49 – Jason W. Briggs

1: Where do you live Mr Briggs?
Well I live in the town of Harris in Arrapahoe County, – in this county, in the state of Colorado.

2: What state did you say that was in?
In Colorado

3: Where did you live before coming here to Colorado?
Last before coming here I lived in Pottowatamie County, Iowa.

4: At what time, or about what time did you live there?
Do you want the time that I lived there?

5: Yes sir, about what time did you live there?
Well it is two years since I left there, and that would make it in ’89 that I lived there, but I lived several years before that. My family however, left there before that time, – they came out here before I did.

6: Where did you live before you lived in Iowa?
In Wisconsin.

7: Where did you live in Wisconsin?
Well I lived in a number of places. The last place before leaving there was in Lafayette.

8: What time was that?
Well that was in in 1859 that I left Wisconsin.

9: Where did you live previous to that?
I left there in 1859, – that is I left Lafayette, and next previous to that I lived in Green County, and next previous to that I lived in Rock County at Beloit in Rock County.

10: At Beloit, Wisconsin?
Yes sir, in Rock County.

11: Between whar years did you live at Beloit, Wisconsin.
What is that. I don’t hear very well.

12: I asked you between what years you lived at Beloit, Wisconsin?
Well I lived there from 1842 until 1854 principally. I was away a part of the time, – during a part of two years I will say, but I was only transiently away.

13: Were you a member of any church wile you were living at Beloit, Wisconsin?
Well I have no objection to-answering the question.

14: Well answer the question. You need pay no attention to their objects, as they are only exercising their legal right to make formal objections to the questions I ask, and that need not effect your answer any more than if the objection had not been made at all.
Yes sir I was a member of a church.

15: What church were you a member of during that time?
Well I was a member of the church of Latter Day Saints, when I went to that region of country.

16: When you went there?
Yes sir, when I went there.

17: Was that the full name of the church that you were a member of at that time?
No sir.

18: Well you may give to the reporter its full name or title?
It was the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

19: When did you fist become a member of that church?
In June 1841.

20: What year was you born in?
Well my age would be seventy two the last day of this month according to the record. The family record says that I will be seventy two- the last day of this month and that would make it 1820 that I was born in.

21: Then at the time you joined the church you were about twenty one years old?
Yes sir. I lacked a few days of being twenty one.

22: Did you hold any office in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
At that time do you mean?

23: At that time or any other time I mean?
Yes sir, I most assuredly did.

24: What was the office and when were you ordained, if at all?
I was ordained an elder in 1842.

25: Were you at all familiar with the doctrines of the church in 1842 at the time you were ordained an elder.
Well yes I may say I was, to a limited extent, I was trying to make myself acquainted with them as opportunity offered of course.

26: Will you state what the leading doctrines of the church were at that time? and the witness “has not shown himself to be competent to testify as to what the doctrines of the church were at an early date”.
 

27: Well now you may answer the question?
Well so far as I am able to state it was, – what I was called on to preach, and what I knew at that time, was what were to preach, and what I knew at that time, was what were called first principles, – faith and repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, or for the gift of the Spitit and so forth. That was what we called the first principles of the doctrine, and that is what I taught at first.

28: State, if you can, any other doctrines that were believed in by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints at that time, – that is from 1842 up to the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
 

29: From the time that you joined the church in June 1842, state any other doctrines other than those you have enumerated that were taught and believed by the church from that time down to June 27th 1844?
Well I don’t know that I really comprehend the scope of that question. Of course there was other doctrines, and a great many of them taught aside from the first principles, – such s the gathering together and building up of cities, and temples and so on.

30: Well state any other doctrines that you can remember, that were taught?
Well as I say I don’t understand the real sense of that question but of course there was a great many things taught as a matter of faith – such as the re-gathering of the Jews and the re-building of the temple at Jerusalem, and the second coming of Christ, and the coming of the Gods, and all that.

31: Well I only want to get at the doctrines that you understand were taught by the authority of the church?
Well these were taught that I mentioned.

32: Well was there any other doctrines taught?
Well I don’t know but there may have been.

33: You mentioned baptism?
Yes sir.

34: The doctrines of baptism?
Yes sir.

35: Well what doctrine was that?
It was the doctrine of baptism for the remission of sins.

36: Was baptism taught for any other purpose?
What?

37: Was baptism taught for any other purpose other than for the remission of sins?
Well yes sir, there was baptism for the dead taught, and for the health.

38: Did you ever visit Nauvoo, Illinois, and if so, when?
Yes sir I visited Nauvoo in 1843.

39: State if you can what doctrines you heard taught or talked about as being taught in the church there at the time of your visit to Nauvoo in 1843?
 

40: I meant to say, – was taught by the church of persons in authority in the church?
I heard nothing different in any public teaching from what I have stated while in Nauvoo, – that is I heard nothing different from what I have already stated as being the public teachings of the church and its doctrine.

41: While you were there at Nauvoo, or did you at any other time or place see the ordinance of baptism for the dead administered or performed, and if so, state the facts in relation to whether or not you ever saw the ordinance of baptism for the dead performed in the church?
Yes sir I saw it performed.

42: Where?
There in Nauvoo.

43: What books, if any, were the standard books of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, from the time you became a member of that church in June 1842 up to June 27th 1844?
Well I supposed, – I always under stood that the books were the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants. These were the standard books of authority in the church during that time.

44: What book do you mean when you speak of the bible?
Well I mean the common bible, – the King James translation, – that is what I mean when I speak of the bible.

45: What book of Doctrine and Covenants do you mean when you speak of the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Well the first book of doctrine and Covenants that I ever saw, was I think the edition of 1835.

46: What officers, if any, was there in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, if any, during the time referred to?
What time.

47: The period of time referred to is the time between the date of your joining the church in June 1842 and the 27th of June 1844?
Well now I don’t understand the question. What you mean by that question I do not understand.

48: Well state the different offices that were in the church?
In the old church?

49: I mean in the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it was organized at that time?
Well it was understood that there was the prophet and his counsellors, constituting the first presidency; that is the first presidency of the church, – the apostles, high priests, seventies, elders, priests, teachers and deacons.

50: Was there any other officers?
The Bishop and patriarch.

51: Did they have clerks or recorders?
Yes sir, they they had clerks and recorders.

52: State what part, if any, you took in the work of the church while you were living at Beloit, Wisconsin as an elder? You stated you were an elder did you know?
 

52: I preached, baptized, confirmed, and laid on hands on the sick, etc.
 

53: What was the result of your labors in that direction?
There was a branch raised up there partly through my efforts.

54: There was a branch of what raised up there?
There was a branch of the church established there.

55: When was that?
Well it was in 1842 and ‘3, I am not anle to say – whether it was organized in 1842 or whether it was in the beginning of 1843.

56: A branch of what church?
A branch of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

57: An you cannot tell whether that branch you speak of as the one you organized there, was organized in 1842 or the beginning of 1843?
No sir.

58: Where was that church located, or where was its headquarters?
At Nauvoo.

59: No, I mean where was the branch located, or where was its headquarters?
It was at Beloit, in the town of Beloit in Wisconsin.

60: Ans where was the chief headquarters of the church?
Do you mean the whole church?

61: Yes sir?
It was in Nauvoo.

62: Was the whole church at Nauvoo?
Well it certainly was.

63: Or was it simply the headquarters of the church?
Well that is what I understood you to say. The headquarters were at Nauvoo because that was where the chief officers the principal officers of the church were located. The chief officers of the whole church were at Nauvoo, and that was its headquarters.

64: How long did that branch that you raised up there, remain in fellowship with the church at Nauvoo?
 

65: If it ever was in fellowship with the church at Nauvoo, how long did it so remain?
Well we took exception to the rule of Brigham Young and his quorum of the church, and we cut loose from them, That was not done right away, but it was in a few years, a year or two, and then we ceased to be in fellowship with the church as led by Brigham Young and his co-adjujtors.

66: At what time was that? about what time?
That we ceased to act in fellowship with them?

67: Yes sir?
Well it was in, -it probably was in 1846. -1845 or 46, -somewhere along there.

68: What office, if any did you hold in the Beloit church?
Well I was an elder when I went there, and after the branch was organized I was chosen presiding elder. That is I was chosen presiding elder in the church.

69: About how many members was there in the branch there at Beloit at the time you became separated from the church at Nauvoo, some time in 1845 or 1846?
Well perhaps there was twenty five, more or less. I should judge about that number.

70: About twenty-five?
Yes sir.

71: Did the branch as a body separate from that church at Nauvoo?
Yes sir, as a body it did.

72: Now you said you were the presiding elder in that branch there at Nauvoo?
Yes sir.

73: Was there any other office in the branch besides the office that you held?
Yes sir. I think there was teachers perhaps. A priest,-

74: After you separated from the church at Nauvoo, led by Brigham Young and the Twelve, what part or faction did you become associated with, or fellowship with after that?
Well with, -we accepted the leadership of James J. Strang.

75: About what time was that?
Well I think it was in 1846.

76: You accepted the leadership of James J. Strang after you cut loose from the church at Nauvoo that was under the leadership of Brigham Young?
Yes sir.

77: How long did you remain in fellowship with James J. Strang?
Well I don’t know just how long.

78: Well about how long?
Well nominally until about 1850. In 1850 I think it was.

79: From about 1846 to 1850 you remained in fellowship with James J. Strang’s faction or branch of the church, you and the branch at Beloit, Wisconsin, of which you were the presiding elder?
Yes sir, along about that time.

80: Was there any growth in the branch of the church there at Beloit during that time, that is was there any new members brought in?
Yes sir.

81: How many new members was there into the branch during that time?
I can’t say, but there was a few.

82: Who was the President of the branch during that time?
I was.

83: That is you mean to say you presided over it?
Yes sir.

84: And you say you nominally remained in fellowship with Strang until 1850?
Yes sir, nominally, but we were more or less dissatisfied before that with the condition of affairs, but did not take steps to leave it entirely until about 1850.

85: And then you did leave Strang entirely?
You sir.

86: Can you state positively the date that you did that?
I cannot do so for the reason that I cannot remember, but I did it some time in 1850 or about that time.

87: About how many members were added to the church during the time that you were associated with Strang?
It was before 1850 that we left the Strang faction. It was in the latter part of 1859 that we cut loose from Strang.

88: Well about how many members were added to the church or the branch that you were identified with during the time that you were associated with Strang.
I really cannot say, for during that time, I myself, with my family moved up to Voree, and the branch was substantially broken up, but my memory is that there was a few baptized during that time but it does not serve me to state how many there was.

89: State how many of the branch made this change in 1846 and accepted James J. Strang as the leader of the church?
The branch at Beloit?

90: Yes sir?
So far as my memory goes they all accepted him. They all accepted James J. Strang as the leader of the church. I do not now remember of a single exception, still there might have been.

91: State your reasons for leaving Strang?
Well my reasons for leaving him was because I say something better in the matter of faith and leadership, etc. I should say in the form of leadership and the faith, etc.

92: State whether or not there was something in the doctrine taught by Strang which caused you to leave?
There was.

93: What were those doctrines?
Well some of them were plurality of wives, and there was some other things too that we considered objectionable.

94: After you left Strang, state what church or body, or faction, if any, you became associated with?
We became associated with, that is myself and most of the branch there at Beloit, became associated with William Smith’s organiation.

95: What William Smith was that?
Well it was William Smith, the brother of Joseph Smith, Junior, the prophet, known now as William B. Smith.

96: You became associated with him?
Yes sir, with the faction that acknowledged him as its leader.

97: In what way did you become associated with him?
With William Smith?

98: Yes sir.
Well I do not understand the question.

99: In what position?
Well in the first place as guardian of the seed of Joseph Smith should claim that right and priority which belonged to them. Now that is a full answer to the question I believe.

100: William Smith claimed that right?
Yes sir.

101: Did William Smith teach it in that light?
Yes sir, he did at the beginning.

102: Did he continue to teach it in that light?
He did not.

103: He did not continue to teach that?
No sir.

104: Well what did he teach finally?
I don’t understand.

105: What did he finally teach in regard to the Presidency?
How long did you remain in fellowship with William Smith?
I think I made a mistake there that I wish to correct. This question brings it to my mind that it was in 1850 instead of 1849 that the final breaking off with Strang took place. It should be 1850 instead of 1849.

107: Well that is not a very serious error for you said, as I understood you, that it was about 1850 that it took place?
Well I want to be as exact as possible in this, and when you speak about William Smith and his church it brings it to my mind that it was in the last days of 1850 that I left Strang, and about the first days of 1851, or rather the last days of 1850, that this acceptance of William Smith took palce.

108: Then how long did you continue with him?
With William Smith?

109: Yes sir?
Well I continued with him until the next fall, – that would be the fall of 1851. I was with him a little less than a year.

110: State what your reasons were, if there were any at all, for your not continuing with him any longer?

Well the reasons were the same, – they were very similiar to a great extent, to the reasons that caused us to leave Strang. They were very similiar to the reasons that caused us to reject Strang, I got to believe, and the branch there got to believe that he taught error, – that he taught false doctrines that we could not accept.

111: State what false doctrine it was that he taught that you could not accept?
Well it was the old story, – plurality of wives was one thing, and perhaps the main thing, and in addition to that as I have before stated, he claimed subsequent to my first acquaintance with him, that it was his right to preside over the church. It was his by right he claimed, instead of his standing as a guardian or representative of the rightful heir. He claimed that publicly as his right, and when he did so we refused to accept it.

112: You said that one of the false doctrines was that of plurality of wives?
Yes sir.

113: Or polygamy?
Yes sir, that was one of the doctrines that we considered false and refused to accept.

114: State the circumstances, if you can, by which you became acquainted with the face that he was teaching that doctrine.?
Well the circumstances were simply these: His counsellor first broached the matter to me. He talked it first in a round about way and then directly, and finally William Smith claimed to have received a revelation authorizing the practice of having “plurality of wives, and he taught it, and that was the way I became acquainted with the teaching of it sir.

115: Did you ever see the revelation, or hear it read?
Yes sir I saw it and heard it read.

116: State where and when you saw it and heard it read
What is the question?

117: I asked you to state when and where you saw that revelation and read it?
 
It was in Lee County, Illinois, in the autumn of 1851, – in October I think. Yes sir it was in October 1851 in lee County, Illinois.

118: Can you state some of the parties that were present at that time? Well wait a little, – I will ask you first under what circumstances did you see it?
In what way do you mean?

119: Well that is what I want to get at, – was it at a public meeting or privately?
It was a meeting.

120: What kind of a meeting?
Well it was called a “Priesthood Lodge”.

121: Did you ever hear that revelation read or presented to any more than one of these meetings?
Yes sir.

122: How many times did you hear it?
I heard it twice.

123: Now you may state if you can, who was present at either one of these meetings?
Who were present at these meetings, – is that what you asked for?

124: Yes sir, to state if you can any one that was present at either of these meetings, – men who are living to day if possible? If you can state any ont that was present at either of these meetings and who is living today, you may do so?
I do not now remember but three persons aside from myself that are now living that were in that meeting, – in either of these meetings, – They are C.F. Stiles, E.R. Briggs and William Blair.

125: You say that William Blair was there?
Yes sir.

126: Who is this William Blair that you refer to?
W.W. Blair of the re-organized church.

127: And who is at the present time one of the counsellors to Joseph Smith the President of the Reorganized church?
Yes sir. The same man.

128: Can you state where C.F. Stiles lives at the present time?
Yes sir, he lives in Oregon.

129: And can you state where E.R. Briggs lives?
Yes sir, he lives in Nebraska City, Nebraska.

130: I will ask you to state whether or not William Smith, himself was personally present?
Yes sir of course he was there, and Joseph Wood his Counsellor was his spokesman, he was also present and he was the one that read it to the meeting.

131: Now did you have a record of the Beloit branch?
We did have. Yes sir, we certainly had a record of the branch.

132: Can you state what became of that record?
I think I have it, and yet I cannot be positive. My books and papers have been scattered so much in my travels that it is difficult for me to state what has become of it, but I think it is likely that I have it yet.

133: You did have it one time?
Yes sir I know I had it not many years ago.

134: Did you ever report to James J. Strang when you were associated with him?
Report in what way?

135: Did you ever report to him as a branch of the church?
Well yes sir I presume that I did. I presume so sir, but still I do not remember of making a report to him either personally or any other way, but I presume in accordance with the custom in these matters that it was done.

136: Who was the President of the branch during this time that you were connected with William Smith.
I was.

137: How long did you continue to be the President of that branch?
Well I don’t know that I understand what you mean, –

138: Well I mean how long did you remain the President of that branch?
As long as there was a branch.

139: State as near as you can, -?
I don’t remember of their being any Presiding Elder there after that. There was not any that I now remember of.

140: You were the first and last presiding elder of that branch?
Yes sir, that is my memory now, that there was none before me or after me. I know there was none before for I organized it, and I think there was none came after me.

141: Well, what movement, if any did you make after you became seperated from William Smith?
We called conference to meet in the June following this time that I cut loose from William Smith which was I think in November 1851, – which would be in 1852, and at that conference the ground was taken that the proper authority in the church, – The deserving authority in the church was or were the sons of Joseph Smith. That was the action in that respect that the conference took, – for it decided that the proper and deserving authority in the church were the sons of Joseph Smith.

142: Who took part in that conference if you can remember?
Who took part in it as members of it?

143: Yes sir, – state their names if you can remember them, – state the names of the parties as well as you can remember who took part in that conference?
Well I can remember some of them and there were some there that I cannot remember.

144: Well state the names of those that you can remember.
Where was Samuel Powers, and there was also Zenas H. Gurley, and Albert White, S.H. Briggs, John Harrington, David Powell, and a good many others whose name I cannot now recall.

145: Did any other branch besides the Beloit branch participate in that conference?
Do you mean was there any other branch represented there?

146: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

147: Then there was other branches represented there as well as the Beloit branch?
Certainly there was.

148: Well state what branches were represented there?
There was the Waukeshaw branch, it was led by White, – the Yellowstone branch that was represented by Zenas H Gurley, –

149: State whether or not you were, or are acquainted with the history of the Waukeshaw branch?
Yes sir.

150: State your means of information in regard to that branch?
I raised up that branch, consequently I am familiar with its history. I am acquainted with its first early history.

151: When was that branch organized?
It was in 1842 or 1843.

152: Did this, – state whether or not this branch, – the Waukeshaw branch, followed any of the leaders in the church like James J Strang or William Smith?
It followed both of them to some extent.

153: State whether or not you were acquainted with the history of the Zarah Hemla branch?
Yes sir for the Zarah Hemlah branch was the Yellowstone branch that I have mentioned. It was called both names, – “Zarah Hemlah”, and Yellowstone”. It was called by both names.

154: State if you know, under what authority that church or branch was built up?
The Yellow stone branch?

155: Yes sir?
Under what authority it was built up?

156: Yes sir, or under what organization?
Well I have always understood that it was, –

157: Well answer the question to the best of your knowledge?
I don’t know of my own knowledge.

158: Well answer according to the best knowledge you have, under what authority that church was built up?
Well Zenas H. Gurley informed me that he, –
Shall I answer it?

159: Go right ahead and answer it in your own way?
Zenas H Gurley informed me that he and H Brown raised it up as the Yellow stone branch.

160: While you were associated with James J Strang, state whether or not you were acquainted with this man you have named, – Zenas H. Gurley?
Yes sir I was acquainted with him.

161: State whether or not he was a member of the church presided over by Strang?
He was.

162: He belonged to the church that Strang presided over?
Yes sir.

163: State your best information and belief as to whether or not the branch presided over by Gurley, and represented by him at that Conference had been build up under or during the time of Gurley, I should say, that Gurley was a member of the organization presided over by Strang.
I understand that was the case.

164: State how you learned, or understand that to be the fact?
Zenas H. Gurley told me so, that he and Hyrum Brown raised it up.

165: While he was a member of Strang’s organization?
Yes sir.

166: What position did Gurley occupy in the branch, if you know?
In that branch?

167: Yes sir?
I understand that he was the presiding Elder of that branch at one time.

168: He attended that conference at which the reorganization was effected as from the Yellowstone or Zarahemla branch?
Yes sir he represent that branch.

169: How did he represent himself at that conference?
What conference do you refer to?

170: I mean the conference of 1852 at which you testified he was present?
Well my recollection is that it was as the Elder of the Yellowstone branch?

171: What kind of an Elder?
Presiding elder of the Yellowstone branch, that is my recollection of it. This all happened a great many years ago, away back in 1852 more than forty years ago, and I can’t remember these things as well as I once did, but that is my best recollection of what he represented himself to be.

172: State whether or not there were any other branches besides the three that you have mentioned that were represented at that conference held in 1852?
Well I think there was two or three others and still I don’t now remember by whom they were represented.

173: State as nearly as you can about how many took part in that conference?
Well it would be difficult for me to say that. There was quite a number of the members and elders there, but just how many I could not say.

174: State whether or not there was or were any steps taken at that conference to reorganize the church or to create a new organization of the church?
 

161: State whether or not he was a member of the church presided over by Strang?
He was.

162: He belonged to the church that Strang presided over?
Yes sir.

163: State your best information and belief as to whether or not the branch presided over by Gurley, and represented by him at that Conference had been built up under or during the time of Gurley, – I should say that Gurley was a member of the organization presided over by Strang.
I understand that was the case.

164: State how you learned, or understand that to be the fact?
Zenas H Gurley told me so, – that he and Hyrum Brown raised it up.

165: While he was a member of Strangs organization?
Yes sir.

166: What position did Gurley occupy in the branch, if you know?
In what branch?

167: Yes sir?
I understand that he was the presiding Elder of that branch at one time.

168: He attended that conference at which the re-organization was effected as from the Yellow stone or Zarah Hemlah branch?
Yes sir he represented that branch.

169: How did he represent himself at that conference?
What conference do you refer to?

170: I mean the conference of 1852 at which you testified he was present?
Well my recollection is that it was as the Elder of the Yellow stone branch.

171: What kind of an Elder?
Presiding elder of the Yellowstone branch, that is my recollection of it. This all happened a great many years ago, – away back in 1852 more than forty years ago, and I can’t remember these things as well as I once did, but that is my best recollection of what he represented himself to be.

172: State whether or not there were any other branches besides the three that you have mentioned that were represented at that conference held in 1852?
Well I think there was two or three others and still I don’t now remember by whom they were represented.

173: State as nearly as you can about how many took part in that conference?
Well it would be difficult for me to say that. There was quite a number of the members and elders there, but just how many I could not say.

174: State whether or not there was or were any steps taken at that conference to reorganize the church or to creat a new organization of the church?
What is that question?

175: I asked you if there were any steps taken at that conference looking towards the reorganization or creation of the church under a new organization?
There were no actual steps taken, further than to pass resolutions declaring our rejection of the different leaders, and stating that we stood in the expectation of one of the sons of Joseph Smith assuming the leadership of the church at some time in the future, and that in that position the church would stand accepting the leadership of no one. Now that is about what was done there at that conference in that direction.

176: State whether or not there were any steps taken to discipline, or try those who had been members of the church that you had separated from, because of teaching these false doctrines that you referred to?
No sir.

177: There was nothing of that kind attempted?
No sir nothing of the kind was done or attempted. We simply disfellowshipped all these different leaders and went it by ourselves until such time as the sons of Joseph or one of them would assume the leadership of the church. We declared that we would not follow any of these would be leaders any further.

178: You disfellowshipped them?
Yes sir, just declared ourselves freed from them, that was all.

179: Were they ever to your knowledge summoned or notified to appear and answer any charges of teaching false doctrine?
No sir, I think there was nothing of that kind done.

180: The fact is then that you simply withdrew from them?
Yes sir, withdrew from them, that is all there is to it.

181: Was, or was there not any members took part in this conference of 1852 that had never followed any of these factional leaders after the death of Joseph Smith?
There may have been, but I can’t remember any of them. I can’t call any one to mind now.

182: All that took part in that conference and been sometime or other associated with some of these different factions?
I think so.

183: That is your statement?
Yes sir. I don’t think of any exceptions.

184: State whether or not you were at all acquainted with the branch presided over by Harvey Green?
No sir I was not.

185: You were not acquainted with that branch?
No sir.

186: State whether or not they took part in this conference of 1852?
Well I don’t know where that branch was. There may have been some from that branch to that conference, for I will not say there was not any of them there, but I don’t recollect about it if there was.

187: Did you know that branch?
I don’t believe I did. I do not remember where that branch was.

188: Well if you do not know where it was, of course you don’t know anything about it?
No sir I don’t know now of any such a branch.

189: Did you ever know anything about it?
No sir I never heard of any such a branch.

190: State if you know by what authority you called, – or by what authority this conference of 1852 was called?
It was called upon the authority of mutual advice and counsel of brothers Zenas H Gurley, Henry Deems and myself, and brother Powell also –

191: State whether or not there was any revelation that called for a conference? Any revelation that called for a revelation?
Called for this conference?

192: Yes sir, this conference of 1852 or any other one?
Well I don’t know of any.

193: When was the next conference held, if there was any more held?
That conference of June 1851 that was held at Beloit, adjourned to meet in October following at what was known as the “Yellow stone” branch, subsequently called “Sarah Hemlah”, but it was not right at the place where the branch meeting had formerly been held.

194: State whether or not at that conference there were any steps taken towards re-organizing or effecting a new organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Nothing further than to determine some general principle in regard to authority, – nothing further than that. We had legal authority to minister to these things and decide what we should do of course, but nothing further than that.

195: You still had authority to minister, – that is to preach and teach the doctrines of the church?
Yes sir, as set forth in the book of Doctrine and authority.

196: I will ask you to state what the decisions of that conference were in regard to what the leagl authority was, — if you can state that?
Well it was substantially this, – that those men who has been legally ordained, – properly ordained to office of priesthood in the church, should be recognized, and the highest of those should act as presiding authority for the time being.
What is that?

197: The objection is you have not defined what church you have reference to, as to these partied having derived their authority from?
 

198: Well we will try and correct that. I will ask you to state whether or not the ordinations performed by James J Strang, or William Smith under their organizations, were considered legal by those who met together in this conference, or these conferences of 1852 and 1853 that you have referred to? on the ground that it is inadmissible and incompetent, and irrelevant, and because it is not comketent evidence, nor the best evidence, – the record evidence which is always the best evidence, on that subject being introduced in evidence.
That point was raised, and it was substantially, as I understood it, decised that James J Strang or William Smith could legally ordain two certain offices.

199: That was the decision that was arrived at?
Yes sir.

200: That was the understanding that the conferences arrived at, – that William Smith and James J Strang could legally ordain two certain offices?
Yes sir.

201: Well what offices did you conclude that they could legally ordain to?
An Elder – priest, teacher and so on. We arrived at that conclusion in accordance with the law laid down in the books of authority in the church.

202: I will ask you to state whether or not the conference referred to accepted any of the ordinations per formed by either William Smith or James J Strang to the offices of Seventies, high priests, apostles, or patriarchs, or presidents, – ?
Let me see, – whether any such ordinances were accepted, – is that your question?

203: Yes sir, – were any such ordinances accepted as legal
Well they were not specifically accepted.

204: I will ask you to state whether or not in the ordinations by any parties were accepted by these conferences to those office referred to? I mean that were performed after the 27th day of June 1844?
No sir, they were not with one single exception, and that was the office of high priest.

205: The office of high priest was accepted, – ordained after that date?
Yes sir, as I understand it, that was the way.

206: That was the conclusion that was arrived at?
I so understand it.

207: Now I will ask you to state what church you considered you were a member of at the time of the holding of these conferences in 1852 and 1853.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was the styling of our claim. That is what we claimed was the style of the name of the church, for we claimed to be a part and parcel of the church.

208: Now I will ask you to state when you held the next conference, – if you held another?
In the spring following, – on April 6th.

209: What year was that?
In 1853.

210: Was that in 1853?
Yes sir that would be in 1853.

211: What steps were taken at that conference towards re-organizing the church or effecting anew organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
There were steps taken. There was a quorom of Twelve, – that is there was seven of the quorom of Twelve chosen and ordained.

212: Is that all that was done?
There was also some high priests and some of the seventies chosen.

213: I will ask you to state whether or not this was done by virtue of a revelation, or was it simply done by the action of the conference?
Well I would say it was partly both.

214: Please explain what you mean by that?
Well I mean to say it was partly by revelation and partly by act of conference.

215: It was partly the act of the conference acting on its own responsibility, and partly done by virtue of a revelation?
Yes sir.

216: State if you can to whom, or through whom this revelation was given?
That particular revelation that is referred to in that last answer was given to Henry Deems.

217: I will ask you to state what part Henry Deems took in that conference?
He acted, – let me see, – he acted as an elder or high priest. He was recognized as an high priest with the others that held priest hoods.

218: I will ask you to look at this paper which I had you, entitle “True Latter Day Saints Herald” – published March 1860, volume one, number three. Now here is in article headed “history of the new organization of the church, by Zenas Gurley?
Yes sir.

219: now I will get you to look on page fifty five at the bottom of the page, commencing at the word “verily” thus saith the Lord” in the fifteenth line from the bottom. Now read that and see if that is not the revelation referred to as having been given through Henry Deems?
What is that question?

220: Can you identify what I have directed your attention to as the revelation that was given to Henry Deems?
It purports to be the same one, but it is not exactly correct. It is correct with the exception of that “ten” in there. It should be “assisted by two others” instead of “ten” others. It reads assisted by “ten others”, and it should read “assisted by two others”.

221: Well that is a typographical error, – it is a misprint? Read it.
 

222: I will ask you to state whether or not it is correct with the exception of that one particular to which you have referred?
I think so. I think it is the same. I don’t think there is anything else materially wrong about it. Well there is another defect. The word “senior” was in that document, – the “senior shall preside.” With that exception and the other one I have spoken of it is correct. With these two exceptions it is correct.

223: Well it reads, – “the senior of them shall stand as a representative”?
Well that is in there.

224: Yessir that is the way it reads?
Is that in there?

225: Yes sir, look for yourself and see if it is not in there?
Yes sir that is correct. I did not see it before.

226: now I will ask you to state whether or not it was by virtue of the commandment contained in this revlation (the revelation has not been read by either counsel or witness) that the work of ordaining these men to the apostleship was performed and conferred?
It was.

227: I will ask you to state whether or not there was any printing authorized to be done at that conference.
I don’t think there was.

228: Do you remember anything about that?
I don’t think there was, and still I will not say that there was not, for there night have been. I know there was printing authorized at some of the conferences, but I don’t remember now whether it was that one or not, I can’t say as to that.

229: I will ask the reporter to read for you, as you cannot read very well yourself, the title of exhibit “10” (which was read as follows), – “A word of consolation to the scattered saints”. Do you recollect that?
Yes sir.

230: I will ask you to state whether or not you took any part in the writing of that pamphlet entitled “A word of consolation to the scattered saints”?
I did

231: I will ask you to now state by what authority that was written?
By the authority of the conference.

232: What conference was that?
The conference of 1852. That conference authorized the preparation of a pamphlet, and appointed a committee to prepare it, and I was one of that committee.

233: Then it was prepared by a committee appointed by the conference of 1852 for that purpose, and of which committee you were a member?
Yes sir.

234: I will ask you to state whether or not the whole pamphlet including the three extra pages, was authorized by the conference?
 

235: Answer the question?
The conference authorized the publication of a pamphlet, setting forth the position we occupied, and the committee in preparing it we not confined to any particular number of pages or to any particular space. That was a matter that was left entirely to the committee as I understood it. Now that is the history of the preparation of that pamphlet, up to the time that it was submitted to the conference after its preparation.

236: I will ask you to state whether or not that committee to the conference theri work for acceptance?
Yes sir, they reported the pamphlet to the conference after its preparation as the result of their work.

237: I will ask you to state whether it was presented before it was printed, or was it in manuscript form?
It was presented in manuscript form.

238: Then it was presented before it was printed?
Certainly it was.

239: Now I will ask you to state whether or not the committee were authorized upon its presentation in the first instance to the conference for acceptance or for its action, – whether or not the comittee
 

224: Yes sir that is the way it reads?
Is that in there?

225: Yes sir, look for yourself and see if it is not in there.
Yes sir that is correct. I did not see it before.

226: Now I will ask you to state whether or not it was by virtue of the commandment contained in this revelation (the revelation has not been read by either counsel or witness) that the work of ordaining these men to the apostleship was performed and conferred?
It was.

227: I will ask you to state whether or not there was any printing authorized to be done at that conference.
I don’t think there was.

228: Do you remember anything about this?
I don’t think there was, and still I will not say that there was not, for there might have been. I know there was printing authorized at some of the conferences, but I don’t remember now whether it was that one or not, I can’t say as to that.

229: I will ask the reporter to read for you, as you cannot read very well yourself, the title of exhibit “10” (which was read as follows, – “A word of consolation to the scattered saints”. Do you recollect that?
Yes sir.

230: I will ask you to state whether or not you took any part in the writing of that pamphlet entitled “A word of consolation to the scattered saints”?
I did

231: I will ask you to now state by what authority that was written?
By the authority of the conference.

232: What conference was that?
The conference of 1852. That conference authorized the preparation of a pamphlet, and appointed a committee to prepare it, and I was one of that committee.

233: Then it was prepared by a committee appointed by the conference of 1852 for that purpose, and of which committee you were a member?
Yes sir.

234: I will ask you to state whether or not the whole pamphlet including the three extra pages, was authorized by the conference?
 

235: Answer the question?
The conference authorized the publication of a pamphlet, setting forth the position we occupied, and the committee in preparing it we not confined to any particular number of pages or to any particular space. That was a matter that was left entirely to the committee as I understood it. Now that is the history of the preparation of that pamphlet, up to the time that it was submitted to the conference after its preparation.

236: I will ask you to state whether or not that committee to the conference their work for acceptance?
Yes sir, they reported the pamphlet to the conference after its preparation as the result of their work.

237: I will ask you to state whether it was presented before it was printed, or was it in manuscript form?
It was presented in manuscript form.

238: Then it was presented before it was printed?
Certainly it was.

239: Now I will ask you to state whether or not the committee were authorized upon its presentation in the first instance to the conference for acceptance or for its action, – whether or not the committee. were authorized to – make some corrections or additions to it that is to what was written when it was presented in manuscript form to the conference.
I think there was and still I do not remember distinctly what was done by the conference. I apprehend that the pamphlet itself will give you more exact and correct information on what was done in that respect than I can. 240 (Mistakenly written as 340)

239: Well do you recollect that there was anything added to it?
Yes sir, I recollect that there was an addition of three pages made to it.

241: Now to refresh your recollection I will read from page twenty one commencing at the top of the page, – “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 of upon the pillars of society, and instead od 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 wifery taught by Brigham Young, and the plurality doctrines of James J Strang, and the fouler system of whoredoms 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”. I will ask you if you can identify them as a part of the word of consolation that you were appointed to writ?
It is a part of the pamphlet that was written and prepared after the rest of it had been written. These three pages here had been written and prepared after the rest of it was written, for when it was reported to the conference it thought it was not just explicit enough, so it was reported back again to the committee, and these three pages were added, I am not sure nut that was written after the rest of it had been accepted by the Conference. I rather think it was.

242: And then it was printed as shown here?
Yes sir.

243: By what authority were these three pages written?
Well I though I explained that, but perhaps I did not fully enough. The fact is that there had been a manifestation through some of the members of the church in regard to this polygamous practice, – this polygamous doctrine and it had been shown in that manifestation or manifesto that it should be struck at more directly and vigorously, than it had been in the pamphlet in the first place as it was presented to the conference, and hence these three pages were written to do that as suggested in the manifestation. Now that is about the whole truth of it.

244: Then as a matter of fact it was done through and by the authority of a revelation, – that is these three pages were?
Well I have said all I have to say in regard to that. It was done in the way I have stated, and whether it was done in the way I have stated, and whether it was done by the authority of a revelation is something that you can conclude as well as I can.

245: State to the reporter whether there was and other matter by the action taken in regard to this matter by the conference?
What matter?

246: In regard to the matter of these three pages?
I cannot say. I am not aware that there was.

247: I will ask you to state whether or not the statement made here in regard to William Smith was true?
I cannot say. All that I can say is that the committee believed it to be true or it would not have gone in there. I know that I was one of the committee believed it to be true or I should not have consented to its going in there.

248: I will ask you to state whether or not you knew it was true?
Well I would prefer not to answer that question. Well of course I don’t know.

249: Well if you don’t know just say so.
Well that is what I say I don’t know personally.

250: We don’t want to hear anything about what you heard, or what you believed about it?
Well the committee believed it was true, and as one of the committee I believed it was true.

251: Well you don’t know anything personally about it’s truth or falsity?
No sir, but I believed it was true.

252: I will ask you to state whether you make this answer with reference to the time that pamphlet was written, or whether you make it with reference to the time that you were associated with William Smith as a member of his church?
Well I don’t exactly get the gist of that question. What is the question?

253: The question I asked you is as to whether or not you make this statement, that you don’t know anything about the truth or falsity of the statements made in this pamphlet with reference to the time it was written, or whether you make it with reference to the time that you were associated with William Smith as a member of his church, and were present at the meeting or the Priests Lodge referred to in a former answer?
Well not I want to be understood. I do not want to be misunderstood. I know as I have stated heretofore, that William Smith taught polygamy, or the plurality of wives, and I believe that he taught and practiced something worse than that, and it is that. That is the reason why as a committee we made that statement in those three pages.

254: Well that is satisfactory?
 

255: State what office you were appointed to fill, if any, at this conference at which this re-organization took place that you have referred to?
I was one of the seven men that were ordained apostles.

256: You were one of the seven apostles that were ordained at that conference?
Yes sir.

257: Well you may state how long you continued to act in the office of an apostle?
Well from that time down to ’85.

258: From what time down to ¹85?
From that time in 1853 down to— ’95.

259: Who else were ordained apostles at that conference? If you can state their names you may do so?
It was Zenas H Gurley, Henry Deems, George White, Dniel Rasy, John Cunningham, a man named Newkirk, —Reuben Newkirk was his name, I think these were the men, —yes sir that is right and myself we made the seven.

260: I will ask you to state whether or not Henry H. Deems became disaffected from the church or from the conference at that time?
At that time did you say?

261: Yes sir, or before that time?
Not that I am aware of. If he did I am not aware of it.

262: State whether or not he became disaffected at any subsequent time?
At any time after that?

263: Yes sir?
He did.

264: Well about what time was that?
Well a couple of years after-wards perhaps he became disaffected I do not remember just what length of time it was after that conference that he became dissatisfied, but I think it was a couple of years after that, or some such time as that, and then he left the church.

265: State whether or not the quorom that was selected and ordained at that time remained unbroken until say 1860?
Well if you will tell me what you mean by “unbroken”, I can answer the question probably.

266: Well I mean whether there was any of that quorom that left the church or were disfellowshippod or became disaffected in any way?
There was some left and some added.

267: Please explain what you mean mean by that?
Well I mean what I say that there was some left the quorom and others were added from time to time, for the quorom was kept up to that number I think all the way through.

268: About how many left in that time?
There was two or three left and there were others added in their places.

269: What was the name of the movement or of the re-organization that was effected at that time?
At that conference?

270: Yes sir?
Well I don’t know as I understand that question.

271: Well I mean by what name was that movement known, if you know, you may state the name by which it was known.
It was known by a conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

272: I will ask you to state—whether or not there was any such a name known at that time as ” The Re—organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Well I don’t know that the name “reorganized”, appeared in any of the works of the church at that time. That is I don’t know that it appeared in any of its publications. If it did I do—not remember of it.

256: You were one of the seven apostles that were ordained at that conference?
Yes sir.

257: Well you may state how long you continued to act in the office o an apostle?
Well from that time down to ’85.

258: From what time down to ’85?
From that time in 1853 to ’85.

259: Who else were ordained apostles at that conference? If you can state their names you may do so?
It was Zenas H. Gurley, Henry Deems, George White, Dniel Rasy, John Cunningham, a man named Newkirk, -Reuben Newkirk was his name, I think these were the men, – yes sir that is right, and myself we made the seven.

260: I will ask you to state whether or not Henry H Deems became disaffected from the church or from the conference at that time?
At that time did you say?

261: Yes sir, or before that time?
Not that I am aware of. If he did I am not aware of it.

262: State whether or not he became disaffected at any subsequent time?
At any time after that?

263: Yes sir?
He did.

264: Well about what time was that?
Well a couple of years after-wards perhaps he became disaffected I do not remember just what length of time it was after that conference that he became dissatisfied, but I think it was a couple of year after that, or some such time as that, and then he left the church.

265: State whether or not the quorom that was selected and ordained at that time remained unbroken until say 1860?
Well if you will tell me what you mean by “unbroken”, I can answer the questions probably.

266: Well I mean whether there was any of that quorom that left the church or were fellowshipped or became disaffected in any way?
There was some left and some added.

267: Please explain what you mean by that?
Well I mean what I say that there was some left the quorom and others were added from time to time, for the quorop was kept up to that number I think all the way through.

268: About how many left in that time?
There was two or three left and there were others added in their places.

269: What was the name of the movement or of the re-organization that was effected at that time?
At that conference?

270: Yes sir?
Well I don’t know as I understand that question.

271: Well I mean by what name was that movement known, if you know, you may state the name by which it was known.
It was know by a conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

272: I will ask you to state-whether or not there was any such a name known at that time as “The Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Well I don’t know that the name “reorganized”, appeared in any of the works of the church at that time. That is I don’t know that it appeared in any of its publications. If it did I do-not remember of it.

273: I will ask you if the name of the organization as “The Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, was known at that time?
It was not at that time, but it was subsequently known by that name

274: When was it known by that name?
It was never known by that name until January 1860 according to my remembrance of it.

275: I will ask you whether or not it was considrerd by that conference of the church that it was a new organization of the church?
I never heard it so termed, and did not so understand it my self?

276: You did not term it so yourself?
No sir, and I never heard any one else term it so.

277: Nor “re-organization”?
No sir. I don’t remember that that word was used.

278: I will ask you to state whether or not that, -whether or not you were acquainted with the new, -with the doctrine of the new organization organized at that conference down to 1860 and the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from 1860 up to the time you referred to it in 1885?
I was. I came to understand something about it for I was acting continually in connection with the rest of the church. Under the circumstances I may say that I was fairly will acquainted with its doctrine.

279: I will ask you if the doctrine of baptism for the dead has ever been taught or practiced in the reorganized church?
Never to my knowledge.

280: Do you mean to say that it has not been taught or practiced?
Yes sir, to my knowledge it has never been twught or practiced. That is it has not been taught as a present duty. And it has not been practiced.

281: I will ask you to – state whether or not the doctrine of the gathering as taught in the old church, has been taught and practiced in the re-organized church?
It has been taught all through more or less.

282: I will ask you to state if you recollect, – whether or not you are acquainted with the different offices therein in the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir.

283: You are acquainted with the different offices there is in the reotganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir, I suppose I am.

284: That is up to 1885?
I know what they are.

285: I will ask you to state whether or not during your whole experience with, and connection with that church, there was ever at any time a full quorom of Twelve apostles?
No sir, there never has been and is not now I understand.

286: I will ask you to state whether or not there has been a Patriarch.
There never has been.

287: I will ask you to state whether or not you are acquainted with the books that are accepted by the Reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as the standards of authority in the church?
I suppose I am.

288: Well are you?
Yes sir, I expect I am.

289: I will ask you to state what the books are that are accepted as the standards of authority in that church?
The bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

290: These are the books that are accepted as the rules of authority in the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir, they were when I was in it, and are yet I believe.

291: Is there any other book or books that are accepted as an authority or rule of action on the church?
I am not aware that the church has accepted any others at any time.

292: I will ask you to state whether or not you were or are acquainted with the book published by the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, called the Holy Scriptures?
Yes sir, and I have one, and have read it.

293: I will ask you to state whether or not there is any difference between this book called the Holy Scriptures, published by the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the ordinary translation of the bible?
Yes sir.

294: What is the difference?
Well there is different readings in various places.

295: Now I will offer for the purpose of identification the “Saints Herald” which is the official paper of the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, published at Plano, Illinois, October 1st 1878? (The publication above referred to as being offered for identification was marked exhibit “3”)
 

296: And on page two hundred and ninety five, the resolution is offered, commencing at the wors “resolved”, – I will read it, – “Resolved that this body representing the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, does hereby authoritively endorse the Holy Scriptures as revised, corrected and translated by the spirit of revelation, by Joseph Smith, Junior, the see, and as published by the church we represent”.
I have seen that before.

297: Did you attend that conference?
I don’t think I attended it.

298: Defendant now offeres that in evidence for the purpose of showing that the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the plaintiff in this action, has adopted a book as a standard of authority that is different from the bible than was accepted as a standard of authority in the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
 

299: I will ask you to state whether or not you attended a conference of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the year 1857 that was held at Blanchardsville, Wisconsin?
Yes sir I attended that conference.

300: I will ask you whether or not you were appointed in connection with a man by the name of Granville Hedrick as a committee to write a statement of the articles of the church, or the belief of the church?
 
What is the question?

301: I asked you if at that conference held at Blanchardville, Wisconsin, you were appointed a committee, a committee with Granville Hedrick to write a statement of the articles of the church, or of the belief of the church?
My memory is at fault in regard to that, for I have no distinct memory in regard to any such an employment, and still I have some faint recollection of some talk of that kind, and whatever there is to it, we did nothing of the kind. I am satisfied of that, for if I did I think I would recollect it, but the whole thing seems to have gone from me.

302: I will ask you to state whether or not Granville Hedrick associated with you and the conference there, in fellowship, as a member?
He was not.

303: He wasn’t?
No sir. I never understood that he was. Now that is my memory of the matter.

304: I will ask you to state whether there has been any revelations given through the present head of the Reorganized church, Joseph Smith, that have been acted upon without first being presented to the quorum for their approval?
Well I think there has been. By. Mr. Kelley,

305: Well do you know of your own knowledge?
I said I thought some of them had been acted upon without being presented to the various quorums, at least I am not aware that some of them were ever presented to any quorum.

306: Can you state which of the revelations, if any, were ever so acted upon without being submitted to the quorums?
How?

307: Can you state which of the revelations, if any, were acted upon without being submitted to the quorums for their approval?
Well there was a revelation concerning the colored race, that I am not aware was ever presented to the quorum. It is possible that it was however, but I do not remember that it ever was presented when I was present. It was never presented to any quorum that I was in I don’t think.

308: I will ask you to state whether or not you have been present generally at the assembling of the conferences of the reorganized church?
Well I might say generally I have been. I have been absent many times however, for I was away a year or two at a time.

309: I will ask you to state whether or not you can remember being present at a conference held in 1865?
Spring or autumn.

310: In spring or autumn, either one?
Well now I don’t remember distinctly whether I was present or not in 1865.

311: Can you state about what times you were away on a mission, if at all?
What years do you mean?

312: Yes sir.
Yes sir.

313: Well what years was it?
It would be in 1863 and 1864 and in 1868 and 1869, and in ’74 and ‘5 and ‘6, -along there.

314: I will ask you to state whether or not it is the invariable rule that the revelations given through Joseph Smith had to be submitted to the quorom of Twelve and the other quoroms before they were presented to the church for its approval or disapproval
No sir.

315: Well what do you mean by that?
I am not aware that it has been practiced. Some of them have been presented to the quorom of twelve, and some of them have not, so far as my memory goes.

316: Then so far as your knowledge goes, some of them have been presented to the quorom of twelve and some of them have not?
Yes sir.

317: I will ask you now to state whether or not there was a church paper published before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.

318: What was it called?
The Times and Seasons. That was understood to be the church paper, published by the church.

319: I will ask you to state whether or not you were in the habit of reading that paper?
Yes sir, I was in the habit of reading it regularly.

320: You read it regularly, -is that what you stated?
Yes sir, I read it regularly.

321: Can you state whether or not you could identify portions of or extracts from that publication by hearing it read?
Well I might and I might not.

322: In exhibit “L” on page four hundred and twenty seven, commencing six lines from the bottom of the first column, and reading to the end of that paragraph of which the last word is “blessed”. It is as follows,- “And now I say unto you as pertaining to 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 anointing I have put upon his head, that his blessings shall be put upon the heads 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”. Now do you recognize that language?
I do. Yes sir I recognize it.

323: As a part of the Times and Season published at that time?
I do not recognize it as being in the Times and Seasons on that date, but I recognize it as a part of the revelation that was published in the Times and Seasons.

324: As a part of the revelation?
Yes sir.

325: I will ask you to state if you can Mr. Briggs, what the teaching of the church was or the leaders of the church so far as you ascertained from the Times and Seasons in regard to the church or (?)taking part in the affairs of state, — in other words, -in regards to the church and state being together?
In the popular sense or acceptation of that phrase”the church and state”, I always understood them, – that is that the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints were apposed to it, in the popular sense.

326: In exhibit “O”, which is a volume of the Times and Seasons in the number published in the city of Nauvoo, Illinois on Saturday June 1st 1844 at the head of the editorial columns appeared this, – “For President, General Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Illinois: for vice President Sidney Rigdon, Esq’ of Pennsylvania”., and in the second column of the same page, the same being page five hundred and fifty two, commencing at the top of the page and reading the article entitled “A word to the wise?, down to the words “do beware”. I will read it to you as follows, – Some people are so very religious that their religion sticks out so far that their neighbors tread upon it, and then there is a fuss among the brethern, and surmises, and murmurings, and sometimes a little uneasiness that somebody had fall form grace. To prevent such unnecessary trouble, and save many from thinking wrong, and in fact, from doing wrong, we have thought advisable to caution all against the practice of judging others, until they have been weighed in the balance, and are not found wanting themselves. The Times and Seasons contain religious and political articles, syas one; to which we reply, certainly, and so does the bible. Go ahead saints and reform the world in religion and politics, in ways and means in power and glory, in truth and virtue. In stead of judging others and talking continually about their faults, correct your own. Thou fool, first case the beam out of thine own eye, and then thou can see clearly the moat in thy brother’s eye. The highest folly that disgraces the United States is that truth and holiness, and which combined and practiced, compose religion, should not be mixed with power and policy, which is the essence of government, because some tyro from Gottingen, or some other college had joined in the yell of demagogues, that that would be uniting church and state. God save the king, who ever heard of such wickedness. Union, virtue, truth, holiness, policy and power. Look out lest you should combine and give peace to the world and save treasure and blood, Beware, beware, lest a “thus saith the Lord”, should be a better rule to govern the people, than an “I take the responsibility”. Do beware “Do you recognize that”?
 

327: That is an editorial contained in the Times and Seasons of the date I have heretofore given you, and John Taylor was its editor and proprietor. Do you remember that?
Yes sir, I recollect it.

328: Now on page five hundred and six in the second column, and commencing at the words “these elders”; and reading down to the end of the paragraph with the date “Nauvoo, April 15th 1844.” It reads as follows, – “Those elders” who are numbered in the foregoing list, to preside over the different states, will appoint confferences in all places in their several states where opportunities present, and will attend all the conferences, or send experienced and able elders, who will preach the truth in righteousness, and present before the people General Smith’s view of the power and policy of the General Government, and seek dili- diligently to get electors, who will go for him for the Presidency. All the elders will be a faithful in preaching the gospel in its simplicity and beauty, in all meekness humility, long suffering and prayerfulness; and the twelve will devote the season to travelling, and will attend as many conferences as possible. Elder B. Winchester is instructed to pass through Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Virginia, to visit the churches, hold conferences, and preside over them. Brigham Young, President. W. Richards, Clerk of the Quorom of Twelve. Nauvoo April 15th 1844.”
 

329: I will ask you to state Mr Briggs whether or not you remember to have read these articles at or about the time that they were published?
Yes sir I remember them.

330: You have read them?
Yes sir.

331: I will ask you to state whether or not there was considerable of such teaching among the elders of the church about that time, or whether or not there was considerable electioneering indulged in by the elders of the church about that time, – the leaders, elders and officers in the church, about that time, on behalf of Joseph Smith for President of the United States?
Well it was understood as this statement says it was that certain elders were to be marked out as ones to do electioneering work for Joseph Smith. That was understood, that they were to electioneer for General Joseph Smith as a candidate for President of the United States, and they were to get up electors on his behalf in the several states, – that was the understanding.

332: It is a fact that they were sent out to preach and electioneer for him, – that they were to combine the double office of both preaching and electioneering?
Yes sir, that was added to their duties under that authority given there in that which you have just read. Of course they were to preach and at the same time look after the political interests of their candidate.

333: I will ask you to state Mr Briggs whether or not you ever heard anything about a revelation on polygamy or plural marriage when you were at Nauvoo in 1842?
Yes sir.

334: You heard of it?
Yes sir, I heard of it.

335: Well what did you hear?
I heard there was one.

336: I will ask you to state whether or not thee was very much talk going on amongst the members of the church when you were there in 1842 at Nauvoo, about this revelation on polygamy or plural marriage?
Yes sir, there was considerable talk going on about it at that time, when I was there, and continued to be, but it was not called plural marriage, – it was called “sealing”.

337: I will ask you what you understood this “sealing” to be at the time that talk was going on?
What I understood it to be? Is that what you want to know?

338: Yes sir?
Well at that time I understood that it was sealing a woman to a man to be his spiritual wife, – to be his wife hereafter, – his wife in the spiritual world.

339: I will ask you to state whether or not it was the general report, or if it was not the general report that there was a revelation authorizing such a practice?
Well there was that talk.

340: Well what did you hear about it?
I was told by members of the church that there was such a revelation.

341: I will ask you to state whether or not this talk and general report, – whether it was by the members of the church or those outside of the church, or by both?
It was the members of the church that I talked with on the subject.

342: Did you hear any one out side of the church say anything about it?
No sir. Not at that time. At that time I did not talk any outside of the church about it.

343: I will ask you to state what church, if any, you are a member of now, Mr Briggs?
I am not a member of any church at the present time.

344: I will ask you to state whether you have any interest one way or the other in the result of this suit, – any property intersets I should say, directly or indirectly, in the result of this suit?
I have none, – none whatever.

345: I will ask you to state whether or not the doctrine and practices of the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at the time you separated from it were the same as the doctrines and practices that you accepted and believed at the time of this conference held in 1852 or 1853 or along there, – whether or not the doctrines and practices of the church are the same now as they were then?
Well so far as the first principles were concerned it was the same. There were some things taught however that I believed were a little different.

346: State whether or not that was the reason for your seperation from the reorganized church?
Well partially, – now wholly, – but perhaps partially.

347: I believe that is all? Cross examination by E.L. Kelley, –
 

348: These matter that you have just referred to as begin, – or rather as coming up at the time of your seperation, – now to refresh your memory I will call your attention to the fact if it was not things that supposed, more than things that were actually said add done? Is it not a fact that it was things that were suppose to be facts than things that were actually said and done?
In what way?

349: In the matter of church preceedure, – in the matter of preceedure, and church policy, that caused an action of that kind Mr. Briggs?
Now do you want me to answer that?

350: Yes sir, most assuredly I do?
Well now mut that again and let me get the full idea, for I don’t think I understand your question.

351: In the matter of your seperation from the church, was it not a matter of preceedure and church policy that you did not agree with more, than anything else?
On an occasion of what kind?

352: One the occasion of your action in seperating from the church?
Well now that is a hard question for me to answer, for I can answer that question both yes and no, and therefore I find it rather difficult to answer the question. I cannot answer that question either yes, or no, and o justice to myself or you either. I can answer it, if you want me to do so in my own way I will do it, but as I said I will have to have some latitude.

353: I will put it in this way, – whether there was any vital of doctrine changes in the church that your action was based on in seperating from the church?
No sir, I did not say that. I did not allege there was.

354: There were no vital changes in the doctrine of the church then that influenced your action?
No sir, not what I will call vital. There was nothing changed that I would consider vital at all in the doctrine.

355: I will ask you if you did not a few weeks after you seperated, and had it published in the “Saints Herald” in which you stated these words substantially that had the decisions of the reorganized church been made as made in the answer to your request, that possibly there would have been no ossasion for your withdrawal”.
 

356: Is that not substantially what you stated?
I say I remember some things of that kind, but whether that is exactly what I stated or not I do not know. I think it is altogether likely that you have stated substantially what was said. I remember it substantially something of that kind. I will answer that if you are willing, and give the exact fact as I remember it.

357: Well the question is answered with reference to any great change, and that is all that is necessary to be said I think?
It was not in the vial doctrines that any thing new was brought in, but it was the interpretation put on certain lines of policy and doctrine, and while others were allowed to discuss those lines of policy I was not permitted to do so, but was shut out. I could not be heard, and consequently as I expressed it at the time, I was gagged and bound and did not have an opportunity to answer and express my views as I thought I had a right to do. That was my views, as I thought I had a right to do. That was what I objected to more particularly, and not to any change of the vital doctrines of the church. That was the way I looked at it, and when that condition came to pass I felt that I was out of place in the council or in fellowship with people that were not satisfied with attempting to bind me, but must needs attempt to gag me as well. 358 (Written as 258)

357: It was simply a matter of discussion through the columns of the Herald was it not?
Yes sir.

359: It was just through a discussion that arose and which was carried on through the columns of the Herald?
Yes sir, which was attempted to be carried on; but while the other party was allowed access to the columns of the Herald, I was denied that priveledge.

360: Now to refresh your recollection, – you were asked with reference to attending the Generac Conference, etc?
Yes sir.

361: Wait a moment, – you were asked with reference to attending these General Conferences. Now I will ask you with reference, – I will call your attention to the General Conference that was held in April 1865?
Yes sir.

362: Which was held at Sandwich Illinois, or at the home of Elder Israel L. Rogers?
Yes sir.

363: Now after thinking over the matter do you not recollect that you were not at the conference, – that you were not in attendance at the conference?
No sir.

364: Do you mean that your recollection is that you attended it?
No sir, I do not think that I was at that conference for I have no recollection of having attended it at all. If I attended that conference I have no recollection of having done so.

365: Well that is it. I only wanted to call your attention to it, for I was there, and I knew that you were not there?
Well I was not there, and I don’t think I said I was there. If I said I was there I was mistaken for I am sure that I was not there. Now that brings it to my mind that I should have answered in answer to the question as to whether or not I attended the general conferences, I should have said that I generally did attend them for the first eight or nine years after the reorganization, but after that I did not invariably attend them.

366: You were asked with reference to the fact, if you had not and did not hear of the doctrines of polygamy, etc., and you answered that you talked with members with reference to sealing?
Yes sir.

367: Now I will ask you if you know whether or not this was the doctrine of sealing a mans wife to him for eternity, and if it was not so understood at the time that these people talked with you about the doctrine of sealing?
What is that?

368: I asked you if it was not a fact that the doctrine that you say you heard talked of as the doctrine of sealing, was not the doctrine of sealing a mans wife to him for eternity, and if that is not the doctrine that you heard talked about in the connection?
Yes sir, I understood that the doctrine of sealing was sealing for eternity, and it was so taught. It was sealing a mans wive to him, or wives either.

369: What was the doctrine of the original church up to 1844, as a church doctrine, with reference to the question of marriage?
In what way?

370: Well was it polygamy or monogamy? That is was the doctrine of the church polygamy or monogamy?
It was the doctrine of one wive, and one husband.

371: It was the doctrine of monogamy, that is a man was permitted to have but one wife?
Yes sir. It was the one wife doctrine at that time, there was never any other doctrine in the original church that I knew of.

372: It was the one wife doctrine, and that was the way it was understood?
Yes sir.

373: What ever changes of that doctrine in that respect that was made, was a change of the doctrine of the church, was it not Mr. Briggs?
In what respect?

374: And change from that doctrine?
Yes sir, I so understand it.

375: You united with the church in 1841 I believe you said?
Yes sir.

376: And you remained with it?
Yes sir.

377: You have been a member of that church, the same original church as I understand it right along until the time of your separation from the church in 1885?
Well I have been. Yes sir I have accounted my self a member of that church from that time on, but I have been in different organizations at different times as I have already stated, but when in each of these organizations I supposed I was under the church. When I foung out that they were teaching or practicing anything that was not authorized by the church prior to 1844 as the law is set forth in the bible, the book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants, why I left it at once. Now at the time, as I have stated, that I belonged to these different organizations I always supposed they were the true and direct descendant of the original church, and as soon as my error was revealed to me I left them, I left them as soon as I found they were not under the church.

378: Now these parties whom you mentioned as having been made members of that original church, under your administration in Wisconsin, and afterwards united with you for a short time under the banner of some of these other men, was not the true church, did not pretend to be the true church?
No sir.

379: But it was their belief and faith all the time, of all these parties that acted under your administration, in joining these various organizations, when they joined them that they were representing the original church?
I do not understand the question, but if it is that when we joined these organizations of James J Strang and William Smith, that in so doing we were uniting with the original church, we undoubtedly did.

380: That was their faith and belief?
Yes sir.

381: I believe you stated that you joined the church or organization led by Strang?
Yes sir, James J. Strang was looked upon as its leader.

382: Now when you joined the organization that was led by James J Strang, in what sense did you accept him as the leader?
Why was the head of the church, as the successor of Joseph Smith the prophet in the Presidency of the church. that is the sense that I accepted him as the leader.

383: You accepted him as the President of the church then?
Yes sir, as the successor of Joseph Smith in the Presidency of the church.

384: For that period of time?
What is that?

385: For what period of time?
Well I don’t understand now what you are driving at. “For what period of time, – I think you will have to make your meaning clearer before I can answer that question.

386: Well I mean this, – for what period of time was he to be the successor of Joseph Smith, according to his own teaching?
Well in accepting James J. Strang as the head of the church we accepted him as being the regular, genuine successor of Joseph Smith.

387: Well for what period of time was he to be the successor of Joseph Smith?
For the period of his life, – while he lived. 387 (Mistakenly listed as a second number 387)

387: While he lived, he was to be the head of the church.
Yes sir.

388: Now that is your understanding of it?
Yes sir.

389: Now let me refresh your memory on that point? Do you not know that his teaching was that he was appointed until the seed of Joseph Smith should fill Joseph Smith’s place, and that Strang was to be King when the see of Joseph Smith should fill Joseph Smith’s place? I call your attention to, that Mr Briggs for the purpose of refreshing your recollection?
Subsequently to my acceptance of the leadership of Strang that idea crept out.

390: What idea crept out?
That idea of claim of what ever it was called, about his successor, but I always understood that Strang claimed to be the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith by virtue of an appointment that he had received from Joseph Smith himself to be his successor.

391: It was through and by virtue of that letter of appointment from Joseph Smith, that he claimed to have received?
Yes sir.

392: That was what you understood his claim was based upon?
Yes sir.

393: And as soon as you and the other saints that had joined his organization found out that he was teaching other things that what had been taught in the original church, and which were not authorized by the doctrine of the church why then you discarded him?
Yes sir. We did.

394: Now you were asked by what authority Zenas H. Gurley raised up the branch at Palestine, and you answered that you thought he was a member of Strangs church?
Yes sir.

395: I will ask you if he was not authorized as a minister in the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints before the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir, he was.

396: What office did he in fact hold in that church?
Well he was an elder at least. I do not know of anything else.

397: Was he not one of the Seventy?
I am not aware that he was, and still he might have been. Let me see, – very likely he was, but still I don’t know that he was. He was made a President of the seventy after the death of Joseph Smith. I think from that that it is altogether likely that he was a seventy before Joseph Smith’s death, but still I do not know it.

398: As such an officer he had a right to raise up that church or branch, did he not aside from any authority that he might have received from Strang? Would not that be true Mr Briggs?
Well he was an elder in the original church, – there is no manner of question about that, and that would give him the right. Now I say he was an elder in the original church, but whether joining with Strang in validated that eldership that is a question to be determined I suppose if possible, but I will say that at the re organization and at no time since as far as my knowledge goes have we understood that it did.

399: Well no do you not know any way, that he was simply acknowledged, – that he was only acknowledging Strang as simply the leader of the church for a short time, and until he found out his pretentions and claims, then he rejected him?
I do not understand that question.

400: Now do you not know that Gurley simply acknowledged Strang as his leader and the church for a time and that when he found out his pretentions to be the leader of the church during his life, that then Gurley rejected him and his leadership?
Yes sir.

401: And was that not also true of William Smith?
How is that?

402: I asked you if that was not also the fact with reference to William Smith?
In what respect?

403: That you simply looked and accepted his claim for a short time, and that then when you found out what his pretentions were, and that they were false, you repudiated him?
Yes sir.

404: That was the way it was in your case?
Yes sir.

405: And it was so in the case of the others was it not?
Yes sir, I so understood it to be. I suppose that is the case, but of course I cannot speak positively only with reference to what happened in my own experience.

406: You did not understand that your authority to build up the church there was derived from William Smith did you?
At what time?

407: At any time, – when you belonged to his organization or at any other time?
No sir I did not.

408: I will ask you now if it is not a fact, that so far as the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1844 was not split to pieces was it not as a body and divided into numerous factions?
At what time?

409: At the time that you belonged to Strangs faction or organization, and also at the time that you belonged to William Smith’s organization?
Yes sir

410: That was after 1844 that the church split up into these different factions?
Yes sir.

411: This people with whom you were associated up there, were a people who were contending for the original doctrines of the church? Is that not a fact, that they were constantly contending for a maintanance of the original doctrines of the church in their purity?
Yes sir.

412: Now when you say that you withdrew from Brigham Young and these others, you mean simply that you repudiated them?
Yes sir. –

413: You repudiated their claim to rule the church as false, and their system and doctrine as heretical, and false?
Yes sir, I repudiated their claims to the Presidency as false, and that they were not entitled to govern the church, and on the ground that they were teaching false doctrines, and something that the church did not authorize.

414: When you say that you withdrew you mean that you just repudiated them?
That is all.

415: You do not mean to say that you withdrew from the church?
No sir, not from the true church, but I refused to have anything to do with the church as represented by them, – that is by Brigham Young and his adherents.

416: And further you were claiming all the time that you were following the church in succession from 1830, – or were following what represented the church in 1830, – did you not so claim the fact to be?
Yes sir.

417: That is what you claimed, – that the church was the church in succession established in 1830?
Well undoubtedly we did. I did I know.

418: You still claimed that you belonged to that church?
Yes sir I did I know, although we were under different leaders we still claimed what we belonged to the original church, and as soon as we learned that any of our leaders were teaching false doctrine that was not taught in the original church we left it, and that was the reason we left Strang and Smith, because we considered that they were teaching false doctrine or doctrines that were not authorized in the original church. It did not make any difference to us, for we still considered that we were in the church although under these different leaders.

419: Well now I will ask you in reference to this new movement, – did you consider that was a new movement in the way of organizing a new church was concerned, or was it simply a new movement in the way of more perfectly and actively organizing the scattered branches of the original church in a new organization, which now organization was in succession from the original?
Well I cannot say for I never called it the new church or the new movement or anything of that kind.

420: It could not be properly called that?
What, – a new movement or organization?

421: Yes sir?
No sir it could not be properly called that, for that would mean a new organization of a church, which this was not, at least I never considered it so.

422: Neither did the church as an organization?
No sir, it was always contending and believed that it was the original church in succession, – that was what we believed at the time that organization was effected.

423: That was your individual opinion, and that was also the attitude of the church as an organization?
Yes sir.

424: The church was simply reorganized and placed on a new footing as was necessary after the disruption?
Yes sir.

425: And you were one of the principle officers in it at that time?
Well I stated what I was. I stated that I was one of the seven that were chosen.

426: Now at the time of the reading of a paper, – of a paper as you say in the priesthood lodge, at which time, C.F. Stiles, E.R. Briggs and William W. Blair and yourself were present, – is that all that were present?
No sir, I was asked to give the names of the ones who were present at that time, and who are now living and these are the names that I gave of the ones that were there who are now alive, but there were a great many others there who are now dead you know.

427: Well did these parties whom you have named as being present, including W.W. Blair, – did they accept that doctrine of polygamy?
Yes sir, and I could name John Harrington as another one that was present, and Henry Long.

428: Well we do not care about that for they are not living, – are they living?
No sir, I think not.

429: Well if they are dead we don’t care about them?
Well these names I have given you are all living, – that is they all living as far as I know.

430: Do you remember the word “polygamy” was used in that paper?
 
What paper?

431: The paper that was read as you said at the meeting of that priesthood lodge?
I don’t know whether it was or not.

432: Did you ever see that paper?
Yes sir, I saw it when it was read to us.

433: Did you ever have a copy of that paper, -that paper that was read to you there that contained the alleged revelation?
No sir I never had a copy of it at all.

434: Did you know any body who ever did have a copy of it?
No sir I don’t know anything about that. I don’t know that there ever was a copy of it made or taken. I know I have no recollection of ever seeing it but that one time, and I don’t know that it was ever copied.

435: These parties whom you have named as being present, you do not name them for the purpose of showing that they accepted that revelation, do you Mr. Briggs?
No sir, that is not my object at all. I simply name them because I was asked to name who were present and I have given the names of the ones that I recollect as being there.

436: Well did these parties whom you have named, or any of them, to your knowledge ever accept the doctrine of polygamy?
No sir not that I know of.

437: They did not accept it then?
No sir, unless sitting there and listening to it being read could be called an acceptance of it.

438: Well they did not accept it to your knowledge?
No sir, unless being there could be called accepting it.

439: Well did they accept it, -did they pass upon it, and accept it themselves?
Not that I know of.

440: Was it passed upon?
No sir, it was not passed upon.

441: Did you accept the doctrine of polygamy?
It was not passed upon and consequently there was no acceptance to it at all. I know as I have stated that I did not accept it at all, and I don’t think the rest did. At any rate that did not do so at that time. It was simply read to us there.

442: So you do not mention W. W. Blair’s name here, as being connected with the doctrine of polygamy so far as the practice and belief of it is concerned?
No sir, I simply mention him as being one that was present and heard it read with the rest of us.

443: Don’t you know that it is a fact that the reading of certain things there was the occasion of your repudiating of William Smith, and the occasion of these other men repudiating him too?
I don’t know that was the sole reason.

444: Well you know do you not that it was one of the things?
It was the occasion of my being in trouble and was the cause of my cutting loose I presume, but what influenced the rest or all of the rest who repudiated him afterwards I do not know of my own knowledge. I presume that that had something to do with it.

445: Well that is all there is on that point? Now you were asked with reference to whether or not the reorganized church ever had a patriarch?
Yes sir.

446: Now is it not a fact that the same laws were accepted for the government of the reorganization, that were in the original church? Is that not the fact Mr. Briggs?
Yes sir, that is the fact, -at all events we so understood it.

447: And those laws related equally to the reorganization as they did to the original church?
What is that?

448: These laws I say applied to the reorganization, equally with the reorganized church?
We so understood it sir.

449: And if there was no patriarch or no baptism for the dead, there was a reason for it was there not?
Well I suppose so.

450: If they did not have the ordinance of baptism for the dead or a patriarch, there was a reason for it was there not?
Well there must be a reason of course. Of course there was no patriarch in the re-organized church and no baptism for the dead that I ever heard of.

451: I will ask you to state if the practice of baptism for the dead was stopped at Nauvoo prior to 1844, and during the life of the prophet?
Was it taught did you say?

452: No, was not the practice of it stopped during his life time, – – that is was it not stopped until proper preparation had been made for its performance in a proper manner?
Well I do not know that. I only know that it was practiced in 1848, but how long it was continued after that I do not know.

453: If the records show that there was a command, or statement of the First Presidency prohibiting it for certain reasons, until a certain time, why that would be correct would it not Mr Briggs?
yes sir, I recollect that there was a statement of that kind, but whether it was stopped I do not know anything about that for I was not there. I was not there after September 1843, and it was practiced then.

454: You say at the conference of 1853 I believe that there were certain parties, namely seven, set apart for the office of apostles who were ordained in that office and position under and by virtue of the authority of a revelation?
Yes sir.

455: That is the way they were selected and ordained?
Yes sir.

456: The authority of the ordination there, would be the first the revelation would it not, – that would be the prime authority would it not?
Yes sir, we so understand it at all events.

457: I believe you stated that you met Granville Hedrick at that conference?
No sir.

458: Then you did not meet him at that conference?
No sir.

459: What conference was it that you did meet him at?
It was subsequently, – I can’t fix the date, but it was subsequent to that date? It was some time after that conference.

460: Well he was in the conference?
How is that?

461: He was there in your conference?
He was at one conference. I recollect his being at one conference, but it was not at this one.

462: You are sure it was not at this conference we refer to?
My memory is that it was not at that conference. Now that is my recollection about it, and I am quite positive that it is correct.

463: Was he not in fact at more than one conference?
I am not aware that he was, – still he might have been. Yes sir he was, I recollect now that he was at the last conference I attended that year, – that is the conference at Amboy.

464: As a matter of fact he was at two conferences?
Yes sir.

465: In that first conference, he took part in the proceedings?
I am not aware that he did.

466: You would not say whether he did or did not?
Well I would not say, for there were people there that were not identified with us that took part in the conference in the way of doing some talking that were not members of the conference, and what they said was simply by courtesy of the conference. There were persons there that were not identified with us that did some talking, but I do not think they did any voting. I know that Granville Hedrick never became a member of the church at all. I think however that he had something to say there at that conference although he did not belong to the church.

467: You do not know whether he voted or not?
N0 sir He was never accounted a member of the reorganization, – I know that.

468: And he was never accounted a member of that local church?
No sir.

469: Did you not pass resolutions at that conference to this effect, declaring that all members of the original church, baptized curing the life of Joseph Smith, by proper authority, were proper members of the church?
Yes sir I think we did for so we held the fact to be.

470: And those who were appointed elders of the church in the original church could properly take part with you? Is that not the fact
Yes sir, we so held it.

471: You could not have held any other way could you?
No sir I could not. That seems to-me to be the logical conclusion, – that all who were leaglly ordained to office in the original church, or who were members of the old church could legally be members of the reorganization.

472: Then if Granville Hedrick was a member of the original church, he could take part with you, and legally also?
Yes sir he could but I do not understand that he did.

473: Well suppose that the record of the conference does show that, then what do you say?
The records shows that?

474: That Granville Hedrick did take part in the proceedings of the conference, – if the record shows that, then what have you to say?
Well my memory as I have stated is that he had something to say there, and that what he said was simply talk that he indulged in at the courtesy of the conference, and that he never did take part with us as a member of the conference. He never did take part with us as a member, – that I know, for he objected to a cardinal principle that we held to.

475: Well was there not a great many objections raised there concerning a great many principles?
Well there was no serious objection, –

476: Well you did not agree on all points did you, – you did not all agree on all points?
No sir not on all minor points, but we did on those fundamental principles. There was no objection to any of the fundamental principles that I know of.

477: Well now as far as Granville Hedrick is concerned, he believed in the bible didn’t he?
Yes sir.

478: And in the book of Mormon?
Yes sir.

479: And in the book of doctrine and covenants?
He did to a certain extent.

480: Did he not accept the book of doctrine and Covenants as published by the church?
No sir, – now wholly.

481: You have seen his work?
Yes sir”.

482: Have you seen his work entitled “The Spiritual wife System proven false, and the true order of church Discipline”?
Yes sir.

483: Have you read it?
Yes sir, I have read it.

484: Now do you not know that that work sets out the fact that the book doctrine and covenants, as published during the life time of Joseph Smith as being one of the fundamental works of the church?
Yes sir, I think so, but still my memory is that he did not accept it wholly. Now that is my recollection of it, for I am pretty positive that he did not accept it wholly.

485: Well was not this action in refusing to accept it wholly a subsequent act of his, – did not that action of his come out after the year 1860 more plainly?
Well now I will answer that by saying that I labored personally with Granville Hedrick at both of those conferences, and we could not, – he would not be made to see it as I saw it, and as I understood the church saw it, – that is in reference to the matter, and consequently he would not act with us. That was the trouble at that time, – that he would not see it as we saw it.

486: Now then I will read you a paragraph from “Exhibit “W”, on page fourteen, beginning at the words “now then”, and ending with the word “Gentile”, as follows, – “Now then, that Zion or the church is not delivered or established in peace, neither clothed upon the righteousness; but is in disgrace by her own members, and in bondage of one another, and of the world; and divided, that is, the church, since the death of Joseph has been rent in many divisions under different heads, or parties, being led by the cunning devices of such men as Strang, Brewster, Bishop, Banemy, Wm Smith and Brigham Young; in all six prominent parties, besides some other minor ones not necessary to name, thus has the church strangely deversified and distractedly wandered since the days of Joseph; Brethren you all remember that the book for Doctrine and Covenants says that Joseph was called to lay the foundation of a great work. Is this the work, that great work that Joseph was called to lay the foundation of so many false doctrines; did Joseph law the foundation for any of them? Joseph laid but the one foundation; now as there cannot be six or more different doctrines, all in, or on the same foundation, and all built up differently, or in different ways, and be just right. Joseph Smith was called to lay the foundation of a great work. How did he accomplish it? He translated the book of Mormon by the gift of power of God. In it comes forth the gospel to a nation of people once on this continent described to be the descendants of Joseph of Egypt. This book – then contains the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles” etc. Now was this not the doctrine of the re-organized church at that time?
Yes sir, substantially.

487: Now I will read again from page nineteen of the same exhibit, – “and that the Church of Jesus Christ being established again anew, upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the Son of God on the 6th day of April A.D. 1830, embracing the doctrine contained in the bible, book of Mormon and book of Doctrine and Covenants, for their faith and practice. These three above named inspired volumes was received by the whole church of Christ, as established anew again by Joseph Smith, to be the rock and pillar, and ground work of their faith and doctrine in Christ Jesus, in the first days and years of this the identical church of Jesus Christ; hence we have the foundation of this church before us, of which I profess to be a member”. Was not this the position of the reorganization as that time, or the church you had met with in conference there?
Substantially it was.

488: You recognize what I have read as a part of that book published by Granville Hedrick, do you not?
I do not remember now. I know that I read that book at the time that it was published or shortly afterwards. Well I can’t say that I read it or remember anything particularly that was in it, or the particular leaves that anything is on, as I did not own it, and only had it for a little while and glanced through it rather than read it. I only borrowed it as I did not own it. Defendants objects to any and all evidence, or extracts introduced as evidence, or for the purpose of refreshing the recollection of the witness, from Exhibit “W”, on the ground that it simply purports to be an expression of Granville Hedrick’s individual opinion, and he did not have authority to speak for either of the parties to this action, therefore it is incompetent, irrelevant and immeterial.

489: Now you stated in your examination in chief that you had not known the time in the reorganized church, when there was a full quorom of Twelve, and some other quoroms; and now I will ask you if the laws of the church do not provide that all quoroms shall have different grades of officers?
Yes sir, the law provides for it? Is that what you want to know.

490: Yes sir.
Why certainly. I so understand it.

491: Then the reason for not having these quoroms full has not been on account of any disagreements between the doctrine of the reorganized church, and the original church?
I do not quite comprehend the scope of your question.

492: I asked you if it is not a fact that the reason that these quoroms has not been full, is not on account of any disagreement of doctrine between the re-organized church and the original church?
Of course not. I would not think so.

493: It is simply on account of the fact the officers are to be called in a proper way, and other have not been pointed out – that is the fact in that connection is it not?
Yes sir, – expediency has been the governing rule or principle in that regard as I understand.

494: And not anything that would show or indicate a difference or distinction in the doctrine and belief of the reorganization as compared with the original church? Is that not it Mr Briggs?
Well I don’t understand it that way at all. I do not understand that to be the case.

495: Now you spoke of baptism for health?
Yes sir.

496: Was that a prominent feature of the doctrine of the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints any more than it is of the Re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints, if you know?
No sir, I never considered that it was considered essential, – it was simply permissive. It was simply permissable, but I never knew of its being practiced ig the reorganized church, at all. Now I do not say that it never was practiced in the reorganized church, but to my recollection I never knew of its being practiced.

497: And so far as it being a doctrine is concerned, you would not say that it was a doctrine obligatory or permisive in the old organization?
My understanding is that it was taught as a doctrine that is benificial, and was practiced at the will of the persons interested, but was not obligatory, – it was simply taught as a doctrine that was benificial. That is about all that I knew about it, for I never head an elder or any body else preach it.

498: That is in the old organization?
No sir. No where. I have never heard it taught as a present duty, but I have heard it taught. or rather advocated as beneficial, and in that sense it was practiced.

499: Do you know whether Gurley’s name was recorded on the record of Strang’s church?
Zenas H. Gurley?

500: Yes sir?
On what record did you say?

501: I asked you if you knew whether or not Zenas H. Gurley’s name was ever recorded on the records of the Strang’s church as a member of that organization?
Well I don’t know about that.

502: You don’t know whether it was or not?
No sir.

503: Personally you do not know whether his name was ever recorded on the list of the members of adherents of Strang’s church or organization, do you?
No sir I don’t know anything about it. If it was there I know I never authorized it to be put there.

504: Was not your relationship with Strang caused simply from the fact that at that time he was the best light you recognized in the church, and for that reason you joined his organization?
Yes sir, and that is the way I stated the fact to be. That was the reason I was with him, and I said that as soon as I saw that he was preaching doctrine that was contrary to what I considered and knew to be the true doctrine of the church that I left him at once. I considered that he was the head of the church,- the successor of Joseph Smith (handwritten in: writing of) that letter of appointment.

505: You accepted him at first and after-wards you found out that you were mistaking?
Well I thought I was mistaken at all events or should not have renounced his leadership.

506: And so it was with reference to you connection with William Smith?
Yes sir. I certainly did renounce that as soon as I found out that they were preaching and teaching doctrine that was as I viewed it, contrary to the doctrine as taught in the original church.

507: Now you also stated that there had been some revelations given by or through the present President of the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Da Saints, that had never been presented to the quorums?
Not to my knowledge. They were not presented to my knowledge.

508: You cannot say however that they were never presented to the quorums?
No sir I could not say that they never were,-I can only say that they were never presented to my knowledge.

509: Was the doctrine of the original church, and the doctrine of reorganization the same so far as belief in the fact,-that the bible,-the King James translation of the bible was not a perfect translation, and there ought to be another?
Of course that was taught.

510: Was it not the President of the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that translated the Bible, and that is the Holy Scriptures you referred to in your examination in chief?
It is so understood that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon translated it and corrected it.

511: And if the reorganized church also recognized that as a standard authority in the church also, do you understand that that would be changing their policy or doctrine from that of the original church?
Oh no, as a matter of course it wouldn’t.

512: That would not in your opinion constitute a change of doctrine or policy from that of the original church?
No sir.

513: Does not the reorganized church recognize the King James translation of the bible also?
Yes sir.

514: It not only recognizes it but it uses it in the services does it not?
Yes sir it is recognized by the church and used by its elders. There is no question about that. I think I have already clearly stated that, for I stated that at the outset of my examination that at the time of the conference at which the organization was effected, or put on foot, we then declared at the very outset, that we accepted the bible, the book of Mormon and the book of Doctrine and Covenants as the law for the guidance of the church, and of course the bible that we accepted was the King James translation for we did not have any other at that time. That is the translation of the bible that we meant in our acceptance of the bible as one of the books of doctrine.

515: You refer to the King James translation?
Yes sir.

516: Is it not the policy of the church, and has it not always been that the elders could use any and every translation?
I understand that they have that priveledge. I have never been required to use any other translation, – I mean to say that I have never been required to use any other translation that I am aware of.

517: You have not been required to use any one translation to the exclusion of the others, either, have you
No sir, not that I am aware of. I have never been required to do so I know, and I don’t know that I have ever heard of any one else who was.

518: Now you stated that it was Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon who translated and corrected that, – that is the new version?
Yes sir that is my understanding of it.

519: Now was it not Oliver Cowdery?
I understood that it was Sidney Rigdon.

520: Well do you understand of your own personal knowledge who it was?
I only know from the records, and the book of Doctrine and Covenants shows that it was Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon who were appointed to do the work, for the original church established in 1830.

521: Which body’s work was it in reality, – was it the work of the original church established in 1830 or was it the work of the reorganized church, – I refer to the translating of the scriptures, – was it the original church established in 1830 or was it the work of the reorganization?
It was the work of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon who were members of the original church, that is they were members of the original church organization.

522: And Presidents of the original church, too, were they not?
Well they belonged to the first Presidency, – Joseph Smith was the President, and Sidney Rigdon was his counsellor as I understood it.

523: And was not the revelation commanding that, accepted as authoritive by the original church?
Yes sir of course, I think it is the first edition of the book or doctrine and Covenants, and that was accepted by the General Sssembly.

524: You stated that when you were with William Smith at first the claim was made, that the seed of Joseph would eventually come forth?
Yes sir.

525: That was the statement that was made?
Yes sir.

526: I will ask you if it was not really the belief of all such Latter Day Saints,-all bodies of the Latter Day Saints, to a certain degree, so far as your knowledge goes or extended that the seed of Joseph Smith was the proper person to occupy their fathers place in time?
At what time?

527: After the death of Joseph Smith and up to the time that the present President of the re-organized church came forward and took his place at the head of the church,-was it not during that time the belief,-the all most universal belief, that the seed of Joseph were the proper one to occupy their fathers place?
Well there an element of that kind that always was present to a greater or lesser degree amongst all the Saints that I had anything to do with.

528: And that element predominated did it not in all the branches or churches that were represented in that conference that you have spoken of? That is the conference of 1852,-was not that element the dominant element in all the different branches or factions that had representation there?
Yes sir.

529: That is the idea that they held to?
Yes sir, they-were specifically planted on that idea.

530: That was the dominant idea in relation to whom was entitled to be at the head of the church?
Yes sir.

531: And that idea had been with the members of the church from the very time of the death of Joseph down to that time, had it not?
Oh, undoubtedly it had been with a great many.

532: Now you referred you say, to the fact of hearing some talk or gossip in Nauvoo, about a revelation on plural marriage?
Yes sir I have heard it talked about.

533: You would not pretend to identify that the polygamous revelation afterwards published by Brigham Young?
How is that?

534: You would not undertake to identify that revelation that you heard gossip about there at Nauvoo, with the polygamous revelation afterwards published by Brigham Young at Salt Lake City?
No sir of course I could not pretend to do anything of that kind, because there were no particulars given me about it, and as I did not see it or hear it read, I cannot say anything about that. Of course I don’t pretend, and do not say, that they were the same. None of the particulars in regard to it were given to me.

535: You simply heard chats on the streets and in private?
Yes sir.

536: That is the way you heard of it?
Yes sir.

537: You did not hear polygamy taught from the stand did you, or from the pulpit?
No sir.

538: And you did not hear it taught in public at all?
No sir, not at all. It was simply rumor that I heard-that was all. I never heard anything taught about it publicly from the stand or in any other way. What I heard was from individuals in their own houses-elders and members of the church, and the like.

539: Well they did not teach polygamy did they?
Polygamy was never named at all,-it was sealing what they called it, and did not say anything about polygamy.

540: Sealing was what you heard talked about?
Yes sir.

541: It was sealing for eternity?
Yes sir sealing for eternity,-sealing for time, and for eternity also.

542: Did you see the paper that claimed to be the revelation at that time?
The paper on which it was claimed to be written?

548: Yes sir?
No sir, I did not see the revelation and was not told anything about its contents specifically, but I heard it in a general way as a rumor more than anything else, a rumor that there was such a revelation in existence.

544: Then you did not see the revelation at that time?
No sir, not at that time, nor at any other time since then. I never saw it at all.

545: Do you know where or not your brother Silas Briggs was ever connected with any of the factions that were formed out of the church, prior to his uniting with the church, or the conference that culminated in that reorganization?
Well he acted with the twelve that was formed under the leadership of James J. Strang, and he accepted in some sense or in some degree the leadership of James J. Strang, but he could not be really called an active member of that organization.

546: Was he ever a member in reality?
Well I really do not know where he was or not.

547: Well was he a member of the individuals who accepted Strang?
Well I know that he was accounted as one who accepted the leadership of James J. Strang. I know he was there at different times and of course it could be said that we was a member of that organization.

548: In order to refresh your recollection regarding this matter, I will call your attention to the testimony of Elder E.C. Briggs given in this case, in which he stated that his brother Silas (who would be your brother of course) was never identified as a member with them, now in the face of that statement would you say that he was?
I haven’t said that he was.

549: Well I understood you to say that he was?
You have misunderstood me, for I did not state that he ever formally united with Strang. He acted I think with the body that he represented, but I do not know that he ever formally united with that organization.

550: Well then you cannot stated, that all of these parties that took part in that conference had been connected with some other branch of the church?
I cannot say. I have not stated that all of them did. If I did, and I have no recollection of doing so, I did not mean to make the statement in that way, but I will say now that while I do not know that such was the fact, yet I do not know of an exception. There may be an exception, but if there is I do not know of any.

551: And these parties that you mention as having taken part, you do not know or understand that they had left the original church at all, or any of them?
No sir, I simply gave them the same credit that I asked for, that is the credit of good intentions. I do not know I said of any that had not joined some of these different organizations, and in joined them I expect they each at the time believed it was the church all the time, that is that each of them at the time believed it was the true church they were joining, and that they were in the church all the time I cannot say of course as to the secret motives in their breast that impelled them to join these factions or organizations, but I know that in my action in doing so I thought it was the church that I joined, else I should not have joined them.

552: They were simply members of the original church, and were looking for the proper leader of the church? Is that not the fact Mr Briggs?
I suppose so. As I said before I cannot say as to the secret motives that impelled them, but I know as to the “Strangites”. I for one believed for a time that we had the true leader, and when I satisfied myself that I was mistaken I left him.

553: All these parties had been leaders. – I mean that had been members of the original church, and after the death of Joseph Smith they were looking for the proper leader of the church?
Yes sir, that is the way I understand it.

554: And you thought that you had found the true leader in Mr Strang?
Yes sir.

555: And as soon as you found out it was not Mr Strang, then you repudiated Strang?
Yes sir.

556: And you did not understand that you left the original church when you left Strang?
No sir I do not understand it that way, and never did.

557: I will ask you to state Mr Braggs, if after you left the reorganized church, you found out, – or at the time you left it, you found out that you had made the same mistake with regarr to young Joseph Smith being the leader of the church, that you had made with regard to Strang being the leader, and these other men being the leader?
 

558: You may answer the question?
What is the question.

559: I asked you if you were mistaken, – I will ask you to state whether or not you found out that you were mistaken in regard to what you found out in regard to the claims of, young Joseph Smith, the present President of the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, – whether or not you made the same mistake as you afterwards found out in regard to his being the true leader or head of the church, that you had made in the case of Strang?
Do you want me to answer that question?

560: Yes sir?
Well if it is necessary for me to answer it I could do so.

561: Do you decline to answer that question?
Well that is a question that I could answer yes or no. I cannot answer it either yes, or no, and do myself justice, or you justice, but I can answer it if I have to.

562: Well just answer it in your own way?
I have already state substantially why I withdrew from the reorganized church. I have already stated that, and now I do not conceive that it is necessary for me to state that there were other reasons, for there my be other reasons besides that, but not questions or reasons necessarily involving the Presidency, for that is a matter that did not figure in reference to my withdrawal from the church, – that point did not figure at all when I withdrew.

563: I will ask you to state whether or not you still consider yourself to be a member of rhe church?
In what way?

564: Well in any way? Do you still consider yourself a member of the church in the same sense that you considered yourself to be a member of the church when you repudiated Strang’s organization or William Smith’s organization?
Do I still consider myself a member of the original church? Is that your question?

565: Yes sir, a member of the original church in the same sense that you considered yourself a member of the original church at the time that you left Strang’s organization or William Smith’s organization?
I do not know how to answer that question.

566: I mean a member of the original church that you joined in 1841?
 

567: Answer the question Mr. Briggs?
Well no I do not for I have decided in my own mind that I am not a member of the church. I will state to relieve this complication that I do not now consider myself a member of any church at the present time.

568: I will ask you to state, as you were asked the question in your cross examination. I will ask you to state where or not W.W. Blair, whether you know that he remained a member of William Smith’s church after this revelation had been presented at the meeting regarding which you spoke, at which he was present, and where it was read, concerning the plurality of wives?
Yes sir it is my understanding that he did remain for some time. I know that after I left William Smith’s organization I received a letter from him rebuking me for the step I had taken, and consequently I infer that he was then in William Smith’s church. For he wrote in the interest of William Smith and he scarcely would have done that had he not been in his church. I received that letter some time after I had left William’s church or organization.

569: And subsequent also to these meetings that you have referred to, this meeting where the revelation on plurality of wives was read?
Yes sir of course it was subsequent to that?

570: I will ask you to state whether or not this letter that was written to you was in regard to rejecting this revelation of William Smith’s on plural marriage.
 

571: You may answer the question?
Well now I am not aware, and do not think, in fact I am quite sure that none of his letters ever referred to that particular document. That is to that revelation. I was rebuked not for the rejection of that, or the slighting of it, but for rejecting William Smith. That was the subject of his complaint, and what he objected to, the rejection of William Smith.

572: Now you were asked in your cross examination, if there was not a resolution passed, recognizing, or urging the members of the church all that had been members of the old church, and who had not departed from the original faith?
Yes sir

573: I will ask you whether or not the church or that gathering there, could by resolution make people mem- bers of that organization that was effected there in 1853 without their consent?
No sir.

574: A resolution could not do – that?
No – sir, we never held to the idea that we could hold or claim a member against his will. That was an idea that I never heard advanced in the church at the time or since; but we did hold then and all the time since while I was a member of the church, that all who were eligible could come in, and all the members duly baptized by proper authority in the old church could come into the reorganization if they had not departed the faith and then they could come in by being re-baptized, but all old members who has remained staedfast in the faith, could come into the reorganization on their original baptism.

575: Provided they would not make application?
Yes sir of course.

576: You were asked in regard to the quoroms not being filled, and if there was not a law providing for it?
Yes sir

577: Now I will ask you to state whether or not the prac tice of the old church in regard to filling a quo- rom and the practice of the reorganized church in that respect is not different?
How is that?

578: I asked you to state if it is not a fact that the law of the old church and its practice in regarding to the filling of quoroms in the church, and the prac- tice of the reorganized church in the same regard is not different, – that is if the law and practice of the reorganized church in that regard is not different from the practice and law of the old church?
Well I could not say as to that only from what I I have learned from the records of the old church, or the first organization. I always understood that there was a similarity, but I suppose there was a difference in some respects, and I presume there was.

579: I will ask you, in-as-much as that question has been asked you on cross examination, to state whether or not, – if there was a law requiring baptism by imersion for the remission of sins in the old church, and that was practiced in the old church, but there was a law in the reorganized church requir ing baptism by imersion for the remission of sins, but that was not practiced in the reorganized church whether the reorganized church would be the same in doctrine and practice as the old church was?
I do not understand that question, – you will have to re- peat it.

580: I asked you if there was a law requiring baptism by imersion for the remission of sins in the old original church, and that was practiced in the original church and there was a law in the reorganized church requir ing baptism by imersion for the remission of sins, and that law was not practiced in the reorganized church whether in that event the reorganized church would be the same in doctrine and practice that the original church was?
well most assuredly I would think it would not be the same in that respect at least. I would not think it was the same in that respect most assuredly.

581: Well I will ask you to state whether or not it is a fact, that it was the doctrine and practice of the old church to have Twelve apostles, and it is the doc trine and practice of the reorganized church to have Twelve apostles, and they do not have twelve apostles, and never have had twelve apostles, whether the practice of the reorganized church is the same in the regard as it, – was the practice of the original church?
I understand and have always understood and the reorganized church has always understood so far as my knowledge goes up to the time that I ceased to be a member of it, – on that point, – – that there is a law recognized by the church, by which a majority may form a quorom, for if that was not the practice it would sometimes be impossible to do any business. It is impossible that it should be other wise.

582: Well is it not a fact that after William H. Deem, –
It is Henry H. Deem.

583: Well Henry H. Deem was excuminicated from the church, and another with him, but at that time there was not a quorom of Twelve?
There was not for a certain length of time, – there was not a majority both then and afterwards.

584: I will ask you to state whether or not in this case there was a controversy to rise, – to arise, – regarding any doctrine, – whether or not the inspired translation of the bible would be taken as authority in preference to the King James translation of the bible?
I am not aware that it was ever used in that way. I don’t know that it ever was. It is considered an authority and superior to the old translation by many, but I don’t know that it was ever used that way and as no instance has ever come up in which that question was raised I cannot say what would be done.

585: Now I want to ask you another question which is not re-direct, but as I missed it on my direct examination I will now ask you it as a part of your re-direct examination. I want you to state Mr Briggs if there is any difference between a general Conference, and a General Assembly?
Well I understand that there is.

586: I will ask you to state whether or not to the best of your knowledge there has ever been a general assembly held by the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
There has never been as I understand it.

587: That is all?
 

588: The laws of the reorganized church provide for calling one, whenever it is thought necessary by the body, do they not?
How is that?

589: The laws of the reorganized church provide for the calling of a General Assembly whenever the body of the church deems it necessary, do they not?
Well I don’t know. I don’t know that the law alludes to it at all, but I have always understood that it was competent for the church to call a general assembly whenever it was deemed necessary. II. That has always been my understanding of it, but I do not know that the laws of the church have any reference to it, still they may, – I will not say that they do not.

590: The laws of the reorganized church upon that subject is just the same as it was in the original church, is it not?
Well as I said I do not understand that the law authorizes it in every case just specifically.

591: If it did in one case, it would in another wouldn’t it?
Of course, – these is not question about that.

592: Was there ever a general assembly in the original church during the time that you were a member of it from 1841 to 1844?
Well not that I am aware of sir. I don’t think there ever was.

593: That is all.