| 307 To that report and to the action of the said semiannual conference I now call your attention. The quorum report upon all the charges investigated, save one, either "not sustained" or find something not charged, which is equivalent, hence I regard these disposed of.
The remaining one on the gathering, they report as follows: "We find that the brother does not believe there is any place of gathering as pertains to this church, and holds that there is no command, now in force, requiring a gathering either into what is called the regions round about or to a local Zion or to a stake. He refers to the revelation of 1841, paragraph 15, as defining his position."
This finding is correct; but whether so holding is antagonistic to the view generally held by the church (as affirmed) we will now inquire:
At the first conference of the Reorganized Church, held in the town of Beloit, Wisconsin, June 12 to 13, 1852, the following was resolved: "That, in the opinion of this conference, there is no stake to which the Saints on this continent are commanded to gather at the present time.'-Word of Consolation, page 2. As the author of this resolution I declare the intention to mean by the phrase "no stake," no place, and it was so understood; and at the annual conference of 1863 this same resolution was affirmed, and again at the annual conference of 1876. Here are three several declarations of general conferences that there is no place to which the Saints are commanded to gather.
Further, in the report of the Quorum of the Twelve in April, 1878, upon the charge they say: "And it (the church) particularly declared in 1876 at the annual conference that there is now no place to which we are commanded to gather, and we consider the position of Bro. Briggs in apparent harmony with these positions," etc.
Further, It is taught in Herald by a member of the First Presidency, (see Herald of September 1, 1876), that there is not only now no law requiring a gathering, but that it is not "permitted." In the same article the same construction is put upon paragraph 15 of the revelation of 1831; viz., that the church was exonerated from that work.
In the face of these facts and utterances on the part of the church and its chief quorums, the Twelve report that the charge on "gathering is sustained," which implies that there is a place of gathering and a command now in force requiring it; thus contradicting themselves and all the utterances of the church on that point.
Then follows the act of the late semiannual conference upon that strangely contradictory report, "that he (J. W. Briggs) stand rejected from the Quorum of the Twelve, and that he be forbidden to act, etc., until he make restitution to the church."
This act is inconsistent with the several acts cited, inconsistent with its own act restoring Bro. Z. H. Gurley, who occupied identical ground with myself upon this question, which was well known to the church. In his reasons for resignation he says: "I reject the local Zion or gathering in the Doctrine and Covenants."
(page 307) |
