If only the matters of Christian liberty, doubtful disputations, and the relationship of the “weak” and “strong” of Romans 14-15 were more familiar dialog among the Latter-day Saints, there may be more charity in variety.

It still begs the question for what purpose are we praying: to humble ourselves before God and embrace our communal identity? To cause God to take action on our selfish part? To express piety or blessedness above others? To fit Him into a single, ideal relational mold? Or as Jeff Spector said, as a way to lecture God and Jesus?

I have always thought that the church continues to use thee and thou as another aspect of our uniqueness and separateness from traditional Christianity, just as DavidH likens it to our lack of using the cross as a symbol.

On the other hand, having recently heard praying in other Christian Church settings, I am uncomfortable with it on two levels. It seems almost too familiar, that they are telling God/Jesus things, that They, for sure, already know and it sometimes feels like they are lecturing God and Jesus. And of course, they generally pray directly to Jesus, which I find somewhat ironic, because then they turn around and recite the Lord’s prayer where the Savior instructed us how to pray.

To get fussy about “proper” or “correct” words to address God in prayer is to construct a virtual “rameumptom” by which to pleasure ourselves and/or others with our piety. Or it is to subscribe, perhaps unintentionally, to magical and self-centered thinking: believing that uttering words in a certain way binds God to perform actions on our behalf, to grant our wishes. Prayer, in public, is a chance to attune with God and subordinate the individual identity within the greater communal identity. Prayer, in private, is the opportunity to humble ourselves before God, and seek to attune ourselves to His will.

I think fussing over what word choices makes us more familiar and intimate with God, or respectful and exalting, and which is the right word set for use when, misses the point. Familiarity with God is fine, but I think to make it our litmus for a “correct” relationship with Him speaks more to cultural preferences for creating God in our own image. I see Oak’s justification for outdated English as a special and unconventional way to intimacy with God speaking to this same allure of creating Him in our parochial image. Whether it is “LDS style” prayer or “Evangelical style” prayer it misses the point to advocate a familiar relational standard of us to God. Who cares which words, old forms or new forms, we use, really??

If we are not seeking unity and subordination to His will, then all we are having is a familiar and intimate feeling, albeit still self-centered, relationship with God. The invitation is to become God-centered, Kingdom-centered, church-centered, humanity-centered. We can aspire to this ideal through familiar or honorific language, old or new language forms, through public and private action. And, like the Psalms so wonderfully portray, we can aspire to that ideal whether we define our relationship with God as Creator/creation, like a mutual lover, like a Master to servant, as subject to King, or as parent to child.

On the other hand, our “thee” and “thou” emphasis may be akin to our aversion to crosses, which, as I understand largely derives from the lack of crosses in Protestant churches at the time of the Restoration and of our move to the west. The rest of Protestantism changed, but we stayed the same, and the absence of crosses has become a point of pride and differentiation.

And so, I think at some point it is possible that “thee” and “thou” may well become part of the “special language” only of LDS prayer in English. In other languages, we will continue to use whatever is generally considered the second-person language of prayer currently (rather than in earlier years) in that culture.

As to Elder Oaks’ explanation, it reminds me of Lewis Carroll in “Through the Looking Glass”:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

But we do it because we do it. I had to get over that a long time ago. ::shrug::

Elder Oaks seems to want it both ways. Respect and reverence warrant Sie-sprache, closeness warrants Du-sprache. For me, the former outweighs the latter. When I use thee and thou, I feel like I am using Sie-sprache. Why should German (other European) members get the unambiguous closeness, while I have to wade through the respect and reverence?

Many Mormons tend to think this was the way they spoke in the 1820′s, and that is not the case.

Alas (to use a similar toned word), Merci pour votre patience et j’espere que vous comprendez ma francais apres huit anees.

Salut!

Another interesting cultural note: Korean Mormons do not fold their arms when they pray. I was also a Korean linguist in the Army, and was stationed there for a year. Folding one’s arms is a cultural sign of defiance towards one’s social superior (i.e. God). They do not follow the American LDS cultural habit of telling their children to fold their arms when they pray.

I agree with the others who stated God probably doesn’t care much about your speech or body language. It matters what’s in your heart.

Fun aside, “thee” and “thou” were originally informal address. Like French, they are cousins of the German “du”, and their verbs are conjugated similarly (with -st). Using a slightly different language than the norm to address God makes it more personal, intimate and special to me. It sets aside a verbal “sacred space” in which to have my most sacred discussions.