FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   143   144   145   >>  
defeat, and when that fact was made known to those in favor of lay delegation, they said they would accept it then with that interpretation, and the interpretation was that the amendment would let women into the General Conference. Now, that being true, all this talk about the idea of the "women coming in" being never entertained until very recently falls to the ground. It was present on that occasion. It was understood by those that opposed lay delegation, and that favored it, that if they passed this amendment and the laymen were allowed to come in, it would open the door to allow women to come in also. L. C. Queal said: I think I am entitled now to correct this putting of the case. Bishop Foss: Are you misrepresented? L. C. Queal: I am misrepresented in this, that while I stated that Dr. Sherman put that on as a "rider," with a view to defeating the bill, that immediately after thinking so I thought it might be the occasion of securing the approval of the principle in the laity of the Church. That is all I stated. All the rest of Dr. Leonard's statement is his own inference--a misconstruction of the fact. A.B. Leonard: I understood Dr. Queal as I stated. I have not had time to refer to the speech he made. I leave his statement with you, and you have the privilege of consulting his speech as it is printed this morning, in reference to this matter. It came to my thought very distinctly that the idea of the possibility of women coming in was then lodged in the minds that were both in favor of and opposed to lay delegation. Now, then, this vote that was taken, in accordance with the order of 1868, laid the foundation stone for the introduction of women into this body. That sent the question of lay delegation down to be voted on by the laity of the Church. If the women were not to be recognized as laity here, why allow them to vote on the question of the laity at all? And, having allowed them to vote on the question of the laity, settling the very foundation principle itself, with what consistency can we disallow them a place in this General Conference, when by their votes they opened the way for the laymen coming into this General Conference? Do you not remember that we had a vote previously, and the men only voted, and that the lay delegation scheme was defeated, and the _Methodist_, that was published in this city, being the organ of the lay delegationists, said that "votes ought to be weighed, not
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   143   144   145   >>  



Top keywords:

delegation

 

coming

 
question
 
stated
 

General

 
Conference
 

foundation

 
speech
 

statement

 

misrepresented


Church
 

principle

 

Leonard

 

thought

 

occasion

 

understood

 

amendment

 

interpretation

 

opposed

 

allowed


laymen
 

possibility

 
matter
 

reference

 

published

 
delegationists
 

distinctly

 

weighed

 

lodged

 

accordance


settling

 

consistency

 

morning

 

disallow

 

opened

 
remember
 

scheme

 

defeated

 

introduction

 

previously


recognized

 

Methodist

 

immediately

 

passed

 

entitled

 
Bishop
 
putting
 

correct

 
favored
 

present