How respectful is "prayer language"?

[The Great Pretender]

So it seems we have reached agreement about LDS members (sorry for using an outdated acronym), which includes me:

1. We believe we should address God in a familiar yet respectful way.
2. Speakers of languages that still offer the second person singular should use that.
3. Speakers of languages that have no second person singular have no option but to use the second person plural "you" and hope that God will still listen despite the shortcomings of their language.
4. English speakers are a special case. While the second person singular pronoun is no longer in common usage, they can demonstrate greater authenticity, respect, and reverence by making use of an archaic form of a bastardised amalgamation ("hotchpotch" in British English) of Latin, Nordic, Germanic, and Celtic languages found in the preferred English translation from the original Greek or Hebrew. Sounds perfectly reasonable now I put it that way. 🤣

After almost 60 years being comfortable with #4, I'm going to try my hardest to switch to #3 and ditch what I'm increasingly convinced is nonsense.

Edited January 31, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

hope that God will still listen despite the shortcomings of their language.

Yeah, not seeing that much agreement on that point.  My guess is the majority here don’t believe God cares the least about any shortcomings or even views the lack as a shortcoming. God is not petty.  We do not have to appease his wrath by using certain words  

The use of sacred language is about opening ourselves up to listen to God. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[The Great Pretender]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The use of sacred language is about opening ourselves up to listen to God. 

Shakespearean English isn't sacred and has no connection to spirituality. That's what this thread is about. If we believe otherwise, we have been deceived, flattered, or seduced.

A humble prayer spoken in 21st-century English peppered with anachronistic interjections of thee, thou, and a bunch of butchered verbs is no more authentic than one offered by waving one's hands in sign language or even spoken in Cockney Rhyming Slang. I am increasingly convinced that the practice is nothing more than an affectation.

Edited January 31, 2023 by The Great Pretender

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

 I am increasingly convinced that the practice is nothing more than an affectation.

If one uses the language for appearances only, of course it is an affectation. But that isn’t the only way such language can be used, even by those who butcher it any more than someone who barely speaking English and struggles to sincerely say “I love you” to another can only be making an empty gesture.

 Nothing is inherently spiritual. No one can be forced to feel the Spirit by saying certain words or standing in a certain place.  God may be able to force the feeling, but men don’t have that power though they can try though teaching that certain things can be given spiritual meaning, a sense of spiritual familiarity by the constant linking of spiritual experience with what ever symbols we choose to associate with the Spirit.  A white tablecloth is just something to spread on the table until we link it with the Sacrament.  

A ring on a finger is just a decoration until we link it with the word or the act of marriage.  A diamond is no more inherently romantic than a garnet, decades of advertising has turned it into an expression of love that is meaningful to those who share that love and may become meaningful to those who benefit from that love.  I have and treasure my grandmother’s diamond wedding ring even though I will never wear it as I hate wearing rings and insisted my husband not buy us more than a simple gold band as I find diamonds boring  

People create sacredness for themselves by giving ritual, objects, places that meaning. Words aren’t inherently significant, neither are places or anything else.  We add sacred meaning to words  just as we add romance and fidelity. A stranger calling someone “love” means nothing; a spouse calling the other “love” means everything. 

We do this as individuals or as a community. Recognition that we need sacredness in our lives and attempting to create it by teaching us a sacred language may help many find prayer as an experience that connects them with God. Others may find the effort to be an obstacle as they concentrate on the awkwardness or the effort rather than a sense of otherness, stepping away from the mundane. 

A nonmember walking through a temple without awareness of its significance may see beauty, may wonder, may even feel peace because the structure itself creates that sense through use of cultural symbols; another may see those same symbols and just see what are to him symbols of wealth.  A family leaving the sealing room will possibly see in the rooms a vision of what heaven can be with their family because that is the meaning they give to the symbols. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe he means archaic forms rather than familiar “you”.

During my mission in Central America the familiar tu form was always used in prayer, and not just LDS. One of the purposes of the form is to address Deity. It is also used to speak with close friends, pets, socially inferiors, and family, but it can be purposely insulting, offensive, or condescending when familiarity is improperly assumed. In some countries one asks permission to use it with a new acquaintance. A third familiar form vos is used in some countries. I taught junior and senior high school  Spanish classes. Using the form  correctly is basic Spanish.

“Te damos gracias, Señor, por todas las bendiciones que [tu] nos has dado” as opposed to “Le damos gracias, Señor, por todas las bendiciones que [usted] nos ha dado.”

Unless they have revised the language, recently that’s the way it works.

BTW, shame on those who call Latin Americans Latinx. It is insulting.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Islander]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure you are correct about Spanish and Portuguese. 

Well, my friend, I am not sure what you are referring to but anyone that speaks Spanish or Portuguese will tell you that no such equivalents (to thee and thou) are used in the church today in those languages. There are antiquated words that may approximate (and that would be a stretch) but are not used in the vernacular.  Further, neither Greek nor Hebrew have any words to refer to God as "thee" or "thou". In both languages they use the word "you". 

Further, it is an established fact in English literature that,  "thee and thou" were NEVER common street English, including that of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I. Those words were rather part of the poetic forms used in religious language and love poetry of the time. Every language including the Hebrew of the Psalms, has special poetic and literary forms unique to the culture and language. 

What happens is that, by far, most people in the church accept as dogma anything and everything that is said by anyone, without checking the validity of the statement in the light of historical facts. There are many elements of our liturgy and practices that have absolutely nothing to do with God's commandments or ordinances. Rather, they are the result of the 19th century origins of the church. You see similar patters in the other sects that originated in the same century like the Jehovah Witnesses and the Seven Day Adventists, to name a few. From the music to the Sunday attire, they are all rooted in the 19th century cultural mores and values, not religious observance. I understand that people want to ascribe meaning and significance to certain practices and behaviors and they are free to do so. But to imply that it MUST be so for the reason articulated in the forum in connection to the OP, are clearly not grounded in historical facts or the scriptures.

Saludos.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Shakespearean English isn't sacred and has no connection to spirituality. That's what this thread is about. If we believe otherwise, we have been deceived, flattered, or seduced.

A shorter observation…

The word Lord isn’t sacred either when it refers to a nobility title nor is Jesus when it is the name of the neighbor kid, and yet when used in the context of speaking of God, they acquire a sacredness, a very authentic sacredness for many. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, The Great Pretender said:

Shakespearean English isn't sacred and has no connection to spirituality. That's what this thread is about. If we believe otherwise, we have been deceived, flattered, or seduced.

A humble prayer spoken in 21st-century English peppered with anachronistic interjections of thee, thou, and a bunch of butchered verbs is no more authentic than one offered by waving one's hands in sign language or even spoken in Cockney Rhyming Slang. I am increasingly convinced that the practice is nothing more than an affectation.

We can't judge why a person is using them.  For me it is a barrier.  For others it helps them be in the right frame of mind. And like you say for others it might be an affectation.  I figure God knows our sincerity or lack of it.  I'll let him take care of it. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

I remember being taught about using "respectful" language when praying. Then I served my mission in Peru. Spanish speaking members are taught to use the informal/familiar "tu" instead of the formal "usted." Why the difference? Perhaps Spanish speaking members are closer to God so he allows them to be less formal.

 

Or perhaps their language offers them a way to show reverence, respect, devotion, and humility in ways English speakers do not understand. There is no need to ridicule it. I envy that aspect of Romance languages.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, my friend, I am not sure what you are referring to but anyone that speaks Spanish or Portuguese will tell you that no such equivalents (to thee and thou) are used in the church today in those languages. There are antiquated words that may approximate (and that would be a stretch) but are not used in the vernacular.  Further, neither Greek nor Hebrew have any words to refer to God as "thee" or "thou". In both languages they use the word "you". 

Further, it is an established fact in English literature that,  "thee and thou" were NEVER common street English, including that of Queen Elizabeth I and King James I. Those words were rather part of the poetic forms used in religious language and love poetry of the time. Every language including the Hebrew of the Psalms, has special poetic and literary forms unique to the culture and language. 

What happens is that, by far, most people in the church accept as dogma anything and everything that is said by anyone, without checking the validity of the statement in the light of historical facts. There are many elements of our liturgy and practices that have absolutely nothing to do with God's commandments or ordinances. Rather, they are the result of the 19th century origins of the church. You see similar patters in the other sects that originated in the same century like the Jehovah Witnesses and the Seven Day Adventists, to name a few. From the music to the Sunday attire, they are all rooted in the 19th century cultural mores and values, not religious observance. I understand that people want to ascribe meaning and significance to certain practices and behaviors and they are free to do so. But to imply that it MUST be so for the reason articulated in the forum in connection to the OP, are clearly not grounded in historical facts or the scriptures.

Saludos.

You may not tutear me. 😏

To be clear, you are saying the tu and vos forms are no longer used in Spanish-speaking churches and conversations? I’m not sure what you are getting at.

The church leaders are free  to attach whatever meanings they wish to our forms of worship.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

A shorter observation…

The word Lord isn’t sacred either when it refers to a nobility title nor is Jesus when it is the name of the neighbor kid, and yet when used in the context of speaking of God, they acquire a sacredness, a very authentic sacredness for many. 

 I have expressed envy for the Spanish prayer language. I purposely choose to use thee and thou forms in my prayers as a reflection of that envy (imperfect as my grammar may be) because I like this uniquely intimate way of addressing God. Since I never use those words for every day conversation, I feel they set apart conversations with God from worldly conversations. 

[Rain]

I'm curious if anyone knows. We've been taught to use "thee" and "thou" in different church talks or lessons.  Have we been taught to use the verb forms as well? Obviously you hear them when you read the scripture, but has a leader come out and said something like "when you pray use "thee" and the verb form that goes with it".  

This thread is a little eye opener to me because I recognized scripture often had different verb forms, but despite starting to learn languages in high school and working on languages since then it never occurred to me for some reason that the verb form was conjugated for "thee". 

So did I just miss leaders asking use to conjugate the verbs as well or is it only important to them to use "thee" and it doesn't matter how we conjugate.

And if we haven't been taught to conjugate the verb and  the "thee" is important then why isn't the verb form? 

 

 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm curious if anyone knows. We've been taught to use "thee" and "thou" in different church talks or lessons.  Have we been taught to use the verb forms as well? Obviously you hear them when you read the scripture, but has a leader come out and said something like "when you pray use "thee" and the verb form that goes with it".  

This thread is a little eye opener to me because I recognized scripture often had different verb forms, but despite starting to learn languages in high school and working on languages since then it never occurred to me for some reason that the verb form was conjugated for "thee". 

So did I just miss leaders asking use to conjugate the verbs as well or is it only important to them to use "thee" and it doesn't matter how we conjugate.

And if we haven't been taught to conjugate the verb and  the "thee" is important then why isn't the verb form? 

 

 

We were taught to use them when I was young.  My guess is they simplified like they did other things. 

Or I might just have been in a ward that went the extra mile when it came to prayer language.  I remember filling out worksheets on it  

Not sure  how to find it on the Church’s website as the terms bring up scriptures. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 I have expressed envy for the Spanish prayer language. I purposely choose to use thee and thou forms in my prayers as a reflection of that envy (imperfect as my grammar may be) because I like this uniquely intimate way of addressing God. Since I never use those words for every day conversation, I feel they set apart conversations with God from worldly conversations. 

Please know I'm not arguing.  I'm genuinely curious.  When praying in Spanish is it less intimate to you since, I assume, you do use the tu form with some others in worldy conversations? 

[3DOP]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, in fact, since I do not believe that the savior's death's sacrifice "paid a bill" generated by human sin, -God is not a bill collector- I believe that a major portion of the sacrifice represented at mass is in fact Jesus' willingness to give up transcendence  and become immanent voluntarily to take on the fullness of what immanence brings with it, and know every single pain and loss of grace that any human could ever know and feel, so that that individual could know in the filthy depths of "immanence" and sin, that one greater than him had been there before, and that that poor soul had company in the deepest grief a human soul could experience.

So the crucifixion is the ultimate loss of transcendence and the very cross itself represents that "crossover" into the full incarnation of the worst of human experience, but thereby also raising those who can overcome the world- who have also been there at the bottom- to transcendence themselves. The Word himself - the creator-was made flesh and dwelt among us to sacrifice that transcendence for our sakes, so that we could know, in the deepest depths of human suffering that Someone infinitely greater than ourselves, had already been there for us.  There is no before or after for God, who lives in an eternal present; the depth of the sacrifice had "already happened" before the creation itself.  

So God's organization of existing materials - instead of ex nihilo- to create worlds,  itself is a representation of that "time" where Jehovah himself surrendered transcendence - his own personal exaltation- for us, to become again flesh.  The cross is THAT cross, in an eternal present.

THAT'S what I think .  So I think we kinda agree. 

 

 

I think we kinda don't disagree. ☺

Great thoughts.

[Islander]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You may not tutear me. 😏

To be clear, you are saying the tu and vos forms are no longer used in Spanish-speaking churches and conversations? I’m not sure what you are getting at.

The church leaders are free  to attach whatever meanings they wish to our forms of worship.

 

 

 

Argentinos and Uruguayos use "vos" in the vernacular but it is not a particular form of "respectful" address but rather common usage. But what I tried to convey previously is that such language forms are not common in the language of prayer in Spanish and Portuguese, for example. And, that by far, there is no consciousness of a formal, "respectful" form of prayer (in other languages) as it was alleged in the OP. "Tu" is just "you". and "Vos" is a short form of "vosotros" (plural for you). By the way, I'm being detailed here for the benefit of others. I suspect you have greater insight into what I'm saying.

I am a native Spanish speaker, I have lived in Mexico, served in wards there and in the US in leadership and I have been in the church for two decades. I believe I have demonstrated quite factually (in my prior post) that the assertion that the use of "thee" and "thou" has absolutely nothing to do with "respectful language of prayer" and more to do with just how we do things in the church in the English speaking world. A world, by the way, that is getting smaller by the minute.

A pleasure chatting with you, hermano.

 

[MustardSeed]

Pretender- I think many of us do it out of habit and don’t think much of it.  I’ve found that anything “different” at church seems jarring and uncomfortable until it isn’t. We are creatures of habit. 
 

Your thoughtfulness earns you the right to be intentional and honest.  You have my full support. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Argentinos and Uruguayos use "vos" in the vernacular but it is not a particular form of "respectful" address but rather common usage. But what I tried to convey previously is that such language forms are not common in the language of prayer in Spanish and Portuguese, for example. And, that by far, there is no consciousness of a formal, "respectful" form of prayer (in other languages) as it was alleged in the OP. "Tu" is just "you". and "Vos" is a short form of "vosotros" (plural for you). By the way, I'm being detailed here for the benefit of others. I suspect you have greater insight into what I'm saying.

I am a native Spanish speaker, I have lived in Mexico, served in wards there and in the US in leadership and I have been in the church for two decades. I believe I have demonstrated quite factually (in my prior post) that the assertion that the use of "thee" and "thou" has absolutely nothing to do with "respectful language of prayer" and more to do with just how we do things in the church in the English speaking world. A world, by the way, that is getting smaller by the minute.

A pleasure chatting with you, hermano.

 

I think we are talking past each other.

Tu and Vos can be used as insults in some Central American countries. But they can also be used with closest friends. Tu is used in prayer. 

In many Spanish instruction courses, tu is definitely compared with thee. Using tu forms in prayer was not only common, but ubiquitous in all the countries in which I served. In Costa Rica especially, our church prayers were beautiful and eloquent in their use of tu forms. Catholics, Evangelicals, Mennonites, and LDS all used it even in our missionary discussions. We never instructed people to use it. They just did.

How would you say the Ave María or the Padre Nuestro  in Spanish?

This is how I heard them pretty much daily…as recommended on Catholic.org…

Dios te salve, Maria.
Llena eres de gracia:
El Señor es contigo.
Bendita tú eres entre todas las mujeres.
Y bendito es el fruto de tu vientre: Jesús.
Santa María, Madre de Dios,
ruega por nosotros pecadores,
ahora y en la hora de nuestra muerte.
Amén.

Padre nuestro, 
que estás en el cielo.
Santificado sea tu nombre.
Venga tu reino.
Hágase tu voluntad en la tierra como en el cielo.
Danos hoy nuestro pan de cada día.
Perdona nuestras ofensas,
como también nosotros perdonamos a los que nos ofenden.
No nos dejes caer en tentación y líbranos del mal.
Amén.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[manol]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not believe that the savior's death's sacrifice "paid a bill" generated by human sin, God is not a bill collector...

Wow.  I don't recall seeing this idea expressed in an LDS context before. 

I agree with you.

Imo Jesus as a "payer of bills on our behalf" is a very useful concept for those who see God as a "bill collector", but imo neither of these concepts are capstones.

God as a "bill collector" is a concept which speaks at the level of spiritual consciousness which has been historically dominant, wherein people are tuned-in to fear rather than to love.  A "bill collector God" is an impelling concept at that level, and it is a START:  "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" - but "fear of the Lord" is not the capstone of wisdom.  (Imo that would be "perfect love, which casts out fear".) 

Ime we have the option to re-tune our "radios" by deliberate and consistent choice, and we thereby tune in to higher and higher stations, and at the other end of the dial there is a station broadcasting and receiving a very different kind of signal:  We can tune in to perfect love which casts out fear/the pure love of Christ/the companionship of the Holy Spirit.

And from that perspective we can see a new world, wherein God is no longer a "bill collector", and Christ is our most intimate companion rather than "payer of our bills".  Continuing with this line of thinking:

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

... Jesus' willingness to... know every single pain and loss of grace that any human could ever know and feel, so that that individual could know... that one greater than him had been there before, and that that poor soul had company in the deepest grief a human soul could experience... Someone infinitely greater than ourselves, had already been there for us.  There is no before or after for God, who lives in an eternal present; the depth of the sacrifice had "already happened" before the creation itself.  [emphasis Manol's]

Yes!!!

The mechanics of HOW this happens are above my pay grade, but I think the eternal present is part of it. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by manol

[Bernard Gui]

duplicate

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

Please know I'm not arguing.  I'm genuinely curious.  When praying in Spanish is it less intimate to you since, I assume, you do use the tu form with some others in worldy conversations? 

Depends on the country. I speak from experience in Central America and my Spanish study at the Language Training Mission and in university.

It’s a nuance we don’t recognize in English. It is used with family, friends, pets, subordinates, children, etc.; however, if housed inappropriately it can be condescending or insulting. It would not be good to speak to a policeman using tu.  

For example, I was threatened with being shot in a road rage incident in Costa Rica because I foolishly tuteared the other driver.  “¿Aprendiste a manejar en Nicaragua?” Learned a lesson with that one. On the other hand, it is considered extremely intimate when speaking with God…the ultimate Father/child relationship.

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

So did I just miss leaders asking use to conjugate the verbs as well or is it only important to them to use "thee" and it doesn't matter how we conjugate.

And if we haven't been taught to conjugate the verb and  the "thee" is important then why isn't the verb form? 

I picked it up in general church contacts, but I learned it in Junior English English Lit) with Mr. Ramsey who had been a Shakespearian actor before teaching. He was inactive LDS.

Quote

29.6
Prayers in Church Meetings

Prayers in Church meetings should be brief, simple, and directed by the Spirit. Any baptized Church member may offer an opening or closing prayer. Children who are not baptized may pray in Primary. Leaders should avoid always asking a husband and wife to pray in the same meeting.
Members should pray using words that express love and respect for Heavenly Father. In English, this includes using the pronouns Thee, Thy, Thine, and Thou when addressing Him.

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, in fact, since I do not believe that the savior's death's sacrifice "paid a bill" generated by human sin, -God is not a bill collector-

What are your thoughts on Elder Packer’s analogy of the Mediator?

Quote

…The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”
“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”
“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”
And so it was that the creditor was paid in full.…

…Our transgressions are all added to our account, and one day if it is not properly settled, each of us, like Belshazzar of Babylon, will be weighed in the balance and found wanting.
There is a Redeemer, a Mediator, who stands both willing and able to appease the demands of justice and extend mercy to those who are penitent, for “He offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.”

https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/PDF/The Mediator.pdf

and Stephen Robinson’s parable of the bicycle?

Quote

We went to every store in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Finally we found it—the perfect bicycle, the one she knew in the premortal existence. She got up on that bike; she was thrilled. She then saw the price tag, reached down, and turned it over. When she saw how much it cost, her face fell and she started to cry. She said, “Oh Dad, I’ll never have enough for a bicycle.”

So I said, “Sarah, how much do you have?”

She answered, “Sixty-one cents.”

“I’ll tell you what. You give me everything you’ve got and a hug and a kiss, and the bike is yours.” Well, she’s never been stupid. She gave me a hug and a kiss. She gave me the sixty-one cents. Then I had to drive home very slowly because she wouldn’t get off the bike. She rode home on the sidewalk, and as I drove along slowly beside her it occurred to me that this was a parable for the Atonement of Christ.

We all want something desperately—it isn’t a bicycle. We want the celestial kingdom. We want to be with our Father in Heaven. And no matter how hard we try, we come up short. At some point we realize, “I can’t do this!” That was the point my wife had reached. It is at that point that the sweetness of the gospel covenant comes to our taste as the Savior proposes, “I’ll tell you what. All right, you’re not perfect. How much do you have? What can you do? Where are you now? Give me all you’ve got, and I’ll pay the rest. Give me a hug and a kiss; enter into a personal relationship with me, and I will do what remains undone.”

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/stephen-e-robinson/believing-christ-practical-approach-atonement/

 

[Calm]

I love Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes

It talks how Grace and Faith are about a patron client relationships and how we have misunderstood what covenant means because we don’t understand how that works. It isn’t a contractual relationship, it is one of favors and loyalty. 
 

We go to debt because we are used to thinking in contracts when instead Jesus dies for us because we need him to and he is our god who cares for us. And we are his disciples because he watches over us. He has our loyalty and commitment. We give ourself to him because he takes care of us.

I may probably be missing nuance, but that is how I interpreted it. It is the relationship that matters and both of us protect that.

So my view is they get it right to a certain point. In the first case no debt is paid back because it can’t be, we don’t have the ability to do so and that is why Christ had to do it for us in the first place.  In the second I don’t think Christ even asks us for what we can pay. It is more he takes care of the bill and moves on and then because we are his, we do what he asks us to do in the future. 

Edited January 31, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Depends on the country. I speak from experience in Central America and my Spanish study at the Language Training Mission and in university.

It’s a nuance we don’t recognize in English. It is used with family, friends, pets, subordinates, children, etc.; however, if housed inappropriately it can be condescending or insulting. It would not be good to speak to a policeman using tu.  

For example, I was threatened with being shot in a road rage incident in Costa Rica because I foolishly tuteared the other driver.  “¿Aprendiste a manejar en Nicaragua?” Learned a lesson with that one. On the other hand, it is considered extremely intimate when speaking with God…the ultimate Father/child relationship.

I didn't explain that well.  You said, "Since I never use those words for every day conversation, I feel they set apart conversations with God from worldly conversations. "

I assume you, personally, might talk to your wife, kids or a close friend (whoever you feel close to who speaks Spanish) about laundry or a movie you want to see etc using the tu form.  

With English you only use those forms in prayer. In Spanish you use them in a variety of conversation.  Do you feel you are missing something or not setting the time apart with God when you pray in Spanish since you don't use those forms only in prayer or do your Spanish prayers have no difference for you than your English prayers?