| 543 to whom was referred the same reported substantial agreement with us in every particular and affirmed nothing that we had objected to; omitting to notice one specific reason and the climax of them all, to wit: that we were bound (by the preceding conference), and gagged (by the Board of Publication), and this report was adopted by the conference!
No wonder that this conference could not formulate a reason for the act of the previous one complained of. It is probable that if the substance of that committee report had been incorporated in the proceedings of the conference of 1885, instead of 1886, and shedding its spirit influence upon the Board of Publication, the result would have most likely been, as stated in that report concerning individual opinion, that the principle of toleration as taught and practiced by Jesus, "should be so broad as to make no occasion for persons to wish to withdraw,"-and no withdrawal would have occurred. We are willing to let the responsibility of the causes and "occasion" for the "grave mistake" rest where the record places it, and with the declaration that at no period of my life have I valued the truth more than at the present moment, and the love of it-all truth-has, so far as I am conscious, the chief seat in my heart of hearts; and hoping it will prevail.
I am, respectfully yours, etc.,
J. W. BRIGGS.
WHEELER, Pottawattamie County, Iowa, May 27, 1886.
P. S.-If it seems to you presumptuous in my asking a place in the Herald for this communication, I am nevertheless impressed with its justice and its propriety. J. W. B.
There will be found elsewhere in this issue an article with the caption, "How the case stands," from the pen of Elder Jason W. Briggs.
In publishing this article the Herald is desirous that some things stated in it may be more properly understood than they would be from the terms of the article itself.
1. The paper of withdrawal states specifically that the parties had sought to have certain alleged points of belief and church policy modified or corrected; and further states that the parties had hoped that such obnoxious features had been "set at rest; and we were induced to believe that they were, and that the church was disposed to drop these doctrines as essential to membership and good standing."
The language quoted above is from the article of withdrawal itself, and warrants the idea said by Elder Briggs to have been conveyed by the editorial referred to. It was the intention to "convey" just that "idea," for it is certainly conveyed. In the article of withdrawal, it is stated, "In the years gone by we have sought to have the action of the body upon the more important of these (doctrines), and preparatory to the action sought have endeavored to show from the books themselves that the church have been, and that many are still in error." No juster inference can be drawn than that these men sought to have the church "recede" from, or "drop" some of its doctrines.
(page 543) |
