O. Introduction.
Philippine Linguistics as the scientific study of Philippine languages is relatively very recent. Perhaps it can safely be said that it started as an autonomous and distinct field of study only after the turn of the twentieth century with the coming of the American to the Philippines.' Its development up to the present time went through two distinct stages roughly corresponding to the Pre-World War II period and the Post-World War II period.
0.1 Pre-World War II Period.
Before the outbreak of the Second World War Philippine Linguistics did not seem to be very active, and it did not seem to have made significant progress. The study of Philippine languages and dialects especially on a scientific basis, with the notable exception of Tagalog and perhaps also Ilukano, was generally neglected.
This neglect of Philippine languages. and dialects can be attributed to two successive events. First, in the first quarter of the twentieth century the attention of the linguistic scholars in the Philippines was directed towards the problems arising from the use of English as the medium of instruction in schools throughout the Philippines.? Second, in the 1930's until the outbreak of the Second World War attention was directed towards still another problem: that of evolving a Philippine national language." Whatever scientific study of Philippine languages and dialects was done during the Pre-World War II period was done primarily if not exclusively by five linguists: three Americans, one German and one Filipino.«
All of these linguists, with the exception of two, were essentially interested in the history and genetic comparison of Philippine languages, usually together with other Austronesian or Malaya Polynesian languages. Consequently, most of the linguistic works written during this period were on the genetic comparison of Philippine languages. Nonetheless, Scheerer, Bloomfield and Blake (three of the five linguists mentioned above) did write grammatical descriptions of Tagalog, Ilukano, and other Philippine languages."
During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines there seemed to be no noteworthy activity in Philippine Linguistics. All efforts of a linguistic nature were directed towards the teaching of Japanese to Filipinos and the propagation of the Philippine national language.
0.2 Post-World War II Period.
After the Second World War, to be more specific after 1950, Philippine Linguistics underwent a new orientation which we may call the American orientation. Two events occurring almost simultaneously were directly responsible for this. The first of these events was the establishment in the Philippines of a branch of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Iric,? The second event was the sudden popularity of the so-called "second language teaching" among English teachers and educationists in the Philippines.
The establishment of a Philippine branch of the Summer Institute of Linguistics brought to the Philippines the modern techniques in descriptive linguistics which were developed in the United States before, during and after the Second World War. The members of the Institute, who were (and still are) missionaries trained in linguistics, applied the techniques of descriptive linguistics in studying Philippine languages and dialects. They studied Philippine languages and dialects in the field especially the lesser-known ones. They made phonemic analyses of many Philippine languages and dialects; they devised practical ortographies for them; they constructed literary materials in them; they translated religious materials into them. Though in general the members of the Insti-tute do not seem interested in, or have not gone far enough in, studying the grammar of Philippine languages and dialects, especially the syntax, they have nevertheless up to the present time published in monograph form grammatical analyses of three Philippine languages and dialects." The Summer Institute of Linguistics came to the Philippines in 1953. At about the same time, if not a little bit later, the linguistic approach to the teaching (and learning) of a foreign language (also called second language) popularly known as the "second language" approach caught fire in the Philippines. This as a consequence created a great interest, especially among language teachers, in descriptive linguistics and contrastive linguistics, and much later because of contrastive linguistics in transformational analysis of the Chomsky type. This interest in second language teaching culminated in the establishment of the Philippine Center of Language Study in 1957.8 The immediate results of these two events which trace their origin in the United States were: (1) the change in emphasis or interest in Philippine Linguistics from historical and comparative (Indo-European) linguistics to descriptive (American) linguistics, (2) the description and analysis of more Philippine languages and dialects, and later (3) the contrasting of the major Philippine languages with English. However, the interest in descriptive linguistics and contrastive linguistics did not mean the end of historical and comparative linguistic activity in the Philippines.
Historical and comparative linguistcs was kept alive in the Philippines through the sustained devotion of the lone Filipino linguist (who was trained in Europe in the historical-comparative tradition in linguistics) and of one or two American Linguists. This, in brief, is the short history of modern Philippine Linguistics. The status of this field of study is now established; it is increasingly becoming more active; its future looks very very bright indeed. However, like any new field of study, it still faces many problems. This short
lecture will present and discuss some of these problems.
1. The Problems. The problems facing Philippine Linguistics may be defined in terms of needs. These needs are divided into two types: external needs and internal needs. External needs refer to those needs which lie outside the discipline itself but which directly affect its growth. Internal needs consist of those needs which lie within the discipline itself.
2. External Needs. There are two basic external needs in Philippine Linguistics: (1) the need for more Filipino linguists who will study Philippine languages and dialects, and (2) the need for more research projects on Philippine languages and dialects. There are of course other needs which are secondary to these needs (and will not be discussed in this lecture). For example, there is the need for more teachers and courses in Linguistics. There is also the need for more money to do research work on Philippine languages and dialects.
2.1 Filipino Linguists.
The need for Filipino linguists has always been an urgent problem. Before the Second World War up to 1959 the
Philippines had had only one Filipino linguist; in fact this Filipino linguist may be called the first Filipino linguist.' ° At present, two or three or may be four Filipino can be added to this lone linguist. However, only one or two of these new Filipino linguists are active in Philippine Linguistics. That is, only one or two of these new liguists are doing research work on Philippine languages and dialects. And the Philippines has more than 100 distinct dialects belonging to perhaps more than 80 different languages most of which are still undiscovered or undescribed or very inadequately or incorrectly described, and some of which are fast becoming extinct. Thus, in spite of the addition of four Filipino linguists the need for more Filipino linguists remains an urgent problem.
The training of more Filipinos to become linguists is not an easy task. For one thing, very few Filipinos at present are interested in linguistics because they think, perhaps not very. correctly, that there is no money in it and also because of the common misconception that linguistics is merely learning to speak many languages. Another reason is that many \Nestern linguists do not seem to be eager or don't have the time
to train natives in this part of the world to become linguists. Many Western linguists would rather use the 'natives' or speakers of 'exotic' languages as their informants or data gatherers. It should not be inferred from the preceding statement that foreign (Western) linguists are not needed in the scientific study of Philippine languages and dialects. They are needed. In fact, they were the pioneers in the study of Philippine languages and dialects. And they have contributed a lot to the development and modernization of Philippine Linguistics.
All that we want is that more Filipinos should participate in the study of their own languages and dialects. One reason why we want Filipinos to study Philippine languages and dialects is of great importance to Philippine Linguistics and general linguistics. The Filipino linguist is in a better position to make satisfactory analyses of Philippine languages and dialects than the foreign linguist.
The Filipino linguist has one big advantage over the foreign linguist: he is a native speaker of at least one Philippine language or dialect and as such he has intuitions about his language or dialect and other Philippine languages and dialects (since all Philippine languages and dialects are very closely related to each other) which will provide him a good start in making valid analyses of Philippine languages and dialects. The foreign linguist who does not possess intuitions about any Philippine language or dialect often times distorts Philippine languages and dialects to fit the structure of his native language, or also he describes a Philippine language as though it were Eskimo.
It should also be stressed that the linguists that are needed in Philippine Linguistics are those who will study Philippine language and dialects as an end in itself and not as a means to some end. That is, we need Fihpino linguists who will study Philippine languages for the sake 01 describing and analyzing them scientifically, and not for the sake of being able to speak them, or teach them, or for the sake of being able to teach English or Spanish or Tagalog to Filipinos better. Only linguists who will study Philippine languages and dialects in and for themselves will be able to make substantial and permanent contribution to Philippine Linguistics.
2.2 Research.
At present only two or three Filipino linguists and about two or three American linguists are doing research work on Philippine languages and dialects. And there are only two or three research projects on Philippine languages and dialects currently being undertaken. We heed more linguists, Filipinos and foreigners alike, to do research work on Philippine languages and dialects. And we need more research
projects on Philippine languages and dialects. The lack of a sufficient number of Filipino linguists and the inadequateness of research on Philippine languages and dialects have hampered progress in Philippine Linguistics. In fact, these two problems are directly responsible for the internal needs in Philippine Linguistics which will be described next.
3. Internal Needs. The internal needs in Philippine Linguistics will be grouped into six: (1) the need for a linguistic survey of the Philippines, (2) the need for a critical survey of works on the languages and dialects of the Philippines, (3) the need for the scientific analysis of many Philippine languages and dialects, (4) the need for more comparative studies (genetic, areal, typological) of Philippine languages, (5) the need for a dialect geography of the Philippines, and finally (6) the need for studies on language contact, bilingualism, and borrowing in the Philippines. These needs will be taken up one after the other in that order of mention.
3.1 Linguistic Survey.
Up to now, no systematic linguistic survey of the Philippines has been undertaken. The last enumeration and description of Philippine languages and dialects was made by Beyer in 1916,14 and this has been copied and revised by others. Beyer's enumeration and description of Philippine languages and dialects has long been out of date; also it is far from satisfactory from the linguistic point of view. It is very clear now that many languages and dialects were not included in the list.
The making of a linguistic survey involves the task of determining which dialects constitute a single language, and which dialects belong to different languages. The undertaking has never been done yet in the Philippines. For example, some people consider the dialects spoken in the cities of Cebu, Iloilo and Tacloban as dialects of the same language (they call this the Bisayan language); others consider these three dialects as belonging to three languages (Sebuano, Ilonggo and Waray, respectively). But no one has tried to apply the linguistic method of testing whether these dialects belong to the 'Same language or to different languages.
3.2 Survey of Linguistic Works.
The lack of a systematic linguistic survey of the Philippines is paralleled by the lack of a critical survey of works on the languages and dialects of the Philippines. Such a survey is needed for several reasons. It will give us an idea of the status of Philippine Linguistics. It will provide us not only with a list of works on the languages and dialects of the Philippines but also with a critical evaluation of these works as to scope or adequacy and quality or scientificness, It will tell us how many languages and dialects of the Philippines have been described and analyzed and which of them are adequately and scientifically studied. It will tell us the extent of the Filipino participation in the study of Philippine languages and dialects. Lastly, it will indicate to us the urgent problems or needs in Philippine Linguistics.
3.3 Scientific Analysis. The need to analyze Philippine languages anddialects using the methods of modern linguistics seems to be the most basic and urgent problem in Philippine Linguistics. Many Philippine languages and dialects still remain unidentified and undescribed. A number of them have been phonemically described only. Very few of them have been grammatically described. Many Philippine languages and dialects have been described and analyzed in the traditional way only.
3.4 Comparisons. Some studies have been made on the genetic comparison of the phonology of Philippine languages. These studies were mostly made by Conant, Coste noble, Chretien, Dyen and Lopez. The unpublished work of Lopez entitled "A Comparative Philippine WordList" is the most extensive of the studies made so far. This research work includes 2,000 sets of words from more than 20 different Philippine languages. In the genetic comparison of the grammar of Philippine languages, some studies have been made by Blake and Lopez. Blake's work is short and preliminary in nature.« Lopez's work entitled "Comparative Philippine syntax" which is in the last stages of completion is more extensive. It includes data from about 12 or more Philippine languages. In the typological or structural comparison of Philippine languages nothing has been done except for one current research project which was started in 1961 in the University of the Philippines. The preliminary findings of this project was reported at the Tenth Pacific Science Congress held in Honolulu, in 196J.15 A part of this project, a morphosyntactic comparison of the ten major Philippine language which received a grant from the Philippine Center for language Study will be completed this year.
The lexicostatistical comparison of Philippine languages has been attempted this year. A preliminary comparison of this sort was made on the language of northern Luzon in 1953.1 6 Dyen included several Philippine languages in his Iexicostatistical comparison of Malayopolynesian languages. Thomas and Healey made sub-groupings of Philippine Ianguage on lexicostatistical basis.
3.5 Dialect Geography.
Though many Philippine languages, like Tagalog, Ilukano and Ibanag, have several dialects not a single dialect geography of any area in the Philippines has been made. The dialect geography of the Philippines done by Pittman and associates in 1952 III is not properly a dialect geography since it treats more of the variations among different languages than of variations within the same language.
3.6 Language Contact.
Practically no study has been made on the contacts of Philippine languages among themselves and with outside languages like Chinese, Spanish and English."? There are no studies on bilingualism in the Philippines. There are now several works dealing with borrowed words in some Philippine languages, like Tagalog, Ilukano and Sebuano, from non-Philippine languages, like Chinese, Spanish, English and Sanskrit. But no study has been made on borrowed words in one Philippine language from another Philippine language. The receptivity or non-receptivity of Philippine languages to foreign words has not yet been studied.
4. Conclusion. The foregoing are some of the problems or needs in Philippine Linguistics. These needs will always be there unless more Filipinos will become interested in the scientific study of their own languages and dialects. In other words, we need more Filipinos, who, like Dr. Lopez, will devote their full time to the scientific study of Philippine languages and dialects.
Mission President
Sheralyn and Dennis V. Dahle , 56, and Sheralyn Kress Dahle, seven children, Cedar Hollow 6th Ward, Lehi Utah Cedar Hollow Stake, succeeding President Roberto B. Querido and Sister Elsie V. Querido. Brother Dahle serves as a stake president and is a former high councilor, bishop, Gospel Doctrine teacher, stake missionary, and missionary in the Japan Sendai Mission. Attorney at Snow, Christensen & Martineau. Born in Logan, Utah, to VaNon Dahle and Arlene Gibbs Moss Dahle.Sister Dahle serves as a seminary teacher and is a former stake Relief Society president, ward Relief Society president, ward Young Women president, ward Primary president, and institute teacher. Born in Pocatello, Idaho, to Paul Eugene Kress and Gayle Taysom Kress.
Fema and Dave Advincula Aquino (2008 - 2011) Dave Advincula Aquino, 45, Philippines Olongapo Mission; Naga 2nd Ward, Naga Philippines Stake; counselor in the Philippines Naga Mission presidency and stake Young Men president; former bishop and counselor, high councilor, ward Sunday School president, stake mission president and missionary in the Philippines Davao Mission. Institute director, Church Educational System. Born in Manila, Philippines, to Federico Dimaguila and Leticia Zalameda Advincula Aquino. Married Fema Gines Soliman, three children.A stake Young Women president and ward temple preparation teacher, Sister Aquino is a former ward Young Women president, counselor in a ward Primary presidency and ward Relief Society teacher. Born in Angeles City, Philippines, to Manuel Castro, Sr and Febe Fernando Gines Soliman.
Karma and Craig Burtenshaw (2005 - 2008) Craig Alan Burtenshaw, 56; Ucon 4th Ward, Ucon Idaho Stake; high councilor in the BYU-Idaho 5th Stake; former stake president, bishop, counselor in a bishopric, teacher development coordinator and missionary in the Eastern Atlantic States Mission. Dentist. Born in Idaho Falls, Idaho, to Clyde Alan and Velma Rozella Ferguson Burtenshaw. Married Karma Sellers, six children. A family history missionary, Sister Burtenshaw is a former ward Young Women president and counselor, Young Women camp director, family history consultant and Cub Scout leader. Born in Rigby, Idaho, to Heber Allen and Lula Wanda Frandsen Sellers.
Keith F. and Elizabeth Kinghorn (2002 - 2005) Keith F. Kinghorn, 62, Philippines Olongapo Mission; Salt Lake Cottonwood Stake, Cottonwood 13th Ward; vice president, owner of Davis Benefits Inc.; bishop's counselor for the Timpanogos 1st Branch, Utah State Prison; former high councilor, stake president's counselor, multi-region welfare agent and bishop's counselor; born in Rigby, Idaho, to Wilmer Clarence and Edith Fairchild Kinghorn. Married Elizabeth Shaw, seven children.She is a literacy and service leader for the Timpanogos 1st Branch, Utah State Prison, former stake Young Women and Primary president, and ward Young Women and Relief Society president. Born in Burley, Idaho, to Samuel H. and Eliza Cordelia Nye Shaw.
Luana and Elmer L. Sanders (1999 - 2002) Elmer L. Sanders, 65, Philippines Olongapo Mission; Pella 1st Ward, Oakley Idaho Stake; former stake president, high councilor, bishop and counselor, ward clerk, elders quorum secretary, and missionary with his wife in the California San Jose Mission; farmer; born in Murray, Utah, to Elmer Seigfried and Hazel Alvina Anderson Sanders; married Luana Gordon, four children. She is a former stake Primary president, counselor in ward Relief Society presidency, Young Women adviser, teacher in Relief Society literacy program, and family history extraction worker; born in Salt Lake City to Wiley Peter and Gladys Mae Jordan Gordon.
Garner, Del B. (1997 - 1999) Del B. Garner, 58, Raft River Ward, Declo Idaho Stake; former stake president and counselor, bishop's counselor, elders quorum president, and Scoutmaster; farm owner and operator; attended Utah State University; born in Ogden, Utah, to F. James and Norma Ione Berrett Garner; married Carol Hipwell, five children. She serves in public affairs and family history; former stake Relief Society president's counselor, stake homemaking leader, ward Primary and Young Women president, Relief Society president's counselor and homemaking leader, and Relief Society teacher; attended the College of Southern Idaho; born in Ogden, Utah, to Ellis Albert and Mary Elizabeth Staker Hipwell.
Allen C. Christensen (1994 - 1997) Allen C. Christensen, 58, Walnut Park Ward, Chino California Stake; counselor in California Riverside Mission presidency; former stake president and counselor, high councilor, bishop and counselor, high priests group leader, Sunday School teacher; dean of College of Agriculture at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona; received bachelor's degree from BYU, master's degree from University of California-Davis, and doctorate from Utah State University; born in Lehi, Utah, to Clare Bernard and Relia Sarah Allen Christensen; married Kathleen Ruth Atwater, five children. She is missionary companion to her husband and ward organist; former stake Relief Society compassionate service leader, stake YWMIA organist, counselor in ward Relief Society presidency, homemaking leader, and ward compassionate service leader; received bachelor's degree from BYU; born in Los Angeles, Calif., to Horace Logan and Sarah Hazel Smith Atwater.
Lyons, John H. (1991 - 1994)
Robert J. Kennerley (1988 - 1991 ) Robert John Kennerley, 46, Auckland 3rd Ward, Auckland New Zealand Mt. Roskill Stake; stake president, former stake president's counselor, district president, and bishop; served in the Samoa Mission, 1962-64, and with wife in the Philippines Mission, 1973-74; travel agency managing director; born in Auckland, New Zealand, a son of Eric James and Evelyn Hilda Pearce Kennerley; married Taimi Salanoa; seven children. She is a Primary president's counselor, former seminary teacher, Relief Society chorister, and Primary teacher; born in Vaimosa, Western Samoa, a daughter of Iosa and Si'ae Vaiotu Salanoa.
Missionary Commision
Missionary Commission
I am called of God. My authority is above that of the kings of the earth. By revelation I have been selected as a personal representative of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is my Master and He has chosen me to represent Him. To stand in His place, to say and do what He himself would say and do if He personally were ministering to the very people to whom He has sent me. My voice is His voice, and my acts are His acts; my words are His words and my doctrine is His doctrine. My commission is to do what He wants done. To say what He wants said. To be a living modern witness in word and deed of the divinity of His great and marvelous latter-day work How Great Is My Calling
Elder Bruce R. McConkie
Australian Mission, 1961–64
DOCTRINE & COVENANTS 4
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to his father, Joseph Smith, Sen., at Harmony, Pennsylvania, February 1829. HC 1: 28.
1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.
2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.
3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;
4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that trusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;
5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.
6 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.
7 Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.
1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men.
2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day.
3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are called to the work;
4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that trusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul;
5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work.
6 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility, diligence.
7 Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.
Standard of Truth
Persecution has not stopped the progress of truth, but has only added fuel to the flame, it has spread with increasing rapidity. Our missionaries are going forth to different nations...The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done
- Joseph Smith
- Joseph Smith
Beware of Pride
Beware of Pride
President Ezra Taft Benson
My beloved brethren and sisters, I rejoice to be with you in another glorious general conference of the Church. How grateful I am for the love, prayers, and service of the devoted members of the Church throughout the world.
May I commend you faithful Saints who are striving to flood the earth and your lives with the Book of Mormon. Not only must we move forward in a monumental manner more copies of the Book of Mormon, but we must move boldly forward into our own lives and throughout the earth more of its marvelous messages.
This sacred volume was written for us—for our day. Its scriptures are to be likened unto ourselves. (See 1 Ne. 19:23.)
The Doctrine and Covenants tells us that the Book of Mormon is the “record of a fallen people.” (D&C 20:9.) Why did they fall? This is one of the major messages of the Book of Mormon. Mormon gives the answer in the closing chapters of the book in these words: “Behold, the pride of this nation, or the people of the Nephites, hath proven their destruction.” (Moro. 8:27.) And then, lest we miss that momentous Book of Mormon message from that fallen people, the Lord warns us in the Doctrine and Covenants, “Beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old.” (D&C 38:39.)
I earnestly seek an interest in your faith and prayers as I strive to bring forth light on this Book of Mormon message—the sin of pride. This message has been weighing heavily on my soul for some time. I know the Lord wants this message delivered now.
In the premortal council, it was pride that felled Lucifer, “a son of the morning.” (2 Ne. 24:12–15; see also D&C 76:25–27; Moses 4:3.) At the end of this world, when God cleanses the earth by fire, the proud will be burned as stubble and the meek shall inherit the earth. (See 3 Ne. 12:5, 3 Ne. 25:1; D&C 29:9; JS—H 1:37; Mal. 4:1.)
Three times in the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord uses the phrase “beware of pride,” including a warning to the second elder of the Church, Oliver Cowdery, and to Emma Smith, the wife of the Prophet. (D&C 23:1; see also D&C 25:14; D&C 38:39.)
Pride is a very misunderstood sin, and many are sinning in ignorance. (See Mosiah 3:11; 3 Ne. 6:18.) In the scriptures there is no such thing as righteous pride—it is always considered a sin. Therefore, no matter how the world uses the term, we must understand how God uses the term so we can understand the language of holy writ and profit thereby. (See 2 Ne. 4:15; Mosiah 1:3–7; Alma 5:61.)
Most of us think of pride as self-centeredness, conceit, boastfulness, arrogance, or haughtiness. All of these are elements of the sin, but the heart, or core, is still missing.
The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us.
Pride is essentially competitive in nature. We pit our will against God’s. When we direct our pride toward God, it is in the spirit of “my will and not thine be done.” As Paul said, they “seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s.” (Philip. 2:21.)
Our will in competition to God’s will allows desires, appetites, and passions to go unbridled. (See Alma 38:12; 3 Ne. 12:30.)
The proud cannot accept the authority of God giving direction to their lives. (See Hel. 12:6.) They pit their perceptions of truth against God’s great knowledge, their abilities versus God’s priesthood power, their accomplishments against His mighty works.
Our enmity toward God takes on many labels, such as rebellion, hard-heartedness, stiff-neckedness, unrepentant, puffed up, easily offended, and sign seekers. The proud wish God would agree with them. They aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s.
Another major portion of this very prevalent sin of pride is enmity toward our fellowmen. We are tempted daily to elevate ourselves above others and diminish them. (See Hel. 6:17; D&C 58:41.)
The proud make every man their adversary by pitting their intellects, opinions, works, wealth, talents, or any other worldly measuring device against others. In the words of C. S. Lewis: “Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man. … It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition has gone, pride has gone.” (Mere Christianity, New York: Macmillan, 1952, pp. 109–10.)
In the pre-earthly council, Lucifer placed his proposal in competition with the Father’s plan as advocated by Jesus Christ. (See Moses 4:1–3.) He wished to be honored above all others. (See 2 Ne. 24:13.) In short, his prideful desire was to dethrone God. (See D&C 29:36; D&C 76:28.)
The scriptures abound with evidences of the severe consequences of the sin of pride to individuals, groups, cities, and nations. “Pride goeth before destruction.” (Prov. 16:18.) It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom. (See Moro. 8:27; Ezek. 16:49–50.)
It was through pride that Christ was crucified. The Pharisees were wroth because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, which was a threat to their position, and so they plotted His death. (See John 11:53.)
Saul became an enemy to David through pride. He was jealous because the crowds of Israelite women were singing that “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” (1 Sam. 18:6–8.)
The proud stand more in fear of men’s judgment than of God’s judgment. (See D&C 3:6–7; D&C 30:1–2; D&C 60:2.) “What will men think of me?” weighs heavier than “What will God think of me?”
King Noah was about to free the prophet Abinadi, but an appeal to his pride by his wicked priests sent Abinadi to the flames. (See Mosiah 17:11–12.) Herod sorrowed at the request of his wife to behead John the Baptist. But his prideful desire to look good to “them which sat with him at meat” caused him to kill John. (Matt. 14:9; see also Mark 6:26.)
Fear of men’s judgment manifests itself in competition for men’s approval. The proud love “the praise of men more than the praise of God.” (John 12:42–43.) Our motives for the things we do are where the sin is manifest. Jesus said He did “always those things” that pleased God. (John 8:29.) Would we not do well to have the pleasing of God as our motive rather than to try to elevate ourselves above our brother and outdo another?
Some prideful people are not so concerned as to whether their wages meet their needs as they are that their wages are more than someone else’s. Their reward is being a cut above the rest. This is the enmity of pride.
When pride has a hold on our hearts, we lose our independence of the world and deliver our freedoms to the bondage of men’s judgment. The world shouts louder than the whisperings of the Holy Ghost. The reasoning of men overrides the revelations of God, and the proud let go of the iron rod. (See 1 Ne. 8:19–28; 1 Ne. 11:25; 1 Ne. 15:23–24.)
Pride is a sin that can readily be seen in others but is rarely admitted in ourselves. Most of us consider pride to be a sin of those on the top, such as the rich and the learned, looking down at the rest of us. (See 2 Ne. 9:42.) There is, however, a far more common ailment among us—and that is pride from the bottom looking up. It is manifest in so many ways, such as faultfinding, gossiping, backbiting, murmuring, living beyond our means, envying, coveting, withholding gratitude and praise that might lift another, and being unforgiving and jealous.
Disobedience is essentially a prideful power struggle against someone in authority over us. It can be a parent, a priesthood leader, a teacher, or ultimately God. A proud person hates the fact that someone is above him. He thinks this lowers his position.
Selfishness is one of the more common faces of pride. “How everything affects me” is the center of all that matters—self-conceit, self-pity, worldly self-fulfillment, self-gratification, and self-seeking.
Pride results in secret combinations which are built up to get power, gain, and glory of the world. (See Hel. 7:5; Ether 8:9, 16, 22–23; Moses 5:31.) This fruit of the sin of pride, namely secret combinations, brought down both the Jaredite and the Nephite civilizations and has been and will yet be the cause of the fall of many nations. (See Ether 8:18–25.)
Another face of pride is contention. Arguments, fights, unrighteous dominion, generation gaps, divorces, spouse abuse, riots, and disturbances all fall into this category of pride.
Contention in our families drives the Spirit of the Lord away. It also drives many of our family members away. Contention ranges from a hostile spoken word to worldwide conflicts. The scriptures tell us that “only by pride cometh contention.” (Prov. 13:10; see also Prov. 28:25.)
The scriptures testify that the proud are easily offended and hold grudges. (See 1 Ne. 16:1–3.) They withhold forgiveness to keep another in their debt and to justify their injured feelings.
The proud do not receive counsel or correction easily. (See Prov. 15:10; Amos 5:10.) Defensiveness is used by them to justify and rationalize their frailties and failures. (See Matt. 3:9; John 6:30–59.)
The proud depend upon the world to tell them whether they have value or not. Their self-esteem is determined by where they are judged to be on the ladders of worldly success. They feel worthwhile as individuals if the numbers beneath them in achievement, talent, beauty, or intellect are large enough. Pride is ugly. It says, “If you succeed, I am a failure.”
If we love God, do His will, and fear His judgment more than men’s, we will have self-esteem.
Pride is a damning sin in the true sense of that word. It limits or stops progression. (See Alma 12:10–11.) The proud are not easily taught. (See 1 Ne. 15:3, 7–11.) They won’t change their minds to accept truths, because to do so implies they have been wrong.
Pride adversely affects all our relationships—our relationship with God and His servants, between husband and wife, parent and child, employer and employee, teacher and student, and all mankind. Our degree of pride determines how we treat our God and our brothers and sisters. Christ wants to lift us to where He is. Do we desire to do the same for others?
Pride fades our feelings of sonship to God and brotherhood to man. It separates and divides us by “ranks,” according to our “riches” and our “chances for learning.” (3 Ne. 6:12.) Unity is impossible for a proud people, and unless we are one we are not the Lord’s. (See Mosiah 18:21; D&C 38:27; D&C 105:2–4; Moses 7:18.)
Think of what pride has cost us in the past and what it is now costing us in our own lives, our families, and the Church.
Think of the repentance that could take place with lives changed, marriages preserved, and homes strengthened, if pride did not keep us from confessing our sins and forsaking them. (See D&C 58:43.)
Think of the many who are less active members of the Church because they were offended and their pride will not allow them to forgive or fully sup at the Lord’s table.
Think of the tens of thousands of additional young men and couples who could be on missions except for the pride that keeps them from yielding their hearts unto God. (See Alma 10:6; Hel. 3:34–35.)
Think how temple work would increase if the time spent in this godly service were more important than the many prideful pursuits that compete for our time.
Pride affects all of us at various times and in various degrees. Now you can see why the building in Lehi’s dream that represents the pride of the world was large and spacious and great was the multitude that did enter into it. (See 1 Ne. 8:26, 33; 1 Ne. 11:35–36.)
Pride is the universal sin, the great vice. Yes, pride is the universal sin, the great vice.
The antidote for pride is humility—meekness, submissiveness. (See Alma 7:23.) It is the broken heart and contrite spirit. (See 3 Ne. 9:20; 3 Ne. 12:19; D&C 20:37; D&C 59:8; Ps. 34:18; Isa. 57:15; Isa. 66:2.) As Rudyard Kipling put it so well:
The tumult and the shouting dies;
The captains and the kings depart.
Still stands thine ancient sacrifice,
An humble and a contrite heart.
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget.
(Hymns, 1985, no. 80.)
God will have a humble people. Either we can choose to be humble or we can be compelled to be humble. Alma said, “Blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble.” (Alma 32:16.)
Let us choose to be humble.
We can choose to humble ourselves by conquering enmity toward our brothers and sisters, esteeming them as ourselves, and lifting them as high or higher than we are. (See D&C 38:24; D&C 81:5; D&C 84:106.)
We can choose to humble ourselves by receiving counsel and chastisement. (See Jacob 4:10; Hel. 15:3; D&C 63:55; D&C 101:4–5; D&C 108:1; D&C 124:61, 84; D&C 136:31; Prov. 9:8.)
We can choose to humble ourselves by forgiving those who have offended us. (See 3 Ne. 13:11, 14; D&C 64:10.)
We can choose to humble ourselves by rendering selfless service. (See Mosiah 2:16–17.)
We can choose to humble ourselves by going on missions and preaching the word that can humble others. (See Alma 4:19; Alma 31:5; Alma 48:20.)
We can choose to humble ourselves by getting to the temple more frequently.
We can choose to humble ourselves by confessing and forsaking our sins and being born of God. (See D&C 58:43; Mosiah 27:25–26; Alma 5:7–14, 49.)
We can choose to humble ourselves by loving God, submitting our will to His, and putting Him first in our lives. (See 3 Ne. 11:11; 3 Ne. 13:33; Moro. 10:32.)
Let us choose to be humble. We can do it. I know we can.
My dear brethren and sisters, we must prepare to redeem Zion. It was essentially the sin of pride that kept us from establishing Zion in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was the same sin of pride that brought consecration to an end among the Nephites. (See 4 Ne. 1:24–25.)
Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion.
We must cleanse the inner vessel by conquering pride. (See Alma 6:2–4; Matt. 23:25–26.)
We must yield “to the enticings of the Holy Spirit,” put off the prideful “natural man,” become “a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord,” and become “as a child, submissive, meek, humble.” (Mosiah 3:19; see also Alma 13:28.)
That we may do so and go on to fulfill our divine destiny is my fervent prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
The Church in the Philippines
In a sunrise service held in the Philippines on April 28, 1961, a special prayer asking a blessing on missionary work was given and a tiny seed was planted. Now 30 years later, the tiny seed has grown into a "mighty tree" - like the mahogany trees that dot the forests of this island country.
President Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, prayed that the people of the land would be friendly and hospitable, and kind and gracious to those who would come to the Philippines. He also prayed, saying "there shall be many thousands who shall receive this message and be blessed."Thirty years later, members have seen that prayer answered with the Philippines becoming one of the fastest growing areas of the Church with an average of 1,870 convert baptisms a month. Last year 22,556 convert baptisms were recorded.
There are now more than 250,000 members in the Philippines in 42 stakes, 52 districts and 12 missions (three were opened in 1990).
"We are anticipating doubling membership in the next five years," said Elder L. Lionel Kendrick of the Seventy and president of the Philippines/Micronesia Area. "That is just through normal growth, not by expanding our efforts."
In his prayer given at the American Memorial Cemetery in Fort Bonifacio, on the outskirts of Manila, President Hinckley also prayed that many faithful, good, virtuous and true men would join the Church and receive the blessings of the priesthood and grow in leadership.
"The big challenge still remains to train leadership and keep up with increased growth," Elder Kendrick said. "When you get large growth patterns, you find yourself calling bishops and branch presidents that have not been in the Church very long.
"Great emphasis is placed on leadership training to try and keep up with the growth so leaders are not overwhelmed by the mass influx of new members."
Missionaries "are focusing on families and looking for leaders to be baptized so we are sure we've got enough leadership potential coming into the waters of baptism to take care of others being baptized."
Current priesthood leadership also remains strong and provides a great example for new members joining the Church, Elder Kendrick added.
"We are extremely pleased with the caliber of our regional representatives and mission presidents," he said. "They are mature in the gospel. They are great leaders and we rely heavily on them. That's a very encouraging sign in the Philippines."
About 42 percent of the mission presidents, five out of 12, are Filipino members. About 2,000 missionaries currently serve in the Philippines with 67 percent, or two-thirds of the missionary force, being Filipino.
"We feel this is a good mix. We are very encouraged," Elder Kendrick continued.
Church meetings were held in the Philippines as early as 1898, but most meetings were held for soldiers stationed in the area or for the few converts who joined the Church after hearing about the gospel from the soldiers.
The Philippines was dedicated Aug. 21, 1955, at Clark Field by President Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve. But it wasn't until June 5, 1961, that the first missionaries arrived in the Philippines.
Now there are 233 wards and 463 branches in this tropical country. The Philippines also has its own Missionary Training Center, established in 1983, and a temple, dedicated in 1984.
The temple was a great boon to members, who earlier had to travel to Japan, Hawaii or New Zealand to go to the temple. Built on a hilltop, the temple has become a symbol of faith for Filipino members.
"The members are excited and feel extremely pleased with the growth of the Church here," Elder Kendrick remarked.
"Our focus as a presidency is to look at the real growth of the Church, not only convert baptisms and the normal increases with birth, but also what the activity level is and how many we are retaining and how many are reactivated.
And they are seeing the fruits of their work. In the Philippines Naga Mission, for example, there is now a 74 percent retention rate of new converts.
"What we want to do is stay with the basics and do them well. Our feeling is that we need to take the Church to the people. We are trying to construct buildings closer to people to address the real needs of members."
A significant cause of inactivity in the Church is high transportation costs, Elder Kendrick explained. Many members are unable to come to Church meetings and activities on a regular basis because of high costs. For some members, it could cost a day's pay to bring the whole family to a stake conference.
"One way to increase reactivation is to get the units closer to the people so it's not such an expensive process to attend Church. There are rather large families in the Philippines and sometimes only mom and dad or some of their children can afford to come to meetings.
"We hope to be able to cut down the geographic size of stakes and districts and hold divided sessions of conference - one session in one end of the stake and the second session at the other end. We are looking at ways we can take the Church to the people."
Communication challenges must also be overcome, Elder Kendrick remarked. Although most Church meetings are held in English, there are 87 different dialects, with Tagalog being the national language.
As of the first of January this year, Tagalog was added to the languages at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah. Once the missionaries pick up one dialect, it is easy to master another, he said.
"We are indeed living in a moment in time in the history of the Church in the Philippines that is of the greatest importance," Elder Kendrick declared. "President Hinckley spoke under the inspiration of the Spirit and we have been blessed just 30 years later to see those prophecies come true.
"The Filipino people are some of the greatest people I have ever associated with. They have sweet spirits and deep testimonies. What a joy and blessing it is to serve them and live among them," said Elder Kendrick. - Sheridan R. Sheffield
President Gordon B. Hinckley, then a member of the Council of the Twelve, prayed that the people of the land would be friendly and hospitable, and kind and gracious to those who would come to the Philippines. He also prayed, saying "there shall be many thousands who shall receive this message and be blessed."Thirty years later, members have seen that prayer answered with the Philippines becoming one of the fastest growing areas of the Church with an average of 1,870 convert baptisms a month. Last year 22,556 convert baptisms were recorded.
There are now more than 250,000 members in the Philippines in 42 stakes, 52 districts and 12 missions (three were opened in 1990).
"We are anticipating doubling membership in the next five years," said Elder L. Lionel Kendrick of the Seventy and president of the Philippines/Micronesia Area. "That is just through normal growth, not by expanding our efforts."
In his prayer given at the American Memorial Cemetery in Fort Bonifacio, on the outskirts of Manila, President Hinckley also prayed that many faithful, good, virtuous and true men would join the Church and receive the blessings of the priesthood and grow in leadership.
"The big challenge still remains to train leadership and keep up with increased growth," Elder Kendrick said. "When you get large growth patterns, you find yourself calling bishops and branch presidents that have not been in the Church very long.
"Great emphasis is placed on leadership training to try and keep up with the growth so leaders are not overwhelmed by the mass influx of new members."
Missionaries "are focusing on families and looking for leaders to be baptized so we are sure we've got enough leadership potential coming into the waters of baptism to take care of others being baptized."
Current priesthood leadership also remains strong and provides a great example for new members joining the Church, Elder Kendrick added.
"We are extremely pleased with the caliber of our regional representatives and mission presidents," he said. "They are mature in the gospel. They are great leaders and we rely heavily on them. That's a very encouraging sign in the Philippines."
About 42 percent of the mission presidents, five out of 12, are Filipino members. About 2,000 missionaries currently serve in the Philippines with 67 percent, or two-thirds of the missionary force, being Filipino.
"We feel this is a good mix. We are very encouraged," Elder Kendrick continued.
Church meetings were held in the Philippines as early as 1898, but most meetings were held for soldiers stationed in the area or for the few converts who joined the Church after hearing about the gospel from the soldiers.
The Philippines was dedicated Aug. 21, 1955, at Clark Field by President Joseph Fielding Smith of the Council of the Twelve. But it wasn't until June 5, 1961, that the first missionaries arrived in the Philippines.
Now there are 233 wards and 463 branches in this tropical country. The Philippines also has its own Missionary Training Center, established in 1983, and a temple, dedicated in 1984.
The temple was a great boon to members, who earlier had to travel to Japan, Hawaii or New Zealand to go to the temple. Built on a hilltop, the temple has become a symbol of faith for Filipino members.
"The members are excited and feel extremely pleased with the growth of the Church here," Elder Kendrick remarked.
"Our focus as a presidency is to look at the real growth of the Church, not only convert baptisms and the normal increases with birth, but also what the activity level is and how many we are retaining and how many are reactivated.
And they are seeing the fruits of their work. In the Philippines Naga Mission, for example, there is now a 74 percent retention rate of new converts.
"What we want to do is stay with the basics and do them well. Our feeling is that we need to take the Church to the people. We are trying to construct buildings closer to people to address the real needs of members."
A significant cause of inactivity in the Church is high transportation costs, Elder Kendrick explained. Many members are unable to come to Church meetings and activities on a regular basis because of high costs. For some members, it could cost a day's pay to bring the whole family to a stake conference.
"One way to increase reactivation is to get the units closer to the people so it's not such an expensive process to attend Church. There are rather large families in the Philippines and sometimes only mom and dad or some of their children can afford to come to meetings.
"We hope to be able to cut down the geographic size of stakes and districts and hold divided sessions of conference - one session in one end of the stake and the second session at the other end. We are looking at ways we can take the Church to the people."
Communication challenges must also be overcome, Elder Kendrick remarked. Although most Church meetings are held in English, there are 87 different dialects, with Tagalog being the national language.
As of the first of January this year, Tagalog was added to the languages at the Missionary Training Center in Provo, Utah. Once the missionaries pick up one dialect, it is easy to master another, he said.
"We are indeed living in a moment in time in the history of the Church in the Philippines that is of the greatest importance," Elder Kendrick declared. "President Hinckley spoke under the inspiration of the Spirit and we have been blessed just 30 years later to see those prophecies come true.
"The Filipino people are some of the greatest people I have ever associated with. They have sweet spirits and deep testimonies. What a joy and blessing it is to serve them and live among them," said Elder Kendrick. - Sheridan R. Sheffield
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)