Confirmation

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

(4th and last page of Forordning 1759)

 

The chapter by Tveit (1986) is a bit too long to post in thhis way.

 

[Richard Olsen]

Ivar S

 

I now believe that you misinterpreted Dahl's statement. The reference to Tveit was for the skoleloven 1848, and was not meant to include confirmation. Makes sense since the rekript did not mention confirmation. No flaw on Dahl's part, only on yours.

 

Where do you agree?

1. There was compulsory confirmation

2. That law lasted until 1912

3. Unconfirmed 19-year-olds and older could be sent to prison

 

Lets put aside what we agree on and focus on the disagreement

 

Thank you for providing the 4 pages, however, it is too small for my eyes to read.

Endret Juni 10, 2022 av Richard Olsen

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

You cited this from Dahl:

Sitat

Dessuten kunne
man straffes dersom man ikke hadde blitt konfirmert: Hvis en person ikke hadde
møtt til konfirmasjonen innen fylte 19 år, kunne vedkommende settes i tukthus
eller gapestokk. Denne bestemmelsen kom i 1764, og falt først vekk med skoleloven
av 1848.12 Selve konfirmasjonstvangen forsvant først ut ved lov i 1912.

 

Footnote 12

Sitat

12 Ved loven av 1848 ble det slutt på tvangskonfirmering i tukthus, mens ukonfirmerte over 19 år nå kunne bli satt
i arbeidsanstalter. De skulle dog ikke lenger settes i straffeanstalter (Tveit 1986: 57).

 

Tveit p. 57 is this:

 

Footnote 42 is the Reskript that I included above.

 

Notice that the Reskript - and Tveit - , refer to school attendance, while Dahl says confirmation.

 

 

You can open the images in a new window, and then zoom the text.

 

 

[Richard Olsen]

Thank you for that information.

 

It takes awhile to translate it with Google, and Google does not always get it correct. I understand some of it on my own.

 

I am confused by your comments. You say Tveit does not mention confirmation, and you provide a copy of Tveit p. 57 and it clearly mentions confirmation.

 

I truly appreciate the time and effort you are putting into this discussion. But, your contradictions are confusing. First, you present links to information that is irrelevant to this discussion, and now you make statements that are contradicted by the image you provided.

 

I believe that it is time to end this discussion. My questions have been answered satisfactory.

Endret Juni 10, 2022 av Richard Olsen

[Richard Olsen]

1 hour ago, Ivar S. Ertesvåg said:

 

REMOVED

Endret Juni 10, 2022 av Richard Olsen

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

2 timer siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

I am confused by your comments. You say Tveit does not mention confirmation, and you provide a copy of Tveit p. 57 and it clearly mentions confirmation.

 

The entire chapter of Tveit is about confirmation. In this particular contex, however, the specific passage for the 1764 reskript reads

Sitat

Foreldre som forsømte å sende barna til skolen, skulle få mulkt. Låg feilen hos barna sjølve, kunne dei straffast med tukthus

Dahl refers Tveit here and make it to

Sitat

Dessuten kunne man straffes dersom man ikke hadde blitt konfirmert: Hvis en person ikke hadde
møtt til konfirmasjonen innen fylte 19 år, kunne vedkommende settes i tukthus
eller gapestokk. Denne bestemmelsen kom i 1764,

My underlining in both cites.

However, as pointed out, the works of Dahl and Tveit are not primary sources.

 

2 timer siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

First, you present links to information that is irrevelant to this discussion, and now you make statements that are contradicted by the image you provided.

 

You are not sure about your understanding of Danish and Norwegian, and yet you state that my postings are irrelevant and contradictory...?

All my 6 links (Dissenterlova 1845, Forordning 1736, Proposition 1889, Forordning 1759, Tveit(1986), Reskript 1764) are relevant to

answer your questions. Notice that 4 of these are legislation, one is from the Storting about the legislation.

Ok ... Tveit(1986) was not relevant for your question; just the misunderstood source of your source.

 

Moreover, you make strong statements about the legislation  - without reading or understanding it yourself. 

Who asked about "trolling"?

[Richard Olsen]

1 hour ago, Ivar S. Ertesvåg said:

You are not sure about your understanding of Danish and Norwegian, and yet you state that my postings are irrelevant and contradictory...?

You are fully aware that I do not speak, read, or write in the Norwegian language, otherwise you would not write here in English. However, I can understand enough, and with translations using Google or something else I can have an understanding of the text material.

 

I fail to observe the significance to referencing a dissenter's law 1845 and a proposition on 1889. They did not  answer the questions on compulsory confirmation and potential penalty for unconfirmed people or their parents,pastor, teacher.

 

Regardless, there was compulsory confirmation and a potential penalty to someone if a person was not confirmed by age 19. (No primary sources you could provide would change this)

 

I am curious as to why you provided a link to Tveit p. 55

 when the reference was to Tveit p. 57

 

 

Endret Juni 10, 2022 av Richard Olsen

[Ivar S. Ertesvåg]

22 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

You are fully aware that I do not speak, read, or write in the Norwegian language, otherwise you would not write here in English. However, I can understand enough, and with translations using Google or something else I can have an understanding of the text material.

Forum rules: "3. To the extent it is possible, answer a discussion in the same language as the discussion creator." 

You created the discussion in English. You sited and referred, even translated,  several sources that were in Norwegian.

 

26 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

I fail to observe the significance to referencing a dissenter's law 1845 and a proposition on 1889. They did not  answer the questions on compulsory confirmation and potential penalty for unconfirmed people or their parents,pastor, teacher.

The Dissenter law 1845  made it legally accepted not to be a member of the State Church. Since confirmation (your question) was a seremony in the State Church, it could not be compulsory for non-members. This was relevant for your question, and gave an answer that confirmation was not compulsory for all Norwegians.

 

The proposition (i.e. a proposal from the King/government to the Storting to decide on legal matters) gave a discussion on confirmation.  Among other things, it stated that not all adults were confirmated- in some cases because they were not members of the State Church, in some cases because they in theory violated the regulations. Furthermore, it stated that the lack of confirmation had no practical effects in the society. This was relevant for your question.

 

33 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

I am curious as to why you provided a link to Tveit p. 55

 when the reference was to Tveit p. 57

I provided a link to pp. 56-57 of Tveit (and an excerpt image of p. 57). 

The "page=55" in the link is an identifier of that double-page image in the digital edition by the National Library. This image numbering does not

match the page numbering of the document (I do not know the reason for this).

 

[Richard Olsen]

This will be my last posting on this discussion. If you need to have the last word, go for it. To continue this discussion would be to simply stroke our egos

 

First, thank you for your time and effort.

 

Although I believe that you did not contribute much to answering my questions, I now understand your focal point. You set out to prove that not ALL Norwegians were under compulsory confirmation. I appreciate learning about that. However, my focus was on knowing if there was compulsory confirmation with a potential penalty attached in Norway. Perhaps now you will understand why I feel that the first links you provided here were irrelevant to my question. Your follow-up information and links also did nothing to answer my question. You appeared to attempt to deny that there was compulsory confirmation (with a potential penalty) in Norway. This made me suspicious of your agenda.

 

I thank you, again, for the learning opportunity. This could be a learning opportunity for you as well. Learn not to enter into a discussion or research being bias (I have been a Researcher for more than 40 years)

[Are S. Gustavsen]

17 timer siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

This will be my last posting on this discussion. If you need to have the last word, go for it. To continue this discussion would be to simply stroke our egos

 

First, thank you for your time and effort.

 

Although I believe that you did not contribute much to answering my questions, I now understand your focal point. You set out to prove that not ALL Norwegians were under compulsory confirmation. I appreciate learning about that. However, my focus was on knowing if there was compulsory confirmation with a potential penalty attached in Norway. Perhaps now you will understand why I feel that the first links you provided here were irrelevant to my question. Your follow-up information and links also did nothing to answer my question. You appeared to attempt to deny that there was compulsory confirmation (with a potential penalty) in Norway. This made me suspicious of your agenda.

 

I thank you, again, for the learning opportunity. This could be a learning opportunity for you as well. Learn not to enter into a discussion or research being bias (I have been a Researcher for more than 40 years)

 

Mr. Olsson,

 

Beggars are not choosers.

 

The latest responses towards Mr. Ertesvåg fail to be genuine, as they are spiteful, thus rendering a level of scholarly dishonesty. 

 

The complete lack of proper understanding in a certain field, proves a weak platform for a utter condescending remarks when being provided sound information by proper scholars.

 

Your participation seems void of highly needed gratitude.

 

Perhaps you should rethink your position?

 

Are S. Gustavsen

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard Olsen]

Are S is apparently a mind reader. I will not allow you to drag me into an argument to satisfy your ego. I studied people like you for decades. I know exactly what you are doing, more than you know about yourself.

 

First and foremost, I do appreciate and respect Ivar S time and effort. If he and you are as scholarly as you believe then the two of you will understand and respect the honesty amongst qualified Researchers. Scholarly communication amongst qualified people is about honesty, and not stroking each other's ego.

 

Any qualified scholar would have observed and analyzed the miscommunications within this discussion. Obviously, at least to me, Ivar S and I were communicating different focal points. Ivar S had his own agenda, conflicting with my question. Enough said about it.

 

Obviously, there are at least a few Norwegians who would rather cover-up the fact that there was once a compulsory confirmation law with a potential penalty. If I had known that I would not have placed the question.

 

Are S, if you have a continuing need to stroke your ego, you may have the last word. (My studies allow me to comprehend your mental and emotional needs)

 

Be respectful enough to spell the surname correctly. You did that intentionally

 

 

Endret Juni 13, 2022 av Richard Olsen