The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-10-20
However, the Effort to Pre-
vent the Paper Being In
cIuded in the Minutes Was
Not a Successful One.
NEBRASKA FRIENDS WIN.
fhey viii Be Set Apart as an Inde-
pendent Meeting Delegates Will
Be Named to Inter.church Confer
Ance.

world heaven and hell are states. not
places" was the startling statement
made by Ebert Russell, professor of
biblical literature, at Earlham college,
before the Five Years Meeting Of
Friends, at Saturday afternoons ses-
sions. The unorthodox views, as
many of the older Friends termed
them, precipitated the warmest de-
bate that has yet occurred before the
meeting-a debate as to whether or
not the entire paper, by virtue of this
one startling statement,-and many
others thought not to be in strict &C
cordance with Friends doctrines,
should not be stricken from the min
utes of the meeting. The views of
Prof. Russell were branded in private
by the older members of the meeting
as heretical. Many Friends who did
not speak. listened with intense inter-
est, to the arguments of the more
bold ones who desired Prof. Russells
views suppressed. Equally as many
Friends were prompt in protecting
Prof. Russe;rs paper against suppress
sion, arguing that the Five Years
meeting was open to free discussion
and views, and maintained that not
because the doctrines inculcated in
them, were against the beliefs of a
few, should the whole be suppressed.
Luke Woodard of Indiana Yearly
meeting, one Of the Oldest ministers
in the church, when the discussion
was opened, arose and forcefully said
the teachings of Prof. Russell were
not by any means in accordance with
Friends doctrines and moved that the
entire paper be suppressed, for fear
the belief might spread, that by its
acceptance to the minutes it would
generally be conceded that the meet
ing sanctioned the views incorporat
ed In 1t. BY vote taken on the sub
ject however, Prof. Russell's paper
was retainined in the meeting rec
ords.
Older Members Oppose.
It was a most noticeable fact. that
only the older members of the
Friends denomination. spoke forcibly
against the acceptance of Prof. Rus
sells paper for the records. The
younger men, in the main, arose in
his defense, fact which seems to in
dicate that the younger ministers and
~ fha or
opting more liberal Interpretation
of Friends beliefs, while the Older
members of the church are strictly
maintaining the original conceptions
of the Quaker forefathers. In speak
ing of the heated discussion on the
paper after the meeting had adjourn
ed the apparent age division of sen
timent was the source of much dis
eussion. The older members stoutly
maintained that the younger gener
alton are drifting toward the accep
tance of worldly ideas and therefore
destroying the original sacred Friend
beliefs, while the younger members
Of the denomination firmly said, tha
position is not for the acceptance O
the majority of Prof. Russell's radica
views-for even they ruled that some
of them are radical for Quaker-bu
for the principle of free thought anC
free speech on religious affairs in thu
church. 1t was not so much a cues
ton of the acceptance of the views
but their admittance to Quaker rec
ords, that they might be examined
and Prof Russell not too harshly judg
ed. in many instances probabl,
through a mistaken idea of its rea
contents and Interpretation.
That the question IF the advent O
modernism into Quaker beliefs, hat
to make it's appearance in Quake
meetings sooner or later for discus
sion, was generally conceded. Th
older members of the church hav,
constantly felt that the time was sool
coming when the issue would b.
brought to the surface, and now fee
that since the field has been opened
the yearly meetings will undoubtedl
lake the matter up.
1t was limited among several dele
gates, ali of the older generation. tha
Prof. Russell's address would probat
1y be analyzed by the various yearl
meetings and recommendations as t