Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeLutheran Church–Missouri Synod was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 25, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

To Archive 1|To Archive 2

Official LCMS Statement Regarding Logo Use on Wikipedia[edit]


Please forgive me for taking so long to write back about placing the LCMS cross logo on our Wikipedia site. We have reviewed this request and the site and have determined that it would be fine at this time to include the logo on the site. We appreciate very much your request to do and appreciate you taking the time to get this done. Please let me know if you have any questions about this or if we can be of assistance in any other way.

Blessings on your day,
Vicki Biggs
Manager, Public Affairs & Media Relations
The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
(314) 996-1236

That clears that up! --Dulcimerist 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Infallibillity vs Inerrancy[edit]

I've created a new page entitled: Biblical infallibility. It links to Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod at one point. The Lutheran church was at the center of this debate in the 70's and 80's and it would be great if any of oyu could help edit this page. Thanks! --DjSamwise 00:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to figure out a category to place this article under, and hope to have time to look it over and add to it. Perhaps additional people could help with this as well? Thanks! Dulcimerist 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

LCMS Districts[edit]

This looks like a fun section to work on! I could build a decent Montana District page, as I talk a lot with the district archivist. What type of information are we looking for on the district pages? Thanks! --Dulcimerist 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I responded to your talk comment on the Montana article, getting into the history of the various districts would be useful at this point (as would photos of churches and district presidents). The main possibility is the creation of articles for individual churches (see Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), a guideline being currently developed). I believe there are only 9 articles for LCMS churches so far, though there are at least 150 under Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States. When I created the district articles, I made links for all the LCMS churches that are on the National Register of Historic Places (I think I got all of them), so those certainly qualify for articles. Particularly for old churches in small to medium-size towns, there may be significant coverage in local newspapers (particularly around notable anniversaries - 50th, 100th, etc.). Designation as a state or local landmark is a big help as well. I'd advise starting with the oldest and/or largest churches in each district or circuit; for any church, if there's another congregation in its circuit which is both older and larger, then that church should almost certainly have an article first. I know there's a bit of controversy in Wikipedia about articles for individual churches (Notre Dame de Paris is certainly deserving of an article, but I don't think articles for non-denominational storefront congregations with 20 members are advisable), so proceeding with the best possible approach is to everyone's advantage. MisfitToys 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! As to articles for individual churches, would these be pages placed under the district pages in the hierarchy structure? I've got good information on quite a few of the oldest churches in the Montana district. If a "dummy template" is available, I can get to work on those when I have time. --Dulcimerist 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Mention Seminex here?[edit]

I think this article should mention the Seminex affair that happened under Preuss, either in the history or internal struggles sections. As it says in the Seminex article, this has had an impact on the main LCMS that still has effects today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This article used to contain a paragraph on Seminex and the AELC departures, as well as discussion of other post-1960s church disputes, in a subsection under "History" entitled "Consensus and Division." Portions or all of this could be reinserted to flesh out this issue. This old material can be viewed here for possible reuse. Ropcat (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Internal Struggles tags[edit]

I tagged the "internal struggles" page as lacking sources and lacking neutrality. If you click on the Archive 2 above and scroll down to the bottom you'll see that the issue was brought up before, but not addressed. Someone even advocated deleting the section. At the very least, the section needs to be rewritten so that it reflects sourced, verifiable assessments of the controversies, rather than somebody's personal perceptions. Fishal (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'll just remove that section and archive it here; as it is it adds very little to the article. Fishal (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous user, User:, re-instated the material without a tag. I reverted it because I think it needs to be discussed and fixed before it gets put back in. Fishal (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section[edit]

I just removed this from the article. I believe consensus supports this, since it was suggested before, not objected to, and suggested again last month without objection. Fishal (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Law & Gospel tags[edit]

Which specific points in this section are possible POV violations? Fishal (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no POV violations whatsoever in the Law & Gospel section, either. The statements made in the Law & Gospel section are accurate, and it even points out an excellent source (Walther's book). The POV tag should be removed from this section. --Dulcimerist (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Fishal (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial topics section & article???[edit]

I would like to make a section and article on the LCMS views on controversial topics. Like abortion, homosexuality, cloning, etc. Miagirljmw14 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and do it. Miagirljmw14 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There are already articles for List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality, Christianity and abortion, homosexuality and Lutheranism and Christian views on cloning; it would seem that adding material to those articles (rather than starting separate ones) would be more useful. As for this article, it would certainly be appropriate to add referenced info about any disagreements within the synod on these topics, and to briefly outline any disagreements between the synod and other Lutheran bodies; but if the synod position is generally in keeping with those of other Lutheran or Christian churches, or if any disagreements are fairly typical within the range of denominations, there's probably little need to rehash everything here. MisfitToys (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The LCMS publishes very specific official position papers on a range of such issues, while the ELCA (the larger & more mainline US Lutheran body) tends to be more tolerant of substantial disagreement over some of the same issues. That at least is my perception. Fishal (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are the position papers and then there are the various synodical commissions which review synod teaching and doctrine from time to time, usually leading to the position papers. The existence of such a commission would usually tend to indicate some level of disagreement regarding either doctrine or its application. When issues such as these undergo renewed discussion, it often happens in conjunction with the national conventions. MisfitToys (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone site the views on the pope. I am taking the section down until someone does, and no, the book title does not count as a citation. I also want the page number of the book on the article if anyone is going to cite that book. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 20:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The info was unreferenced, un-discussed, and was inserted in the wrong section - so probably removing it was best. However, I'll quote it here in case anybody wants to have a go at finding a source. I don't know about this issue myself, but it sounds like it *could* be true verifiable.
Confessional Lutheran church bodies, such as the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Church of the Lutheran Confession teach that the Roman papacy or office of the pope is the Antichrist, including this article of faith as part of a quia rather than quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord. In 1932 the LCMS adopted A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod.
Fishal (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I just got a reply from the LCMS (I E-mailed them). Here is what the E-mail said: "Jessica, thank you for contacting the LCMS Church Information Center.

The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. We affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy. For more information on the historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist as summarized by our Synod's Commission on Theology and Church Relations, please review our Frequently Asked Question at [1].

We hope this information is helpful. Again, thank you for contacting us. Please know that the Church Information Center is at your service. We hope you have a blessed day!". It does not say an individual pope (as a person) but the office of the pope. But is this info relevant in the article??? I really do not think so. You never see the views of other churches/synod on the pope. So why should we have it here??? That's just my point. But if the section comes back un-cited I am taking it down. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is featured in a prominent location on the synod website: . It needs to be accounted for in the Wikipedia article, since it is official LCMS doctrine and it is on the website. I think ADM & that other anon user have a point. There needs to be a clear statement about the LCMS doctrine on this issue. The best solution would be to just cut and paste the whole article from brief statement onto the Wikipedia article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Tags[edit]

Please include Project tags for Christianity and within that you can add supported by the Lutheran Church. See the example on this page, and add to similar Lutheran pages, and universities. Thanks! Moonraker0022 (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the LCMS/ELCA table[edit]

Given that there isn't a section that compares the LCMS to the ELCA, I think this table has a place in the article. It fills the need to discuss the controversial relationship between the two large American Lutheran church bodies. The table was drawn from a randomized, 35,000 person survey of American adults. Not liking the results is not a reason to remove the table. I'd like to solicit comments from the general public here as to what everyone's opinion is about the LCMS/ELCA table. Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

it's a valuable table and should be kept. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I discovered this comment by on a subpage and decided I should move it here:

Why is the Pew survey included here. This should be removed.

My answer: In my own personal experience I have met people with incorrect stereotypes of the LCMS & ELCA and their relation to each other. I thought that this table would help break down the stereotypes--both from ELCA people, some of which criticize the LCMS over topics such as inerrancy or other "doctrinaire" positions, and from LCMS people, some of which think their synod is extraordinarily orthodox and conservative, compared to those liberals over in the ELCA. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to educate, and I created the table to educate people on the de facto similarities and differences between the ELCA & the LCMS.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should stay. I found it very interesting that the opinions of people in the pews of ELCA and LCMS churches are not as different as the official stances of the respective institutions, not to mention the caricatures painted by extremists in each group of the other group. Perhaps, though, if it seems irrelevant in the article (likewise in the ELCA article), there could be a new article on ELCA-LCMS differences. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


I think it would be helpful to have a summary of the Seminex controversy in the body of the article under History, not merely in a book list at the end. It's important for understanding the LCMS today. Ruckabumpkus (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. Seminex is more notable than most of the other stuff on this page. The LCMS president at the time got his picture on the cover of Time (or was it a different magazine)?-- (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

President-Elect Harrison[edit]

Please help develop the Matthew C. Harrison page. I have just started it and already had a speed delete tag put on it. Let's get it out of stub size fast. CTSWyneken

Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Theological Anti-Catholicism[edit]

We can see from their official website that the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod still follows a theological anti-Catholicism, mostly directed against the papacy, that seems very far from other Lutheran Churches, who are more open to ecumenical relationships with the Roman Catholic Church. However they take a more moderate view in this declaration: "The LCMS does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that any individual Pope as a person, is to be identified with the Antichrist. The historic view of LCMS on the Antichrist is summarized as follows by the Synod's Theological Commission: The New Testament predicts that the church throughout its history will witness many antichrists (Matt. 24:5,23-24; Mark 13:6,21-22; Luke 21:8; 1 John 2:18,22; 4:3; 2 John 7). All false teachers who teach contrary to Christ's Word are opponents of Christ and, insofar as they do so, are anti-Christ. However, the Scriptures also teach that there is one climactic "Anti-Christ" (Dan. 7:8,11,20-21,24-25; 11:36-45; 2 Thessalonians 2; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 17-18). . . Concerning the historical identity of the Antichrist, we affirm the Lutheran Confessions' identification of the Antichrist with the office of the papacy whose official claims continue to correspond to the Scriptural marks listed above. It is important, however, that we observe the distinction which the Lutheran Confessors made between the office of the pope (papacy) and the individual men who fill that office. The latter could be Christians themselves. We do not presume to judge any person's heart. Also, we acknowledge the possibility that the historical form of the Antichrist could change. Of course, in that case another identified by these marks would rise. To the extent that the papacy continues to claim as official dogma the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent which expressly anathematizes, for instance, the doctrine "that justifying faith is nothing else than trust in divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that trust alone by which we are justified," the judgment of the Lutheran confessional writings that the papacy is the Antichrist holds. At the same time, of course, we must recognize the possibility, under God's guidance, that contemporary discussions and statements (e.g., 1983 U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue statement on "Justification by Faith") could lead to a revision of the Roman Catholic position regarding Tridentine dogma.[2]" This and other stances, like their rejection of theistic evolution, that the Catholic Church accepts since the Vatican Council II, seems very far from the ecumenical beliefs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, who, despite their inclusion of many Roman Catholics in their Calendar of Saints, isn't so openly pro-life like the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly, despite their Churches differences, members of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America tend to have similar beliefs on controversial issues, like life issues, and from what I have read many members of the LCMS don't have such strict anti-Catholic views on the papacy and the Roman Catholic Church in general. My question is that if there aren't any current attempts to change their official theological anti-Catholic stance from some of their most important members? I suppose that their current leader, Matthew C. Harrison subscrives to their official doctrine on the matter. With all due respect, if we compare the LCMS view of the Roman Catholic Church with that of the Lutheran Church in Germany it still looks like very archaic and dogmatic.Mistico (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Isn't Anti-Catholic[edit]

It is a common misconception to believe that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is anti-Catholic because of their official stance on the papacy as being the Antichrist, like I myself thought, but it is incorrect. The LCMS considers the Catholics to be fellow Christians, they believe they also can reach salvation and it is also open to ecumenical dialogue with the Catholic Church. This recent official document focus on the ecumenical relationships of the LCMS with other Christian denominations, including the Catholic Church: [C:\Users\Utilizador\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\Q1WHI9EN\CTCR-TheoDialogue091711[1].pdf]. I was expecting that people with a better knowledge of the LCMS theology had already explained this previously.Mistico (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I can quote this official document from the LCMS discussing several Christian denominations, in what concerns the Roman Catholic Church [C:\Users\Utilizador\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\R7W1AMSS\Other_Denominations[1].pdf]: "The LCMS recognizes all Trinitarian church bodies as Christian churches (in contrast to "cults," which typically reject the doctrine of the Trinity and thus cannot be recognized as Christian). In fact, a primary "objective" listed in the Synod's Constitution (Article III) is to "work through its official structure toward fellowship with other Christian church bodies"—which explicitly assumes that these "other church bodies" are "Christian" in nature. That does not lessen the Synod's concern for the false doctrine taught and confessed by these churches, but it does highlight the Synod's recognition that wherever the "marks of the church" (the Gospel and Sacraments) are present—even where "mixed" with error—there the Christian church is present. Such a church is a heterodox church, that is, a church that teaches false doctrine./ Of course, personal salvation is not merely a matter of external membership in or association with any church organization or denomination (including the LCMS), but comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone. All those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior are recognized as "Christians" by the Synod—only God can look into a person's heart and see whether that person really believes. It is possible to have true and sincere faith in Jesus Christ even while having wrong or incomplete beliefs about other doctrinal issues. This explains why former Synod President A.L. Barry called members of the Roman Catholic Church "our fellow Christians" in his statement Toward True Reconciliation, which at the same time identifies and laments the false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church./ The great danger is that believing things contrary to God's Word can obscure and perhaps even completely destroy belief in Jesus Christ as one's Savior. We pray that this will not happen to those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior and yet belong to heterodox church bodies, including fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic Church."Mistico (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Views on Creation and Evolution[edit]

I found this article that explains better the Lutheran Church-Missouri Snod views on creation, inteligent design and evolution:[3]. It is by their former President A. L. Barry. It is very far from the acceptance of theistic evolution done by the Roman Catholic Church since the Vatican Council II and by many Lutheran Churches across the world. A. L. Barry states that: "The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod believes, teaches and confesses that Adam and Eve were real historic individuals and that the Genesis account of Creation is true and factual, not merely a “myth”or a “story” made up to explain the origin of all things." Recently there was a new development, with the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod University System being allowed to teach and promote evolutionism: [4]. There are also certainly many members of this church that accept theistic evolution. I think these facts could be mentioned in the article, since the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod isn't totally closed to the evolution debate.Mistico (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This comment is over a year old; however, I would still like to clarify some things. The document above is trying more to defend creation than to deface evolution. Also:
"We would also be making a very serious error simply to accept the theories of science without question. Many aspects of evolutionary theory are directly contradictory to God’s Word. Evolution cannot be “baptized” to make it compatible with the Christian faith. Those who attempt inevitably wind up watering down the teachings of the Bible. Christians have no need to fear the findings of science, nor do they have any reason to give “science” more credence than they give the Word of God."
From what I understand, the LCMS is stating that the Bible takes precedence over evolution. Proven "science" that does not conflict with the Bible is true. Also, the beliefs of the church as a whole do not change with the views of its members or the policies of its colleges. The LCMS places great emphasis on the Bible and bases its views on it only.
Besides, I would take the Christian News with a grain of salt; from my experience, it's not always reliable. Chevsapher (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to notice that the LCMS stance is very similar to the one that the Roman Catholic Church held officially until the Vatican Council II. The question is that the Roman Catholic Church also values a lot the science of Biblical exegesys that explains how the Bible was written. It is very arguable that this science means the "dessacralization" of the Bible, specially the first chapters of the book of Genesis, before Abraham. Biblical exegesys lead the Catholic Church to freely accept that the stories that appear at the beginning of the Bible aren't to be taken literally or can't even be. St. Augustine himself believed that God had created the Universe at once and the six days story was a metaphore, like the fact that God doesn't obviously needs to rest. Geology tells that no similar event to the Flood could ever happened but Noah's story, that is very similar to Gilgamesh myth, seems to have developed to some massive flood that took place in Mesopotamia. Obviously no serious linguist would take the Babel Tower narrative as a simple mythical way to explain the diversity of languages in the world. So, the end of Biblical literalism, meant that the Catholic Church, since the Vatican Council II, was more open to accept the findings of science and that since the Bible isn't to be read as a "direct revelation from God", while it was written, for Christians, by Divine inspiration, the findings of Geology, Anthropology and Biology could be acceptable from a Catholic perspective. That's why the Catholic Church went to consider theistic evolution, who was already being theorized before the Vatican Council II by people like Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, wasn't necesseraly incompatible with Christianity. The last two popes have been supporters of theistic evolution, like I know by my own experience, since I was taught that at school. I think a similar development happened in most Lutheran Churches in Europe. If the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod gave the same value to Biblical exegesys probably also would have to admit that theistic evolution isn't necessarely incompatible with Christianity. The Bible isn't a book of science nor it is a "direct revelation from God" like Muslims believe the Quran to be. Obviously, this is not a forum nor I am even from a Lutheran background to be the most adequate person to enter in a debate over evolution from a Lutheran perspective.Mistico (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be of interest to you. Although rather vague, it helps to clarify the synod's stance on these matters. What it all comes down to, from my understanding, is that the LCMS doesn't take everything literally, but tends to do so if there is no reason not to. I shouldn't get into this further (as this thread keeps wandering further from the topic), but I can understand where you're coming from. In my experience, however, the main body of the Lutheran church takes creation and most other Genesis accounts fairly literally, and a number of books have been published explaining how the aftermath of these "events" can be seen today that you might find of interest. Chevsapher (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

In concern to the interpretation of the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church tends to be more in agreement currently with mainstream Protestant and Lutheran denominations, like in the United States, the ELCA, the LCMC and the NALC, than with confessional Lutherans, like the LCMS and the WELS, while their more literal interpretations tend to agree more, even if not exclusively, with traditionalist Catholics. I do know some of the beliefs endorsed by the LCMS, like creation science but, unfortunately, they enter in the domain of pseudoscience.Mistico (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is not ready for GA status at this time, and its issues are too great and numerous to address within seven days, so I am quick failing this nomination. The main issues include:

  • Verifiability: The article is greatly lacking in references. For example, almost all of the "History" section is unsourced, much of the "Beliefs" section is unsourced or poorly sourced, as is much of the "Practices" section. The "Church structure" section has no references whatsoever, nor does the "Organizations" section.
  • Prose: The article suffers from multiple violations of Wikipedia's Manual of Style; these violations include excessive external links, bare URLs, improper usage of hyphens, and external links in the prose when unwarranted. A much-needed copyedit can be performed by a member of the Guild of Copyeditors.

I strongly urge the nominator and other interested parties to review the Good article criteria before re-nominating this article. In addition, a Peer review may be able to help identify other areas in which this article needs improvement.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Consistent name format of Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod[edit]

There's a lot of inconsistency as to the type of hyphen/dash and use/nonuse of spaces around it in the name of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, including within this very article. I propose that we use the same format as the title of the main article, i.e., "Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod". This would be especially useful in wikilinks because a redirect would be avoided. One possible exception would be in citations, where it would be better to match the format of the title of the work or webpage.

I think it would also be a good idea to similarly change the titles of other articles such as Districts of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. Indyguy (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't covered at MOS:DASH, but I think the use of an unspaced en dash in this title is incorrect (whereas Districts of the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod would be correct). It should either be a spaced en dash or an unspaced em dash.
Unspaced en dashes, according to the MOS, can be used "[1.] In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through... [e.g. 2014–15 UEFA Champions League,] [2.] In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between... [e.g. Koch–Pasteur rivalry,] [3.] Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix to a compound that includes a space [e.g. Trans–New Guinea languages]".
The MOS doesn't discuss article titles which are two clauses connected by a dash, but cf. Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway. I don't know of any examples of article titles using em dashes, but there might be some. Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod with an (unspaced) em dash would actually be the most consistent with the use of dashes elsewhere in the article itself. Ham II (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Further Reading[edit] added the following book under "History" in the Further Reading section this morning: Paust, Ingerose. Exodus of the Eight Hundred. Austin: Concordia University Press, 2015. ISBN-13 978-1-881848-23-3

I don't think it is a particularly good idea to refer readers to a work of historical fiction, especially when so many other non-fictional histories have already been listed, including several that specifically focus on the Saxon immigration. I just didn't want to erase it without providing a bit of an explanation as to why. Bnng (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Official seal[edit]

I would like to propose that the official seal of the LCMS be taken out of this article. The official seal used to be where the blue logo cross is now, and it strikes me that having both the seal and the logo is perhaps redundant. In addition, while the seal's location looks fine on a phone (or at least it does on my phone), it is a little awkwardly placed when viewing the article on a computer browser. If the seal were to be moved somewhere further down in the article, I think that would look okay, but I cannot for the life of me think where it could appropriately be placed. If anyone has a problem with me removing the seal or has an idea where it could better be placed in the article, please let me know. Bnng (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be placed in the Church Structure section. BTW, thanks for the additions you've been making. Indyguy (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you as well, both for the suggestion and for the corrections and proofreading you've been doing. Bnng (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove tables[edit]

I would like to see the ELCA/LCMS comparison tables and the LCMS membership statistics table removed from this article. While the tables are interesting, it seems to me that they cause the article to go into unnecessary detail. If the consensus is to keep the ELCA/LCMS comparison tables, I would suggest that they be moved into a new article on the relationship between the LCMS and the ELCA, as has been suggested before. The LCMS membership statistics table I think could be eliminated entirely. Bnng (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I requested feedback on this change eight days ago, but I haven't yet heard from anyone. Normally, I would go ahead and make this change; however, since my previous edit to this effect was reverted, I will again solicit arguments for or against this move. If I don't hear anything within the next week, I will eliminate the ELCA/LCMS comparison tables at that time. Bnng (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
let's keep the highly useful tables. No need to move them. People uninterested in social data can easily ignore them. Rjensen (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, it seems to me that they cause the article to go into unnecessary detail. I would like to see this article (someday) reach FA status, and one criterion against which FA nominees are judged is "stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." I am concerned that the retention of this table could negatively impact this article's chances of ever becoming a Featured Article. Bnng (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
the characteristics of the membership IS the main topic in my opinion. Back when I was writing histories of Lutherans in America I REALLY could have used this rich data. Dropping it helps no one. Rjensen (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a solution would be to collapse these two tables in the same way as the LCMS Membership Statistics table. I think they are far too prominent in the article as currently displayed, especially since they are 10 years out of date. I also have concerns about how simplistically some of the questions are worded, which in my mind tend to skew the results. Indyguy (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Rjensen and Indyguy, what do you both think of the idea of creating a new article on the differences between the ELCA and the LCMS, and including this table there? That would shorten both the ELCA and LCMS articles, as this table is included in both locations. The new article could perhaps be partially modelled off of Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Bnng (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
that's not useful. The tables tell us who the members are and that's **** . I prefer Indyguy 's suggestion that the "hide" command be used so that interested users can expand and see the tables. Removing the tables is I think a very poor move away from good article status. Rjensen (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Rjensen and Indyguy, thank you both for your feedback. And sorry for taking so long to respond. I thought I had already done this earlier. Bnng (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Saxon Lutheran immigration 1838–1839[edit]

Does anyone know when and why the article with this name was deleted? It must have been deleted recently, but I cannot find anything in the deletion log. Bnng (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. I've found it. Bnng (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Picture of Red Church Not Related to LCMS[edit]

The picture of "Peace Lutheran Church near Baldwin, Wisconsin" is not relevant to this article. For one thing, the building was demolished in 2014, and for another, the congregation does not belong to the LCMS but rather to the ELCA, another Lutheran denomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the photo after verifying that the congregation is not a member of the LCMS. Interestingly, it also doesn't seem to be in the ELCA currently. Indyguy (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


I think it would help the article to explain what "suffrage" is in the context of ordination. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I imagine they are referring to female church members being able to vote in church meetings. Ltwin (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)