How respectful is "prayer language"?

[The Great Pretender]

30 years ago, Elder Oaks reminded us of the importance of "prayer language" when addressing deity (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer). From my earliest years as an eager-to-please Primary child, I proved to be adept at conjugating verbs into 17th-century English. That's funny, right? I felt confident that my prayers were all the more sincere as a result, and I was convinced they were well-received by deity on account of my skills.

My children, however, flat-out refused to comply. I was infuriated because I was fully invested in what Elder Oaks taught, which was reiterated by an article in ldsliving.com as recently as 2016 (https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-we-pray-using-thee-and-thou/s/75897).

So here's the thing.

I have reached a comfortable conclusion that biological evolution is part of the great Plan (billions of years of it and still counting), and please note that this belief is not heretical (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng). 

Evolution leads me to conclude that human language has zero connection to God but is merely a set of highly developed animal grunts. As such, an archaic form of it from several hundred years ago is neither more nor less respectful; it is simply a bunch of noises that convey meaning to others of our species in Earth's atmosphere. Retaining selected grunts from several hundred years ago (though limited to second-person singular and associated verbs but no nouns or other vocabulary from the era) to use with deity is simply a barrier to the uninitiated and something for everyday folks to laughably butcher in an attempt to aspire to greater sincerity, respect, or whatever.

As a consequence, I now suspect that "prayer language" is little more than the Emperor's New Clothes. Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing oneself, yet I, for one, have been conditioned for decades to judge others by their fluency.

I don't have examples to offer, but I believe our scriptures are full of botched attempts to portray authenticity through bungled, outdated language, and I'm left thinking, "Isn't it time to move on and accept that God has no more interest in 17th-century English than he does 21st-century street slang?"

In automatic mode, I still pray "correctly" in meetings using "thee, thou, and thine" with their associated verb conjugations, but in personal prayer, I ditch the embroidery.

What thinkest thou?

Edited January 29, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

30 years ago, Elder Oaks reminded us of the importance of "prayer language" when addressing deity (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer). From my earliest years as an eager-to-please Primary child, I proved to be adept at conjugating verbs into 17th-century English. That's funny, right? I felt confident that my prayers were all the more sincere as a result, and I was confident they were well-received by deity on account of my skills.

My children, however, flat-out refused to comply. I was infuriated because I was fully invested in what Elder Oaks taught, which was reiterated by an article in ldsliving.com as recently as 2016 (https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-we-pray-using-thee-and-thou/s/75897).

So here's the thing.

I have reached a comfortable conclusion that biological evolution is part of the great Plan (billions of years of it and still counting), and please note that this belief is not heretical (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng). 

Evolution leads me to conclude that human language has zero connection to God but is merely a set of highly developed animal grunts. As such, an archaic form of it from several hundred years ago is neither more nor less respectful; it is simply a bunch of noises that convey meaning to others of our species in Earth's atmosphere. Retaining selected grunts from several hundred years ago (though limited to second-person singular and associated verbs but no nouns or other vocabulary from the era) to use with deity is simply a barrier to the uninitiated and something for everyday folks to laughably butcher in an attempt to aspire to greater sincerity, respect, or whatever.

As a consequence, I now suspect that "prayer language" is little more than the Emperor's New Clothes. Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing yourself, yet I, for one, have been conditioned for decades to judge others by their fluency.

I don't have examples to offer, but I believe our scriptures are full of botched attempts to portray authenticity through bungled, outdated language, and I'm left thinking, "Isn't it time to move on and accept that God has no more interest in 17th-century English than he does 21st-century street slang?"

In automatic mode, I still pray "correctly" in meetings using "thee, thou, and thine" with their associated verb conjugations, but in personal prayer, I ditch the embroidery.

What thinkest thou?

Well my home teacher used to talk to us in scripture speech, and I hated that.  
 

It would be hard for me to stop praying that way, but if I were asked to I would. 

[The Great Pretender]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Well my home teacher used to talk to us in scripture speech, and I hated that.  

Thou jokest, surely.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Well my home teacher used to talk to us in scripture speech, and I hated that.  
 

What the what??

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

30 years ago, Elder Oaks reminded us of the importance of "prayer language" when addressing deity (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer). From my earliest years as an eager-to-please Primary child, I proved to be adept at conjugating verbs into 17th-century English. That's funny, right? I felt confident that my prayers were all the more sincere as a result, and I was convinced they were well-received by deity on account of my skills.

My children, however, flat-out refused to comply. I was infuriated because I was fully invested in what Elder Oaks taught, which was reiterated by an article in ldsliving.com as recently as 2016 (https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-we-pray-using-thee-and-thou/s/75897).

So here's the thing.

I have reached a comfortable conclusion that biological evolution is part of the great Plan (billions of years of it and still counting), and please note that this belief is not heretical (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng). 

Evolution leads me to conclude that human language has zero connection to God but is merely a set of highly developed animal grunts. As such, an archaic form of it from several hundred years ago is neither more nor less respectful; it is simply a bunch of noises that convey meaning to others of our species in Earth's atmosphere. Retaining selected grunts from several hundred years ago (though limited to second-person singular and associated verbs but no nouns or other vocabulary from the era) to use with deity is simply a barrier to the uninitiated and something for everyday folks to laughably butcher in an attempt to aspire to greater sincerity, respect, or whatever.

As a consequence, I now suspect that "prayer language" is little more than the Emperor's New Clothes. Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing oneself, yet I, for one, have been conditioned for decades to judge others by their fluency.

I don't have examples to offer, but I believe our scriptures are full of botched attempts to portray authenticity through bungled, outdated language, and I'm left thinking, "Isn't it time to move on and accept that God has no more interest in 17th-century English than he does 21st-century street slang?"

In automatic mode, I still pray "correctly" in meetings using "thee, thou, and thine" with their associated verb conjugations, but in personal prayer, I ditch the embroidery.

What thinkest thou?

We had a thread on here not that long ago (maybe last month?) that discussed this issue and I think that a lot of members agree with you.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

30 years ago, Elder Oaks reminded us of the importance of "prayer language" when addressing deity (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer). From my earliest years as an eager-to-please Primary child, I proved to be adept at conjugating verbs into 17th-century English. That's funny, right? I felt confident that my prayers were all the more sincere as a result, and I was convinced they were well-received by deity on account of my skills.

My children, however, flat-out refused to comply. I was infuriated because I was fully invested in what Elder Oaks taught, which was reiterated by an article in ldsliving.com as recently as 2016 (https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-we-pray-using-thee-and-thou/s/75897).

So here's the thing.

I have reached a comfortable conclusion that biological evolution is part of the great Plan (billions of years of it and still counting), and please note that this belief is not heretical (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng). 

Evolution leads me to conclude that human language has zero connection to God but is merely a set of highly developed animal grunts. As such, an archaic form of it from several hundred years ago is neither more nor less respectful; it is simply a bunch of noises that convey meaning to others of our species in Earth's atmosphere. Retaining selected grunts from several hundred years ago (though limited to second-person singular and associated verbs but no nouns or other vocabulary from the era) to use with deity is simply a barrier to the uninitiated and something for everyday folks to laughably butcher in an attempt to aspire to greater sincerity, respect, or whatever.

As a consequence, I now suspect that "prayer language" is little more than the Emperor's New Clothes. Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing oneself, yet I, for one, have been conditioned for decades to judge others by their fluency.

I don't have examples to offer, but I believe our scriptures are full of botched attempts to portray authenticity through bungled, outdated language, and I'm left thinking, "Isn't it time to move on and accept that God has no more interest in 17th-century English than he does 21st-century street slang?"

In automatic mode, I still pray "correctly" in meetings using "thee, thou, and thine" with their associated verb conjugations, but in personal prayer, I ditch the embroidery.

What thinkest thou?

Because these “highly developed animal grunts” have no inherent meaning in and of themselves, we give them contextual meaning.  Language is relative.  Some may see some grunts as especially respectful, while others may not.

If you see it as respectful, then use the language.  If you don’t, then don’t.  It would be respectful to ask the Lord if he is ok with the pronouns you use for him and then do as the spirit directs.

I personally think the Lord cares more about our hearts and how we perceive our use of language as respectful, and is probably less preferential towards one animal grunt of corrupted human language over another.  He cares about the heart, not the words we package our heart in.  That is my experience.  I often pray without words at all and try to simply offer pure ineffable emotion of love and gratitude.

Edited January 29, 2023 by pogi

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing oneself

Do you mind elaborating here? I want to respond but I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying first. 

[MustardSeed]

33 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thou jokest, surely.

No I don’t joke. 
plus his handshake was really tight.  Not good for my arthritic hands.  But otherwise- such a nice man.  Most reliable ht ever. 

[Bernard Gui]

Some languages use words that distinguish between formal and intimate ways to address others. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

45 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

30 years ago, Elder Oaks reminded us of the importance of "prayer language" when addressing deity (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer). From my earliest years as an eager-to-please Primary child, I proved to be adept at conjugating verbs into 17th-century English. That's funny, right? I felt confident that my prayers were all the more sincere as a result, and I was convinced they were well-received by deity on account of my skills.

My children, however, flat-out refused to comply. I was infuriated because I was fully invested in what Elder Oaks taught, [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969] which was reiterated by an article in ldsliving.com as recently as 2016 (https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-we-pray-using-thee-and-thou/s/75897). ...

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin' ...  

But, don't mind me!  Whatever floats your boat!

Carry on!

[Kenngo1969]

53 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

... I now suspect that "prayer language" is little more than the Emperor's New Clothes. Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing oneself, yet I, for one, have been conditioned for decades to judge others by their fluency. ...

 

22 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mind elaborating here? I want to respond but I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying first. 

Oh, I don't think there's any need to read between the lines here, Miserere Nobis.  He's just slandering one of the world's great religions and its adherents, using it as a brickbat to beat up on the religion to which he feigns devotion.

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

30 years ago, Elder Oaks reminded us of the importance of "prayer language" when addressing deity (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1993/04/the-language-of-prayer). From my earliest years as an eager-to-please Primary child, I proved to be adept at conjugating verbs into 17th-century English. That's funny, right? I felt confident that my prayers were all the more sincere as a result, and I was convinced they were well-received by deity on account of my skills.

My children, however, flat-out refused to comply. I was infuriated because I was fully invested in what Elder Oaks taught, which was reiterated by an article in ldsliving.com as recently as 2016 (https://www.ldsliving.com/why-do-we-pray-using-thee-and-thou/s/75897).

So here's the thing.

I have reached a comfortable conclusion that biological evolution is part of the great Plan (billions of years of it and still counting), and please note that this belief is not heretical (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2016/10/to-the-point/what-does-the-church-believe-about-evolution?lang=eng, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/organic-evolution?lang=eng). 

Evolution leads me to conclude that human language has zero connection to God but is merely a set of highly developed animal grunts. As such, an archaic form of it from several hundred years ago is neither more nor less respectful; it is simply a bunch of noises that convey meaning to others of our species in Earth's atmosphere. Retaining selected grunts from several hundred years ago (though limited to second-person singular and associated verbs but no nouns or other vocabulary from the era) to use with deity is simply a barrier to the uninitiated and something for everyday folks to laughably butcher in an attempt to aspire to greater sincerity, respect, or whatever.

As a consequence, I now suspect that "prayer language" is little more than the Emperor's New Clothes. Considered in the cold light of day, it may constitute a ritual like counting rosary beads or crossing oneself, yet I, for one, have been conditioned for decades to judge others by their fluency.

I don't have examples to offer, but I believe our scriptures are full of botched attempts to portray authenticity through bungled, outdated language, and I'm left thinking, "Isn't it time to move on and accept that God has no more interest in 17th-century English than he does 21st-century street slang?"

In automatic mode, I still pray "correctly" in meetings using "thee, thou, and thine" with their associated verb conjugations, but in personal prayer, I ditch the embroidery.

What thinkest thou?

What else are you going to do in prayer than to express that which is sacred in your innermost thoughts and feelings? We employ the same set of fundamental values when engaged in public prayer as in personal prayer. So, if there's a mismatch in the form of expression, it will still be consistent with those values.

I think Elder Oaks quite thoroughly covered the topic of language for our covenant community ethos of united and personal discipleship.

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

We had a thread on here not that long ago (maybe last month?) that discussed this issue and I think that a lot of members agree with you.

Sorry for covering old ground so soon. I searched for "prayer language" but found no results.

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Some languages use words that distinguish between formal and intimate ways to address others. 

I am fully aware, thank you; I studied French, German, and Russian for a number of years, each of which have informal and formal words for "you" like old English.

Perhaps you are unaware, however, that some parts of England (where I live) retain "thee" and "thou" in colloquial speech. That use, however, is likely to eventually die out.

[The Great Pretender]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Trollin', Trollin', Trollin' ...  

But, don't mind me!  Whatever floats your boat!

Carry on!

My comments are entirely valid, and your incorrect assumptions about me say more about you than they do me. I have a current temple recommend, serve on my stake high council, attend all my meetings (including our annual stake high priest meeting last Thursday, a stake youth council leadership meeting this forthcoming Tuesday, stake council next Thursday, and ward conference no. 5 of 8 next Sunday). Just because someone who has been an active member (since the 1960s) expresses concerns in a way that fails to align with your expectations, you assume he is a troll. Nice one. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[The Great Pretender]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

What else are you going to do in prayer than to express that which is sacred in your innermost thoughts and feelings? We employ the same set of fundamental values when engaged in public prayer as in personal prayer. So, if there's a mismatch in the form of expression, it will still be consistent with those values.

I think Elder Oaks quite thoroughly covered the topic of language for our covenant community ethos of united and personal discipleship.

With respect, I believe you missed my point. 17th-century English is in no way sacred, and its continued use is without merit or relevance to meaningful communication with God. Worse, it subtly takes away from prayer because archaic verb conjugations are either dished out by rote or are contrived, making the person sound ignorant when they pray in front of others. I hope the Brethren wake up someday soon and realise how increasingly silly it is. 

Edited January 29, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[The Great Pretender]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Do you mind elaborating here? I want to respond but I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying first. 

Sure, using antiquated speech to make a prayer sound more genuine, respectful, or whatever seems increasingly like nonsense to me. Whichever way you look at it, language is simply a collection of grunts. I mean, why stop at 17th-century English? I've tried reading Chaucer (14th century), and some of it is utter gibberish. Language evolves. Over time, 17th-century English will also sound like gibberish. Will the Church continue to encourage people to pray to God using babblings? The perpetuation of this archaic form is peculiar to English, and we have made a rod for our own backs that few seem to accept as such.

Are my prayers less reverent if I pray in Japanese, Swahili, or sign language? No, they categorically are in no way of less value, but the continued espousal of prayer language (available only to English speakers) suggests otherwise.

Teaching our members that there is something special about Shakespearean English increasingly feels wrong to me (and let me be clear that I am so deeply programmed to do so that I find it mentally challenging to pray without sprinkling all references to God with it). It is ritualistic because we are ascribing spirituality, devotion, reverence, or whatever to something that can be stripped away without loss of any of those things.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

I am fully aware, thank you; I studied French, German, and Russian for a number of years, each of which have informal and formal words for "you" like old English.

Perhaps you are unaware, however, that some parts of England (where I live) retain "thee" and "thou" in colloquial speech. That use, however, is likely to eventually die out.

I love hearing and saying prayers in Spanish. The familiar form used with Deity (and loved ones) is so mellifluous and adoring. I envy this aspect of the language and hope it never dies out.

You are probably unaware that I live in Kentucky where the common greeting is “Have a blessed* day” and our license plates say “In God We  Trust.”

*Pronounced “bless-ed.” 😙

Edited January 29, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[The Great Pretender]

A quick Google search tells me (though I cannot comment on its authenticity) that this is the Lord's prayer in Aramaic:

Abwoon d'bashmaya, Netqaddash shmak, Teete malkutah, Nehvwey tzevyannach aykanna d'bashmaya aph b'arha, Havlan lahma d'sunqananan yaomana, Washbwoqlan haubvayn aykana daph hnan shbvoqan l'hayyabayn, Wela tahlan le'ynesyuna. Ela patzan min bisha, Metul dilakhe malkuta wahayla wateshbuhta l'ahlam almin, Amen.

If we really wish our prayers to take on special reverence, shouldn't we be learning the language of Christ? Um, no, because it's irrelevant. And so is Shakespearean English.

[manol]

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

What thinkest thou?

I think the actual prayer is the intention behind the words, with the words helping to focus that otherwise presumably somewhat scattered intention, especially if it's a group intention.  

In private I use normal English because, for me, that results in the highest signal-to-noise ratio, as I don't need to mentally monitor my wording. 

If I were asked to pray in an LDS setting, I would pray in the scriptural style (which I'm hopefully still fluent in) because I think that would be the least likely to interject distraction into what should be our united intention.  If I were asked to pray before a group which used normal English, I'd use normal English, again for the same reason.  If I were asked to pray in a Jewish setting (it happened once for a graveside service), I would memorize and recite an appropriate prayer in Hebrew (assuming there was sufficient advance notice). 

4 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

... there is something special about Shakespearean English...

Forsooth.

https://youtu.be/l_UegL1R3X8?t=147

Edited January 29, 2023 by manol

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

With respect, I believe you missed my point. 17th-century English is in no way sacred, and its continued use is without merit or relevance to meaningful communication with God. Worse, it subtly takes away from prayer because archaic verb conjugations are either dished out by rote or are contrived, making the person sound ignorant when they pray in front of others. I hope someone wakes up someday soon to how increasingly silly it is. 

I understood you to say that in the OP. You asked for thoughts; I shared mine. Elder Oak’s talk from 1993 addresses your and additional points.

I live in a ward with members fresh from every continent except Antarctica, so all kinds of interesting things happen with the sacred language of prayer, and comporting with Elder Oak’s talk, patience and grace smooth the intercultural bumps as we become more sensitive to the importance of using this reverent and loving language in public and private prayer, especially as every nation, kindred, tongue, and people increasingly gathers with each other as well as among themselves.

Missionaries learning a new language read the Book of Mormon and pray privately in their new language, a practice that is as much a spiritual experience as it is a linguistic or cultural immersion.

[The Great Pretender]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are probably unaware that I live in Kentucky where the common greeting is “Have a blessed* day” and our license plates say “In God We  Trust.” 😗 

You're right; I have no idea where anyone lives. But it seems to me that drivers in your state have no idea how to spell "guns."

[The Great Pretender]

3 minutes ago, manol said:

If I were asked to pray in a Jewish setting (it happened once at a graveside service), I would memorize and recite an appropriate prayer in Hebrew (assuming there was sufficient advance notice). 

Respect for an audience is something we humans are good at. It's continued relevance in approaching our creator, however, is something I am now questioning.

It is my default because I have been programmed to do it over decades, but it increasingly annoys me that I have no on/off switch because it is so ingrained. I am beginning to believe it is a distraction or "trapping," and we would be better off ditching it, as painful as that would be.

[MustardSeed]

4 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Respect for an audience is something we humans are good at. It's continued relevance in approaching our creator, however, is something I am now questioning.

It is my default because I have been programmed to do it over decades, but it increasingly annoys me that I have no on/off switch because it is so ingrained. I am beginning to believe it is a distraction or "trapping," and we would be better off ditching it, as painful as that would be.

Do what brings you closer to Him. Imo

[The Great Pretender]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Elder Oak’s talk from 1993 addresses your and additional points.

I have re-read it today and find it unhelpful.

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I live in a ward with members fresh from every continent except Antarctica, so all kinds of interesting things happen with the sacred language of prayer, and comporting with Elder Oak’s talk, patience and grace smooth the intercultural bumps as we become more sensitive to the importance of using this reverent and loving language in public and private prayer, especially as every nation, kindred, tongue, and people increasingly gathers with each other as well as among themselves.

I get the impression that you may be ascribing a limited extract from an archaic form of language with spirituality because it comes from a faraway land. I happen to live in that land, so I'm fully aware that no special association is involved. English is not the language of God; smatterings of archaic English are even less so.

You're right though, I wanted to hear it from others. I guess I'm not surprised to learn that people don't question it and genuinely believe it contributes to spirituality. I am convinced it does no such thing.