One person commented: "I would've hoped that a well-educated man like Elder Nelson would know that "thou" is, in fact, the familiar, not formal pronoun. I don't think he was suggesting it was a commandment. I agree with you, but it helps some people to use those words."
Another person wrote: "Disagree with the use of archaisms in prayer. Jesus didn't use them, and I don't feel the need to either. Sad that people confuse archaisms with sacredness. 'Thee' 'thy' 'thine' simply meant 'you' and 'your' in KJV times."
Now, I have to admit that although I was listening, I wasn't trying to remember every phrase uttered word-for-word. I cannot recall whether or not Elder Nelson said that "thou" was a formal pronoun. However, I believe both of these comments miss the point of the direction to use [what is now considered a formal pronoun, right? Wouldn't your friends think you were being formal or pretentious if you used those pronouns today?] "thou" when addressing God in prayer.
I imagine the leaders of the Church who counsel us to use these pronouns understand the history behind their usage. In fact, Elder Dallin H. Oaks wrote back in 1993:
The special language of prayer that Latter-day Saints use in English has sometimes been explained by reference to the history of the English language. It has been suggested that thee, thou, thy, and thine are simply holdovers from forms of address once used to signify respect for persons of higher rank. But more careful scholarship shows that the words we now use in the language of prayer were once commonly used by persons of rank in addressing persons of inferior position. These same English words were also used in communications between persons in an intimate relationship. There are many instances where usages of English words have changed over the centuries. But the history of English usage is not the point.
Scholarship can contradict mortal explanations, but it cannot rescind divine commands or inspired counsel. In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.
(emphasis added)
I personally don't see his instructions as an attempt to equate "archaisms with sacredness." But more on instructions regarding the language of prayer shortly.
Again, it was noted: "Since Jesus didn't use them, I don't feel the need to either." I'm not sure if anyone has specifically asked the Savior which words He used and didn't use. And, if someone had, I would imagine that the Prophets and Apostles would be able to shed some light on the subject. I think this attitude towards the direction of prayer-specific language overlooks the blessing of continuing revelation. When Jesus instituted the Sacrament, He used wine. Today, we are instructed to use water. Understanding that Jesus used wine, would you therefore feel unsettled and disinclined to participate in the Sacrament because water is used?
Likewise, modern revelation has provided instruction relating to the language of prayer. While one may be inclined to continue to "not feel the need" to use the pronouns "thee," "thou," "thy," and "thine" in prayer, a study of the words of Church leaders can lead one to understand that such pronoun use is continually suggested, yea, even strongly admonished:
[U]se the sacred language of prayer. We should always address Deity by using the sacred pronouns thou, thee, thy, and thine. The late President Stephen L. Richards gave us this wise counsel:
“We have discovered … a lack of proper teaching with reference to prayer. I know that I myself have been shocked out in the mission field as I have heard missionaries called on for prayer who seem to have had no experience or training whatever in the use of the language of prayer. …
“I think, my brethren, that in the quorums and in the classes, you would do well, as in the homes also, to teach the language of prayer—‘Thee and Thou,’ rather than ‘you.’ It always seems disappointing to me to have our Father in Heaven, our Lord, addressed as ‘you.’ It is surprising how much we see of this. … I think you might make note of it, and avail yourselves of any opportunities that may come in order to teach the sacred and reverential language of prayer.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1951, p. 175.)
Let us teach our children to use the language of prayer.
(From Elder L. Tom Perry, 1983, emphasis added)
Speaking of teaching our children the language of prayer, Elder Oaks continued his message on prayer with the following counsel:
Modern revelation commands parents to “teach their children to pray.” (D&C 68:28.) This requires parents to learn and pray with the special language of prayer. We learn our native language simply by listening to those who speak it. This is also true of the language with which we address our Heavenly Father. The language of prayer is easier and sweeter to learn than any other tongue. We should give our children the privilege of learning this language by listening to their parents use it in the various prayers offered daily in our homes.
And,
We should also remember that our position on special prayer language in English is based on modern revelations and the teachings and examples of modern prophets. [...]
However, we should be considerate of those who have not yet learned, or who have not yet become comfortable with the "language of prayer." While not using the proper pronouns should not get one "banned" from, or mocked in, public prayer, we should both remember that we each are at different parts of the journey along the Gospel path, and that our leaders teach us the ideal that we should strive for. Elder Oaks continues:
We are especially anxious that our position on special language in prayers in English not cause some to be reluctant to pray in our Church meetings or in other settings where their prayers are heard. We have particular concern for converts and others who have not yet had experience in using these words.
I am sure that our Heavenly Father, who loves all of his children, hears and answers all prayers, however phrased. If he is offended in connection with prayers, it is likely to be by their absence, not their phraseology.
When one of our daughters was about three years old, she did something that always delighted her parents. When we called her name, she would usually answer by saying, “Here me is.” This childish reply was among the sweetest things her parents heard. But when she was grown, we expected her to use appropriate language when she spoke, and of course she did. As the Apostle Paul said, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Cor. 13:11.)
The same is true of prayer. Our earliest efforts will be heard with joy by our Heavenly Father, however they are phrased. They will be heard in the same way by loving members of our church. But as we gain experience as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we need to become more mature in all of our efforts, including our prayers.
With all the informality and abbreviations creeping into our everyday language (how many of you can understand, or have used, the following: ur a qt pi; ttyl; we went to his house b/c ur rents were in da way), and all the new words and phrases joining common usage (Googling, Twittering, surfing the Net, etc.), should it really be that difficult to learn and to master a few more words and their usage so that we might be able to speak in the language of prayer?
I'll end this post with the following, again from Elder Oaks:
Men and women who wish to show respect will take the time to learn the special language of prayer. Persons spend many hours mastering communication skills in other mediums, such as poetry or prose, vocal or instrumental music, and even the language of access to computers. My brothers and sisters, the manner of addressing our Heavenly Father in prayer is at least as important as these.
5 comments:
Thanks for sharing... great insight @jarvie
Hi! I was actually the one who tweeted the archaisms comment. Let me preface my remarks by saying this is not an issue that I make a point of doing in public prayers in the church. I'm not trying to push an agenda here. I was raised LDS and am thoroughly familiar with our prayer traditions, and in my public prayers I avoid distracting people by departing from them.
From a practical perspective, the problem I have about it is that in this case, as you have thoroughly pointed out with your detailed references, this custom is not based on common linguistic usage or scriptural tradition. Today it is a fairly unique practice of the Mormons that I believe arose for various reasons. I suspect that this tradition came because the language of the KJV was so prevalent in early church times that everyone used it to address deity, basically following the verbatim examples of the words they read without regard to whether or not they had fallen out of common usage, and they were actually not totally obsolete at that time. Over time, as more modern translations of the Bible became available, most Christians moved in the direction of more modern language, but I think the Mormons were holdouts for various reasons. Although Elder Oaks argues that the reason for this custom is that the obsolescence of the archaic usage makes it fair game to be borrowed for other purposes, I don't think this is an accurate characterization for the real historical reasons that the church has maintained this usage. I suppose it's fine to try to make an argument for why we should continue this practice on this basis now, but it doesn't seem like a very plausible explanation for why we have done it in the past. The argument itself also seems specious to me--ultimately I think we are doing it because we don't want to change, not because of the various reasons that different people have given for it.
The reasons I've seen given are: 1) The language is more intimate; 2) the language is more respectful; 3) the language is more sacred. All these claims are either based on an anachronistic understanding of common English usage or a prescribed definition that is largely unshared by the rest of the world. The final reason I sometimes see, i.e. we should do it purely out of obedience our leaders' counsel, is, in my opinion, not sufficient in and of itself and merits further investigation.
All this aside, my main motivation for opposing this tradition is that I believe it distances us from God more than it brings us closer to Him. In my day-to-day interaction with my fellow church members, I see a huge fear of admitting personal struggles and weaknesses. I see a veneer of respectability that many of my brothers and sisters seem to feel compelled to maintain at all costs. I see a tremendous concern to appear to be good Mormons who follow the customs of the culture. I see a hesitancy to confess our faults and sins before our brethren, as Paul exhorts us to do, a fear of exposing our vulnerability and thus a barrier to fostering truly meaningful and burden-sharing relationships with each other. Because of this extreme cultural sensitivity that seems to me to be unnecessarily concerned with tradition and external appearances, I think that an expectation that certain language be used in prayer can only add to this tendency rather than combat it, so I think it would be better to jettison these trappings of formality and try to foster more sincere personal relationships with God in prayer by teaching respect and reverence for Him without focusing on specific phrasing.
I hope this makes sense. I don't expect others to change in response to my opinions and I don't intend to make this my crusade or anything. I appreciate your taking the time to share these insights on the subject.
Carl,
Thanks for your comments here. While I disagree with your assessment of the situation, I can respect your viewpoint and I appreciate your willingness to share your perspective of the issue. It has made me stop and think a little more about the relationship I'm fostering with God through my prayers, regardless of the language I'm using. Two follow-up observations:
1. One of your assertions is that we (meaning Mormons) have held to this tradition of language used in prayer so as to simply not change. Perhaps you are correct, but the very reasons you have mentioned in your comment may also have been taught by previous prophets as well. I haven't done any extensive research, but it would interesting to find when such language fell out of common usage and to see what effect, if any, we see on the language used in prayer during that time period, as well as any corresponding teachings from prior prophets on the issue.
2. Using thee, thou, thine doesn't (for me anyway) dilute my ability to create a personal relationship with God. It actually helps reinforce that this is, in fact, a unique relationship, different than any other, including that which we enjoy with our earthly parents.
3. I sympathize with the concern for not wanting to intimidate or alienate good people who try hard but fall short (doesn't that describe most of us) by prescribing a certain method of prayer. The same concern could be had for our method of dressing for Church functions or addressing each other by Brother or Sister So & So. I believe the true solution here is accepting others for who they are (weaknesses and all) and what they are trying to become and not necessarily changing the language for a prayer, but I can see where expecting specific language has the potential for furthering alienating or intimidating people.
Those are just my thoughts about the issue. Thanks for the thoughtfulness of the original blog post, as well as Carl's follow-up comment.
Thanks Brett. I agree it would be good to have more history on this subject.
As time goes by, I think this custom will make us increasingly alienated from the culture. Think Vatican II and the decision to finally stop conducting the mass in Latin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_Council
Regarding your assertion that this practice allows you to create a unique relationship with God, I agree that these types of distinct behaviors could be used to make a relationship more unique, but I also think they have the side-effect of making them less accessible.
Finally, in response to your #3, I did not mean to say that these teachings would be intimidating. I meant to say that they reinforce Pharisaical behavior. The reinforce a focus on the outward forms instead of the sincerity and intent of our worship, and a willingness to be vulnerable, which I believe is the doorway to truly meaningful relationships and meaningful progress in the gospel.
Lastly, I just want to temper all my statements here. Although these are my personal feelings on the subject, I am willing to go along with this in church and although I think things could be better I don't think it's an important enough issue to cause disruptions about.
Finally, I agree that all sincere prayers are heard regardless of how they're given, but I think prescribed language has a tendency to make sincerity harder rather than easier.
I find myself aligned with Carl on this. Allow me to throw another log on the fire.
In spanish there are 2 primary forms of address: Usted and Tu. Their history is at least as interesting as the history of our form of address, but suffice it to say that in modern usage Usted is formal and Tu is familiar. You would not call an elder by tu unless it was your parent or close relative (and maybe not even then). You would not hesitate to call a child (or military underling) by tu, and usted would seem somewhat ludicrous. Guess which form is the form used in the Spanish bible, and the form which is taught to be used as the "language of prayer" in the LDS church in Spanish? The tu form. I and most missionaries I knew found that as we came to realize the signficance of this, it lent a particular closeness and intimacy to prayers given in Spanish (including all of our own personal and companionship prayers). The reasoning was the same - it was the archaic form used in the bible - but the result is a complete 180° from that in English.
I have no need to rock the boat on the issue so I continue to use the cultural norm when I pray in public. My own personal prayers are usually nonvocal and I use images, concepts, and thoughts more than actual words. But the words I do use, are more like talking to wife or parents - the people to whom I feel closest. My respect and intimacy with them comes not from the words I use to address them, but the things that I say to them and the way that I say them, and I believe it should be no different in prayer.
Post a Comment