show me where, in the current church, we teach people to pray using the archaic English pronouns?  I checked the gospel principles manual and it's says nothing about using special language.  In the Preach My Gospel manual the section on how to pray is also silent on using archaic English pronouns.  It doesn't even give an example using those kinds of words that I could find.

 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Ouch. I meant it to be lightly humorous.

 

 

 

Or, Joseph decided to adopt KJV language because in his view that was the "voice" of scripture, and God didn't have an opinion.

Or, the BOM sounds like that because it was translated into English centuries before Joseph Smith (one of the more recent hypotheses).

 

 

 

Skating on thin ice? That's a lot of weight to put on grammar.

For those of us who believe the Book of Mormon was translated into the English language by the gift and power of God, we have every reason to expect that the lovely and majestic poetic form of language it was translated into was also inspired from above. 

The skating on ice reference has far less to do with the vagaries of English grammar and much more to do with thinking it's unwise to casually put aside the earnest counsel of the living oracles of God. To me, all the contrarians on this thread are like modern-day Naamans who might tell the Lord, "why do you want me to bathe in Jordan seven times? Isn't one dip in the river more than enough?"

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

we have every reason to expect that the lovely and majestic poetic form of language it was translated into was also inspired from above.

I, too, agree that Shakespeare was inspired by God (well, except for Titus Andronicus...)

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I, too, agree that Shakespeare was inspired by God (well, except for Titus Andronicus...)

I hope you're watching the series, Will, about Shakespeare and the protestant backlash against the Catholic backlash against the protestant backlash against Vatican politics  ...  they make Shakespeare an unambiguous RC.  And they show a practical Queen Bess turning down the volume on the protestant backlash  ...  etc.

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

For those of us who believe the Book of Mormon was translated into the English language by the gift and power of God, we have every reason to expect that the lovely and majestic poetic form of language it was translated into was also inspired from above. 

You're free to believe whatever makes you happy, but doesn't that make God responsible for the many grammatical errors as well? For example, the inappropriate use of "ye" to instead of "thou". Or did God command Joseph to try to imitate early modern English, but didn't provide the exact word for word translation? A lot of the language in the BOM is actually very clumsy to my ears, although the content is good.

 

24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

The skating on ice reference has far less to do with the vagaries of English grammar and much more to do with thinking it's unwise to casually put aside the earnest counsel of the living oracles of God. To me, all the contrarians on this thread are like modern-day Naamans who might tell the Lord, "why do you want me to bathe in Jordan seven times? Isn't one dip in the river more than enough?"

As someone who prayed using thees and thous for most of my life, I've found that switching to "you" hasn't hurt the quality of my prayers - on the contrary, it removed a spiritual stumbling block. The mental effort of maintaining the affect of KJV language was blocking some of the spiritual benefits of prayer. Like trying to have a conversation using an accent that's not your own. Half of your mental effort goes to maintaining the accent.

Perhaps what works for you or Elder Oaks in the 90s doesn't necessarily work for everyone? Just a thought.

 

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The skating on ice reference has far less to do with the vagaries of English grammar and much more to do with thinking it's unwise to casually put aside the earnest counsel of the living oracles of God. To me, all the contrarians on this thread are like modern-day Naamans who might tell the Lord, "why do you want me to bathe in Jordan seven times? Isn't one dip in the river more than enough?"

Actually Naaman's complaint was the prophet's response wasn't really formal enough, didn't follow the sacred pattern he expected, was associated with a too common river in his view.  He wanted more, not less.

"11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage."

Edited July 25, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

You're free to believe whatever makes you happy, but doesn't that make God responsible for the many grammatical errors as well? For example, the inappropriate use of "ye" to instead of "thou". Or did God command Joseph to try to imitate early modern English, but didn't provide the exact word for word translation? A lot of the language in the BOM is actually very clumsy to my ears, although the content is good.

 

As someone who prayed using thees and thous for most of my life, I've found that switching to "you" hasn't hurt the quality of my prayers - on the contrary, it removed a spiritual stumbling block. The mental effort of maintaining the affect of KJV language was blocking some of the spiritual benefits of prayer. Like trying to have a conversation using an accent that's not your own. Half of your mental effort goes to maintaining the accent.

Perhaps what works for you or Elder Oaks in the 90s doesn't necessarily work for everyone? Just a thought.

 

 

It's not just Elder Oaks. It's every prophet or apostle who has ever spoken in the subject. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not just Elder Oaks. It's every prophet or apostle who has ever spoken in the subject. 

Quick question not worth its own thread:

Is there a difference between prophets and apostles? I was under the assumption that the prophet was the head apostle. Is that correct?

Thanks and forgive the quick derail.

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quick question not worth its own thread:

Is there a difference between prophets and apostles? I was under the assumption that the prophet was the head apostle. Is that correct?

Thanks and forgive the quick derail.

Kind of. All Apostles are Prophets (and Seers and Revelators). The Prophet is the Senior Apostle and is THE prophet, seer, and revelator. In common discussions when LDS refer to the prophet or the prophets they mean the senior Apostle who is now (or previously was) the President of the Church. When one refers to the Apostles it includes the Twelve and the First Presidency.

[The Nehor]

I am apostate on this issue. I do not favor the use of King James English. I also do not find the King James Bible particularly poetic. The archaic phrases can convey antiquity but that seems to me more a stumbling block then a help. The New Testament was written in trade tongue international Greek, a practical language without much poetry to it. This was added by translators. I expect the Book of Mormon came in KJ English to help people equate it to other sacred texts. I do not see it as an endorsement of the language.

When I pray privately I communicate as I do to anyone (in terms of verbiage, I try to show respect and reverence). My best prayers are when words themselves seem superfluous and I communicate in a kind of non-verbal thought. I can't do this very often though. The ability seems to come and go so I can only rarely do it well. Probably a good thing. If I got too accustomed to it I might imagine vague meditation is actually superior prayer.

When I pray publicly I use the archaic language to avoid offense and controversy. Trying to follow the equivalent of Paul's counsel on eating meat sacrificed to idols. 

I do think praying in the archaic language can be helpful to some people who are unfamiliar with the style of speaking as it helps to understand the constructions through their use and helps them when they read scripture. I do not personally need this.

Edited July 25, 2017 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Quick question not worth its own thread:

Is there a difference between prophets and apostles? I was under the assumption that the prophet was the head apostle. Is that correct?

Thanks and forgive the quick derail.

Good question. 

Apostles hold the apostolic office stemming from Christ's original 12 apostles. Their primary role is to be special witnesses of Christ in all the world.

They also are the central administrators of Christ's church under the direction of the First Presidency, which usually** consists of the president of the Church and his two counselors. 

The members of the First Presidency each hold the apostolic office as well. When the First Presidency is dissolved at the death of the Church president, the two counselors resume their places of seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The Quorum then appoints the next Church president, which, according to longstanding custom, is the senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He then chooses two counselors, almost always from among the membership of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Each of the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are regarded and upheld by sustaining vote of the Church membership as "prophets, seers and revelators," which means (if I were to simplify it) primarily that as a body they receive revelation from Christ to administer (or govern) the affairs of His Church. The three members of the First Presidency are modern-day counterparts to Peter, James and John, the chief apostles of Christ in mortality.  

Therfore, it is proper to refer to each and every member of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as a prophet. However, when Latter-day Saints speak of "the prophet" in a contemporary context, they are almost always referring to the current president of the Church, he who holds the priesthood keys of authority for administering the Church. (In a somewhat less-common context, "the Prophet" could refer to Joseph Smith, the prophet of the Restoration and latter-day gospel dispensation.) 

** I say the First Presidency "usually" contains two counselors, because there have been times in the past when the Church president has selected more than two counselors, typically because he has grown so old and infirm that he needs the extra help. 

I hope I haven't confused you or overwhelmed you with too much detail or used terms that are unclear to you. Feel free to ask clarifying or follow up questions. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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?

What I am making an issue out of, is the apparent claim that that form is generally recognized as the "sacred language of prayer".  But if you or whoever want to designate the second person singular informal form of "you" as the "official" LDS prayer mode, fine.  As I have said, that is how I pray in English.  

That being said, I still don't like it being designated as "official".  For one thing, too many people trying to use it don't use it correctly and it causes me to cringe. For another, it provides an additional barrier to new converts feeling at ease praying in meetings.  

In a related murmur (thanks, Scott), I'd also like it if someone would stop people from concluding their talks as if they had just said a prayer.  We conclude public talks "in the name of Jesus Christ", but too many people say "in the name of thy Son".

 

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Rain said:

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? 

No. This is a matter of grammar, not interpretation.  The nouns God, Lord, and Father are grammatically singular. The KJV translators used that form because it more accurately translated how the original languages stated things.  Modern English has abandoned that form of second person, whereas the other languages (being ancient) still had it.

It would be incorrect to conflate the choices of the KJV translators in connection with grammar with the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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?

Again: thou/thee/thy/thine is used in prayers because in the language of the KJV, which is Early Modern English, thou/thee/thy/thine is the universal form of second person singular that is used when addressing a single person -- and in every case in, as far as I have seen, every Standard Work -- because when you pray you are speaking to a singular person in informal mode, because God is singular, and you use informal mode when talking to God. It's a question of grammar, not doctrine.  The fact that every prayer in the scriptures uses this form is NOT because it is the "sacred language of prayer'.  It is because that is the form of a person speaking to a singular person.  Now, I've repeated this several times in this thread, and if you still don't get what I am saying, then so be it.

Perhaps you should make it a point to consider that the Prophet Joseph Smith was bothering to pray using EME because that was the common way everyone prayed, because the KJV was the predominant translation of scripture in general use.  That the Prophet and everyone else prayed that way does not, in and of itself, mean that the second person singular form in the EME is somehow the "sacred language of prayer"!  That was the normal mode of speaking English in the 14th and 15th centuries to talk to everyone, including God, your parents, friends, and your family members. 

And if Elder Oaks wants us all to use thou/thee/thy/thine when praying, fine, but that's quite another matter than calling that particular form the "sacred language of prayer", a form which does not exist in English.  If this is to be the "official sacred language of prayer" in the LDS Church, then that's another matter.

And in case you've missed it, that's the way I pray.  I like it if others pray that way in public, but I wish the Brethren wouldn't make a Thing out of it.  If you don't like my opinion, I am sorry.  But it is still my opinion.

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It's not just Elder Oaks. It's every prophet or apostle who has ever spoken in the subject. 

Do you have some specific examples?

[Bobbieaware]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Actually Naaman's complaint was the prophet's response wasn't really formal enough, didn't follow the sacred pattern he expected, was associated with a too common river in his view.  He wanted more, not less.

"11 But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the Lord his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage."

The fact is I was well aware of the full nature of Naaman's actual complaint when I wrote that line and afterward thought there was a chance someone would call me out for drawing on only a part of the full story, and so you did. My point was that Naaman was disobedient in general, at first refusing to dip into the river Jordan even once, let alone seven times. He thought the whole idea of bathing in Jordan's 'inferior' waters multiple times was silly and absurd, much like those on this board who disagree about the need to use the language of prayer think the idea of a sacred language derived from what was at one time everyday English is silly and absurd. They think the everyday English of the past is too humble and 'impure' a source upon which to build a sacred language. Similarly, Naaman thought the prophet's method for wellness -- bathing multiple times in the less than pristine waters of Jordan -- was beneath someone of his position, education and wealth.

Edited July 25, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[MiserereNobis]

Thanks for the detailed answer, as usual. I appreciate the time!

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

he who holds the priesthood keys of authority for administering the Church.

It's interesting that the term keys is used in both your church and mine. One more thing that the protestants are missing out on

The Papal coat of arms always includes Peter's keys. Here is Pope Francis's:

 

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks for the detailed answer, as usual. I appreciate the time!

It's interesting that the term keys is used in both your church and mine. One more thing that the protestants are missing out on

The Papal coat of arms always includes Peter's keys. Here is Pope Francis's:

 

Some years ago I was in Copenhagen and visited the Lutheran cathedral there that houses Thorvalden's statue "Christus". (You may or may not know that we Mormons have pretty much appropriated the Christus statue for our own and, beginning with the New York world's fair in 1964, have placed copies in many of our visitor centers. I even have a foot-high copy in my home.) 

The cathedral also has a statue of each of the 11 apostles (Thorvaldsen left out Judas Iscariot for obvious reasons.) The statue of Peter depicts him holding keys. 

So I guess the concept is not altogether absent from Protestantism.