17 – E.C. Briggs

1: Where do you live Mr. Briggs?
At Shenandoah, Iowa.

2: How old are you?
I am fifty seven years old.

3: When did you first become acquainted with the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints?
In 1842.
In Wisconsin.

5: At what place in Wisconsin?
At Beloit.

6: I will ask you if you are acquainted with the steps that were taken, and with the principal men that were engaged in taking the steps that finally led up to the reorganization church.
What is the question?

7: I asked you if you were acquainted with the steps that were taken that led up to the reorganization of the church, and with the leading men that were connected with that reorganization?
Yes sir.

8: You were acquainted with the transaction, and the steps leading up to it, and the principal men concerned in it?
Yes sir I was am today.

9: When did this reorganization, if there was a reorganization, take place, Mr. Briggs?
It commenced in 1851.

10: Where and at what place?
Beloit, Wisconsin.

11: Who were the principal movers in the movement?
Jason W. Brian was the first one.

12: Name any others that you can think of?
And David Powell, and in that particular place John Harrington.

13: To what church did J.W. Briggs belong to prior to that time?
 
He belonged to what was known as the “Latter Day Saints”,

14: To the church or to the organization that was established in 1830 or 1832?
It was in 1830.

15: Well which church was it Mr Briggs, and when organized, and when disorganized, if ever it was disorganized?
The church which he belonged to was the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints organized in April 1830 April 6th 1830.

16: When was that church disorganized, if ever it was disorganized?
It was disorganized in 1842, – 1843, I mean to say.

17: What office if any did he hold in that church prior to 1844?
The office of an elder.

18: What is the fact about Harrington and Powell belonging to the same church originally that Jason W Briggs belonged to?
Powell did but I don’t know whether Harrington did or not. I know that Powell did, but as to Harrington I cannot say, for I don’t know when he joined the church, I don’t know anything about that but I think that he joined right there in Beloit, – yes sir I am quite sure that he did.

19: That Harrington joined there in Beloit?
Yes sir.

20: Who else of the chief movers, or parties who participated in the re-organization in 1851 or 1852, who belonged to that old original church established in 1830, and who were members of it before its dis-organization in 1844?
 

21: And any others that you can thing of?
My mother Polly Briggs was one of them. My mother Polly Briggs and my sister Mary Stiles.

22: And any others?
There certainly were others, – the whole branch in fact that was there, and I don’t as a matter of fact know how many members of the church there was there at that time. I cannot tell that but all that were members there and belonged to that branch went into the re-organization. I cannot remember their names or their numbers, but those names I have given you I do remember distinctly.

23: What do you know if anything about Zerus H. Gurley taking part in the movement?
I know that he took part in the movement along in the winter of 1851 and ‘2.

24: What do you know if anything about a man by the name of Marks taking part in the movement, if at all?
How is that?

25: I asked you to state if you knew anything about a man by the name of Marks taking part in the movement that you speak of that led up to the re-organization of the church?
Yes sir he took part in it, but that was later. It was not right at this time that he was identified with the movement.

26: What do you know Mr Briggs about the branch of the church, – what is known as the original church that was established at Beloit or new Beloit, during the life time of Joseph Smith?
I know there was a branch organized of the church there, and my brother Jason was the Presiding Elder of that branch.

27: That is your brother Jason W. Briggs was the Presiding Elder of the branch there at Beloit that was organized under the old church prior to the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

28: What do you know about that branch retaining its organization from the death of Joseph Smith in 1844 up to the time of the commencement of the re-organization in 1851?
 

29: If you know anything upon that subject, you may state it?
Well I know there was a branch of the church there, but I was not a member of it, hence I could not enter into the details in relation to that. I simply know there was a branch there, and that is all I can say in regard to that, as I was not a member of it.

30: Now you may state Mr. Briggs what steps were taken looking towards a reorganization of the church, if any steps were taken, tell what was done if you know in that respect, that is with reference to the steps that were taken looking to a reorganization of the church? Tell what was done if you know, and upon what basis they reorganized the church?
The first subject or matter that introduced the reorganization was a purported revelation given in 1851, and the idea affirmed in the revelation was that in due time the Lord would call upon the legal successor of Joseph Smtih to assume the Presidency of the church, that is that the Lord would call his successor to the Presidency of the church, and commanding the saints there to establish their altars, and say the Lord would send a deliverer in the person of his son, the son of the martyr.

31: Well was there any conference held?
Yes sir.

32: There was a conference held?
Yes sir.

33: When in what year?
In 1852. There was a conference held in 1852.

34: Where?
At that place.

35: At what place, what was the name of the place?
Beloit, Wisconsin.

36: Who was present and took part in that conference?
Jason W. Briggs, Silas Briggs, and I forgot to mention who, he was associated with them there.

37: Who was Silas Briggs?
He was my oldest brother.

38: Well who else was associated at that conference?
There was Zenas H. Hurley, I can’t remember all of them.

37: Well was there any others that you can recollect?
There was Devid Powell and Harrington and others. There was quite a large assemblage, but I do not recollect their names, but I remember that Elder Powell was there also, and William Hartshorn was there also.

38: Was William Marks there also?
No sir.

39: What is the face now, Mr. Briggs about these parties holding conferences regularly from that time one?
Well they have held regular conferences from that time on to the present. They have held conferences regularly ever since.

40: Have you as a rule attended these conference so held?
Yes sir, a great many of them, but that was the first conference I ever attended.

41: And that was in 1852?
Yes sir.

42: About what proportion of the conferences held since that time have you attended?
Why generally when I have been so I could attend them I have been there. Some of the time I have been on a mission. I was gone at one time nearly three years since that time, and of course during that period I did not attend any of them but whenever it has been convenient I have attended them. That is I have attended the conferences.

43: I will ask you Mr. Briggs, what laws, if any, formed the basis of the re-organization affected in 1852?
 

44: And also from 1851 to 1852?
How is that?

45: What laws if any, what doctrines, rules and regulations, if any, were adopted and practiced as the faith of the church in 1852, and also in 1850 and 1851, as a basis of organization?
It was the doctrine based upon the bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of covenants, which was adopted as the rules of action, established in the year 1830 in the original church, and it claimed to be a reorganization of the church which had been dis—organized.

46: I will ask you if the basis of the church, —the basis adopted by the church at that time, has ever been changed since that time
No sir. It was understood there at that time, and recognized that any body who had ever united to the church, or with the church and had not been expelled or dis—fellowshipped from the church, still belonged to the church, and that was the only test that was required when they joined the re–organization.

47: What position do you hold in the Re—organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Mr Briggs?
At the present time

48: Yessir?
I am a travelling, presiding elder.

49: How long have you held that position?
Since 1860.

50: To what quorom do you belong?
I belong to the, —

51: If any, —to what quorom do you belong Mr Briggs, if any?
It is known as the quorom of the Twelve Apostles.

52: And you have held that position since 1860?
Yes sir.

53: How long have you been a minister in that church?
How long have I been a minister?

54: Yes sir?
Since 1852.

55: You have been a minister in the Re—organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints since 1852?
Yes sir.

56: Have you been in the active ministry of the church since 1852 up to present time?
No sir. I took my first active mission in 1856.

57: Well, since 1856 have you been in the active ministry?
Yes sir, most of the time I have been.

58: Where have you labored in the active ministry of the church?
Well sir I have labored in about thirty five states and territories. I have labored in the United States, Canada and Nova Scotia, —perhaps I have not been in as many as I have stated, but I have been in the work from one side of the continent to the other.

59: Now Mr Briggs I will ask you to name as many parties that belonged to the organization, —the first organization of the church, that afterwards identified themselves with what is known as the re—organization, early in its history, and who took part in known as its conferences, as you can?
Well I don’t know as I could tell you that. A great many did though, —there was hundreds anyway and perhaps thousands.

60: I will ask you if you recollect a man by the name of Newberry at the first conference that was held at Beloit in I852?
I do not know whether he was there or not. I was acquaint- ed with some Newberrys for there was several of them there. I do not remember whether the man you mention was there or not, but he may have been there.

61: Do you remember of such a man being connected with the church at that time?
I could not say whether he was or not. As I have stated I was acquainted with Newberrys, for there was several of them there that were members. I remember that, but I can’t say whether he was at the first conference or not.

62: Did you know a party by the name of H.P. Deam?
Yes sir, I was acquainted with him.

63: Was he there at the first conference?
No sir he was not there He rote a letter there, but I don’t think he was there at that conference personally.

64: What do you know about his being identified with the movement?
I know he was vary intimately connected with it, or engaged in it later on.

65: What position, if any, did he hold in the church?
He was an high priest.

66: What position did he hold in the original church, if you know?
That was the of- fice he held.

67: The office of an high priest?
Yes sir.

68: Do you know about the time that William Marks became identified with what was known as the re-organization?
I don’t think I remember of his being identified with it until about 1857.

69: He did become identified with the movement?
Yes sir, but I think it was about 1857.

70: Do you know what position he held in the original church?
He was an high priest, and President of the high council in Nauvoo of the Stake there, I think he was at one time.

71: Were you present at the conference of the Re-organized church held in I860
In 1860?

72: Yes sir.
Yes sir.

73: Whwre was that conference held?
At Amboy.

74: In what state?
In Illinois.

75: Well at that conference held at Amboy, Illinois, in I860, what fur- ther steps were taken, if any, looking towards the further re- organization of the church?
The most noted one was the or- daining of Joseph Smith to the Presidency of the high priest- hood.

76: Was there any other chief officers called at that conference?
Yes sir, the bishop of the church was called that spring.

77: Who was that?
Bishop I.L. Rogers.

78: Well what other principal officers, if any, were called?
The seven Presidents of the Seventies were chosen, and I was chosen that time President of the seventies.

79: Was there any others, you can think of?
I am not certain, but I think the stand High Council was chosen, I think so. I don’t remember, but I think they were.

80: I will ask you Mr Briggs if you were acquainted with the doctrin -es and teachings and teneta if you were acquainted with the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the old original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized in 1830?
Yes sir.

81: I will ask you if you are and were acquainted with the docitines teachings and tenets of the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir.

82: I will ask you what difference there is, if any, in the doctrines, teachings and tenets of the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, established in 1832, – organized in 1832, – ’30 I mean?
There is not any difference, – they are identically the same in every tenet and principle.

83: Now to refresh your recollection I will ask you, if at the conference of 1860 there was a Counsellor appointed to the President of the church?
A Counsellor?

84: Yes sir, – a first Counsellor?
I don’t think there was.

85: I will ask you if you know when he was appointed?
I think he was appointed in the fall , at the fall conference. That is when I think he was appointed, – at least that is my recollection of it now. I wouldn’t say for certain thought.

86: Who was that person?
William Marks.

87: Was that the same William Marks who prior to the death of Joseph Smith had been President of the High Council at Nauvoo, and President of the Stake at Nauvoo?
Yes sir, it was the same man.

88: Who was the Presiding officer of the Conference held at Amboy, Illinois, In 1860?
Z.H. Gurley.

89: Senior?
Yes sir, Zenas H. Gurley, senior.

90: What office did he hold?
He was one of the Twelve Apostles.

91: That is all. You may cross-examine.
 

92: What is your age Mr Briggs?
Fifty seven.

93: When were you born?
In February.

94: In February of what year?
1835.

95: You were born in February 1835?
Yes sir, that is the date of my birth according to the bible record of by birth that I have in my house.

96: If you were born in 1835, how does it come that you know what occured with reference to the doings of the Latter Day Saints from 1830 to 1835?
By record of the church.

97: By the record of the church?
Yes sir. The record and the teachings.

98: What do you mean by the record of the church?
That which was taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and which is recorded in their standard works.

99: Recorded in their standard works?
Yes sir.

100: Did you ever see any of the records of the church?
I have seen them so far as they have been published. I have seen and read the history of the life of Joseph Smith, published during his life time.

101: Did you ever see the records of the church in those days?
I have seen them in so far as they have ben published.

102: Did you ever see the records of the church from 1836 up to 1844
I has far as his diary is published.

103: Whose diary?
Mr Smith’s.

104: What Mr Smith do you refer to?
Joseph Smith.

105: Joseph Smith the founder of the church, – is he the one you refer to?
Yes sir, Joseph Smith, the founder and prophet of the church.

106: That is the older Joseph?
Yes sir, Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and its prophet, seer and revelator in the early days during the existence of the original church before its dis-organization. We call him the prophet, seer and revelator.

107: Did you ever see his diary?
I saw it as it was published.

108: As it was published you saw it?
Yes sir.

109: How do you know the publication you saw was a correct copy of his diary?
Well during a part of the time of its publication he was he editor of the paper in which it was published.

110: Would that make it a correct copy?
Yes sir, I should think so. As far as we knew it was correct.

111: As far as you knew it was correct you say?
Yes sir, we did not know anything to the contrary.

112: Well then you saw what purported to be his diary did you not?
Yes sir, I saw a publication of what purported to be his diary, and as a part of it was published during his life time in a publication or periodical of which he was the editor it is more than probably that the publication was correct.

113: Is that all you have seen with reference to the records of the church?
Sir?

114: Is that all you have seen with reference to the records of the church?
Yes sir, what was said to be published by him, – it was his personal diary that I saw published, and then the other matters that was published purporting to be the records of the church, such is the minutes of Conferences, etc.

115: You say his personal diary?
Yes sir, and other matter that came from him personally?

116: You say “from him personally”. What do you mean by that?
It was from him personally so far as that is concerned.

117: You refer to Joseph Smith in that answer?
Yes sir.

118: Well, how old were you when he was killed?
I was in my eight year. He was killed in June, and I was born in February, – No I was older than that. I was in my tenth year.

119: Had you at that time ever seen him personally?
No sir.

120: Then how can you know anything from him personally, if you never saw him?
I did not mean in the sense of receiving what I have stated in a personal communication from him, but I meant from his writings and teachings. He published a paper, – the Times & Seasons that is during apart of the time he was the editor of that publication and exercised a general supervision over it. We took the paper.

121: You took that paper at what time during his life?
From the time I first heard of his doctrine until the time of his death, but I was only a child then you know, but not withstanding that fact I took a great deal of interest in things.

122: When did you first hear of his doctrine?
It was in 1842.

123: You were about seven years old then?
Yes sir. I was in my eight year at the time.

124: Did you read his paper then?
Well partially, not very much I heard it read more than I read it myself.

125: From what you hear of it, and read in it, do you remember now the doctrines of the church?
Yes sir to some extent, it was it now sir.

126: As I understand it you were speaking of your knowledge derived from what you read and heard read in a paper published by Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

127: You were taking that paper?
Yes sir, we were taking his paper the same as you take paper now in your family.

128: What paper was it he was publishing?
The Times & Seasons at that time.

129: Was he the only editor of the publication?
No sir.

130: He was the only editor?
No sir.

131: then how do you know what was published in here was from Joseph Smith?
He was the editor, or one of the editors, and it purported to be from him, and the assumption is that it was.

132: Answer the question, – how do you know what was published in there was from Joseph Smith, – might it not have been from some body else?
Well in every paper there was what purported to be the history of Joseph Smith, and I was very much interested in it. I did not read it myself, but somebody else did, and I was very sure to hear every particle of it myself when it would be read, for as I said before I was very much interested in it.

133: Now you say you were very much interexted in this history of the life of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir I was very much interested in it, and I wanted to hear it all, and did hear all that was possible during that time.

134: Now did you get the information about which you speak from artic-icles written by Joseph Smith, or were they written by somebody else?
Well it was he wrote, or authorized to be written, – the reports of the church. The elders of the church, –

135: And it is from such reading and hearing as that that you base your testimony upon?
Yes sir.

136: it is from these scources that you obtained your knowledge of the principles taught by the church during that time?
Yes sir.

137: Principally from the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir.

138: Was that newspaper, the Times & Seasons an inspired paper or publication?
No sir.

139: What is that?
No sir.

140: It was not an inspired newspaper, or publication?
No sir, I do not so understand it, but there were things in it that were undoubtedly inspired, but not the whole of its contents.

141: There was no claim then, – there was no claim, using a modern term, of “inerrency” in that paper?
No sir.

142: No claim made on behalf of that paper of its inspiration as you make for the bible or the book of Mormon?
No sir.

143: There was no claim of that kind, and is no claim of that kind not made by you?
No sir, but there was interspersed in it revelations from Joseph Smith, or that were made through him, that we claim were inspired.

144: Well there was no claim made on behalf of that paper that it was inspired or an authoriry in the sense that the claim in that respect was made on behalf of the bible and book of Mormon or the book of doctrine and covenants?
No sir. If that was his history, and the record or account of his giving revelations, or the circumstances under which revelations were received, and the history generally of his revelations.

145: I believe you said there was revelations published in that paper.
Yes sir. And the history of the time in which they were given, and the circumstances surrounding them.

146: They were published in the Times and Seasons?
Yes sir.

147: The revelations were?
Yes sir, but not in the Times and Seasons alone, for they were published in other publications and periodicals of the church at different places.

148: You do not pretend to remember beyond 1840?
Well 1842 is perhaps the time of my best knowledge of it, and after that time on up to the time of the prophets death?

149: That would be 1842, 1843 and 1844?
Yes sir.

150: And it was from your readings during those years that you formed the conclusions which you state?
Yes sir. Reading and hearing.

151: “Hearing”, – did you say that?
Yes sir, – I try to speak distinctly.

152: Pardon me I did not mean to leave out the word “hearing” and I was a little in doubt as to what you said? You speak distinctly?
Yes sir, I try to.

153: So then when it comes down to it, what you heard and read in that paper, you take that to be the truth in regard to the doctrines and customs of the church at the time, do you, – you take it from a paper of which you speak called the “Times and “Seasons” and which was edited by various parties whom you do not know, and for whose accuracy and truth you could not vouch? Is that not a fact?
There was an auxiliary to that I read and heard read from these papers, that I also took into consideration.

154: Well what was that?
That was the standard works of the church.

155: Well what is your answer to my former question, – not the last one, but the one before the last?
What is the question.

156: So then when it comes down to it, what you heard and read in that paper, you took that to be the truth in regard to the doctrines and customers of the church at the time do you, – you take it from a paper of which you speak, called the “Times & Seasons”, and which was edited by various parties, whom you do not, and did not know, and for whose accuracy and truth you could not vouch? Is that not a fact?
Those were, –

157: Answer the question, and the answer is “yes”, or “no”, to that?
I say there was an auxiliary to that that was a help. The standard works and the scriptures they were expounding, – they were expounding these works in the paper in these writings.

158: It not only expounded the scriptures, but did it expound anything else besides the scriptures?
It was what was called a religious paper, and gave a history of the occurences that took place in the church.

159: Now I believe, – Elder is your title is it not?
Yes sir.

160: Pardon me for inquiring sir, for I wanted to know, so as to know how to address you?
Well that is all right.

161: Was there anything in that paper, – published in that paper that was authoritively and binding upon the church?
Yes sir.

162: What were they?
The revelations and resolutions of the Conferences, so far a Conference resolutions were authority governing the church.

163: When as you remember it were those conferences held from which those resolutions you refer to came?
They were held semi-annually then annually and semi-annually.

164: Between what time?
When.

165: Between that time, and what time?
Do you mean any acquaintance with it?

166: Yes sir, – between the time you speak of reading those articles etc, and from what other time, back?
Well it was from 1830 up to 1844, as much as we had of it in the history published in the papers.

167: Were any revelations published in that paper, that were given at any of those times?
Yes sir.

168: They were?
Yes sir.

169: Well now can you mention any time in which a revelation that you heard read in that paper was given?
Yes sir.

170: And single revelation?
Yes sir.

171: Well that was it?
The revelation of 1841, – given I think the 19th day of January was published in it, and many other revelations. It was not the only revelation that was published in that paper.

172: Now you have one?
Yes sir.

173: One published in 1841?
Yes sir. Well now I will say it was published in that paper, but I don’t recollect the date of its publication.

174: It was published you say in that paper of 1841?
No sir I say that was the date of the revelation, – the revelation is dated then, but it is published in the Times and Seasons, and I have all those volumes now myself, and it is in them but I can’t give the date of the publication of the issue that contains it.

175: Now was there any account in that paper, – can you now tell of any account in that paper of any other revelations?
Yes sir.

176: I want you to do so from your memory as I want to test it to see how accurate it is?
Well the revelation of 1832 was published in it.

177: Now you have to of them?
Yes sir. I say there were dozens of them. –

178: Well sir I don’t want those generalities, – the test of memory, and that is what my object is in making these questions, – is largely one of the dates?
Yes sir.

179: And now I want to know the dates of some other revelations, – some other revelations you saw published in that publication?
Well if I had the books that contain them I could tell you all about it, but I can’t tell you all about these things, and go down into the minutes without I have the books to refresh my recollection.

180: Well we are talking about these publications now, and not about the books, and I want to test you as to the source of your knowledge and how accurate it is?
The revelations that are found in the book of doctrine and covenants were published in the history of Joseph Smith, and they are strung all along through it.

181: Well I am talking about that paper from which you learbed these doctrines, and you testified that you can show doctrines from the Times & Seasons?
 

182: You say you got one given in 1841 from the Times & Seasons? One that was published from or in the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir.

183: There was a revelation given in 1832 that was also published in the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir.

184: Well now can you give any other?
I don’t know. I think it was a revelation that they called the law of the church and it was given in 1832 I think. etc., and from what other time back?
Well it was from 1830 up to 1844, as much as we had of it in the history published in the papers.

167: Were any revelations published in that paper, that were given at any of those times?
Yes sir.

168: They were?
Yes sir.

169: Well now can you mention any time in which a revelation that you heard read in that paper was given?
Yes sir.

170: Any single revelation?
Yes sir.

171: Well what was it?
The revelation of 1841, – given I think the 19th day of January was published in it, and many other revelations. It was not the only revelation that was published in that paper.

172: now you have one?
Yes sir.

173: One published in 1841?
Yes sir. Well now I will say it was published in the paper, but I don’t recollect the date of its publication.

174: It was published you say in that paper in 1841?
No sir I say that was the date of the revelation, – the revelation is dated then, but it is published in the Times & Seasons, and I have all those volumes now myself, and it is in them but I can’t give the date of the publication of the issue that contains it.

175: Now was there any account in the paper, – can you now tell of any account in that paper of any other revelations?
Yes sir.

176: I want you to do so from your memory as I want to test it to see how accurate it is?
Well the revelation of 1832 was published in it.

177: Now you have two of them?
Yes sir. I say there were dozens of them, –

178: Well sir I don’t want those generalities, – the test of memory and that is what my object is in making these questions, – is largely one of the dates?
Yes sir.

179: And now I want to know the dates of some other revelations, – some other revelations you saw published in that publication?
Well if I had the books that contain them I could tell you all about it, but I can’t tell you all about these things, and go down into the minutes without I have the books to refresh my recollection.

180: Well we are talking about these publications now, and not about the books, and I want to test you as to the source of your knowledge and how accurate it is?
The revelations that are found in the book of doctrine and covenants were published in the history of Joseph Smith, and they are strung all along through it.

181: Well I am talking about that paper from which you learned these doctrines, and you testified that you can show doctrines from Times & Seasons?
 

182: You say you got one given in 1841 from the Times & Seasons? One that was published from or in the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir

183: There was a revelation given in 1832 that was also published in the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir.

184: Well now can you give any other?
I don’t know. I think it was a revelation that they called the law of the church and it was given in 1832 I think.

185: You spoke about a revelation dated in 1841.
Yes sir, I think I did.

186: Well what is the revelation of date of 1841?
It was quite a long revelation.

187: What if the subject of it?
It was with reference to the building of a temple at Nauvoo, Illinois.

188: That is dated in 1841?
Yes sir, and I will give you a quotation from it if you desire me to do so.

189: Well if you can do so I would be very glad for you to give me anything that shows what the subject matter of the revelation was.
Well this was in it, – “Let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein from generation to generation; for this annointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head of his posterity after him; and as I said unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so I say unto my servant Joseph, in thee, and in they seed, shall the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Therefore let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have a place in that house from generation to generation, for ever and ever, saith the Lord”.

190: That is a revelation that was given in 1841?
Yes sir.

191: At what time in 1841 was it given?
January 19th is the date it was given. That is the date, if I remember right.

192: You say January 19th 1841 is the date of the revelation from which you have just quoted the extract?
Yes sir, I think that was the date of it. It is in the book of covenants if I remember right, and the date of it is given in there.

193: Well that is all right, – we will probably look for it at another time. Now you remember that revelation very distinctly I suppose, – you aught to be able to quote from it in the manner you have?
Yes sir, I remember it distinctly.

194: Now will you state another revelation that you saw in that publication, the “Times & Seasons”, or heard read to you?
Why I don’t remember now to give the date. All the book of covenants, more or less, was published in that either in a general way from time time, or in that history of Joseph Smith, or the history of the church, and also in the Millenial Star. It is all in there more or less, and up to the time of his death there was his general history published in the Times & Season and Millenial Star, and by the way there is some other papers published that is in also.

195: Well now these are all the revelations that you can mention that you learned about, from the Times & Seasons?
I can’t remember independently, but I know there were some of them there, and I think they were all there from time to time, – that is at one time or another they were all published. I think there was nearly one hundred from, – one hundred of them I should say in that history.

196: With their respective dates?
Yes sir. I think so. I would not be positive, but I think they are there.

197: Well now will you give me some of the dates of some of the other revelations that appeared in that publication?
Yes sir there was on given in 1838.

198: Thee was one given in 1838 you say?
Yes sir.

199: What was the subject of that?
On tithing it was. I would not be absolutely positive, but I think that was the time that revelation was given.

200: Well now give use another revelation that appeared in the Times & Seasons that you can remember?
Well now if you will hand me the book of covenants I will tell you all of them. If I had the book here we could save time and I would tell you all of them.

201: Well that is not what I want to do. You have been testifying from your recollection or memory, and I want to go on in that way?
Well go on, that is all right.

202: Well was there any other given in 1840 that you can call to mind.
Published in the book of covenants?

203: No sir, in the book of, – in the Times & Seasons I mean?
No sir I don’t think there was any in 1840.

204: In 141?
Yes sir.

205: Was that the one you have spoken of?
Yes sir.

206: Was there any in 1842?
Well there was some letters by Mr. Smith that were published in 1842 I think.

207: Published where?
In the Times & Seasons.

208: Some letters by Mr Smith were published in 1842?
Yes sir.

209: What did they purport to be?
Some of them were in relation to baptism, – the manner in which it should be conducted.

210: Do you remember what kind of baptism was mentioned in these letters?
Yes sir.

211: What kind of baptism was it?
Baptism for the dead.

212: And that was in 1842?
Yes sir, the letters I think were dated in 1842.

213: Were those letters authority?
How.

214: Were those letters considered or held as an authority in the church?
Well they were never received as we know of.

215: Were they considered or held as an authority on that subject in like the other revelations in the book of Doctrine and Covents. They were letters written to men in the city of Nauvoo at the time, and were published. He was not in the city of Nauvoo at the time for those letters were addressed to men there in Nauvoo.
 

216: Well they were regarded as expounding the doctrine of baptism wee they not? The doctrine of baptism for the dead, and the manner in which it would be performed?
Yes sir.

217: Expounding it for whom, – for whose benefit?
Well for the benefit of the church?

218: At that time Joseph Smith was the President of the church was he not?
Yes sir.

219: The time that you read or heard read these revelations was from 1842 through 1843 and in 1844 down to the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir. That is the time that I have more particularly in mind.

220: Now while you were speaking of the revelations that were reported in the Times & Seasons, do you remember seeing a revelation that purported to have been given on Fishing River, generally referred to as the “Fishing River revelation”?
Yes sir I think so. I think that is the title of it. If you will give me that book I will tell you all about it in a minute.

221: Well you are testifying now and not the book?
Well I know, but it is rather hard to answer these questions, for I never thought of them in this light before you know.

222: Can you give me the date of the Fishing River revelation?
No sir I don’t think I can.

223: Where is Fishing River, as you understand it?
I think it is in Missouri.

224: Do you know the substance of the Fishing River revelation?
I think I do.

225: Now you have testified to the doctrine of the church, from what you have read?
Yes sir.

226: Now can you give me the revelation?
I don’t know that I can give you the revelation or even the gist of the revelation, but I know there is such a revelation.

227: But you can’t give the substance of it?
No sir, for I have forgotten it, or can’t bring it to my mind any how.

228: I refer to the Fishing River revelation?
I understand.

229: Can you state how much there was of the revelation, – whether there was a small single paragraph, or several paragraphs?
I think there was several paragraphs.

230: Do you remember by whom what revelation was given?
It was given through Joseph Smith I suppose. All of those revelations were given through him, or nearly all, – some of them were given in connection with other parties.

231: Was, or was not that Fishing River revelation given on June 22nd 1834?
I cannot tell you.

232: Well, what is your best impression as to that?
I couldn’t tell you that sir, for I haven’t my dates, – the dates and times that these revelations were given, – that is something I haven’t in my mind at the present time. I remember some of them, but not all or anywhere near all of them.

233: When were these revelations delivered, – in 38, 41 or 42, – these revelations in 1842, – given in 1842, – were they published in any other publication besides the Times & Seasons, and if so in what publication or publications?
 

234: I will modify that question, – when were they published in any other form, if they were published in any other form?
They were published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and some of them is what is called the Book of Commandments.

235: When were they published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
In 1835.

236: I am talking about the revelations of 1841, 1842 and 1843, and the revelations of 1838 also, – when were they published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I don’t know when they were published. I suppose though they were published when the next edition came out, – whenever that was.

237: Well I want to get you to state what edition they were first published in?
Well the last Nauvoo edition that I remember of seeing published was published in 1845, and they were in that.

238: They were in the Nauvoo edition of 1845?
Yes sir.

239: Were they in any edition prior to that time?
I don’t think the 1841 revelation was in that. I don’t think it was ever published in the book of Covenants until 1845, – that is if it was I don’t remember of ever noticing it.

240: Now do you know what is meant by the “rejection of the church”?
Yes sir, I think I do.

241: Well do you know, – that is the question Mr Briggs, and not what you think, – do you know?
Yes sir.

242: Well what is meant?
The dis-organization and rejection of the church.

243: Has that a meaning with reference to the church at Nauvoo?
It had reference to the church as an organization, and the effect of the dis-organization was to disorganize it as a body or as an

244: Or-ganization.
 

245: Has that term any special reference or significance in connection with any event that occured to the church at Nauvoo?
I don’t know as I understood that question.

246: I say has the phrase “rejection of the church”, any meaning as applied especially to any event or incident in connection with the church at Nauvoo?
That took place?

247: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

248: What incident would it refer to?
It refers to the fact that if under certain conditions they did not do a certain work, they should be rejected as a church with their dead.

249: At what date did that take effect?
The time of the rejection?

250: Yes sir?
Well I don’t know what date they were rejected. The understanding that we have always held, or at least I have is that it signified that at the time the church was dis-organized, then it was rejected.

251: Then when was it disorganized?
I think June 27th 1844.

252: Are any revelations according to the doctrines of the church which you know represent, considered binding, without they have been bound and place in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir.

253: They were not considered authoritive in the church to which you now belong unless that is done?
No sir.

254: Were these revelations of which you speak in 1841 and 1842, – you also spoke of a revelation given in 1853?
No sir, I spoke of a letter written in 1842 by Mr Smith expounding the book of covenants, and it was also in the book of covenants published later, and in the Times A Seasons at that time. I referred to letters from Mr. Smith, in which he gave his instructions touching the matter or subject of baptism. That is what I referred to.

255: Were those letters considered authoritive in the church?
No sir.

256: Well do you know whether they were considered authoritive in the church at the time they were written?
I know they were never received as authority according to the best information I have had. They were never received as an authority in the church to my knowledge.

257: Well do you say they were not received as authority?
I say they were not to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I am quite positive they were not. If they were I never heard any thing of it, and I don’t think they could be without my knowing it.

258: Do you know whether they were considered as expounding the truth of the church?
No doubt they were wise instructions? We so hold them to be wise instructions.

259: They expounded the truth?
Yes sir, upon the question of baptism they do, and that doctrine we hold to be the truth.

260: Do you hold that to be the truth still in the re-organized church?
We hold them to be wise instructions, but we have not as yet received them.

261: do you hold the exposition as there given as the truth, – do you so hold it now in the re-organized church?
We never received any revelation when receiving these instructions, and we therefore do not receive them in any other light than as wise instructions, we do not receive them or regard them in the nature of a revelation or anything of that kind.

262: Were those letters ever place in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir, but not as a revelation.

263: When were they placed in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
In 1845, – I think that is the date of the edition in which they are first found.

264: Was the book of Doctrine and Covenants ever adopted?
Prior to that time it had been.

265: Had been what?
Had been adopted.

266: Prior to what?
Prior to that time it had been received and adopted by the church.

267: When was it that it was received by the church?
In 1835 it had been received by the church. That was the time that the most of the revelations were received for nearly all of them had been received before that time, – there was only three or four received after that.

268: Well now Mr Briggs what I want to get at is what book of Doctrine and Covenants, were those letters first published in?
It was in 1845. Now that is my memory. If my memory serves me right, that is the date of the book.

269: Now was that book published in 1845 ever adopted by the church in any way?
No sir.

270: It was not?
No sir. it could not have been for the reason that the church as a church had been rejected prior to that time. The church as an organization had been rejected at that time.

271: Then if any of your brethern have at any time during the progress of this investigation, presented that book published in 1845 as an authority in the church as published, what do you say to that?
No sir.

272: They have made a mistake?
Thet have never presented it, so there has been no mistake.

273: Well I say, if they have, they have made a mistake, haven’t they?
I think so. I don’t think any one that is posted in our church would do that, and so I say the book has never been presented here in that way, – that is as a authority in our church. Of course there is a great deal, – nearly the whole of the matter contained in book of doctrine and Covenants is contained in that book also. –

274: Well we are speaking of what it contains, – particularly the revelation of 1841?
The letters of Joseph Smith were never presented to the re-organized church as an authority, and were never recognized by it as an authority.

275: So then, you state here that the book of doctrine and covenants of the 1845 edition was never accepted by the re-organized church as an authority, and has never been adopted by the church?
No sir it has never been adopted and accepted as an authority.

276: In neither the old church, or the re-organized church?
No sir, for the church was rejected at that time. It was published under the auspices of the Twelve in 1845, and at that time the church had been rejected.

277: The book of 1845 was published under the auspices of the Twelve.
Yes sir.

278: What Twelve?
The twelve that had formerly been in the old organization before it was rejected.

279: The same Twelve who at that time were claiming that they were the old organization?
Yes sir, I suppose so. They claimed that.

280: They made that claim then?
Yes sir and they make it yet I understand.

281: They claim that yet?
Yes sir.

282: This rejection of the church of which you speak expresses the view of the re-organized church?
Yes sir.

283: And not the view or opinion of the Twelve under whose auspices the book of doctrines and covenants of the 1845 edition was published?
Yes sir.

284: Now Mr Briggs if the book of Doctrine and Covenants of the 1845 edition was approved, – was not approved by the church, I should say, except as you have stated, – what books of doctrine and covenants with their dates, prior to that time were approved?
I stated that I did not recollect that the revelation of 1841 was ever published in the book of of covenants until 1845. Now that was or had been added to a volume that was known as the book of covenants that was published in 1845 but I don’t know that the revelations of ’38 or 1841 had ever been published in that form in the book of covenants prior to that time. The first time that I ever saw it was in an edition published after the rejection of the church.

285: That was what was called the edition of the book of covenants of the edition of 1845?
Yes sir.

286: Now if you don’t regard the edition of 1845 as having been adopted by the church, what book of Doctrine and Covenants prior to that time, do you regard as having been adopted by the church?
That is easily stated.

287: Well state them?
Those that were adopted by the church prior to the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, – or rather those that were published by the church prior to that time.

288: Well that was prior to 1844?
Yes sir.

289: Up to that time or year?
Yes sir, if there was any publication in that year.

290: Well now as you have been in the ministry for so long a time you have testified, and these books you regard as the foundation of your faith, can’t you state at what date these books of doctrine and covenants to which you do hold as having been adopted by the church, were adopted by the church?
I don’t remember that there was any edition published as I have already stated from 1835 unto 1845. Now I do not say there was not any published during that time, for there may have been, but if there was I do not know of any.

291: You do not know of any edition after or between the edition of ’35 and the edition of 1845?
No sir.

292: After the edition of 1835, the nest edition was published in 1845?
yes sir, and there was only two or three revelations after that if I remember right?

293: After what?
After 1835. There was one in ’38 and one in 1841, and perhaps one in ’37. There was one then I think if I am remember right.

294: What does that one given in 1837 refer to?
It has reference to Thomas B. Marsh I think, and I think the date was 1837. If I remember right that is the date, and it was published in the Times & seasons and the Millennial Star.

295: What revelation was that?
The revelation to Thomas B. Marsh.

296: What is the substance of it?
I can give you one idea regarding it.

297: Well please do so?
Let me see if I can get that in mind. In speaking of the quorum of Twelve, and of their temptation and hardness of heart, it says “after their temptations and much tribulations, behold I, the Lord will feel after them, and if they harden not their hearts and stiffen not their necks against me they shall be converted, and I will heal them”. That was after their temptations and trial, and spoke of something in the future.

298: Now you take that revelation to refer to the Quorum of Twelve in Nauvoo in 1845, and it was put in this book?
Yes sir, they put that in there with the rest of them.

299: You take it to refer to the same quorum of twelve that afterwards went to Salt Lake City?
Yes sir, some of them went there but it was not the quorum, or the majority of the quorum as a quorum that went to Salt Lake.

300: Well was it not a majority of the quorum that went?
No sir for it was disorganized as a quorum at that time. I told you that before.

301: Well that of course is merely your claim, that is the view of the reorganized church, and not the view of the quorum, and was not their view at the time?
And they claimed it too. They claimed it also for at the reorganization some years afterwards up at Kainesville they took three out of their quorum for instance there.

302: Well did not nine of them leave there together, and go to Salt Lake City?
No sir.

303: They did not?
Not as a quorum.

304: You do not assert that positively?
I do sir.

305: That is as it is viewed from your standpoint?
I mean from their standpoint.

306: How do you know their standpoint?
Because I know the record of it sir.

307: From whom did you get the record?
From the published statements and the history of it as it occurred.

308: Now Mr. Briggs you have spoken of what you call and term a “reorganization” in 1851, and you have also stated that the doctrines of the reorganized church were precisely the same as the doctrines of the church termed the old church?
Yes sir.

309: That is what you testified to?
Yes sir.

310: Now I will ask you if that reorganized church, afterwards adopted the book of Doctrine and Covenants, that is, adopted it after the reorganization as you term it?
Yes sir.

311: When did it adopt such a book first?
The reorganized church adopted the book of Doctrine and Covenants for what it purported to be, and the standard books of the church, the Book of Mormon, the Bible and book of Doctrine and Covenants were adopted as the standard books of the church, the same as they had been in the original church, and that was done at the first conference of the reorganized church in 1852.

312: And did it adopt the book of covenants?
Yes sir.

313: Well did it adopt the book of doctrine and covenants and everything contained in it, that was adopted and published by the twelve after the rejection as you term it in 1845?
They adopted what purported to be the book of doctrine and covenants as recognized in the history of Joseph Smith written during his life time.

314: Well did they adopt everything contained in that book of Doctrine and Covenants published in 1845 to which reference has been made?
No sir.

315: They did not?
No sir, they paid no attention to it.

316: Well what did they leave out?
They adopted it in so far as it purported to contain the revelations of Joseph Smith as contained in the edition of 1835, and the revelations that Joseph Smith by his published writings recognized to be his revelations. They did not adopt it in its entirety or indeed any portion of it, but they adopted the book of 1835. What I mean to say is that there was very little difference between the edition of 1845 and the edition of 1835, as there has been only three or four revelations given between these dates and the ones given of course after 1835 were in the 1845 edition, but as it was published after the death of Joseph Smith, and after the rejection of the church, of course the reorganization did not recognize it. The reorganized church I might say just take that 1845 edition for what it is worth without any reception or rejection about it, they simply accept it for what it is worth as they do his letters, and not as an authority or law unto the church.

317: Did they or did they not in adopting what was contained in that book of 1845 adopt the revelation of 1841 of which you have spoken, the revelation of 1838 of which you have spoken, and the letters of Joseph Smith of which you have spoken?
They adopted it for just what it is worth, just what it shows itself on its face to be. If you desire to have it in that way, there was no formal adoption about it, nor was there any formal rejection, but it was accepted for what it was worth, and nothing more.

318: Just the same as the afoted or accepted anything else in the book?
No sir, for they did never accept these letters of Joseph Smith at all. These never have been accepted, that is these letters, for they have never been accounted as an authority like the revelations.

319: Well did they make an exception of these letters?
They adopted it as purporting to be the word of the Lord, simply that and nothing more.

320: As published in that book?
Well as purporting to be the revelations of Joseph Smith. There is somethings in there that were published afterwards, that Joseph Smith never saw or heard of and they did not accept them. I wish to be understood as saying that whatever was in the book that was in conformity with the other accepted utterances of Joseph Smith upon which the church had passed was accepted, in other words the book was taken for what it purported to be, and nothing more than that.

321: Well then you have a book of doctrine and covenants in the reorganized church?
Yes sir.

322: It is the book adopted in 1852?
Well we did not adopt, I mean we did not publish any edition then. We just accepted the revelations as published. You see the history of these revelations is in these papers as published by Joseph Smith himself. It is in those papers that I referred to, and the revelations are found there altogether.

323: Right there Mr Briggs I will ask you this, – was ever a revelation an authority in the church that was not found in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir.

324: Then do you state that these revelations which you saw, – the revelation of 1841, – the revelation of ’38, and any others that may have been given, and which were not in the books of doctrine and covenants during the life time of Joseph Smith, were or were not authority before they were published in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir. What was published in the Times & Seasons before Joseph Smith’s death wae not regarded as an authority until they are found here in this book.

325: And if any other resolutions had been found in the Times and Seasons, and not published in any book of doctrine and covenants, prior to the date of 1845, or that edition of the book of doctrine and covenants, were they considered to be, and were they in fact an authority for the church?
No sir, they were not. I am not aware there was any, – if there was any, they were nit recognized as an authority.

326: What did it take to constitute them as an authority?
What?

327: A revelation as an authority?
To be passed by the general rule that they had.

328: How was that done?
I think it was first passed by all the quoroms, and I do not know to what extent, – by the way I believe the history of it is all given, for they were passed through all the quoroms.

329: You did not publish a book of doctrine and covenants in 1852?
How is that?

330: You did not publish a book of doctrine and covenants in 1852?
Do you mean the re-organized church?

331: Yes sir.
No sir.

332: When did the re-organized church first publish an edition of the book of doctrine and covenants?
Well I could not tell you the exact date, but it was some time after 1860.

333: Since you have been a member, and a minister in the church?
Yes sir.

334: And an elder in the church?
Yes sir.

335: How many books, – or rather how many editions of the book of doctrine and covenants have been published since 1860?
I could not tell you that.

336: More than one?
Do you mean by the re-organization?

337: Yes sir?
I think there has been two perhaps. I know there has been more than one since that for there has been additions made to it since then, for we have had several revelations that are published in the book of doctrine and covenants, and to use an old phrase of the original edition published by the re-organization, I guess there has never been but one plate made or published.

338: There has been several revelations given since 1860?
Yes sir.

339: Was there one given in 1851 with reference to the re-organization of the church, – that is was there a revelation given at that time in reference to the re-organization?
In 1851?

340: Yes sir?
None that is recognized in the book.

341: Was there one in 1852?
No sir, – not that is recognized or incorporated in the book.

342: What about this revelation of Deans?
Well that was in reference to the re-organization.

343: Well at what date was the Deams revelation given?
Well the revelation of Deam was received in the winter of 1852. In 1852 or 1853 in the winter I think. I don’t remember the date but it was somewhere along there I should judge in the winter some time.

344: Deam’s revelation was given in the winter of 1852 or ‘3?
Yes sir.

345: What did you say that referred to?
Well it purported to be a commandment to re-organize the quoroms, and appointed seven men to be chosen as apostles and special witnessess for the church that is the pith of it.

346: Was there anything in it, about who should preside at the conference?
Yes sir?

347: What was that?
That the greatest should preside.

348: The greatest should preside?
Yes sir.

349: The greatest in what respect, – in what respect were they to be the greatest?
Let me see how that was, – that the conference should be organized, and that the greatest, – well I don’t remember it but I know the word “greatest” is found in it.

350: Well was there any special person at that time to whom that referred?
What is that?

351: Was there any special person at that time present, to whom that word “greatest”, referred?
Well that was a matter of discussion for the conference to pass on. There was a division of opinion as to what it meant.

352: Well what was the opinion?
Well some thought it meant the highest in authority.

353: Some thought it meant the highest in authority and some thought something else?
Yes sir. There was a question as to who was the highest in authority there.

354: Was that question ever settled?
Yes sir.

355: When?
Right there.

356: In whose favor was it settled?
It was settled in favor of Jason W. Briggs.

357: Your brother Jason W. Briggs?
Yes sir.

358: What office did Jason W. Briggs hold?
That of first high priest.

359: Are all high priests always elders?
Yes sir. High Priests are always elders.

360: Are elders always high priests?
No sir.

361: Have you not testified that Jason W. Briggs was an elder in the old church?
Yes sir.

362: Well I see I see I have made a note here to ask you the question, how you knew he was an elder in the old church prior to 1844?
Because he came into the neighborhood where I lived and baptized and ministered and preached, and had a license as a minister. I should say strickly speaking that he had a license as an elder.

363: Did you ever see his license?
Yes sir.

364: You did?
Yes sir.

365: A license from whom?
William O Clarke I think ordained him.

366: Who ordained him?
I said William O Clarke baptized and ordained him.

367: How do you know that he did that?
Wel that is his statement.

368: His statement to you personally?
Yes sir.

369: Now speaking to those highest in authority, – what one claimed to be the highest in authority there at that time? You say there was some question about who was the highest in authority there, or in other words, who was the greatest, and now I would like to know who else claimed to be the greatest or highest in authority there?
There was some discussion there as to whether one who held the office of President of the seventies was not the greatest, and there was a man there that held that office, – that is the office of President of the Seventies, and he claimed to be the greatest.

370: Who was that man?
Zenas H. Gurley.

371: What is the doctrine of your church in reference to that, as to who is the greatest?
Of the re-organized church?

372: Yes sir, – what is the law and doctrine of the re-organized church reference to that?
Well it is according to where they are laboring. The doctrine of our church recognizes the Seventy as associated closely with the High Council, and as travelling ministers they are the greatest, and as a presiding officer the high priest and elders rank first. That is their specific duty as presiding offers but each office is an honorable office, – one is an honorable an office as the other.

373: Do you mean for me to understand you as saying that Jason W Briggs, -?
Yes sir.

374: Do you mean for me to understand you as saying that Jason W. Briggs was ordained as an High Priest in the old church?
I don’t know whether he was ordained, – I know who ordained him but I don’t know when, – that is what I wish to say, – that I know that he was ordained, but I don’t know when. He was ordained in the re-organized church under the hands of William Marks.

375: I asked you if he was ordained in the old church?
I couldn’t say of my own knowledge that he was ordained in the old church.

376: How did you know he was ordained by William Marks?
He told me himself that he was ordained by William Marks.

377: And that is the way you know it?
Certainly, for I did not see it performed.

378: Now do you know or remember whether this ordination you speak of was before or after the re-organization?
It was before. Yes I remember now it was before. I said it was after the re-organization but that was a mistake, for it was before.

379: Then it was before the re-organization?
Yes sir.

380: Was it a fact that certain people who had been members of the old church after its dis-organization, and before the re-organization of the church of which you speak, were in the habit of ordaining priests and officers of a church, that did not exist?
Let me understand you, – what is the question, – I don’t understand it.

381: I asked you if you meant to be understood as saying that people who belong to the old church, as you call it, prior to 1844 I should say after 1844, and prior to 1851 or 1852, when the reorganization took place as you claim, – were in the habit in that interim of ordainging people to office in the church?
Yes sir.

382: To what office in a church that don’t exist could they be ordained?
Well I don’t know about that. No, I don’t know about that.

383: Do you know of any instance of it?
Of what?

384: Of an ordination, or pretended ordination between the rejection of the church, as you term it, and the re-organization?
Yes sir there must have been plenty, but I don’t know that I was present or saw any of them.

385: In that Interim?
Yes sir.

386: You know of instances of that kind occuring?
Yes sir.

387: Well, give us an instance of it?
Brigham Young and that company that went to Utah did all the time, and are doing so today.

388: That is the church that was rejected according to your way of looking at it?
Yes sir.

389: Did they, and do they not, claim all the time to be the old church.
Yes sir, but their claim does not make that so.

390: Neither does the fact that you dispute their claim render them not the true successor to the old church?
That is a matter of opinion and evidence.

391: Well they still claim to be the successor of the old church, – to by the old church?
Yes sir.

392: Now in my former question I refer, and am speaking of men who regarded the old church as having been rejected between 1844 and 1851 or 1852, and the ordination of these men of others into office in the church?
No sir, I don’t know of any.

393: You don’t know of any instances of that kind?
No sir, I don’t know of any instances that any body recognized the church as rejected up to the re-organization.

394: Now is it not a fact that this ordination to the High Priesthood of Jason W. Briggs was done in the Strang faction of the church?
Yes sir, it is possible. I wouldn’t say where he was ordained, or when, but I know it was William Marks ordained him, but I would not say where.

395: You don’t know whether it was as in Strangs church or not?
No sir.

396: Or in William Smith’s faction?
No sir.

397: You know it was not in , – ?
It may have been in William Smith’s organization. I may have known at one time how that was, but if ever I did know I do not remember it now. Yes, I do remember. By the way he was ordained in William Smith’s organization, but whether he was ordained an High Priest or not I could not say.

398: You remember that now?
Yes sir, but I can’t say to what position or office he was ordained at that time.

399: You remember though it was in William Smith’s faction of the church?
Yes sir.

400: Well does the re-organized church, – after the re-organization, – recognize the ordinations made in Strangs faction and William Smiths church or in any other faction of the church as valid?
No sir, they don’t.

401: They do not recognize all ordinances made in that way?
No sir.

402: Well now then, if that is the case, was Jason W. Briggs, ever an High priest?
What is that?

403: I say if it is as you say a fact that the re-organization does not recognize ordinations made in these different factions of the church between 1844 and 1852, was Jason W. Briggs ever ordained an high priest, – was he ever ordained to the high priesthood?
How is that?

404: Was your brother Jason W. Briggs, ever ordained to the high priesthood?
Well that is what he claimed to be. I don’t know I have told you all I know about it, and given you my authority for it.

405: Now Mr. Briggs you have spoken of a revelation given in 1851, or 1852 or 1853?
Yes sir.

406: By which, or under which the church was organized, and various other things done?
Yes sir.

407: About the “greatest in authority” and so on?
Yes sir.

408: Now do you call to mind any other revelation that was given soon after that?
No sir.

409: Do you know anything of a meeting in or about that time, that was hold between Deams and Briggs and two or three others, at the subject of the reorganization was discussed?
No sir.

410: You don’t?
No sir, but the reorganization of the quorums took place in 1833.

411: What revelation do you call to mind first after this revelation about the reorganization, as having been given to the reorganized church?
Only those two. The one in 1851 and the one in 1852 or 1853, in which there was a commandment given to reorganize by choosing seven of the twelve who should be special witnesses and apostles.

412: That was in 1852 was it not?
I think it was in the winter of 1852 or 1853.

413: What was the next revelation given after that to the reorganized church?
The next one is the one to the President of our church, Joseph Smith.

414: The next one was given to the President of the church, who was Joseph Smith the present President of the church?
Yes sir.

415: Then was there a hiatus of seven or eight years or more, in which there was no revelation given?
There was no revelation given as commandments to govern the church. They were receiving revelations from many of the Saints, but not any that were given as commandments to the church, or which were accepted by the church as commandments governing it. I mean to say they were not so received. We believe in continued revelations, that each one may have manifestations of God’s will and special revelations.

416: Did any of these revelations you have just described become authorities in the church?
No sir.

417: Were they recognized as doctrines of the church or for the church?
No sir.

418: Were they recognized as manifesting the doctrines of the church?
No sir.

419: Were they recognized as expressing the law or doctrine of the church?
No sir.

420: So then you don’t call to mind any revelation excepting these two in the reorganized church, until the time that the revelation commended to come through he President of the church?
No sir and those revelations spoken of were never received by the church as authority, like the law that was to govern the church for its government.

421: When was that revelation you speak of received by the President of the church?
Which one?

422: The first one?
It was in 1861.

423: What was it?
The subject of it was in reference to executing the law of tithing.

424: That was given in 1861?
Yes sir.

425: You are sure of that?
I think it was given in 1860, in the fall of 1860 if I remember right. Yes it was in 1861.

426: Well it was either in 1860 or 1861?
Yes sir, it was in 1861 I think.

427: Is that authoritative?
Yes sir.

428: When was there another one given after 1861?
In 1865.

429: What was that concerning?
It was concerning the ordination of officers in the church.

430: What was the substance of it?
Well it was in relation to ordaing people of the colored race to offices in the church.

431: What was that revelation about the colored raced – will you please state it?
Well if there was them among them to minister to their own race it would be acceptable, but it advised not to be hasty in ordaing people of the colored race.

432: That was it?
Yes sir.

433: What was there besides that in that revelation?
Well that was one of the leading items, but I can’t recollect it well enough now to bring it all to mind.

434: When was there another revelation given that you remember of subsequent to 1865?
I think there was another one given in ’73. I don’t remember positvely, but I think it was in ’73 that the next one that I call to mind now was given.

435: What was that in reference to Mr Briggs, – according to the best of your recollection?
I think it was choosing several officers in the quorom of twelve, and also into the first Presidency. These were the leading parts. There was different officers chosen in different places. That is the nature of it the best that my memory serves me now.

436: When was there another revelation given Mr Briggs, – fi there was another given?
Why there was, – there has been some one or two since.

437: When was the first one given after ’73?
There was one given at Kirtland I remember.

438: Kirtland, Ohio?
Yes sir.

439: In what year?
Last spring I think thee was one given there, and I think there was one between that and the other one. I don’t remember the dates now, for it is not particularly fixed in my mind.

440: Was there one given in 1882 any where?
At Lamoni, –

441: When was the first one given after ’73?
I have answered that question as best I could.

442: Excuse me I believe I did ask that question, and I do not desire to repeat this cross-examination, but to get through with it as soon as I possibly can. Now you said there was one given at Lamoni?
Yes sir. The dates of these various revelations are in the book that you have there, and you can get the dates from it. I don’t remember the dates, but there has been some two or three revelations given since 1873.

443: Do you remember whether there was one given to the elders of the church in 1887?
I presume it was, if it is there. I remember there was several revelations given but I can’t recall the dates, or where they were all given.

444: Now do you say there was one in 1890?
Yes sir, there was one given in ’90.

445: Has there been one given since 1890 that you know of?
No sir I don’t remember of any. I haven’t those dates riveted on my mind, and I cannot tell you.

446: If there was one given in 1882, and one in ’87, and one in 1890 are they in the book of doctrine and covenants?
I think they are in there.

447: Are they as authoririve as any other revelations in the book of doctrine and covenants?
Yes sir, I think so. We so regard them.

448: If the fact beas you have stated it Mr Briggs, that these revela- which you remember, and other which you think may have been given which you do not remember since 1844 at Nauvoo, or since 1851 or 1852 at the re-organization, – how can you swear that the doctrines of the re-organized church at the present time, are the same as were the doctrines or the old church from 1830 to 1844?
I have been well acquainted with the doctrines of the church since the first, – I heard of it and was very much interested in it from the first, – after the third sermon I have paid very close attention to it, and have had very close interests and associations with it from that day to the present, and I thinl I am qualified to speak regarding it.

449: Now Mr Briggs I believe you want to answer my question but you haven’t don’t so?
Very well sir, I will do so.

450: Well do you regard that as an answer to be question?
If I understood the question it is. I understood you to ask me how I knew the doctrines of the re-organized church was in accord with the doctrine of the church, known as the old organization?

451: No sir that is not quite my idea, just repeat the question to the witness (speaking to the Notary). The following is the question referred to, “If the fact be as you have stated it Mr. Briggs, that these revelations which you remember, and others which you think may have been given, which you do not remember since 1844 at Nauvoo, or since 1851 or 1852 at the reorganization, how an you swear that the doctrines of the reorganized church at the present time, are the same as were the doctrine of the hold church from 1840 to 1844?
The epitome of faith of the church under its old organization is the same as that of the reorganization, touching the primary principles of the doctrine. What I first heard and believed of the old organization I now believe; and it has been the teachings of the church all along, therefore I can swear I know them to be the same and identically the same.

452: That is your answer to the question asked you?
It is.

453: Then do you swear that the doctrines of the revelations since 1944, and since the reorganization in 1852 are the doctrines of the church, or were the doctrines of the old church, from 1830 to 1844?
Yes sir, there has been no conflict since.

454: Then do you, then if there was a revelation at Fishing River, was that a doctrine of the church from 1830 to 1834?
What is the date of that revelation?

455: If there was a revelation given on Fishing River in 1834, was that the doctrine of the church from 1830 to February 1834. If there was a doctrine at Fishing River, given in a revelation in June 1834, was it the doctrine of the church from 1830 to February 1834?
There may have been an item, given there that was not in it before. It certainly wouldn’t have been the doctrine of the church before it was given, but if that is the case it was in harmony and not in conflict with anything that went before.

456: Then if there was a revelation given in 1835 of 1838, was it a doctrine of the church from 1830 to 1835?
In harmony, but not in conflict.

457: Well was it a doctrine of the church from 1830 to 1835, that is the question for you to answer Mr. Briggs?
Well as far as I know, there might have been more light thrown on the revelation that had been given prior to that time.

458: There “might have been”?
Yes sir, and there is no doubt but that there was. These revelations you will find are all in harmony and do not conflict.

459: Now if there was a revelation about the building of the temple given in 1841, was that an authoritative revelation of the church prior to that time, and binding upon the church?
No sir. Do you refer to the temple at Nauvoo?

460: Yes sir.
No sir, there was no authority for building the temple at Nauvoo, prior to that time.

461: Well now if there was a revelation given in 1838 about tithing and other things?
Yes sir, there was one.

462: Which afterwards became a binding law of the church?
Yes sir.

463: Was that revelation a binding law upon the church prior to that time?
No sir, but there was a detail in 1838 expounding the law that was to come, but which was not to be in conflict with anything given before.

464: Now if there was a revelation by Deams or Briggs, or anyone else in 1851 or 1852 or 1853 about the reorganization of the church was that a doctrine of the church prior to 1844?
No sir.

465: It was not a doctrine of the church?
No sir, but they were in harmony with what had been given before that time. They were all in harmony, one with the other.

466: Do you state that a doctrine which recognized a disorganized church was in harmony with the doctrine of a church which had not been disorganized?
Yes sir.

467: You state that as a fact?
Yes sir, in exact harmony and agreement with them.

468: Now if there was a revelation in 1860 and 1861 given by Joseph Smith, and one in 1865 also given by Joseph Smith, one concerning the colored race, and another one in 1873, and still another one in 1890, all by Joseph Smith, were these identified with the doctrine of the church, of the old church from 1830 to 1844?
In harmony with it?

469: I ask you if they were identified in doctrine with the doctrine of the old church from 1830 to 1844?
Yes sir.

470: They are?
Yes sir in doctrine they are identical.

471: They are identical in doctrine with the old church from 1830 to 1844?
Yes sir.

472: Were there any revelations such as these I have mentioned as having been given since the reorganization of the church, given prior to the time that these respective revelations were given?
No sir, I presume not.

473: Were there any revelations given on the subject of these revelations, prior to the time when these revelations were given?
Why they did not convey these same ideas in the same clothing, but it was in harmony with what has been.

474: Well let me see if I can get your meaning; is this what you mean by “harmony”? That when it is established that there shall be a revelation, that revelations may be given by the President of the church?
Yes sir.

475: And that all subsequent revelations are in harmony?
All that are given that are in harmony with the past, may be of Divine origin, and the ones that conflict with it wouldn’t be.

476: Would the enlargement or development of a principle, be identical with the doctrine of the same principle before it was enlarged or developed?
The constitutional principle upon which the church is founded is the continued revelations, and if it did come that they didn’t have any, the denial of it would be a denial of the doctrine. We believe in continued revelation in other words, and that was the doctrine of the old church, and is the doctrine of the reorganization.

477: That is the claim or position of the reorganized church, as you have stated it?
Yes sir.

478: A doctrine of continuing developing revelation?
Yes sir.

479: Is that not also the doctrine of the Utah church?
Well I don’t know as they have had any.

480: I say, the question is, is that not the doctrine of the Utah Church also?
I know they claim.

481: Who claims?
I know the Utah Church claims or its Presidency does, for I heard him make this statement, “I am not a prophet or son of a prophet”, and I never heard of a revelation from him, or say one that purported to come from him.

482: Answer the question, is it not also the claim of the Utah Church?
What?

483: This doctrine of developing revelations. I asked you if that was not also a claim of the Utah church. You stated that it was a doctrine and belief of the re-organized church, – this doctrine of continuous developing revelations, and I ask you now if that is not also the doctrine of the Utah Mormon Church?
They may claim that obey believe in revelations, but they never claimed that I know anything of that they received them I never seen or heard of a revelation that was published by them, as they claimed.

484: Is it not a fact that the Utah Church bases itself upon the revelations received at Nauvoo, and prior to the assembling of the church at Nauvoo?
I know them claim to be the continuing church.

485: Based upon the Nauvoo church?
Yes sir, and the book of Mormon and the bible.

486: And the book of covenants?
Yes sir, and the book of Mormon and the bible. They claim that as the foundation of their faith, – that is I suppose they do, for I have heard so, and I never heard anything to the contrary.

487: You have spoken about having enlarged what was done in 1852 at the re-organization?
Yes sir.

488: Now was this not done, – a revelation was passed that the re-organized church would take the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of doctrine and covenants as the basis of it faith?
Yes sir.

489: That was done?
Yes sir.

490: What book of doctrine and covenants did it refer to?
It referred to the one in existence, the only on in existence that had been issued by the original church.

491: This 1845 edition?
They received that for just what it purports to be.

492: It was this edition of 1845?
They did not receive all that was written in that as standard.

493: Did they make any exceptions in any thing?
Yes sir.

494: Did they make any exceptions of record, – did they do that by the records?
It was generally understood that they received that which was revelation, and that which was not revelation they did not accept. They did not claim that it was all revelation.

495: Is there such a resolution in the record of their conference of 1852, – which passed by the conference of 1852, – is there such? Is there such?
 

496: Yes sir? Is there such a resolution to be found in the record of that conference of 1852?
Yes sir there is a resolution which was passed, which recognizes the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of doctrine and covenants, – the standard book and excluding all other works. They did not recognize any other revelation that could not be found in these books as standards of the church.

497: Was such a resolution entered in the minutes of the record of the conference of 1852?
Yes sir. itself has been introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, and is the best evidence.

498: Did not the reorganized church at that time when it passed that resolution recognizing that book of Doctrine and Covenants, did it or did it not recognize that book of Doctrine and Covenants of the 1845 edition when it passed that resolution?
No sir they did not recognize it as the book of Doctrine and Covenants, but did not especially recognize that book.

499: Did they take all that was in it in the endorsement?
No sir.

500: Then if that is the case, what Book of Covenants did it take?
It took the revelations found recorded up to the date of 1844 at the time of the prophets death, and no other revelation was accepted. I should say it took the revelations found recorded up to 1835, and no other revelation was accepted after that date, but the one of 1841, and nothing after that.

501: Then haven’t they since 1852 included in their book of Doctrine and Covenants everything that was in the book of Doctrine and Covenants of 1845?
It is possible, it is likely, but I don’t remember as to that either. I guess likely it has been but I do not remember as to that positively. I know now that they haven’t for those letters are in there and they were never accepted as authoritative by the reorganized church, and there is a letter in there I think speaking of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, and that has never been recognized as an authority or doctrine by the reorganization.

502: Well now then, if you have got all of the book of Doctrine and Covenants of the 1845 edition in your subsequent editions of the books of the Doctrine and Covenants issued by authority of the reorganized church, is it not a fact that you don’t believe everything that is in your book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir.

503: Is it a fact that you do believe it?
No sir, that is not a fact neither. Neither are facts. There are some things in there that are not accepted as the doctrine of the church? There is matter in there that the church has never declared upon. It is a matter of fact though that we receive these revelations, and what purports to be revelations for what they purport to be, and nothing more, and no others are standards or authority for the church. That is just the way that matter stands, we accept these things, for what they purport to be, and they are not standards or authority for the church at all, for the church has never passed upon them that I am aware of.

504: Has not the reorganized church declared solemnly in its conferences one or more times, that it recognized all that is in the book of Doctrine and Covenants as authoritative?
No sir.

505: That is not a fact?
No sir it is not a fact for there are several lectures in there that have never been accepted by the church or recognized as authority.

506: What are they?
They are on faith. They are the lectures delivered to a class at Kirtland, Ohio.

507: Are they included in the book of Doctrine and Covenants now?
Yes sir, I presume so, though I saw an edition that did not have them in.

508: When did you see that?
I saw that since I came here to conference.

509: Did you not state in the outset of your examination in chief here, that the re-organized church was based upon the doctrines contained in the bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir.

510: You stated that?
Yes sir, and I state it now. Now if you will allow me to complete my answer I would like to do so.

511: Very well Mr Briggs, I have no desire to interfere with your answers when they are responsive to the questions I ask you, and when you fail to answer my question I have a right to interrupt you and try to attract your attention to the fact that you are wandering from the subject. Now do you desire to answer any fuller than you have done already?
Yes sir, I wish to say that the doctrine and covenants proper we recognize that as an authority, – that is the part in which purports to be the revelation, but you must remember that there are these letters and lectures in there, which do not purport to be revelations, and that part we do not recognize as being authority. We recognize them simply as containing good advice and being a guide to us, but we do not recognize them in the light of an authority binding upon the church as a law. We do not accept them as being a law of authority, but accept them simply for what they purport to be, the effusions of men by way of advice or instructions to the church, and in that light they are accepted, but in no other.

512: Then do you accept anything in the book of doctrine and covenants that does not purport to be a revelation?
In what way?

513: As doctrine, – do you accept it as a doctrine, – that is anything that does not purport to be revelations?
No sir.

514: As the law of the church, do you not accept it?
No sir, not as a law to the church.

515: I refer to yourself personally, – do you accept it?
No sir.

516: What is the attitude of the church on the same question?
The church does the same.

517: Then you think as the church does on that question?
Yes sir. And on all others I hope.

518: Do you know that there is a section in the book of doctrine and covenants on marriage?
Yes sir, I am familiar with that.

519: In which it is stated that one man shall have but one wife, and a woman but one husband?
Yes sir.

520: You know that?
I do.

521: Well is that authoritive?
It is recognized as one of the sections upon which the church has declared as authoritive.

522: Well then how would you answer my question as to whether it is authoritive or not?
That is what would e called a ritual of the church. It don’t purport to be a revelation at all, but is simply what might be called a ritual of the church.

523: Well what would you say in reference to its being authoritive on the church? That is the question?
It is one of the rules by which the church is governed. It is a ritual of the church, and one of the rules that governs the church on on the question of marriage.

524: What would be your answer as to its being authoritive in the church?
It is authoritive as a rule of government, but not as a revelation.

525: Then is it an authoritive in the church?
Yes sir, as a rule of action or ritual in the church for the regulation of marriages and it was so recognized by the church in solemn assembly.

526: Then is it a revelation?
No sir.

527: Then why do you say the book of doctrines and covenants containing only the revelations?
I did not say so.

528: You swear that you did not say the book of Doctrine and Covenants only the revelations?
I did not say that. The book of Doctrine and Covenants contains many things besides revelations. It contains the law of God in the form of revelations and in the form of certain rules for the government of the church which have been adopted by the church and received its approval in conformity with the laws of God as laid down in the revelations. We recognize the Book of Doctrine and Covenants as containing a part of the law of God, what is necessary for the guidance and government of the church.

529: Then is it not a fact that you do not recognize this section here on marriage as a law of the church?
We recognize it as I have stated repeatedly, – as a rule governing the church.

530: It is not a revelation?
No sir, and it don’t purport to be a revelation.

531: Then are not these other sections in here, which are not revelations, just as authoritive as that on that?
On what?

532: That section on marriage?
No sir not all of them. Some of them are, and others are not. For instance there is a letter in relation to the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, written by Williard Richards and John Taylor. Now that has never been accepted by the church, but it published in the edition of 1841. Neither in language or in spirit had it ever been accepted by the church, but it is put in there simply as a historical account of the martyrdom of Joseph Smith, and for what it purports to be. You will observe that it was in the interim between the time of the death of Joseph Smith and the re-organization of the church that it was put in there by the rejected church.

533: When this doctrine of monogamy, as I will call it, which permits a man to have but one wife, and a woman but one husband, you you recognize that as the law of the church?
Yes sir.

534: Although it is not a revelation?
Yes sir, – it has been accepted as the law of the church.

535: Then this doctrine of monogamy as set forth here, is a rule adopted by the church for its government, and not a law from God?
It is not a law or revelation from God directly, but it is in harmony with revelations from God.

536: It is in harmony you say?
Yes sir.

537: But it is not a revelation?
No sir, and it don’t purport to be a revelation either, but we understand that it is an exposition of a revelation.

538: An exposition of what you deem to have been revealed?
Yes sir.

539: Now if a revelation were to be made from a recognized source, or to come from a recognized source, a revelation contrary to this rule for monogamous marriage, and advancing the doctrine of polygamy, would it, or would it not behold authoritive, or more authoritive than this rule set forth here?
It would not.

540: It would not?
No sir.

541: And why not pray?
Because it would be rejected.

542: Rejected?
Yes sir, – by the church.

543: But in answer to that?
Sir?

544: But there is another question following that, and it is this, – what would the church do about it?
It would be a false revelation, and the church would not accept it.

545: It would be a false revelation even though it were adopted, and accepted by the church?
Yes sir.

546: That is your position?
Yes sir, it would not make any difference it would be false, and the acceptance of it by the church would prove that the church was in apostasy.

547: It would prove the church would be in apostasy?
Yes sir.

548: That is your opinion is it not?
That is the fact.

549: To whom would it prove that?
To any one that knew the situation. It would prove it to any one that knew the situation of the church.

550: Now you have spoken of progressive revelations?
Yes sir.

551: You recognize that doctrine?
Yes sir.

552: And so does the re-organized church.
That is my understanding.

553: Well according to the doctrine of progressive revelations there my be other revelations still on these subjects?
Yes sir that is the principle upon which the church is founded.

554: Now if one of these revelations should o me, and prove to be the same doctrine as prevailed under which David and Solomon and others had plural wives, why would you reject it?
What is that?

555: Suppose a revelation came under the idea of progressive revelations, – suppose it came and it taught the same doctrine as it taught David and Solomon in the days when they had more wives than one, how would you regard it?
David and Solomon it is declared in the book of Mormon, which is recognized as one of the first authorities in the church, – it is declared that in the book of Mormon that David and Solomon practiced whore-dom in having more than one wife, and having concubines.

556: Then David and Solomon are rejected by the book of Mormon?
In that respect they are rejected, and they are denounced as being wicked. Their practice is denounced, and they are under the condemnation for it.

557: Was it the same with Abraham?
 

558: Was it the same with Abraham?
Yes sir, – it is the same in the book of Mormon with all who practiced it.

559: How would that be with reference to Jacob then?
It would be the same.

560: It would be the same with reference to Jacob?
Yes sir.

561: Well now, at the out set of your examination Mr Briggs you mentioned as being present at the re-organization of the church at Beloit, – First I will ask you if you claim it was first organized at Beloit?
That was the time they had the first general conference of the re-organization.

562: And that was in what year?
That was in 1858.

563: In what month?
In June 1852.

564: And you stated there were several members of the old church there?
Yes sir.

565: Several men and women who had been members of the old church, you stated were there at the conference?
Yes sir.

566: Now I want you to state, – and I think my friend over there will consider it a fair cross-examination, – at least I hope he will, consequently, all who were members of the old church, who were present on that occasion?
I was notified last Saturday that they wished me to come there, and I thought this very question would be asked me, so I tried to note down all these things I could remember for the purpose of refreshing my memory if it would need refreshing, and I have the notes here now. If you will accept it I can just put it in that way.

567: Well that is not what I want, – I want to accept your memory, as that would be the best evidence?
Well go ahead.

568: State all the persons, men and women, who were members of the old church, – that is had belonged to the church organization prior to the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, who were present at that conference held at Beloit, Wisconsin in the month of June 1852? According to the best of your knowledge and memory?
Yes sir. From my personal acquaintance and knowledge, now what is your question?

569: I asked you to state from your own personal knowledge all the men an women who were present that conference held at Beloit in the month of June 1852, who had been members of the old original church?
Z.H. Gurley, –

570: Was that Zenas H. Gurley?
Yes sir.

571: Well go on?
J.W. Briggs; Silas H. Briggs; David Powell; William Hartshorn; Polly Briggs; – I guess that is all the members of the old organization of the church that was present.

572: So that is all that you can remember at this time?
Yes sir, – no, there was John Williams, and Henry Pease. I don’t remember any other men that were at that conference. There was others there of course but at this time I cannot remember who they were. If their names were called off I might remember more, but I cannot from memory recall any more at this time I don’t think. Now I am simpky giving you the names of parties that were there that I remember, but there was others there. As to the women or wives of the men whose names I have given you, I cannot remember their names.

573: Well are you assuming that the women, or wives of the men that were there, were members also?
Yes sir.

574: How do you know that they were members of the church also?
Well I know they were.

575: Well you go on and give any of their names you can?
Louise Briggs, and there was Mrs David Powell, – I don’t know her other name, nor Mrs William’s name, – I don’t remember her name either; there was Polly Briggs, but you gave her name, – Now that is all the names I can give you that were there at that conference, and I said there was others there, but I don’t remember their names.

576: Now Mr Briggs you have made an effort to call up in your memory the names and the number of persons who were there at that conference in 1852, who had been members of the church prior to 1844?
Yes sir, of course as I said that was not all that was there, but that is what that I can recall at this time.

577: That is all you can remember at this time after having made the effort?
Yes sir.

578: And after making this effort, all you can recall is the number of eleven persons, – the names of eleven persons?
Yes sir, but you must remember that there was the whole branch there at Beloit. but I cannot recall their names? There was a great many more there of the old members than I have mentioned you must remember.

579: How many were there in that branch?
I don’t remember how many, but there was quite a good many.

580: Now you say there was branch of the church there at Beloit at that time?
Yes sir.

581: How could there be a branch of the church there at that time when the church was dis-organized?
That branch was organized there in 1851 just as soon as this revelation came directing the saints to erect their altars and seek the Lord, and live their religion, and the Lord would bear testimony.

582: You don’t know whether any of the members of that branch were members of the church at Nauvoo?
I don’t think so. I do not think they ever lived at Nauvoo any of them, – there might have been some of them lived in Nauvoo, but I think not, and they had been members of the church in the old days before the dis-organization. I know that to be the fact for I was brought up there amongst them.

583: Could you give me the names of as such?
These are the names I have given you already, but there was a number of others, members of the branch that I don’t remember, for I was young and small at the time, or a very young man, and so those are the only names I can call up now, but there were others connected with it.

584: You do not mean to be understood here as saying there was a stake at that place that continued from 1844 up to that time?
I say there was a church and branch organization that continued from 1844 up to that time, – it was there before that time in fact, – I can’t say how long before 1844 it was established there, but it was some time before.

585: When was it organized?
I said I did not know.

586: I believe you stated it was organized in 1851?
It was organized before that.

587: Well it was dis-organized again in 1851, – is that it?
The dis-organization effected them as quoroms but where ever there was a branch any where in the world, that kept contact, the love of their religion they were still the church, where six or more of them members, maintained their organization. There was one for instance down near Alton, that Elder Green had charge of, and it kept its organization from the time of the dis-organization of the church until the re-organization. It kept its local organization all the time. 588 (Written as 888)

587: Who had charge of the branch you speak of at Beloit?
Jason W. Briggs was the presiding elder of that branch at Beloit.

589: Had he been so prior to 1852?
Yes sir.

590: For how long a time?
He had been presiding elder for years and years before that.

591: Was there any such an organization any where else than at Beloit?
Yes sir, several of them.

592: Where?
Where was branch organizations at Waukeshaw, but I do not know the status of how it had been all the time along, but I do know in 1851 after this revelation was given that that branch turned all over.

593: Who was at Waukeshaw?
Well it was the branch there, – I don’t know ho belonged to it.

594: Who was the head of it?
Well I could not say who was the Presiding officer.

595: Was it William Smith?
No sir, but I have the names of parties

596: Where was William Smith’s branch?
Well William Smith came up in there, and preached for a time, and they recognized him, but he did not go to work and organize a branch as I understand it, but he was there as I understand it, preaching and teaching the doctrine of lineal priesthood when he came up there, and for some reasons they rejected him. Now I was not connected with that in any way, and hence can only speak of it from hearsay, for I never met him there.

597: Didn’t the branch so called, of which you speak, and of which you you say Jason W. Briggs was President, or which was led by him belong to the William Smith organization?
Well they recognized William Smith as a preacher, but when he made some claims which they did not agree with, and then they got this revelation to reorganize.

598: Well was not Jason W. Briggs one of William Smith’s apostles?
Well I rather think he was, but I could not say he was ordained by William Smith.

599: Well was not William Smith, and his organization amongst the rejected of the church, was it not included in the church that was rejected?
William Smith was gathering up these old members of the church, and preaching lineal priesthood.

600: That is not the question Mr Briggs, —you have not answered the question. I have asked you if his organization, —the organization that recognized William Smith as its leader, was not that amongst the rejected of the church?
Well no, for he was preaching amongst the scattered members of the old organization, and gathering them together, and he came around teaching the doctrine as taught by his brother Joseph, and when he made some extravagant claims they simply denounced him at Beloit and Waukeshaw, and wouldn’t have anything more to do with him.

601: Who was it denounced him?
Jason W. Briggs.

602: Was not this organization you speak of, of which Jason W Briggs was the leader, at Beloit, Wisconsin, identified at one time with the Strang faction of the church?
No sir.

603: Do you swear they were not?
No sir,I don’t think they were. They had this association with Strang. A man by the name of Phineas Wright, came from Voree, —that was the Strangite headquarters, —and he put the claim forward for Mr Strang, he put forward the claim, for I remember it as well as if it was yesterday, —that Strang was the successor of Joseph Smith, and my brother said “well it is all right if he is”, and he said “well let us take your name and if he is carrying on the work just as Joseph did, we have no objection to it”. Now that was all there was to it, for I remember distinctly of this man Phineas Wright coming up there, and what took place. Of course I do not pretend to give the exact identical words that were used, but it was substantially as I have stated it. There was no vote taken, or anything of the kind to receive them, —that is to receive my brother in among the Strangites, and he never was a Strangite, unless that would make him one, which is not the case, according to y way of looking at it.

604: Was he ever a William Smithite?
No sir.

605: Then he was never at any time either a Strangite or a William Smithite?
No sir. He recognized William Smith as teaching the gospel. He taught lineal priesthood, and he was the first man that ever taught that there.

606: He taught the doctrine of lineal priesthood, – that is the doctrine of lineal descent as applied to the priesthood?
Yes sir and that was the first time that that doctrine had ever been taught in that section that I know anything of.

607: Well didn’t he teach some other doctrine there that was objectionable?
Well I don’t know about that.

608: Don’t you know it is a fact that he did teach some other doctrine there at that time that was objectionable?
Well yes he did teach something that they did not approve, for that is the reason they rejected him. After this time this revelation was given, and in it the doctrine of lineage was advocated, and it was accepted by the re-organization.

609: By whom was William Smith rejected?
Well everybody that knew him, and worked with him, – His co-adjuators so to speak.

610: Who was it rejected him?
Those that had before that time accepted him as a minister.

611: That was by this re-organization in 1852?
Yes sir. The minutes of the resolution are there where they rejected all who pretended to be successors of Joseph.

612: By whom was Strang objected to?
This resolution covered all kinds, and rejected all who pretended to be prophets as pretenders, and denounced them.

613: Well now, is it not a fact that the Conference of 1852 was made up of men who belonged to the William Smith organization, and men who belonged to the Strang organization, and men who had belonged to the Briggs organization, and men who belonged to other scattered organizations?
No sir, for my brother Silas was one who had never untied with any of these organizations. He had never united with any of the different factions at all for he always held to the one view to the day of his death, and never joined any of them. They had some of them been associated, – that is they had recognized the, and suppose they were carrying out the ends of the re-organization, before they knew of the rejection, when they had always stood on the principles of the doctrine as taught in the original church and while they attended the meetings of the different factions or organizations, they were not what you would call either Strangites, or William Smithites, or any of the rest of the, – they were simply people who had remained steadfast in the faith and did not recognize any of these different factions as being the true church, although they might from time to time attend their meetings. My brother Silas was one of these. Now there was Zenas H. Gurley who had been with the Strang faction, and he denounce Strang when he saw that he was making innovations, – he denounced him as an imposter.

614: Well now as to the fact as to whether Strang did make innovations or William Smith made innovations, – do you mean that the charge that these innovations had been made, was made by Jason W. Briggs?
No sir.

615: By whom was it made, – the charge made?
By a general resolution in the conference it is asserted that he had made innovations and is denounced as an imposter, they were denounced as imposters, – all who make innovations in the doctrines of the church, or in practice.

616: That appears by resolution?
It was decided by a resolution of that conference to be the fact.

617: What conference was it?
The conference in 1852, and that resolution recognized all members who had ever belonged to the old organization as being eligible to membership in the re-organization, – that is all members who had not vitiated their standing by overt acts against the church.

618: When did thet take William Smith in as a member of the church?
I don’t remember.

619: Then you do not know when he came into the church?
No sir.

620: Did he ever make any apology for his innovations, or confession or amends for his innovations?
I don’t remember how he came in. I was not there when he came in, so I cannot tell you anything about that.

621: Mr Briggs you spoke yesterday in your testimony of William B. Smiths organization?
Yes sir.

622: Now I am not sure, but we asked you whether that stake or organization there at Beloit, was in any manner connected with William F. Smiths church, or in any way under his over-seer-ship; and now I would ask you this morning, what were the fact that as to that?
 

623: What are the facts about that Mr Briggs?
The facts are simply these, – that there was a branch of the church there and William Smith came up there among them preaching the doctrine of the church, and while there they accepted him as a minister, and after he left there some developments were brought to light, the consequence of which was, that they rejected him as a spiritual teacher.

624: Of whom do you speak now, – the conference of 1852, or the local stake at Beloit?
The local branch of Beloit.

625: The local branch I should say?
Yes sir, it rejected him as a spiritual teacher.

626: When was that?
That was in 1851. There was a large branch there at that time, and I have only given you a few names of the members that belonged to it, – I can’t recollect them, – I cannot bring them to memory now as I would like todo, and would if I could. That was quite a long while ago, but I knew these names that I gave you, – that I knew the parties personally.

627: Do you know how he was received by the stake, – in what capacity when he came there?
How who was?

628: Who William B. Smith was received by this stake at Beloit when he came up there?
How he was received?

629: Yes sir, – in what capacity?
Why I have stated he was received as a minister.

630: What order in the ministry has he received in?
Why they recognized him, – well I don’t know about that, but I know it was as a minster.

631: What organization, if any, at that time, did this particular branch at Beloit have any connection with?
Well I don’t what what you mean? I can’t say for I do not understand your question?

632: I asked you what particular branch or organization did this branch that you say was established at Beloit at that time have any connection with?
Well no church or organization but the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, -that was of course before the re-organization.

633: Only with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir.

634: Was that in existence at that time?
Yes sir.

635: To what time do you refer in your testimony?
Well I don’t know whether it was organized, that is the branch, –

636: I asked you to what time you reffered in your testimony when you say the branch at Beloit belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I can’t give you the date when it was first organized, but there was a branch there organized, and continued along all the time, part of the time it was very active and part of the time not so active.

637: Now what the time you referred to prior to 1851 or 1852?
In 1851 the first communication was received, in which the doctrine of lineage and succesorship was established, pointed to that which culminated in the re-organization. They had quite a large branch there, and they at once accepted that revelation, and stood upon that revelation as the basis upon which they warded themselves against every pretender to the Presidence of the church, and have decided upon the sucessor of Joseph Smith, -his eldest living son, as being entitled to the Presidency of the church.

638: That organization at Beloit, they called that a local organization or branch?
Yes sir.

639: Now I would like to know with what other branch or branches, that branch at Beloit had communication or connections? If there was nay such I would like to know what they were?
Yes sir there were others. There was one at Waukeshaw, and there was one in Voree. I don’t know the numbers that belonged to these branches, but I know there was quite a number at Waukeshaw, and a good many of the members of the branch there were relatives of mine, and so I know more about that than the others. The fact that there were releatives of mine there is the reason I know so much about that.

640: No you haven’t got my question exactly it seems?
What is the question?

641: Did the branches at Beloit, of which you speak, have any relations with any of the other branches, if there were any other branches any where else?
Well they were independent branches, all of them. Thet were all independent branches and had no communal connection in the way of uniform identification one with the other, but at the time of this conference of course there was representatives from all of them assembled there.

642: Prior to the conference, however, in 1852 and after 1844?
Up to that time,-

643: Was there any connection between these branches?
They were acting as individual branches I suppose every where, -wherever there was any. In 1852 at that conference, there was resolutions passed there to recognize all the branches, wherever six or more members assembled together, who had been members of the old organization, as members of the church.

644: As members of the re-organized church?
Yes sir.

645: Now I am talking of a time prior to the organization in 1852, and after what you call the dis-organization in 1844? You understand that?
Yes sir.

646: And I want to know if there was any bond of union between the different branches at the different places?
No sir.

647: There was not?
Not that I know anything of.

648: They all stood seperately, singly and alone?
Oh yes, – I have not much of an idea in relation to that, for all that I know is hearsay, as I was young then, and it has been so long ago that I may have forgotten some of the things in relation to that I heard then but it is my recollection now that they all stood by themselves during that period. They might and doubtless were, acquainted more or less, but no bond of union by virtue of which they met in conference existed.

649: now you have testified as to your competency on these questions, and I will therefore enquire of you, how many branches existing at that time, – how many branches were existant at that time that is prior to a 1852?
Well I don’t know.

650: And subsequent to 1844?
I do not know.

651: How many branches according to your best recollection or knowledge there was in existence during that time?
I do not know.

652: You say you do not know?
Yes sir, – I can’t say.

653: Now state to me what you do know as to the branches you do know of?
Well next to the Beloit branch, I know more particularly the Waukeshaw branch.

654: Well there was the Waukeshaw branch?
Yes sir.

655: Now what other?
The Beloit Branch.

656: Well what other one?
Well personally I do not know anything about it, only I heard that there was others in the southern part of the state of Illinois, – that is hearsay however, for I do not know anything about it personally.

657: Do you know whether or not there was a William Smith branch at that time?
When William Smith came up there I do not think he had a branch attached to him, – I don’t think he has what could be called an organization. I think that was a subsequent affair, but I had nothing to do with it.

658: Well if it was a “subsequent affair”, tell what time it had its inception?
It was while he was there, and going to and fro from different places, for sometimes he was in Illinois, and sometimes at Waukeshaw, and sometimes at Beloit.

659: Well now I want to enquire if you can give me about the time of the inception of the branch over which he subsequently presided?
Well I couldn’t do that, for I don’t know anything about it.

660: These are all the branches you can call to mind, – the one at Waukeshaw, the obe at Beloit, – these are all you can call to mind that existed at a time prior to 1852? Prior to the assembling of the conference in 1852?
No sir, for there was one at Blanchardsville, – I think that is the name of the place.

661: There was another branch at that place?
Yes sir, I think that was the name of the place, – It is now known as Blanchardsville.

662: There was a branch there?
Yes sir, that is my recollection.

663: Who was the head of that branch?
Well I think Gurley was probably its President, or Cyrus Newkirk. That is my recollection that it was either one of them but I don’t know positively which was its head.

664: now there was another one was there not, somewhere, prior to 1858.
Yes sir there was several according to my understanding I have of it, but I don’t know where they were, – there location is something I cannot tell you.

665: About how many members were there in this Waukeshaw branch?
I could not tell you that.

666: About how many in the Beloit branch?
I could not tell you. I have given you a partial list of the names of the parties that belonged to it, but I couldn’t tell you all who belonged to it, or even the number of members there was in it. Now since Saturday I have read over a list of names of the members of that branch, and I have prepared a list of names of the ones I personally know, – that is the ones I remember at this time, and I can read it over to you if desire me to do so.

667: Well it is not necessary at this time. Now will you answer this question, – whether William Smith came to the Beloit branch at the time you speak of his coming there, – when he came there at that time, did he not come, and was he not received as his brothers successor?
No sir.

668: You swear he was not?
He was not.

669: Was he not received as the prophet of the church?
After he came there, –

670: Yes sir?
I was not there at the time he came here, and I never saw him there, and so I do not know of my own personal knowledge how he was received. What I said in relation to his being there is from what I know from the association, for I never met him until afterwards.

671: What was he doing there?
I can’t say as to that either for I did not see him there at that time, but if you want what I heard about it, and I do not think there is the lease doubt but that is true, – he came there preaching the doctrine of lineage, the same as we are preaching now, and it culminated finally into an organization but just where it had its inception I could not say, but I think it was in Illinois. 672 (Written as 6723)

671: And afterwards I understood you to say that the church at that point, rejected him, or some of his doctrines?
Yes sir. It rejected him.

673: Rejected them in some way, – that is his doctrines or some of them?
Yes sir. He came there preaching the doctrine of lineage and that was not rejected, and some time afterwards he conceived the idea of re-organizing the church, and it resulted in effecting a partial organization, and some of the members there in Beloit became identified with that organization as such, and then soon afterwards some developments arose, and the result of these developments were that they withdrew from any fellowship with him.

674: What were these developments if you know?
I cannot speak of them as knowing them of my personal knowledge, only just what came under my personal observation, for as I told you I did not meet him at that time.

675: You were a member of the church at that time?
Sir

676: You were a member of the church there at Beloit at that time?
At the time when Mr Smith was there.

677: Yes sir?
Not when Mr Smith was there, – he was never there when I was there.

678: Then you state you do not know the causes of difference between that church there and William Smith that caused them to reject him?
 

679: And is it not a fact that the had of that church there at Beloit at that time, Jason W Briggs, recognized that claim?
No sir.

680: He did not?
No sir. When Jason W. Briggs recognized him it was when he was making the claim that, – what is the word I want I can’t get it, –

681: Temporary, -?
Yes sir, that he was temporarily the head of the church until the legal heir came forward. Now that was the position Mr Smith took, – that when the legal heir came forward and claimed his inheritance, and that was the son of his brother, he was to be recognized as the legal heir, and he was representing him until that time, and we recognized and accepted him as such.

682: Recognized wo as such?
Recognized William Smith as such until the legal heir to the Presidence came forward.

683: What date was that?
When he came first it was in 1850 probably. I was not there at the time as I have before stated but that was the time I understand he was there at Beloit.

684: Now as a matter of fact was not Jason W. Briggs one of William Smiths apostles in 1851?
I cannot say.

685: Do you say he was not?
He may have been, I think he was chosen as one. Well I don’t say that either, for I think it was an high priest or something like that. I know he held an office of some kind.

686: You do remember that?
Yes sir.

687: And had not William Smith prior to that time been preaching and teaching the doctrine of plurality of wives?
Well I do not know that.

688: I believe you stated that Zenas H. Gurley was at the conference of 1852 at the time of the re-organization?
Yes sir.

689: From what branch did he come?
Blancharsville.

690: From the Blanchardsville branch?
Yes sir that is what it

675: You were a member of the church at that time?
Sir.

676: You were a member of the church there at Beloit at that time?
At the time when Mr Smith was there?

677: Yes sir?
Not when Mr Smith was there, – he was never there when I was there.

678: They you state you do not know the causes of difference between that church there and William Smith that caused them to reject him?
He made the claim of being President of the church.

679: And is it not a fact that the head of that church there at Beloit at that time, Jason W Briggs, recognized that claim?
No sir.

680: He did not?
No sir. When Jason W. Briggs recognized him it was when he was making the claim that, – what is the word I want I can’t get it, –

681: Temporary, -?
Yes sir, that he was temporarily the head of the church until the legal heir came forward. Now that was the position Mr. Smith took, – that when the legal heir came forward and claimed his inheritance, and that was the some of his brother, he was to be recognized as the legal heir, and he was representing him until that time, and we recognized and accepted him as such.

682: Recognized who as such?
Recognized William Smith as such until the legal heir to the Presidence came forward.

683: What date was that?
When he came first it was in 1850 probably. I was not there at the time as I have before state, but that was the time I understand he was there at Beloit.

684: Now as a matter of fact was not Jason W. Briggs one of William Smiths apostles in 1851?
I cannot say.

685: Do you say he was not?
He may have been, I think he was chosen as one. Well I don’t say that either, for I think it was an high priest or something like that. I know he held an office of some kind.

686: You do remember that?
Yes sir.

687: And had not William Smith prior to that time been preaching and teaching the doctrine of plurality of wives?
Well I do not know that.

688: I believe you stated that Zenas H. Gurley was at the conference of 1852 at the time of the re-organization?
Yes sir.

689: From what branch did he come?
Blanchardsville.

690: From the Blanchardsville branch?
Yes sir that is what it was called, but prior to that time I think it had been called the Yellowstone branch.

691: What was it called besides Blanchardsville?
I think Yellowstone.

692: Was there not another name for it?
Not that I know of.

693: Was that not the branch they called Zerahemliah?
Not that time.

694: I know but was it not after wards?
Yes sir, that was in the re-organization.

695: Is that the same one?
Yes sir, the same.

696: Was that, or was that not known as a Strangite Branch?
What is that?

697: Was or was it that branch known as the Strangite Branch?
Possibly it may have been known that way. It was raised up by Gurley, and some one else, – I don’t know who now.

698: You say some one else?
Yes sir, but I don’t remember now who it was.

699: Was that some one else H.B. Brown?
I couldn’t say, for I never knew him there, I used to to live at Zerahemliah, and I never knew him there, or knew of his having been there myself, but I think he had been there.

700: By whose authity did Gurley come to the conference of 1852?
Why he came there as the rest of them did?

701: In what capacity?
As a delegate.

702: From what place?
From this Blanchardsville or Yellowstone branch. He and Elder Powell came as delegates from that branch.

703: Now Mr. Briggs, you say also, that Silas H. Briggs, was there?
Yes sir.

704: From what branch did he come, if any?
He never came from any branch.

705: He did not?
No sir. He did not have to come from any branch, for he was a member of the old organization.

706: Therefore he did not come from any branch?
No sir, not as a matter of necessity. Any one who belonged to the old organization had a right to sit in the conference as well as the delegates from branches.

707: And David Powell, – you say he was there also?
Yes sir.

708: And he came from Blanchardsville also?
Yes sir. He lived in Beloit, – that was his home, – but he came there from a mission at Yellowstone or Blanchardsville as it is called. That is how he happened to be at Blanchardsville at that time.

709: Now in what capacity did he appear at the conference?
As a delegate, – I should say as an Elder, –

710: Wait I desire to ask you this question, – what did he represent there at the conference?
He represented the organization, for he was a member of the branch there.

711: What organization did he represent if any?
The branch there as a branch.

712: What branch?
The branch at Beloit. He lived at Beloit but at that time he was out on a mission at Blanchardsville.

713: Now in what capacity did he appear at the conference?
He appeared as an elder reporting his mission at Blanchardsville in connection with Elder Gurley.

714: From point, and whom did William Hartshorn represent?
He resided there.

715: Where?
In Beloit.

716: What was he in the conference of 1852?
I could not say. I couldn’t say that he was more than a member of the branch there, but he may have been an elder, but if he was I am not apprised of the fact, still he may have been.

717: Do you know how he came to be in the conference?
He was a member of that branch.

718: Would that fact give him a membership in that conference?
Yes sir.

719: Were all these members of that branch, members of that conference.
Yes sir.

720: They were all members?
Yes sir.

721: Well what so constituted them members of that conference?
By virtue of being members of the church.

722: So then at that time, any member of the church, was entitled by vitue of that membership, to become a member of of that conference?
Yes sir.

723: Was that a law of the church at that time?
Yes sir.

724: It was a law of the church at that time?
Yes sir, they had a voice in the conference, – all the members did.

725: Well what else did they have in the conference besides a voice?
Why he had a right to call the priveleges of the conference, – as a member of the church he had that privelege. Now I am not certain whether William Hartshorn held any office in the church at that time or not. I am not positive as to that.

726: Well is it a fact that the law prevailing at that conference as to membership, admitted any one to the priveleges of the conference? Is that a fact?
Yes sir.

727: Any one who was or had been a member of the old church or any of its branches?
Yes sir.

728: Is that the law of the re-organized church at the present time?
Yes sir.

729: It is the law of the re-organized church at the presne time?
Yes sir, with the exception that they have certain prevelege now that were not recognized then as delegates, in the sense in which they are appointed delegates, and then we did not have any such a regulation.

730: You have stated then, that at that time all the members of the church were entitled to membership in the conferences, and were entitled to all its priveleges?
Yes sir, and there were some of them called ex-officio officers. They were not known then as we have them now, but I didn’t know any of then.

731: Well I understood you to say, and if I am not correct I would like for you to correct me, – that all the members of the church, were by virtue of their membership, entitled to a place in that conference held in 1852?
Yes sir they wee entitled to all its priveleges.

732: And they could vote?
Yes sir.

733: Well you have stated it in shorter form by saying they had all its priveleges?
Yes sir, all the priveleges belonged to them.

734: Well now then, if, at the present time your church, the re-organized church has twenty five thousand members, might all these twenty five thousand members be admitted to your conferences here, as members entitled to participate in the conferences?
Yes sir.

735: Could they have attended at the conference recently held here in Independence?
Yes sir.

736: They could all have attended?
Yes sir, if they saw fit to do so, but it is not very likely that the whole membership of the church will ever desire to attend a conference at one time.

737: That privelege inheres to every member of the church?
Yes sir, to some as officers, and to others as members of the church.

738: And the whole twenty five thousand would have been entitled to all the priveleges?
Yes sir.

739: And you state that to be the law of the church now?
Yes sir.

740: Of or on what is a conference of the re-organized church, as held at the present time composed?
What is that?

741: Of what is a conference of the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints composed at the present time?
Its is composed of its members.

742: Of all its members?
Yes sir, all its members.

743: Can they all vote?
Some of them can vote, – the least child that is baptized has a right to come in there and sit there and take part in the precedings.

744: Are there any credentials required of parties who present themselves as members of the conference?
of delegates representing so many votes there is.

745: As delegates they are required to present credentials?
Yes sir identifying them as the parties they purport to be.

746: Now are not conferences based on delegates?
Yes sir and members. You would have noticed in this late conference held here if you had attended it, there was some things passed there and voted upon, –

747: By every body who was present?
Yes sir, all who were pleased to vote.

748: Well in forming a conference, is it not done by committees on organization?
Well some times that it is done, – generally I may say they have a committee.

749: Are not credentials brought in and submitted to the committee on organization?
When a vote is taken in the conference of the present reorganization church, a yea and nay vote is taken, and that is restricted to ex-officio officers and delegates.

750: Then the members of the church who are not ex-officio officers and delegates are not entitles to vote?
No sir, not on particular occasions.

751: Well is it not a fact that in such a case they would not be entitled to all the priveleges of the conference?
No sir. it is incompetent, irrelevant and immeterial, not cross examination nor the best evidence, and moves the court to exclude from the record the answer of the witness for the foregoing reasons.

752: But it is not a fact that that is the system that prevailed in 1852?
What is that?

753: That is not the system that prevailed in the reorganization in 1852?
Well that was because the arrangement hadn’t taken then, and those that constituted the conference at that time were the ones that assembled there, and things had not been systemized then as they have been done since, – and of course anything like that is merely a matter of detail and has nothing to do with the matter of doctrine or anything of that kind.

754: Well I will get to that later one. Now in the organization of that conference of 1852, was there any committee on delegations?
I think not.

755: Or on membership?
I could not say.

756: Well I am asking for your best impression if you have not positive knowledge?
I could not say, for I don’t remember hearing any thing about it.

757: So then it is a fact that any body who came and claimed to hold a membership, – or I should say, who came and claimed to hold the faith of the church, was admitted to membership in the conference?
Yes sir, and it was the same then as it is now in that respect.

758: But I believe you stated that the difference between now and then was that now there are certain members that are permitted to vote on a yea and nay vote, and that then that distinction was not made?
What is that? How is that?

759: I believe that you stated that the difference between then and now is that at that time they were permitted to vote on all questions that came up, but not the lay members are not permitted to case a yea and nay vote on certain questions?
There was no such a thing known that we know anything of, – there was no such a thing known in that sense, for there is occasions now when they can all vote as well as then.

760: To what organization did Polly Briggs belong at that conference of 1852?
She belonged to the church.

761: At what point?
She was a member of the old organization.

762: To what organization did she belong, or was she a member of at the time she was admitted to that conference?
I do not think she had united with the reorganization at that time.

763: How is that? I did not quite catch that?
I say I do not think she had united with what was called the reorganization at that time?

764: What branch did she belong to, if any?
The branches there used to be the old organization, – the same as it had been all the time.

765: Did she belong o any branch at that time?
She had formerly been a member of that branch there at Beloit, but when the organization, I should say re-organization was effected the old branch became merged in the re-organization was effected the old branch became merged in the re-organization, and some of the members had not come into what was called the re-organization at the time that conference was held, – that is some of the members had not become identified with the re-organiza-at that time, and the proper branch under its direction.

766: So then you say she was admitted to that conference but did not belong to that branch?
I do not think she took any partor voice in that conference, – she held her self aloof, as she hadn’t yet identified herself with it, – that is with the movement of re-organization.

767: She did not take any voice in it?
No sir, I know she did not for that reason.

768: If that is the case why did you give her name as the name of one of the parties that was present and participated?
I did not.

769: You didn’t?
No sir.

770: Well if you did not, what did you do?
I gave her name as one of the members of the old original church who was present, – there was nothing said about participation I think.

771: Well I beg your pardon, for if that is what you said I certainly mis-understood you?
The question was as to how many that belonged to the old organization was there, and I gave my mothers name as one, for she was formerly a member of the old organization.

772: Well you gave the names of eleven that I thought you said were members of the new organization as well as the old. Now there was John Williams, – where did he belong?
Well he was one of the members of the old organization who continued with and belonged to and was identified with this new re-organization.

773: What branch did he belong to?
That branch there.

774: Well what one was that?
The branch there at Beloit. My impression is that it was called the Newark branch, but it was there in the town at Beloit.

775: Why was it called the Newark branch if it was in Beloit?
Well Newark was the name of the township.

776: Now what did Henry Pease belong to?
That branch.

777: There at Beloit?
Yes sir.

778: Was Eliza Briggs also a member of that branch?
Yes sir, I think she was.

779: Did she have any voice in or participate in the deliberations?
I presume she did. You have a copy of the resolution and procedings of that conference, and I presume she was there and took part.

780: Mrs David Powell you also said was there?
Yes sir.

781: In what capacity was she there?
The same as the rest of them.

782: Did she participate in the procedings?
Yes sir.

783: Is the same thing true of Mrs Williams?
Yes sir.
I think all the branch there was associated with the re-organization at that time except my mother, for at that time she did not give in her name.

784: Now you have spoken of all these parties, – eleven of them I believe, as having been members of what you term the old church?
I mention those as the names of the ones that I remember were there personally, but that is only a few of the many who were there? I have a list of nearly two hundred names here of persons that were connected with the church organization that I was personally acquainted with, and I can read them all off to you if you want me to do so.

785: Well I am not after that at the present time, – I am asking you what you knew as a matter of memory?
Well sir as I understand it that is just what I am here for to tell you what I know.

786: You certainly have a thorough knowledge of what you are here for, for that is just it. You have stated that there was eleven persons there who took part in and participated in that conference who were members of the old organization, and now I will ask you how you know they were members of the old church prior to 1844?
Well my mother was baptized by brother Elder Cox.

787: Before or after you were born?
Well sir it was in 1843, – she was baptized in the fall of 1843.

788: You were then eight years old were you not?
Yes sir, nearly eight years old.

789: How do you know she was baptized?
Well she was baptized at Waukeshaw, and when she came home from there, she came home a member of the church.

790: How do you know that?
Well, that is what she claimed, and she was recognized after that as a member of the church.

791: How do you know that Zenas H. Gurley was a member of the church prior to 1844?
By the record and his own statement, but I did not see him baptized.

792: Do you know it of your own personal knowledge?
No sir, only form what hex stated to me. I did not see him baptized, nor did I see my brother baptized.

793: But do you know of your own personal knowledge that your brother Jason W Briggs was a member of the old church?
All I know that, – all I know about it is that he came home a member of the church, and said that William O. Clarke baptized him, for I heard him he baptized him.

794: Well how do you know it?
Well he came there as a priest, and had a certificate as an elder, but I did not see him baptized.

795: Do you know of your own knowledge that he was ever made an elder.
I know he had the license and preached.

796: Did you ever see him made an elder?
No sir. Yes sir, I have seen him ordained I remember that.

797: Has he been ordained more than once?
Yes sir, he was ordained an elder, and afterwards an high priest.

798: Did you see him ordained an elder in the old church?
No sir.

799: Did you ever see him ordained an high priest any where?
No sir.

800: Your brother Jason W. Briggs I mean?
No sir. I never did.

801: Was there any high priest there at that converence in 1852?
Yes sir.

802: Who was it?
My brother was recognized as an high priest. I don’t know who else there was, but he was recognized as one.

803: You don’t know of any one else who was an high priest?
No sir, I don’t remember of any others. I did not know many that were there, and I have only given you a few names, – the names of a few that I was personally acquainted with.

804: Now you say your brother Jason W. Briggs was recognized as an high priest, – by that answer do you mean that he was an high priest?
Well I have told you that I did not see him ordained, but he was recognized as one, and as fir as my knowledge goes that is a fact that has never been questioned. He was ordained two different times, but I don’t know when it was for I was not present. I know in 1853 he was there at the conference, and declared that he was an high priest, and it was not decided what ordination it was but he was ordained by Marks, and was ordained again at Beloit, the time he was there connected with the branch, but I was not present either time, and what I tell you is simply what I have heard about it.

805: Did he claim to have been ordained an high priest?
Well I guess he did.

806: You guess he did?
I did not see him ordained I say, but he claimed it there at that conference.

807: Did he claim to have been ordained an high priest before the death of Joseph Smith?
I don’t know / I could not say.

808: Was there any one there that had been ordained an high priest before the death of Joseph Smith?
I don’t know. I can’t remember the names of all those that were there with whom I was personally acquainted, – there was many other there besides the ones whose names I have given you, and with reference to their having been high priests there ordained in the time of the prophet I cannot tell you.

809: Did you know William H. Deam?
Yes sir.

810: Was he, or was he not an high priest at that time?
 

811: He was an high priest at that time?
Yes sir, he was. And he was so understood by the church.

812: From what time did his ordination date?
I don’t know only it was in the old organization. I know he was received as such in the re-organization, and understood to be such.

813: After the death of Joseph Smith he was ordained?
No sir it was before the death of Joseph Smith that he was ordained.

814: Then if he was an high priest there at that cinference of 1852 was he not the highest authority present?
At the first conference?

815: Yes sir?
No sir.

816: Why wasn’t he the highest in authority there?
He was not there.

817: He was not at that conference?
No sir.

818: What conference do you refer to as the first conference?
It was in 1852, in June.

819: When was the second conference?
I don’t remember. Maybe it was the next spring, but I don’t remember the date postively.

820: Now how do you know that Silas H. Briggs was a member of the old church?
I knew he was.

821: How do you know he was a member of the old church?
I know it.

822: I am aware of that fact, but I want to knw how you know it?
Because I saw him when he went down to Nauvoo, – There was Silas Briggs; Jason We.. Briggs and Almon White went down together to Nauvoo to a general conference.

823: Did you see them at Nauvoo during the conference?
No sir.

824: You did not?
No sir. I wasn’t there, and of course I didn’t see them.

825: Then you only know that from hearsay?
I know they went there. I know that well enough.

826: You know they went there, – how could you know it if you were not with them?
Well I know it and I will give you my reason for knowing it. I sent word down to the prophet Joseph Smith, and they brought they word from him back personally to me.

827: You sent word to the prophet?
Yes sir.

828: That means that while they were gone they saw the prophet and delivered your word to him?
Yes sir, and brought back word to me.

829: What was the question or word they brought back to you?
 

830: Well since they object to it I will waive the question and let it go. Now is it not the case with reference to all these parties whom you say belonged to the old church, that you know it from the testimony of others, and not from your own knowledge? In other words you know it from hearsay testimony, and not from your own personal knowledge or observation?
I know it by personal acquaintance with them.

831: With the parties?
Yes sir.

832: You did not see them baptized or ordained in the old church?
No sir, but there is many a thing a person knows that they did not see you know. There is two hundred or these names that I recognize and knew, and it was from personal contact with them and their testimony to the effect that I know this to be a fact.

833: Now you have spoken of about two hundred names?
Yes sir. I can read you all the names if you want them.

834: You need not do so now, for when I get ready for them I will call for them. Now when I called for the names of the ones who were members of the old church, and who took part in that conference at Beloit, out of this list of two hundred names you say you have you could only give me eleven names of persons that were present?
Yes sir.

835: That was yesterday?
Yes sir.

836: And you couldn’t remember any others?
No sir. Thee was others but I couldn’t call them to mind.

837: Now then you were speaking of two hundred names
Yes sir. And here they are. There is one hundred and eighty of them.

838: Do you mean to be understood as testifying that these two hundred names to which you refer were people who belonged to the old church, and who were in the conference of 1852, of which you have been speaking?
No sir, to be exact there was or is one hundred and eighty names.

839: Do you mean to say there was one hundred and eighty persons in the re-organization as you call it that took place in 1852, who had belonged to the church prior to 1844?
No sir, I don’t know that in some sense they were.

840: I am talking about the one conference?
Yes sir I have answered you and given you the details of the one conference.

841: Then you do not undertake to say that these one hundred and eighty names you speak of now were all members of the conference of 1852?
No sir, they were not. I know just the eleven persons whose names I have given you who were there, and who were members of the old church; but at the same time I know there was many others there whose names I have not given you for the reason I cannot recall them to my mind now.

842: Well that is all I will ask you on that question at the present time at any rate. Now were there any authorized publication of the procedings of that conference of 1852 published?
Yes sir.

843: Are you able to state the title and character of such a publication or publications?
I think it was the “Voice of the Captives” if I remember right was the title of it. It was either that or the “Word of Consolation”.

844: Was there not one called the “Word of Consolation to the Scattered Saints”?
Yes sir, I think that was the title of the first one that was sent out. It was authorized and written by a committee that was appointed to write it at that conference.

845: Would you know the publication if you were to see a copy of it?
Yes sir, I think so.

846: Is that it?
Yes sir that is the publication. I have one at home also. The copy of the publication referred to is marked Exhibit 10, J.M.Orr offered in evidence, and objected to an behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immeteral, and not cross examination.

847: I will offer it now and have it marked for the purpose of identification only. Now will you take this pamphlet entitled. “A Word of Consolation to the Scattered Saints”, and on page twenty one read fourteen lines, commencing at the top of the page.
Witness reads from the paragraph referred to from the words ”
Witness reads from the paragraph referred to, beginning at the words, “we cannot forego”, as follows, – “We cannot forego this opportunity to raise our voice against an evil which has well ning completed the over-throw of the church; – which Samson like hath lain hold upon the very pillars of society. And instead of order it has produced anarchy, instead of union, division; in short, instead of confidence and love, distrust and hatred. We refer to the system of spiritual wife-ry, taught by Brigham Young, to the “Plurality” doctrines of James J. Strang and the fouler system ( of (whoredom) taught by William Smith, and his joint occupant called “Spokesman”. These systems, though unlike each other, are all known as a system of polygamy; under which they themselves take shelter; hence we will not treat of them under their proper names, but under the less offensive or semi-legal one, viz, polygamy”.

848: Do you recognize that as a part of any of the documents authorized by that conference?
Yes sir.

849: Of what is it a part?
That was done by the committee that was appointed to write that, and they wrote it, and it was presented to the next conference, and received.

850: And was it approved?
Yes sir.

851: In what manner was it approved?
It was approved as the work of that committee. That part there is the last two pages of the document itself as printed.

852: Is there any difference between the document as printed and the original?
Not that I am aware of.

853: You may examine it and see?
Yes sir it was. After the committee had finished there was a resolution, – well, I don’t know these facts of my own knowledge for I was not there at the time, – but the resolution it appears was introduced. I don’t know how that came about, but these three pages were added, as it was not deemed to have declared expressely enough on that subject.

854: Added upon what authority?
I wouldn’t say upon what authority. There is the words of the committee, and this was added to the words of the committee, and I see this was added to the work of the committee, but I would not say upon what authority, but I know it was declared on the intimation of the Spirit, for it was claimed it was not express enough as it came from the committee, and they were commanded to write three more pages, or what is written there that amounts to these three pages.

855: Was that piblished in pursuance of that resolution?
Yes sir there was a resolution passed upon an intimation that they should make the matter of plurality of wives apart of the announcement.

856: What you have read here was a part of what was intended or was written on the question of plural marriage?
Yes sir.

857: Was the pamphlet published by authority of the conference?
Yes sir, as a pamphlet it was.

858: As a pamphlet it was published?
Yes sir.

859: Do you know whether or not that pamphlet met the approval of the conference?
I cannot say. I think it did.

860: Do you know whether it did or not?
I never heard anything the reverse.

861: In other words you never heard anything to the contrary?
No sir.

862: I hand you now what has here to fore been marked as an exhibit in testimony in this case as exhibit “M”, entitiled “No 45,-The Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, in succession from 1830 to the present”, and ask you to read on page nineteen three lines, at the bottom of the page, and on page twenty thirteen lines ending at the word ” polygamy’?
 

863: And as plaintiff asks or requests that the entire paragraph appearing in page twenty be read, I will ask you to read in addition to the fourteen lines, the balance of the paragraph beginning at the words ” this was adopted”, on page nineteen?
“It was moved, that the report of the Presidency on the matter referred to them by this conference, from the Decatur District be received, and adopted as expressing the view of this conference.” Saints Herald, vol26, pp 329, 330. This was adopted. In February the re-organized church published a tract for general distribution embodying the facts of the conference, held at Beloit, Wisconsin, June 12th and 13th, 1852., including an article against polygamy, from which we quote the following,-“We cannot forego this opportunity to raise our voice against an evil which has well nigh completed the over-throw of the church, which Sampson like, hath lain hold upon the very pillars of society; division; in short instead of confidence and love, distrust and hatred. We refer to the system of spiritual wife-ry taught by Brigham Young, and the plurality doctrines taught by James J. Strang. These systems though unlike each other, are all known as a system of polygamy under which they themselves take shelter; hence we will not treat of them under their proper names, but under the less offensive, or semi-legal one, viz., polygamy. Whence came the pratice and where is the warrant for it? The first we hear of it is from the lips of Lamech a son of Cain, who owns himself deserving of seventy fold greater punishment that Cain himself. We conclude therefore that none will quote Lamech in justifying precedent. But we insist that the father of the system give it its character. His shedding blood was but a type of what belongs to, or must accompany the system, since male and female come into the world about equal; and God having stamped upon man his own view, that “it is not good that man should be alone”, hence, of course if one like Lamech secures one or two additional wives, he must either persuade that number of men that it is “good to be alone”, or he must kill them off. It seems he chose the latter, which no doubt was the easiest”

864: Did you, or do you recognize what you have just rad as a quotation from,-or a part of a quotation from this deliverance on page twenty one of the tract entitled a “word of consolation for the scattered saints”?
Yes sir, part of it I do.

865: Did you observe any quotation or reference from the compilation which you have just read,-any thing concerning William Smith?
 

866: Answer the question?
What is it?

867: I ask you if you observed whether or not the quotation you Have just read from exhibit M, contained any reference to William Smith?
In the first pamphlet?

868: Yes sir in the first pamphlet which you read, entitled “A word of Consolation etc”, was there any reference to William Smith?
Yes sir.

869: His name was mentioned in that?
Yes sir.

870: Well in this last pamphlet you have read, do you notice any reference to it?
I don’t notice it here.

871: You notice that all references to William Smith is left out of Exhibit M, which is the compilation?
Yes sir, but this is something I don’t know anything about (referring to Exhibit M)

872: You do not say that the quotation you have last read contains anything of what was said about William Smith in the “Word of Consolation?”
No sir I will look at it more critically and see how that is, but at this time I do not remember seeing his name mentioned in it at all. I do not see his name here at all.

873: Did you observe in the paragraph you read from in the compilation, and when I refer to the compilation I mean Exhibit M, did you observe in the compilation you last read from, any stars or other marks, showing that there was an omission?
No sir.

874: You did not notice any thing that would indicate that there is an omission, or that something had been left out?
No sir, there is no stars.

875: Or other marks shoring an omission?
No sir.

876: There is nothing whatever showing an omission?
No sir.

877: Do you know whether that is marked, the pamphlet that is marked as exhibit 10, entitled “A word of Consolation”, whether what is said in that pamphlet regarding William Smith is true or not?
Do you wish me to read it again?

878: No sir, I simply asked you if you knew what was said about William Smith in that quotation you read was true or was not true? I asked you what you knew about that, simply?
No sir I don’t know anything about that. I never met with Mr Smith until after this was ordered published.

879: You never met him before that?
No sir I never met Mr. Smith personally until after that was published. I never met him personally before that.

880: Do you know what relation Jason W. Briggs, who was President of that conference in 1852 and 1853, sustained to William Smith with reference to the charges of that pamphlet, – that is the charges contained in the pamphlet?
I would like to have that question read over again?

881: I will ask you this question, – can you state whether you know there was any changed relations between Jason W. Briggs and William Smith, based upon the charges made in this pamphlet marked exhibit ten, from which you have read?
I know he had the relationship with him at that time. He was not in fellowship with him.

882: Who was not?
Jason W. Briggs was not in fellowship with William Smith at that time.

883: With William Smith he was not in fellowship at that time?
No sir. Not at the time that was ordered to be prepared.

884: Was that in consequence of the charges that are made in this pamphlet?
I don’t know about that, – there may have been one or two that are not in that that caused it, – It might have been about that, but I can’t say positively as to that, for that is one of the things I don’t know about.

885: Was there anything given to Jason W. Briggs in his relation to the re-organized church, in the shape of a revelation, that specifically condemned that doctrine as taught by William Smith?
I don’t remember that there is.

886: You don’t remember about that?
No sir.

887: By the way Mr Briggs, what position does William Smith hold in the re-organized church at the present time?
I think he holds the position of office of an elder, but I can’t say for certain about that.

888: Do you know whether or not he is an elder?
Yes sir I am quite sure he is an elder though, for I have heard him preach.

889: Do you know when he came into the re-organized church?
No sir I do not. I do not know when William B Smith was received for I was not present at the conference at which he was received.

890: You were not present at the conference at the time he was received?
No sir.

891: Do you know what conference he was received at?
No sir.

892: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
I do not remember anything about that for I was not present at the time, and therefore I cannot say. If I had been present I could possibly tell you something about it, but as I was not I am unable to do so. There was several conferences there that I did not attend and he was received at some of them, – I do not know which.

893: Do you know what that conference held in 1852 called itself?
I don’t know unless it was known as the re-organization that was commenced.

894: Do you know what the name selected by them to designate the organization was?
They recognized that wherever there was six or more members of the old church gathered together, – they recognized it, and all organizations that were local were recognized from 1830 up to 1851, or the time, –

895: Do you mean that all organizations, that they deemed to be local were received?
Yes sir.
I should say all organizations that they could show were legal or produce evidence of the fact that they were legally organized under the old dispensation, were recognized by them as legal in this first conference, and all members belonging to such an organization were received.

896: How were they received?
On their original baptism.

897: Who determined their legality?
Well at the time the came to the conference it was decided, or at the time they were admitted to the branches to which they belonged, and in many instanced the branched with all their members were admitted.

898: I understand that exactly, but who was it determined their legality?
The conference of branch, – wherever the presented themselves.

899: If it was a conference, the conference itself recognized them?
Yes sir. I will illustrate that if you please. You do not seem to understand my meaning, and perhaps I can make you do so by an illustration. Last June a gentlemen came to a conference at Mission, Illinois. It was to a district conference he came, and he had in his possession a license of eldership in the church in 1841. I think it was, and we took his evidence, – it took that as evidence together with his statements tot he same effect, that he had been a member of the church then, and was at that time, and so we accepted him as a member on his old membership.

900: You say “we” did that?
Yes sir.

901: What do you mean by the word “we did that”?
Well I mean that the conference did it, and I was present.

902: Who was the judge of the legality of that license?
It was passed upon by a committee, but I don’t remember just how that was further than that there was a number spoke upon the subject.

903: Do you mean to say that they have a committee to be the judge of these things?
I don’t remember. just how it was, but that is my impression. I think that is the way these things are generally done, but I do remember that there was a number spoke upon the matter, some of whom were acquainted with the gentleman and their statements together with the license and his statement was sufficient to constitute him elegible to become a member.

904: To become a member of what?
Of the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints.

905: In whose judgement?
In the judgement of the conference.

906: of what Conference?
Of the District Conference.

907: Now you have said something about the church being rejected, have you not?
Yes sir.

908: The original church was rejected, – is that what you say?
Yes sir.

909: Why do you say it was rejected?
Because it was rejected.

910: How do you know that, – what evidence have you that that was the fact?
The evidence of its rejection was the taking away of its two principle officers, – the twp presiding officers of the church.

911: At what time do you locate that rejection?
The evidence is that it was on the 27th day of June 1844, and I think that was the time.

912: Well I will now ask you this question, – who rejected the church?
Who rejected the church?

913: Yes sir that is the question I asked you?
God. God rejected it.

914: How do you know it?
On the ground that if they would do a certain work in a given time, and if they did not do it they would be rejected as a church with their dead.

915: That is the way you know it?
Yes sir.

916: Do you know it from any other means than your judgement?
The revelations states that also.

917: But do you know it from any other means than your judgement of what the revelation means?
They set to work to accomplish that, and I know they did not accomplish it, and that that followed was an exhibition of their rejection.

918: Did that revelation of which you speak specify any limit as to time?
In what respect?

919: As to when the rejection should take place?
Yes sir, it did.

920: What was the time?
A sufficient time, and that if they would do this they would be placed, and would not be moved out of their place.

921: When was that revelation of which you speak given?
In 1841.

922: By whom?
Joseph Smith.

923: When was it submitted to the quorom, if at all?
I don’t know about that.

924: Was it ever submitted to the quorom?
It was submitted to the church, and published as his revelation, and according to history it was acted upon

925: It was acted upon?
Yes sir.

926: How do know that?
From history

927: Well is it from that revelation and your understanding of it, that you say the church was rejected at this particular time in 1844?
Yes sir.

928: Well I would like to know more definitely the reasons you have for arriving at this conclusion?
The evidence we base it,-that is that we base the rejection on,-is this,-two of the principle officers were taken from the church, and then all the quorums broke up or were dissolved.

929: Then do you undertake to say in answer to my question as to who rejected the church, that God rejected it?
Yes sir.

930: That is your testimony on that question?
It is.

931: Are you sure that you know the mind of God on that subject?
Yes sir. I am not sure, for I know I know the mind of God an that question.

932: Upon whose judgement do you base your conclusion that you know the mind of God on that question?
By the Spirit of Revelation to me.

933: By the Spirit of Revelation to you,-is that what you say?
Yes sir.

934: Upon whose judgement do you base the conclusion that you has a Spirit of Revelation on that subject?
Upon the judgement that I have a knowledge of the dealings of God with men, according to his law.

935: Well them, is it not upon your own judgement that you claim to be possessed of this knowledge?
It is upon my own judgement in the same sense that a man has a sense of what he knows and sees. I say, I felt and I heard through these senses, and therefore I know these facts.
Yes sir.

937: No you haven’t, and I would like you to state them?
What is the question?
Well I did not say I knew it at that time,-at the time of its being taken away,-I did not say that I knew it at that time at all; for I didn’t know it then.

939: Well tell us what you know about it, whenever it was,-what you say and felt and heard that taught you that the church had been rejected?
I will tell you what I say and felt and heard.

940: Well go on and do so?
At the time of the public reports of the assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith at Carthage, Illinois, the Spirit of God rested upon me, in power, and I say a vision, and in that vision I saw a statue,- a marble statue,-and I inquired as a soliloquy in my own mind “what does that mean”? and a person stood to my right, and I didn’t noticed him, or heard him speak before,-and answered my question saying,-‘you are compared to that statue”. I noticed the person but did not take cognizance so as to state how he looked,-that is so as to be able to give his description. Immediately afterwards I saw a beautiful hand, transparent in appearance, and between the thumb and index finger was a sheet of paper, with the lower leaf open down so I could see both sides of the paper, and when I looked upon it, I soliquized in my own mind again “what could that mean”, and this personage to my right said “you are compared to that sheet of paper”, and I then heard a voice out of it, serene, placid, and clear, and to my mind a sensation pervaded my mind, in a calm clear way, and a voice said, – “Joseph, the son of Joseph is the President of the church”, and then followed the voice of the Spirit to me saying that his Father was dead, and the little child would be the successor of his father. I felt that Spirit in power, an I head that excellant voice from the heavens addressing me personally, and I say these manifastations with my eyes in truth. In the words of truth and seriousness I declare I heard and seen and felt these sensations”.

941: Is that all?
Yes sir.

942: Is that all the truth of what you saw on that occasion you desire to say?
Yes sir, that is all. That is all there is to that.

943: Is there anything in all you have related to prove that the church was rejected?
It proved that the Presidence of the church had been taken from the church, and his successor would be his son.

944: Pardon me if I ask you to repeat that answer for I did not get that last?
It proved that the Presidence of the church had been taken from the church, and his son would be his successor. That is what I said.

945: Did it prove anything about the rejection of the church by the Almighty?
What is that?

946: Did it prove anything about the rejection of the church by the Almighty?
It proved this to my mind that they were left without a revelator, a prophet and a seer, – a man like Moses holding all the gifts of God that were bestowed on the head of the church and that left the church without its complete organization. It proved it conclusively to me, hence the dis-organization of the church commenced immediately upon the taking away of Joseph Smith.

947: Is this then, what you wish to be understood as saying, – the facts which you have related, showing that the head of the church has been taken away?
Yes sir.

948: And the fact that the head of the church was dead, was sufficient to cause the rejection of the church, until the true successor should be installed in his place?
It proved to my mind then that the leading quorums, – the majority was taken from them, and that they were bereft without a general officer, as a revelator, seer or law giver to the church.

949: And how long did that condition last? How long was it to last?
I don’t know.
What os the question?

950: How long did that condition of the rejection of the church last of which you have spoken?
I don’t know how long it did last.

951: You don’t know when that condition of rejection lasted and the church was re-installed in the favor of the Almight?
I do not know, but I know when the re-organization began.

952: Do you know when it was completed?
It had not been completed up to the present time that I know any thing of

953: Now do I understand you correctly, when I understand you to say that the re-organization of the church has not been completed up to the present time?
If I understand you to say or mean that the offices in the church have been filled that were filled in 1841 or 1844, I say they have not been filled yet. Not all of them. The reve- lation of 1841 was acted upon, by which the officers to which thic communication was addressed was recognized by God, and these officers have not yet all be re-placed in the re-or- ganization.

954: Then according to your understanding of the revelation to which you have referred as having been received, – has the time of the rejection of the church expired?
Well now I think it expired long ago, but that is my opinion

955: When did it expire?
Well I don’t know when it expired. I know when the re-organ -zation began in its proper sense in the quoroms. I under- stand also I think, the sense in which it was rejected by com- mand of God.

956: How do you know that the revelation of which you speak, detailing to you the matters which you have related, was a revelation from God, otherwise than from your own judgement?
My judgement as a matter of course is exercised in the mat- ter, and the evidence which I have, and my conclusion is based upon the experience and knowledge which we have of God’s manner of dealing, as detailed in his word.

957: And that the experience you had was a revelation, is a conclusion based upon your judgement? Is that a fact?
It is based upon the evidence I have from his word.

958: Have you any higher authority for it then, than your own opinion of your own judgement?
Yes sir. I have a higher authority than that. 959)

958: What is it?
The word of God.

960: Where is that to be found?
In the bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of Covenants.

961: Have you any higher authority that this revelation of which you speak, is based upon the word of God? I refer to these books of which you speak, and your own judgement that it is so based.
I have the authority I have stated, and as for my experience I wouldn’t give that for any one else’s experience, for a personal experience means more to me than the experience of any one else possibly can. I know there is a God in Heaven, and that he spoke to me in the way I have related.

962: Mr. Briggs you were quite a youth when this all occurred to you, were you not?
Yes sir, a child almost.

963: About what age were you?
About ten years old, or nearly so.

964: You were ten years of age?
I was in my tenth year.

965: Might not this command or revelation been a vagary of your childish imagination?
No sir, there may have been since, but that could not be.

966: Has that revelation ever been reported to the church, and acted upon as a revelation?
No sir.

967: Has it ever been accepted by the church, -taken by the church, and acted upon as a revelation?
No sir.

968: You know the laws of the re-organized church?
Quite well I think.

969: Do you know what are the tests of fellowship in the re-organized church?
Yes sir.

970: What must an applicant for membership in the re-organized church believe and do before he is eligible for admission into the church?
He must believe in God, and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and in the gift of the Holy Ghost, repentance from dead works, baptism for the remission of sins, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and he must believe in the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgement.

971: Are those the requirements?
Those are what are called the fundamental requirements, -fundamental principles, and all the others are based upon them.

972: What are the tests for the various orders of the ministry in the re-organized church? Are they different from the tests of membership?
The tests for their calling into the ministry?

973: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

974: Well what are they?
They should be designated by a revelation from God.

975: Who should be designated, the individual or the tests?
The individual should be designated by a revelation from God.

976: A revelation to whom?
To themselves, and those who may ordain them, or those who order it done. A revelation may come to them directly.

977: Who passes upon the validity of the revelation?
Those who have the discretion or power to ordain, -in a word they that are ordained to the several offices in this church, should be called of God, as was Aaron, and ordained according to the gift of which they possess from God, and the calling of God. They are ordained under that calling by the power of the Holy Ghost that is in the one that ordains them. In fact continued revelations from God is the basis of the re-organization as it was with the old organization. The church could not exist without it.

978: You never belonged to the old organization you said, did you not?
Yes sir, that is what I stated.

979: Then you never belonged to the old organization?
No sir.

980: And you know nothing about it practically from personal observation and experience?
Only just from what I saw and heard, I was converted in 1842.

981: That was when you were seven years of age?
I was in my eighth year.

982: What is fellowship in the re-organize church?
Why through unity as brethren and members of the church, -by admitting these principles of the doctrine of Christ.

983: Well what are the tests of fellowship?
A dis-belief or rejection of these are the grounds upon which legal dis-fellowship may be based.

984: Well sir I asked you what were the tests of fellowship, -what are they now at the present time?
A disbelief in or disobedience to the doctrines of Christ shall,-

985: Well that is not an answer to my question, : Can you state more fully what a party must do in order to be fellowshipped?
They must believe in God, and in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and in the Holy Ghost, and in the scriptures of divine truth.

986: In the book of Mormon?
Not necessarily.

987: In the book of doctrine and Covenants?
Not necessarily.

988: That is all?
 

989: You stated in your cross examination Mr. Briggs, that it was not necessary in order to be come a member of the church, of the re-organized church to which you belong to believe in certain things. I will ask you now Mr. Briggs what a man must believe with reference to the question of marriage?
We hold that a man should have but one wife, and concubines none.

990: Suppose Mr. Briggs that a man should desire to become a member of the church to which you belong, and should believe that Adam was God, would he be received as a member of the church?
No sir.

991: Suppose that he believed that the doctrine of blood atonement was true, -would he be received if he believed in that? Could he be received as a member of the church in fellowship, if he believed in the doctrine of in the doctrine of blood atonement, could he be received in the church as a member in fellowship?
No sir.

992: He could not be received into the church as a member if he believed in the doctrine of blood atonement?
No sir, – except in the case of the shedding of Christs blood.

993: You stated a while ago in your cross-examination, that if a party believed in all the doctrines and principles taught in the bible, and the new testament, he would be eligible for membership in the church to which you belong?
Yes sir.

994: Is that on the basis that the man believes all the doctrines and teachings of the bible, of necessity he believe what is taught in the other books?
 

995: What is the fact about that Mr Briggs?
That whoever believes in the doctrine of Christ as taught in the new testament, and the revelations of God as found in the Bible, would believe in the revelations of God found anywhere else. It is a sentence that follows the basis.

996: And upon that basis, believing in these things, he would eventually believe in the Book of Mormon, – the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon and the Book of doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir, as a necessary conclusion he would.

997: When were you first sent as a missionary to Utah?
In 1863, – in 1863 it was.

998: Did you have charge of what is known as the Rocky Mountain Mission?
Yes sir. Well I don’t know that it was entitled that way. What I had charge of was just Utah territory and Nevada, – the “Western Mission” I think it was called at that time.

999: The “Western Mission”?
Yes sir.

1000: Did you become acquainted with the elders of what is known as the church in Utah, during the time of your sojourn there, or some of them?
Yes sir, some little.

1001: Did you ever hear them preach?
Yes sir.

1002: Did you ever meet with them?
Yes sir, ocassionaly I did, but not so very often.

1003: I will ask you Mr Briggs this question with reference to the teachings of the church in Utah, – whether or not the membership of the church in Utah were taught to follow the teachings and doctrines of the bible, or whether they were, -The bible the book of Mormon and the book of doctrine and covenants, – or were they taught to follow the teachings and counsel of the priesthood?
 

1004: What were they taught in reference to obeying the counsel of their elders?
They were taught simply to call upon their elders. They used the word “file”, and “leaders”, – “we will follow our file leaders and if the act be wrong the sin will be upon them, and not on us”.

1005: You were asked yesterday about the conference in Beloit in 1852 and asked to give the numbers of the members at that conference who had originally belonged to the original church?
Yes sir, and I have the names of the ones I could remember.

1006: Now I will get you to state Mr Briggs, approximately, how man persons constituted that conference?
Well I could not say as to how many were there definitely, – I cannot state the number.

1007: I did not ask you to state any definite number, unless you can do so, – but I did ask you to state the number approximately as well as you could?
Well I should say there was from fifteen to one hundred persons there at the conference. I should judge there was that many there at the conference.

1008: Now what is the fact about the persons that were there attending that conference, representing others who were not there, – that is representing these societies or branches that were not there?
Well there were people there from Waukeshaw and from what is now known as Blanchardsville, – I think it was called Yellowstone then, as I stated before, but I do not remember that there was any organized church there at that time, but just scattered members in there. I know that for my brother Silas was in there, and there was no branch where he was I know.

1009: Now who were all the members of that Waukeshaw and Yellowstone branch, from whom delegates were sent to the conference in 1852?
 

1010: If you know?
I do not know. I did not know any one from Yellowstone except brother Elder Gurley, and Elder Powell was from there, for he had been there on a mission, and represented the work there.

1011: You state in your cross examination Mr Briggs that members who were members of that conference, and who were not ex-officio members or delegates, did not have, – did not have a voice or vote in that conference?
Yes sir.

1012: Now is this not a fact that they have a voice and vote through their delegate?
Yes sir. Oh yes sir, of course they have in that way.

1013: Is it not a fact that delegates are chosen for the purpose of giving a voice and vote to even member of the church in these conferences?
Yes sir, certainly they choose their delegates, and the delegates represent them if they cannot attend.

1014: For the purpose of giving representation in the conference to those that cannot be present as well as those that can be present?
Yes sir. It is a logical deduction that delegates carry the vote of others. That is as I have always understood it.

1015: You may look at paragraph two, page one hundred and fifty nine of exhibit four Mr Witness, and read paragraph two to the reporter and then state whether or not there is any other test for membership or qualification for delegates in the church to which you belong?
“The only qualification to eligibility to the office of delegate from district to General Conference shall be membership and good standing in the Church”.

1016: Is there any other qualification known to the church, other than what is stated there?
That is all.

1017: There is no other?
No sir, no other. That is all.

1018: I will ask you to look at paragraph five, section one hundred and five, on page two hundred and ninety eight of exhibit “J” commencing near the middle of the seventh line of the paragraph at the words “and after their tribulations, etc.”, and read it, and state if that is the quotation if that is the quotation you made in your cross examination, or attempted to make with reference to the falling away of the twelve, I have marked the part there I desire you to read?
“Pray, for thy brethern of the twelve and admonish them sharply for my names sake and let them be admonished for all their sins and be ye faithful before me unto my name. And after their temptations and much tribulations, behold, I, the Lord, will feel after them; and if they harden not their heart and stiffen not their necks against me, they shall be converted, and I will heal them.” Yes sir that is the quotation I had reference to.
Yes sir, I remember.

1020: Well I will get you now to take the book of doctrine and covenants, or any other standard work of the church,- say for example Exhibit “J”, and read any portion of exhibit “J” with reference to that subject?
It is in section one hundred and seven in the tenth paragraph on page three hundred and four, commencing at the fourth line of the tenth paragraph, and a part of the eleventh paragraph also, commencing at the words “but I command, etc” down to the words “saith the Lord your God” It is as follows,- “But I command you, all ye, my saints, to build an house unto me, and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me. But behold at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church with your dead saith the Lord your God”.

1021: Your attention was called to exhibit number 10 Mr. Briggs on your cross examination, the same being a pamphlet entitled “a word of consolation to the scattered saints”?
Yes sir.

1022: I will get you to state now what part of that pamphlet was authorized by any conference to be published, and for the purpose of refreshing your memory or recollection I will call your attention to page twenty of exhibit number “10”, commencing at the word “at” in the ninth line from the bottom of the page, and ask you to read it to the reporter?
“At a conference of the church held at the Yellowstone Branch, Lafayette, Co., Wis., Oct 6th, A.D. 1852, the foregoing pages were presented and approved, and lrdeed to be published with the saction of the said conference. The next semi-annual conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, will be held at the above named place, commencing the 6th day of April, 1853 which the scattered priesthood,- and especially delegates from the different branches,- are requested to attend”.

1023: Read the signature to that also?
J.W. Briggs., Zehas Gurley., J. Harrington. Comittee”.

1024: Now I will ask you Mr. Briggs if the part of the pamphlet, being exhibit number “10”, to which your attention was called this morning on the cross-examination, is the part that was presented to the conference and by the conference, ordered printed?
No sir that part was not laid before the conference at all. That was not read to that conferene at all, for it was not written at that conference.

1025: You may examine that carefully Mr. Briggs the remaining pages of that pamphlet marked exhibit number “10”, and if you can detect in any portion of it, any sentence, word or line, from which you can ascertain, that it was ever presented to the conference or to any conference at any time, you may read it to the reporter?
I do not understand what you want.

1026: I ask you to read or look over the remaining pages of the pamphlet marked exhibit number “10”, and if you could finding any part of the remaining portion that would indicate that it had ever been presented to any conference of the church at any time, and was passed on by that conference, to read it to the reporter?
Do you mean that I should read the whole of this?

1027: Now sir, – look it over and see if there is anything in there that shows that it was ever presented to any body of the people for acceptance?
(witness examines the part of the pamphlet referred to, and answers). No sir.

1028: I will ask you Mr Briggs to look at pages one and two of exhibit number ten (“10”), – at resolution number four, and ask you to state whether that is the quotation you were making this morning, or trying to make on your cross-examination, with reference to ordinations on the church?
Shall I read that?

1029: Yes sir?
“Resolved, that we recognize the legality of all as have thus been ordained, while acting within the purview of such authority”.

1030: Is that that the one you had reference to?
Yes sir, that is the one I referred to.

1031: That sir what you referred to this morning on your cross-examination?
Yes sir.

1032: No your attention was called yesterday on cross examination to the question of lieage, and in the answer to the question you made a quotation from memory. Now I will ask you to read to the reporter from Exhibit “E”, section six, paragraph three, on page ninety nine, which, – and state if that is the quotation or quotations you attempted to make from memory yesterday?
“Therefore thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers, for ye are lawful heirs according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God; therefore your life and the priesthood hath remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage, until the restoration of all things spoken of by the mouths of all the holy prophets sine the world began”. “Therefore blessed are ye, if ye continue in my godness, a light unto the Gentiles, and through this preisthood, a savor unto my people Israel: The Lord hath said it. Amen”.

1033: On that same subject in your cross examination you referred to a revelation given in 1841. Now I will get you to look at exhibit “J”, and see if you can find the paragraph you were quoting from?
It is on page three hundred and seven in paragraph eighteen.

1034: Well what is it?
Shall I read the whole paragraph?

1035: Yes sir?
At the beginning shall I commence?

1036: Yes sir, commence at the commencement?
“And now I say unto you as pertaining unto my boarding house, which I have commanded you to build, for the boarding of strangers, let it be built unto my name, and let my name be named upon it, and let my servant Joseph and his house have place therein, from generation to generation; for this annointing have I put upon his head, that his blessing shall also be put upon the head on his posterity after him; and as I sais unto Abraham concerning the kindreds of the earth, even so, I say unto my servant Joseph, in thee and in they see, shall the kindred of the earth be blessed. Therefor let my servant Joseph and his seed after him, have place in that house, from generation to generation, for ever and ever, saith the Lord, and let the name of the house be called the Nauvoo house and let it be a delightful habitation for men, and a resting place for the weary traveller, that he may contemplate the glory of Zion, and the glory of this, the corner stone thereof; that he may receive also the counsel from those whom I have sent to be as plants of reason, and as watchman upon her walls”.

1037: Now is there anything else that you wish to refer to, or can refer to, you may give that also?
In section one hundred and five, paragraph forty two, on page two hundred and ninety seven, or exhibit “J”, it reads as follows. – What I shall read will be the forty second paragraph of section one hundred and five, – “And again the duty of the President of the office of the high priest-hood is a preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses. Behold here is wisdom, yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and prophet having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church”.

1038: That is all.
 

1039: Mr. Briggs a little book was handed you this morning entitled exhibit “four”, in which was paragraph number two, stating the qualifications, – prescribing the qualifications which rendere a person elegible to attend the general conferences as a delegat or otherwise I believe, and in which it was stated get the only qualifications to he office of elegibility in delegates from districts to General conferences, shall be membership and good standing in the church?
Yes sir.

1040: Now Mr Briggs I will get you to explain, if you please, what is mean by the phrase “from district”, or by the term “district”, “the office of delegate from district” it says? No what is a “district”. Please state what that is?
 

1041: What is a district, – that is what is meant here by the word “district”?
They have a mission and destrict is a portion of country in that mission.

1042: ; Then a district is the same as a mission?
No sir there may be only one district in a mission, and then again there may be two or three or more districts in a mission.

1043: In one mission there may be several districts?
Yes sir.

1044: Does that mean branch also?
Two or more branches may constitute a district.

1045: And do the branches send delegates to the conferences, or do the districts send the delegates?
Yes sir, the districts do.

1046: The districts send delegates?
Yes sir.

1047: Does the district have over it any organization within itself? on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, is not proper recross examination, and does not call for the best evidence.
Yes sir.

1048: What is it?
The presiding officers?

1049: Of a district?
Yes sir.

1050: A district has a presiding officer?
Yes sir.

1051: What are the methods of a district in selected delegates?
At their district conferences they choose these that are eligible as delegates to represent so many votes.

1052: So then a district has a conference, has it?
Yes sir.

1053: And that conference delegates to the general conference certain individuals as delegates?
Yes sir they elect delegates and send them to the general conference.

1054: Now I will ask you if there was anything of that sort done at the general conference held in 1852?
No sir.

1055: There was not?
No sir. Not that I know anything of. I do not think there was.

1056: Was there anything of that sort done in 1860 at the Amboy Conference?
I guess there was districts then.

1057: Do you know whether there was or not?
Oh yes there was districts then.

1058: Was there representation by districts then?
Yes sir, they sent representatives. For instance Galland’s Grove district in the mission in Missouri Valley sent up a delegate to the conference.

1059: Were these then districts or were they conferences?
Districts.

1060: That was in 1860?
Yes sir.

1061: What were they called?
Sometimes they are called districts or conferences.

1062: Well had the representation in the general conferences been from districts ever since 1860?
Yes sir.

1063: In the reorganized church?
Certainly.

1064: Now is there any other representation in a district. I should say in a general conference other than the representation by delegates?
What do you mean?

1065: Any other representation in the General Conference, besides the representation from districts? ststed above.
 

1066: Answer the question?
Yes sir, there is general ex—officio officers.

1067: There is “ex—officio” officers in the conferences?
Yes sir.

1068: That is in the general conferences?
Yes sir.

1069: Well now was there representation by districts in the old church prior to 1844?
I suppose there was.

1070: Do you know anything about that?
Nothing only what the record shows, and it shows that there was districts.

1071: Do the records show that?
Yes sir.

1072: Did you ever see any of the records of the old church prior to 1844?
Yes sir.

1073: You did?
I did.

1074: You are sure of that?
I am. I had a brother laboring in a district or conference. I don’t know how it was, for I don’t know much about whether they were called districts then or conferences, –I don’t know especially how that was, —but I think it was interchangeable, for they are the same as I understand it. Conferences or districts, —I would use the term interchangeably now.

1075: What record was that you referred to?
The representation in the conference. They had conferences from 1842 to 1844, and the minutes of these conferences I remember myself for I noticed them.

1076: Are you sure that this rule prescribing the qualifications of eligibility to the office of delegates from the district to the General Conference was in force them?
I do not know that there was any special legislation, as is found there.

1077: You don’t know that there was any special rule in that regard? Is that what you wish to be understood as saying?
This is a, —this is the result of that which was really in practice all the time, and this we have now is simply a rule for the government of the church in that respect. I never read that through in my life and I do not know all that is in that book (referring to exhibit four) So far as the specific details are concerned, I do not know them, but of course I understand the general details very well. I have been President of Districts and Missions for years and years, over thirty years sir have I myself occupied these positions, and I know what I am talking about I think.

1078: Well if you have, then I suppose you are acquainted with rule three, and to see whether you are not, I will ask you if you recognize this as a rule that governs the church. Read from the paragraph next to the one you have just read, and which is numbered three in exhibit four, the book of “Rules of Order and Debate”, and in the sub heading of “Rules of Representation”, which begins with the words “Each district shall be entitled to, etc”?
“Each district shall be entitled to one delegate for every twenty five members of said district, and one vote in conference for each delegate to which they may be entitled”.

1079: Now I will ask you if you recognize that rule as in force and practiced in the re—organized church?
Well I do not know how long that has been there in its specific detail. I do not remember I wish to say, when these rules were accepted in their specific detail as they are there now.

1080: Well I did not ask you that. I ask you if it is in force now in the re-organized church?
Yes sir.

1081: You state if advanced that you don’t know when it was a adopted in its form?
No sir.

1082: Will you state how long the practice has been that each twenty five members in a district shall have one vote in a conference.
I don’t remember.

1083: Was that the practice in 1852?
I cannot say.

1084: What is your answer?
No sir.

1085: Were you at any conference before 1860 and after 1852?
Yes sir.

1086: What ones were you at?
At numbers of them, but I don’t remember just what ones. I was at one at Zerah Hemla.

1087: Do you remember that twenty five members was the constituency of a delegate at that time?
I don’t think they were.

1088: How was it in 1860?
That practice had been the out-growth of what was a principle, and now it has been adopted or adapted so that each delegate will represent so many members for the church.

1089: Do you know whether or not this rule was in force in the old church?
No sir.

1090: You do not?
No sir.

1091: Do you recognize what I am not going to read, which is paragraph four on the same page, entitled “rules and restrictions of delegate voting”. It is as follows, -“The delegates present at Conference from any one district, shall be entitled to case the full vote of the district of which they are delegates, unless otherwise instructed by their district conferences. Provided that in case of a dis-agreement of views among the members of said delegation, (the full delegation not being present), they shall be entitled to case one their individual votes, as said delehats”. Do you recognize that?
Yes sir.

1092: You do recognize it?
Yes sir.

1093: Do you know when that was put in force?
No sir.

1094: Was it put in force in 1860?
No sir, I don’t know whether it was or not.

1095: Here is rule five, see if you recognize it: – “No one delegate shall be entitled to cast as representative in the same Conference, more than twenty votes”. What do you say to that?
 
What is the question?

1096: You heard what I have just read?
Yes sir.

1097: Well what do you say to that?
That is the rule of the church now.

1098: Do you know when that was made the rule of the church?
No sir I do not, but I presume that gives the date.

1099: Was it the rule of the re-organized church in 1860, or prior to that time? Counsel for plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not the best evidence, and improper re-cross examination.
No sir.

1100: And you do not know whether it was the rule of the old church?
No sir.

1101: Now I will see if you recognize section one hundred and seventy seven on page one hundred and sixty of the same book, exhibit four, entitled “representation of Branches, not in Districts”
 

1102: I will read the section now that the gentleman has made his objection. It is as follows, “Each regularly organized branch of the church not included in an organized district, shall be entitled to one delegate, who shall have the same privileges as delegates of districts. Rule for choosing of Branch Delegates. Due general notice to the members of branch of the time and place of meeting for the choosing of said delegate shall be properly given, as in cases of districts”. Do you recognize that as the law of the church at the present time?
Yes sir. Counsil for the plaintiff objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reason that it is irrelevant and immaterial and not the best evidence, and not proper re-cross examination.

1103: You say that is the law of the church at the present time?
Yes sir.

1104: Was that the law of the church in 1860?
Yes sir.

1105: Or before that time?
Well I don’t know that there was any specific rule in that regard.

1106: Do you know whether there was any such a rule practiced in the church prior to 1844?
No sir.

1107: Do you recognize under the same section this rule which I have read, “Due general notice to the members of branch of the time and place of meeting for the choosing of said delegate shall be properly given, as in cases of districts”.
Yes sir.

1108: You recognize that as a rule and law of the church?
As a rule of the church I recognize it.

1109: Was that in practice before 1860?
I do not know.

1110: You do not know that that a rule in the old church, or whether there was such a rule in the old church?
No sir.

1111: Section one hundred ans seventy eight on page one hundred and sixty one of the same book, entitled, “Certificates of Appointment required”, and which is as follows, – “Delegates shall be entitled to act as such as here-in-before provided, upon presenting certificates of appointment, signed by the Presidents and clerks of districts, or branches appointing them” Do You recognize that as a rule in force now?
 

1112: Was that a rule in 1852 in the church?
No sir.

1113: In 1860? Plaintiff interposes the same objection.
It was not.

1114: Was it a rule in the old church?
Not that I know of.

1115: I will now read section one hundred and seventy nine on page one hundred and sixty one of the same book, and ask you if that is in force now, and when it was in force and when it was not in force? It is as follows including caption, – “Instructing delegates; Number of votes to be cast by: Tie votes, etc. In all cases of great importance affecting the polity and faith of the church, districts and branches may instruct delegates to cast a majority and minority vote for and against, – But in no case shall the number of the votes cast be said delegates so instructed exceed the number to which the district appointing shall be entitled, as here in be ore provided,
 

1116: Was it the law of the church ten years ago?
I can’t say.

1117: Well what is your best impression as to that?
I can’t remember when it was introduced.

1118: Was it the law of the church in 1860?
I think not.

1119: Was it the law of the church in 1865 or 1870?
I don’t know when it was introduced?

1120: Did you ever see that in any of the rules purporting to have governed the church prior to 1844?
I never attended a conference before 1864.

1121: I will read to you from section one hundred and eighty of the same book on page one hundred and sixty two, under the paragraph or section entitled “Organization of/ and Membership of Delegate District Conferences”, – Districts may organize their sessions of conference agreeably to the above rules, by providing for delegate conferences, of which the basis of representation shall be one delegate for each six members in each branch, or fraction thereof. Districts may constitute priests, Teachers and Deacons as members of their Conferences, as well as the Elders, if they choose”. Is that the law of the church at the present time?
 

1122: Do you recognize that as a rule in force in the church at the present time?
I think it is not.

1123: You think it is?
Yes sir.

1124: And you have the same answers to make do you about this rule as you do about the others?
I think it is.

1125: Was that the rule prior to 1860?
I think not as detailed there.

1126: Was it a rule in the church prior to 1844?
Not that I know of.

1127: Now I have only a few other questions to ask you. Now you have stated on your direct or re-direct examination that you have heard the preachers, – that you have heard some of the preachers of the Utah Church at Salt Lake, – The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I believe they call themselves, – preach doctrines that your present organization can’t endorse, – that is doctrines that the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of which you say you are a member did not endorse these doctrines that you heard these parties in Utah preach?
Yes sir.

1128: And that the old organization did not hold?
Yes sir.

1129: Or endorse?
Yes sir.

1130: That the old organization before the death of Joseph Smith, or as it existed in that time, did not endorse?
Yes sir.

1131: I believe you made that statement?
Yes sir I believe I did, but whatever it was I disremember it.

1132: Well is that the fact?
Possibly I do not understand the question. What is the question please.

1133: I said that you had stated in your cross examination, I should say in your re-direct examination, that you had heard the preachers or teachers of the Utah branch of the Mormon church, preach and teach doctrines which the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not believe in or endorse, and which it does not hold, and which the church prior to 1844 did not hold?
Yes sir.

1134: Is it not a fact that when ever you go to a church not your own, that you hear the same thing?
No sir.

1135: That is not a fact?
No sir, not always.

1136: Well is it not almost always the fact?
No sir, for very many times we go and hear other denominations preach just what we believe ourselves.

1137: I understood you to say, but I may be wrong about it, and if I am now is a good time to correct the error?
Yes sir, I agree with you.

1138: That no one could believe in the Bible and not believe the Book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I do not think I made that statement.

1139: You did not make that statement?
No sir, I think not. I have no recollection of making a statement like that.

1140: And did you not say that because the Book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants were books in perfect accordance with each other and with the Bible, and confirmed the Bible. Do you not say that in substance?
I said that they were in harmony, and the conclusion you speak of was a sequence that followed that.

1141: They were a sequence to that, to the Bible?
Yes sir.

1142: And a belief in the Bible did you not say, involved a belief in these other books?
Yes sir, that would follow as a natural consequence, a natural sequence of development.

1143: And that the man couldn’t be then a true, christian believer unless he believed in these sequences as you have stated them?
No sir, I did not say that.

1144: And that is not your testimony?
No sir, and it is not my belief either.

1145: That is not your belief?
No sir, nor the belief of the church I represent. The church neither believes or teaches such a thing as that, and my ideas on that question are in harmony with the teachings of the church.

1146: Then is it the belief of the church you represent that all it is essential to believe is the Bible?
No sir.

1147: I believe you stated it was enough for fellowship in the church which you represent?
To believe in the Doctrine of Christ as taught in the Bible was enough, I believe I said. If I did not say that, that is what I meant to say, and I say it now.

1148: There seems to be in this pamphlet entitled the “Words of Consolation”, marked exhibit “10”, on pages twenty one and twenty two and twenty three, a statement that has been attached to the pamphlet and published with it, and which you were asked to look over in your re-direct examination, and to point out if there was any authorization for its publication, anywhere between the pages, and you looked over it and said that you found no authority in these pages for its publication. Now do you in fact know the authority for the insertion of these pages in that pamphlet?
 

1149: Do you in fact know what is the authority for these three pages?
Yes sir.

1150: Well please state what it is?
 

1150: After this was in manuscript and presented to the conference it accepted it.
 

1151: What do you mean by “this?
I mean this part of the pamphlet.

1152: You mean all that pary of the pamphlet preceeding these three pages?
Yes sir, all preceeding these three pages referred to, and then those that had it in hand were directed to publish this part.

1153: This was published afterwards?
Yes sir after the first part was presented to the church and it was accepted, these that had it in hand became satisfied that it was not explicit enough upon that one sunbject and they, and they decided that three pages more should be written bye the committee and there they are. It was entrusted to this committee, – I know that much, but how the actual work was done I do not know how that was done, but it was permitted to be done or it would not be there I suppose.

1154: Wes it done by the same committee that published the preceeding pages?
I would not say whether the whole committee was associated together in the work, but there was one of the committee that wrote it.

1155: If I don’t misrecollect your testimony, you stated that there was other authorities that induced the committee to write it, and if there was I would be glad for you to state what that authority was?
I do not remember that I stated there was any other authority.

1156: By virtue of a revelation received by them, did you not say that?
Perhaps they did. I cannot say as to that, – at any rate they were moved upon and came to the conclusion to write it, but how it was done, or how they arrived at the conclusion to write it is something I cannot tell you for I do not know. It was reasoned over, and finally it was concluded that there should be three pages more written.

1157: Did you ever see a revelation? on the ground and for the reason that it is immeterial and irrelevant and not the best evidence.
 

1158: Did you ever see that revelation?
What revelation?

1159: That commanded them to write these explanatory pages?
No sir

1160: Was this pamphlet as published ever brought to the attention of the conference?
I cannot say of my own knowledge.

1161: What did you say in answer to that question as to whether or not this pamphlet s published was ever brought to the attention of the conference?
Never that I know of. Now with these three pages added, I do not know that the conference ever spoke on the pamphlet with these three pages. In fact I do not know of my own knowledge that the conference ever spoke upon it at all, – all that I know is what I see in the documents there itself, and you of course would know as much about that as I would.

1162: Can you say whether or not the conference, or any conference of the church has ever repudiated any of this pamphlet?
I don’t know that they ever have. If they ever have I don’t know anything about it at all.

1163: You don’t know anything about that?
No sir, – if they have done anything of the kind I have never heard of it.

1164: Is it not accepted by the church as authentic, for what it purports to be?
Yes sir, like they do all their works. It is presented as a tract giving an exposition of our position as we held then. I mean the position of our church.

1165: By what authority was it published?
With the exception of these three paged it was done by order of the conference. It should be published that way, and purports to have been so published, – that is all of it with the exception of the three pages, and as for these three pages I do not know anything more about them than that they were added afterwards, but what was the real interest or motive prompting such addition I do not know except as I have already state.

1166: You spoke of a revelation, and quoted from one, on which you based what you called the rejection of the church, in which I will ask you if you recognize from exhibit “J”, on page three hundred and sixat paragraph fifteen, the following, – “Verily, verily, I say unto you that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men, to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their mights, and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them hinder them performing that work, behold it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of man, but to accept of their offerings; and the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, to the third and fourth generation so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name in Jackson County Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God; anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not and hate me, saith the Lord your God.” Do you recognize that?
 

1167: Do you recognize that? Same objection.
I do.

1168: Do you know to what event that language belonged?
Yes sir.

1169: To what event does it belong?
The work commanded to be done in Jackson County, Missouri, I think. Or in Missouri anyhow, I will say.

1170: Is it quoted by you also with reference to the building of a temple at Nauvoo?
I do not remember the connections now. I would have to look the revelation over a little before I could answer as to that (Witness examines the revelation referred to)

1171: Can you answer that question now?
Yes sir.

1172: What is it?
It was in view of a work commanded to be done there, and they failed to do it. They made the effort to do the work commanded to be done, but their efforts failed, and the Lord said the responsibility should rest upon others, and not themselves for not performing that work.

1173: Now then you said in your re-direct examination that you recognized the time of the rejection of the church from circumstances that occured?
Yes sir.

1174: That filled the measure of the revelation?
Yes sir.

1175: You do?
Yes sir.

1176: Now then if these other instances should occur to prevent the happening of the event coming from the enemies of the church. you would not expect to see the event fulfilled, would you?
No sir.

1177: Why not?
The revelation provides against that.

1178: That is what that is intended for, is it not?
Yes sir, another paragraph provides against any such contingency sir.

1179: In what respect?
In that the Lord said “I will give you sufficient time to do it, and if you do it in that time you are accepted, and if not you are rejected”.

1180: Well, who is the judge of the sufficiency of the time?
The fact that they were moved from that place is evidence the time had come for it. That appears as reflected from the revelation itself.

1181: Is it not a fact that as to whether the revelation given there, or purported revelation has been filled or not by the happening of events, a mere matter of judgement of those, or on the part of those who read it, and are guided by it?
It is a fact that the promise is made that if they did so and so, a sufficient time should be given them for the building of the temple, and if they did so they should not be moved out of their place, and if they did not they should be rejected as a church.

1182: Well as to whether they did or did not do that, is that not a mere matter of judgement?
No sir it is a matter of fact that they did not build it. They did not do it, and that is a matter of fact.

1183: Doe snot the judgement sit supreme over facts?
 

1184: Are not facts addressed to the judgement, and is not the judgement the argument?
It is a fact that I walked down here from where I got my dinner and it is also my judgement that I did so.

1185: It is a fact that you came back here pretty well pleased, and your judgement tells you that you had your dinner, and it is the judgement of all that look at you that you have a good dinner, yet they would know the fact only form __________?
Yes sir it is a matter of fact and judgement both.

1186: It is a mere matter of fact and judgement?
Yes sir.

1187: I will ask you this question Mr Briggs on re-direct examination, – is it not necessary to have the fact of a proposition in order to form a correct judgement?
Yes sir, the fact preceeds the judgement, and unless you have a clear realization of the fact you cannot form a satisfactory judgement.

1188: You were asked about the representation in the old church Mr Briggs witness on your re-cross examination. Now I will get you to look at exhibit “L”, – state whether you ever saw that book (handing witness exhibit “L’) or one like it before?
Yes sir.

1189: What book is that?
It is the “Times and Season”.

1190: Is that the book you referred to yesterday and today during your cross examination as having read them as they were published in 1842 and 1843?
Yes sir.

1191: Look at the minutes there recorded of a conference on page seven hundred and sixty three, and answer if that is what you referred to?
Yes sir.

1192: Now after having refreshed your recollection Mr Briggs I will ask you if that is the representation you referred to that you read out of the old church at the time?
 

1193: I will ask you Mr Briggs if that was the official paper of the church in 1842?
The Times and Seasons?

1194: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

1195: It was the official church paper at that time?
Yes sir. This was published in 1841 though.

1196: You were six years old then?
Yes sir. Well I was six years old about.

1197: That is in there in 1842, – in the issue of 1842, but it was for the conference of 1841?
Yes sir.

1198: That is the fact?
Yes sir.

1199: What months in 1841?
In April. The occurence tool place before I was acquainted with the work it seems, for in 1842 was the time when I first became acquainted with the work.

1200: Read it?
Conference minute on page seven hundred and sixty three, in exhibit “L”, I shall read from the third paragraph. “Reports of delegates being called for, Elder Foster reported that the whole number of persons that had been received into the Branch was two hundred and two, of which to tw hundred and seventy nine were received by baptism and confirmation and thirteen by certificate, -”

1201: That does not pan out right, – that is not it?
Of course these four have died ninety six moved away and thirteen have been excommunicated leaving one hundred and seventy nine, of whom there are a President and two scounsellors, a bishop and two councillors, eleven elders, two priests, one teacher and two deacons”.

1202: That is not it.
 

1203: Read the paragraph again?
Reports of delegates being called for, Elder Foster reported that the whole number of person who had been received into the branch at New York was two hundred an ninety two, of which two hundred and seventy nine were received by baptism and confirmation, and thirteen by certificate. Of these four have died ninety six moved away, and thirteen have been excommunicated, leaving one hundred and seventy nine, of whom there are a President and two councillors, a bishop and two councillors, eleven Elders, two priests, one teacher and two deacons”. The Branch at Setauket, Long Island was represented by Benjamin Hulse teacher. The branch was organized on the 27th of March 1841 with eighteen members, two of whom had been preachers, – one a Baptists and the other Methodist. The number has since been increased to forty three, of whom six have been cut off, leaving at present thrity seven, among whom there are two elders, three priests, one teacher, and one deacon, organized and built up chiefly by elder Sparks. The cause is still progressing in that place”. Is that sufficient?

1204: You may turn to page one hundred and fifteen of exhibit “L”, and read the conference minutes there, – read the date and all?
 

1205: You may now procced and read the minutes on page one hundred and fifteen?
“Minutes of a conference of elders and members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, held in the city of Philadelphia, Saturday October 17th, 1840”. I have read the heading of the record, and beginning at the middle of the page two hundred and fifteen in the right hand column at the words “Elder J Barnes”, I will read as follows, – “Elder J Barnes represented the church in Philadelphia in a prosperous condition, and numbering, including two elders and three priests, two hundred and fifty. Elder George J Adams represented the church in New York in a flourishing condition. He stated that three places for regular preaching were now established in that city, and their prospects were never better before, nor as good as at the present time; and that according to best of his knowledge, the church in New York, including the elders now numbers over two hundred members. Elder Adams also represented the church in Brooklyn, Long Island, in a flourishing condition, consisting of nineteen members, including one priest, one teacher and one deacon. Also the church of Hempstead Long, Island, in the care of Elder Lane consisting of fifty members. Elder Adams also represented three other small branches of the church in Monmouth, County, New Jersey, under the care of Elder J.G. Devine. One in Shrewsbury containing sixteen members. One at Keyport and Granville, numbering thirteen, including one deacon; and the other at Shirk River of six members including one deacon, thirty five in all. The last two branches having been built up since April last by Elder Devine. He stated that seven had lately been baptized in the city of Newark, New Jersey; and gave a very glowing and cheerful discription of the spread of the work of God in the regions round about New York. he state that he had preached to five thousand persons at one time in the City of Newark, New Jersey, who listened with attention, and apparent admiration and surprise to the everlasting gospel, and to use his own words, – “the work of God was flourishing glouriously, – the Macedonian cry was general; not to come over to Macedonia, but to come over to Brooklyn, – and over on Long Island, come over to Elizabethtown and to Newark and to Jersey City, and let us hear the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed”. Whole number represented by Elder Adams three hundred and eleven. Conference adjourned for one hour and a half. Two o’clock P.M. conference again assembled. Elder E. Malen represented the Brandy no church in Chester County, Pennsylvania in a flourishing condition, numbering one hundred and thirty five in good standing, including four elders, three priests and one teacher and one deacon.” Is that sufficient?

1206: Yes sir that will do unless these gentlemen want more, and if they do I think we can give it to them?
 

1207: You have been asked to read from the Times & Seasons by the attorney for the plaintiff, and you have complied with his request.
Yes sir.

1208: And it becomes proper, therefore, I think to ask you whether the Times & Seasons, from which you read, was in any manner an authorized publication of the church prior to 1844?
It was an organ for the church, – it was the organ of the church.

1209: Now if the paper itself says that the Times & Seasons was printed and published about the first and fifteenth of ever month at Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois, by K. Robinson and D.C. Smith, editors and proprietors, does it properly represent. What the Times and Seasons was?
It represents them as being the editors as I understand it.

1210: And as publishing the Times & Seasons?
Yes sir.

1211: It represents them as the editors?
Yes sir.

1212: I also said it reading from it “editors and proprietors”?
 

Yes sir.

1213: That is correct?
I presume so. I have no reason to doubt it.

1214: Does that mean that it was a church publication?
I do not know what was involved in that.

1215: Involved in what?
How they were appointed, or how they came, that is to say how they became the editors and proprietors. There may be something explanatory on the subject, but however that was it was understood by the editors, – I mean to say it was understood to be the church organ, or the church paper the same as the Saints Herald is now.

1216: It was the church organ?
Yes sir, that was what I understood it to be, – I may say it was the church organ, to a greater or lesser extent.

1217: Do you know whether it was ever published by a Board of Publication, authorized by the church?
I do not know.

1218: That is all I have to ask the witness”.
 

1219: From the page seven hundred and eighty two, from which you have just read in the Times and Seasons, just read what it is at the head of that issue of the publication?
The Times ans Seasons is edited by Joseph Smith, printed and published about the first and fifteenth of every month on the corner od water and Bain Streets, in Nauvoo Hancock County, Illinois, by Joseph Smith, terms, Two dollars per annum, payable in all cases in advance.” –

1220: Well that is sufficient. Now was not Joseph Smith the President of the church, – the Joseph Smith referred to here.
Yes sir at that time he was the President of the Church.

1221: And what else was he?
He was also at the same time editor of that paper or publication.

1222: Is there anything at the point, or in the neighborhood of the place where you read, showing that Joseph Smith was authorized to publish it by the Church?
I will answer you question by saying I do not know how it was authorized, but I do know that he was the President of the Church at that time.

1223: At that time?
Yes sir.