# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1882_S78
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

— 78 —

then to see how its delegates voted. But to part without a vote would also be awkward and strange. Whoever can vote here, let him do so. — This vote is, as it were, an inquiry as to who stands with us and who with our opponents, a question to each: Where do you stand? It is not a vote on truth and error, but we should like to learn where there is still a dissensus, in order to remove it. Unfortunately we have so little time now to pursue this purpose and to bring about unity through discussion.

Thereupon another Norwegian delegate raised the question how our further conduct toward such opponents as Pastor Muus was to be arranged in the Synodical Conference. We had not yet held any doctrinal discussions with him, he said, and could therefore not let disciplinary proceedings against Pastor Muus follow the vote on the committee report.

The answer was: "We have no disciplinary power at all in the Synodical Conference. We can do nothing here further than, because we are brethren, to try to admonish one another. At most we could report Pastor Muus to his synod. With Prof. Schmidt quite another case is before us. Without denying the truth we could not sit together with him as with a brother and assessor."

To the earlier objections of another Norwegian brother the request was addressed that he tell us how he believed we ought to proceed. It lay evidently in circumstances that we cannot change.

The same man answered: "My opinion is this: we should first negotiate with Pastor Muus on the doctrine and help him to see what is right, and only then should the vote on the doctrine be taken. But if we cannot do that, we should rather postpone the vote and first arrange a disputation.

To this it was replied: How much has already been negotiated with Pastor Muus! To negotiate further with him is first of all the duty of the Norwegian Synod.

It may well be that our enemies will construe this our course of action badly. But I do not regard this vote as a conclusion of the whole matter, but only as an orientation as to who among the delegates is united in doctrine. And that is surely not at all out of order and against the order. We can, right after the vote, if we have time, continue to deliberate on the doctrine. — So it was then

Resolved, that we adopt the committee report before us.

Only Pastor Muus voted against.