How respectful is "prayer language"?

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Except I dare not ditch it in meetings because people will judge me. If you are a member of any longevity, you will know this to be the case.

I’ve been attending for over 70 years. This has never been an issue until just recently. I’ve always understood why we use these words in prayer. 

If people judge someone for the words he uses in prayers, they are not judging righteously. I wouldn’t know how to determine if I were being judged. How would you? Why would it matter?

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve been attending for over 70 years. This has never been an issue until just recently. I’ve always understood why we use these words in prayer. 

If people judge someone for the words he uses in prayers, they are not judging righteously. I wouldn’t know how to determine if I were being judged. How would you? Why would it matter?

I wonder why the NIV Bible isn't more acceptable in the church to use as a reference during meetings. I'm wondering as well, if the Bible would be a more enjoyable read or more geared to the youth readers for easier understanding. 

I remember how difficult it was for me to read the Book of Mormon while younger and couldn't understand so many repeated wording, especially the "it came to pass" wording. 

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

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."

Oh trust me. We know how to spell guns. It’s one of the first words babies speak. 

We won a war with y’all, so we don’t have to speak the King’s English except when we want to, and we don’t have to play cricket either.😉 

By the way, Mr. Ramsey, my high school English teacher, required us to memorize the first stanza of the Canterbury Tales prologue in Middle English.

Quote

“…Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth inspired hath in every holt and heeth the tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne, and smale foweles maken melodye, that slepen al the nyght with open eye…”

That is so awesome!

Edited January 30, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Oh trust me. We know how to spell guns. It’s the first word babies speak. 

"MaMa, DaDa, Rifle, Shotgun ..."    

[Vanguard]

6 hours ago, The Great Pretender said:

Except I dare not ditch it in meetings because people will judge me. If you are a member of any longevity, you will know this to be the case.

I commented on this a few posts ago. Are you advocating literally any standard in public prayer? Or should there be some modicum of formality in public forums? If you got up at the pulpit and started by saying "Thanks Big G for the blessings" or some such, you bet I would judge you. ; )

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the NIV Bible isn't more acceptable in the church to use as a reference during meetings. I'm wondering as well, if the Bible would be a more enjoyable read or more geared to the youth readers for easier understanding. 

I remember how difficult it was for me to read the Book of Mormon while younger and couldn't understand so many repeated wording, especially the "it came to pass" wording. 

I agree. It is good to check other translations. We refer to it frequently and I mention other translations in my SS class. I also like the New English Translation. “It came to pass” just means “and then,” but I’m sure you know that.🙂

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 hours 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?

I don’t think God cares one bit whether we use thee or you when we pray. 

The English language has evolved. Ages ago thee was used informally between family members and loved ones. This is no longer the case. Now we use you. 

I served my mission in Germany, where the scriptures and prayers use the informal Du, which is the same "you" used with family and loved ones. For years I would say my personal prayers in German because it helped me feel closer to God. Now I usually pray in English and use you. 

But I usually still use thee and thine in public prayers at church because that is the tradition. But I don’t think most people really care anymore whether someone uses you. 

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

I commented on this a few posts ago. Are you advocating literally any standard in public prayer? Or should there be some modicum of formality in public forums? If you got up at the pulpit and started by saying "Thanks Big G for the blessings" or some such, you bet I would judge you. ; )

There is this church here where we have moved, very visible from I-70. JC the Naz. It calls itself. It doesn't seem okay to me. I don't like it. I mean the name of the Church. I judge them as being a little too comfortable in the presence of the Lord. Jesus is my Saviour, my brother, but I don't think of Him as my buddy. Maybe they do not think of Him as buddy either?

But anyways, I am an old man now. What would I know? Maybe I should be happy that others are on more intimate relations with Jesus the Naz than I am? Assuredly. Yes. I hope they know JC the Naz, better than I do. But I cannot help but doubt it.

[Buckeye]

13 hours 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?

Many here agree with you on both prayer language and evolution. I’m one of them. I pray using the prescribed format at church but not personally. When I’ve used formal style prayers with neighbors or other non-LDS they find it really odd or even off-putting. 
 

There are some church teachings I’ve initially doubted but grown to respect. For instance, using the full name if the church. But there are plenty of others where I’ve “experimented on the word” and found it lacking. For instance, only taking sacrament with the right hand. Using 17th century English for prayers is in this second group. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don’t think God cares one bit whether we use thee or you when we pray. 

The English language has evolved. Ages ago thee was used informally between family members and loved ones. This is no longer the case. Now we use you. 

I served my mission in Germany, where the scriptures and prayers use the informal Du, which is the same "you" used with family and loved ones. For years I would say my personal prayers in German because it helped me feel closer to God. Now I usually pray in English and use you. 

But I usually still use thee and thine in public prayers at church because that is the tradition. But I don’t think most people really care anymore whether someone uses you. 

Great and THAT is the tradition of using the familiar that I believe is used in every language which has informal pronouns.

Joseph liked the German translation the best, supposedly for what was available in his time

I agree about no one caring here in the USA.  We have several Brethren in our ward in leadership positions who can barely speak English; probably half our ward is Latino here in So Cal, and we have Spanish wards in our stake, but parents bring their children of school age to the English wards, because the children all speak English at school and wards typically unify Spanish and English speaking kids fo activities. 

It's great that Latino folks even are brave enough to pray in American English, much less worrying about getting middle English pronouns right.

I can't think of anyone below 20, American born or not, who prays formally

If we insisted in using The Kings English, it could become a divisive issue, and even a loss of leadership.  It could be seen as de facto racism.

Were I Latino and someone tried to push me that way, I'd be gone.

We are an international church now and better get used to it.

We don't need divisions, some members seen as "better" because they speak fancy English??

No way, Jose! 

 

Edited January 30, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

There is this church here where we have moved, very visible from I-70. JC the Naz. It calls itself. It doesn't seem okay to me. I don't like it. I mean the name of the Church. I judge them as being a little too comfortable in the presence of the Lord. Jesus is my Saviour, my brother, but I don't think of Him as my buddy. Maybe they do not think of Him as buddy either?

But anyways, I am an old man now. What would I know? Maybe I should be happy that others are on more intimate relations with Jesus the Naz than I am? Assuredly. Yes. I hope they know JC the Naz, better than I do. But I cannot help but doubt it.

Daniel C. Peterson, an erstwhile poster here (he posts at Sic et non on Patheos now: It's Latter-day Saint themed, but if you don't mind hanging out with us here, surely, you won't mind hanging out with us there, either? ) once said (paraphrasing, but I don't think he would object to my recollection) that the trouble with 21st-century moderns is that we have lost our awe and respect for the Divine, coming to think of God, instead, as everyone's ever-loving, ever-supportive, never-judgmental Pal.

Perhaps favoring formal language in prayer is meant to remind us that, yes, He loves us.  Yes, as any good parent would and does, He pulls for His children.  He wants the best for us.  But that having been said, there is a reason (nay, an eternal myriad of reasons) why He is the Exalted, Omniscient, Omnipotent Lord of the Universe, and why we are where (and what) we are.  While God does not intend the distance between us and Him to be an eternal gaping maw, an ever-unbridgeable chasm, never to be crossed, yes, there is a distance between us and Him, and rightly so.

Which is a long-winded way of saying, "I agree with you!"  

Warm Regards and Best Wishes,

-Ken

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I agree. It is good to check other translations. We refer to it frequently and I mention other translations in my SS class. I also like the New English Translation. “It came to pass” just means “and then,” but I’m sure you know that.🙂

My unprovable pet theory was that there was a diacritical mark on the plates for the whole phrase.

One highly repeated mark, like "&" used for "and" 

Try scratching that whole phrase over and over in metal ?

No way!

[The Great Pretender]

9 hours ago, Vanguard said:

From reading your other posts, I don't think you mean when we pray in public, correct? I too wrestle in my personal prayers how to address Him (hmmmm, why do I capitalize 'H'?) and have found it better to drop the formal language for my own style. I do not believe this should be the case in public. What say you?

Sorry for the confusion, I do mean when we pray in public. I am increasingly convinced that it is little more than a meaningless affectation to gild our words and make them sound more pious. The meaning of our words and feelings is what is important. The opinions of some here have convinced me that "thee, thou, and thine" (plus associated verb conjugations) offer no additional value.

Dredging up archaic pronouns and verb structures exclusively for English speakers (on account of the King James version of the Bible) has lost its magic for me, even though I struggle to stop myself from doing it — even in personal prayer because it's my default.

[The Great Pretender]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Lots of disaffected Latter-day Saints have accounts at ChurchofJesusChrist.org, Dude.  It proves nothing.  Thanks.

I wouldn't know about disaffected members because I am not in the habit of discussing issues with them. You are welcome to misjudge me in any way that makes you feel secure. As it happens, I'm the type of guy who sits next to you in priesthood meetings and in Sunday School, wondering which bits to value and which to toss away.

[The Great Pretender]

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fair enough.  I do wonder if one of the alter egos he might have is crowing elsewhere, where disaffected Latter-day Saints tend to hang out, about how easy it has been to put one over on the faithful.  But you're right.  I ain't the Troll Police.

Have fun, ya'all.

Do please tell me where. I'd like to meet myself and compare American English / British English constructs and spellings. Perhaps I'm contributing to other boards in my sleep.

[The Great Pretender]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Reality:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou

None of this is new to me, so I'm unsure of your point. I believe I already mentioned that the archaic "thee" and "thou" are still used colloquially in some areas where I live.

[The Great Pretender]

7 hours ago, Vanguard said:

I commented on this a few posts ago. Are you advocating literally any standard in public prayer? Or should there be some modicum of formality in public forums? If you got up at the pulpit and started by saying "Thanks Big G for the blessings" or some such, you bet I would judge you. ; )

Speech can be intimate and respectful without unnecessary adornments from centuries ago. In my opinion, they convey a false sense of sincerity and end up being either vain repetitions or a distracting mental exercise when we try to figure out how to conjugate a verb that we haven't previously used — and end up making up a new word that makes everyone laugh inside. If that hasn't happened to you, you've missed a treat.

[The Great Pretender]

6 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The English language has evolved. Ages ago thee was used informally between family members and loved ones. This is no longer the case. Now we use you. 

Thank you for explaining the evolution of English to an Englishman. I have already mentioned that "thee" and "thou" are still used in some areas in the UK in colloquial speech.

[The Great Pretender]

5 hours ago, Buckeye said:

For instance, only taking sacrament with the right hand. Using 17th century English for prayers is in this second group. 

Thank you. I am left handed, and there's more I find awkward than just taking the sacrament with the right hand. Propriety forbids me from mentioning an instruction I received in the temple when I took out my endowment, so I'll leave that out, but even blessing the sacrament in meetings more times than I can count has caused me problems — moving trays around and taking the bread and water with my right hand while everyone watches. After over 40 years of doing it, it still causes my hand to shake out of control if I think too much about it.

[The Great Pretender]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We don't need divisions, some members seen as "better" because they speak fancy English??

No way, Jose! 

 

And yet we have ldsliving.com still pushing it (in 2016).

It is a practice, not doctrine. And I suspect we would be all more authentic without it.

Edited January 30, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My unprovable pet theory was that there was a diacritical mark on the plates for the whole phrase.

It's a single word in Indonesian.

[Pyreaux]

I saw the topic "prayer language" and I thought it meant one of the contradictory Protestant forms of the gift of tongues. Is tongues a real language or is it your unique prayer language? It's not both. This however would be the other extreme, would one who thinks language is unimportant explain whether God can always understand you, when even you don't know what it is you are saying?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, 3DOP said:

But anyways, I am an old man now. What would I know?

Hey! That’s my line!

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

And yet we have ldsliving.com still pushing it (in 2016).

It is a practice, not doctrine. And I suspect we would be all more authentic without it.

Some may feel more authentic using it, no?

Edited January 30, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Thank you. I am left handed, and there's more I find awkward than just taking the sacrament with the right hand. Propriety forbids me from mentioning an instruction I received in the temple when I took out my endowment, so I'll leave that out, but even blessing the sacrament in meetings more times than I can count has caused me problems — moving trays around and taking the bread and water with my right hand while everyone watches. After over 40 years of doing it, it still causes my hand to shake out of control if I think too much about it.

 There’s something sinister about this practice.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Bernard Gui