| 542 the people of God during our entire session; and if so, we shall be content though no "cloven tongue, as of fire," was seen or heard.
A communication from Elder J. F. Burton, under date of May 19, from Wallsend, New South Wales, reflects the condition of the work in that country:
You see by this address I am back from Victoria. While there I was much blessed of the Master in all ways needed. Generally I had excellent liberty in presenting to the people the truths of the gospel. Many are investigating our faith, and while there thirty-six united with the church, and others are near the kingdom. . . . The ministry are capable and able, and if they are faithful will keep the Saints together, edifying them, and also adding to their number. There are some excellent Saints there, and some young men who may be a great help yet to the work in Australia. . . .
The conference, with its cares, anxieties and sorrows; its pleasures, joys and peace has passed.
May 19 and 24 Elder J. H. Lake met Reverend L. B. Tupper, an evangelist, in debate at Cameron, Ontario.
An article bearing date May 26, over the signature of J. W. Briggs entitled, "How the Case Stands," appeared in Saints' Herald for June 26, together with the editorial reply, entitled "Does the Case so Stand?" We quote them as follows:
In a late issue you take occasion to express the opinion that those who withdrew from the church, at the late conference "made a grave mistake;" and in connection therewith you convey the idea that those who withdrew had sought to "get the church to recede" from, or drop some of its doctrines, which if complied with, others, or the same ones might object to still other tenets calling for further concession, the thin "end of the wedge" being inserted would do its cleaving work until there would be no faith to stand by, etc. You then congratulate the church upon the assumed fact that her representatives in the late conference stood firm-would not yield an iota of the faith so ruthlessly assailed (by these withdrawing members). Now what are the facts upon record in the case?
First. We, Z. H. Gurley and myself, controverted certain doctrines and dogmas, usages and policies of the rejected church, as contained and taught in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and which we alleged were not necessarily applicable to, or binding upon the Reorganized Church. For this the Herald was closed against us, and the next conference promptly placed us under a ban. We then submitted our reasons for withdrawing, which were a disbelief in those things that we had controverted, and these reasons constituted our assault upon the doctrine or faith of the church, if we assailed it at all. Now in what manner did the church's representatives stand firm and resist this assault? The committee
(page 542) |
