Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1916, Page 67

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112

der Ev.⸗Luth. Synodalkonferenz von Nordamerika. 1916. 67

a joint committee appointed for this purpose in 1911, and thereby
declared that there was no difference in confession to prevent con-
solidation;

“‘Whereas thereupon a joint committee, appointed by said church-
bodies in 1912, — the Norwegian Synod having in 1913 enlarged the
authority of its committee, — had prepared a report on Conditions of
Union and Articles of Union, which were adopted by the Norwegian
Synod and the United Church at their respective annual meetings
in 1914;

“‘Whereas thereupon a constitution for the proposed consolidated
church-body was prepared by the last-named joint committee, and
adopted by the United Church at its annual meeting in 1915; and

“‘Whereas this extraordinary meeting of the Synod is called and
convened to adopt or reject this constitution, and thereby finally de-
termine whether the Synod would join with the United Church and
the Hauge Synod in forming a church-body,

“‘Be it hereby resolved, That the above-mentioned constitution
is hereby adopted and the said Articles of Union and Conditions of
Union are hereby again adopted, and the Norwegian Synod hereby
obligates itself to join with the United Church and the Hauge Synod
in the formation of one church-body under the thus adopted con-
stitution and in accordance with the thus adopted Conditions of Union
and Articles of Union.’

“The substitute motion presented by Rev. I. B. Torrison was then
moved by Rev. G. A. Gullixon, and read as follows: —

“‘Whereas a large minority in the Synod, of which the under-
signed are a part, for their conscience’ sake cannot enter into union
before “Opgjoer” is revised by leaving out paragraph 1, and the words
“acceptance of” in paragraph 4, and in paragraph 3 the reference to
the Book of Concord be from 1 to 20;

“‘Therefore the undersigned, who otherwise consider division
unavoidable in the Church, submit the following resolution: The
Synod urges the United Church and the Hauge Synod to adopt these
changes in “Opgjoer,” and the corresponding words in the motion,
and declare that the adoption of the constitution be postponed until
this request is granted.’

“We shall not attempt to give any resumé of the speeches in this
debate, but refer all readers to the annual report, which will contain
a complete report of all the speeches pertaining to the union question.

“Rev. J. A. Thorsen spoke in favor of the substitute. A motion
was then made by Rev. N. Boee to table the substitute. This was
carried. Rev. I. B. Torrison demanded roll-call, but later withdrew
his request, and the debate on the main motion continued. The
motion was supported by Rev. R. Malmin and Editor Thomas Nilsson,
and opposed by Rev. John Halvorson and Prof. C. K. Preus. The

of the Ev. Luth. Synodical Conference of North America. 1916. 67

[Printed in English.]

a joint committee appointed for this purpose in 1911, and thereby
declared that there was no difference in confession to prevent con-
solidation;

“‘Whereas thereupon a joint committee, appointed by said church-
bodies in 1912, — the Norwegian Synod having in 1913 enlarged the
authority of its committee, — had prepared a report on Conditions of
Union and Articles of Union, which were adopted by the Norwegian
Synod and the United Church at their respective annual meetings
in 1914;

“‘Whereas thereupon a constitution for the proposed consolidated
church-body was prepared by the last-named joint committee, and
adopted by the United Church at its annual meeting in 1915; and

“‘Whereas this extraordinary meeting of the Synod is called and
convened to adopt or reject this constitution, and thereby finally de-
termine whether the Synod would join with the United Church and
the Hauge Synod in forming a church-body,

“‘Be it hereby resolved, That the above-mentioned constitution
is hereby adopted and the said Articles of Union and Conditions of
Union are hereby again adopted, and the Norwegian Synod hereby
obligates itself to join with the United Church and the Hauge Synod
in the formation of one church-body under the thus adopted con-
stitution and in accordance with the thus adopted Conditions of Union
and Articles of Union.’

“The substitute motion presented by Rev. I. B. Torrison was then
moved by Rev. G. A. Gullixon, and read as follows: —

“‘Whereas a large minority in the Synod, of which the under-
signed are a part, for their conscience’ sake cannot enter into union
before “Opgjoer” is revised by leaving out paragraph 1, and the words
“acceptance of” in paragraph 4, and in paragraph 3 the reference to
the Book of Concord be from 1 to 20;

“‘Therefore the undersigned, who otherwise consider division
unavoidable in the Church, submit the following resolution: The
Synod urges the United Church and the Hauge Synod to adopt these
changes in “Opgjoer,” and the corresponding words in the motion,
and declare that the adoption of the constitution be postponed until
this request is granted.’

“We shall not attempt to give any resumé of the speeches in this
debate, but refer all readers to the annual report, which will contain
a complete report of all the speeches pertaining to the union question.

“Rev. J. A. Thorsen spoke in favor of the substitute. A motion
was then made by Rev. N. Boee to table the substitute. This was
carried. Rev. I. B. Torrison demanded roll-call, but later withdrew
his request, and the debate on the main motion continued. The
motion was supported by Rev. R. Malmin and Editor Thomas Nilsson,
and opposed by Rev. John Halvorson and Prof. C. K. Preus. The