Talk:Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod

message: Finally!:
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)
thread_title:  Official LCMS Statement Regarding Logo Use on Wikipedia 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infallibillity vs Inerrancy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: LCMS Districts

message: 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 128.2.211.107 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mention Seminex here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Internal Struggles tags

message: 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)
thread_title: Deleted section

message: Which specific points in this section are possible POV violations?  Fishal (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  Fishal (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Law & Gospel tags

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, I'm just going to go ahead and do it. Miagirljmw14 (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Controversial topics section & article???

message: 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)
thread_title: Project Tags

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Removal of the LCMS/ELCA table

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)?--67.208.53.205 (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seminex 

message: 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." 
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)
thread_title:  Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod Theological Anti-Catholicism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Isn't Anti-Catholic 

message: 70.92.163.200 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)
thread_title:  Further Reading 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225041133/http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/lcms/Synod/resolutions.pdf to http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/lcms/Synod/resolutions.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225041133/http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/lcms/Synod/resolutions.pdf to http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/lcms/Synod/resolutions.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304171000/http://lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_procserv/dbpage%3Dpage%26mode%3Ddisplay%26gid%3D20052995655655607101111555%26pg%3D20053040942236960101111555 to http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage%3Dpage%26mode%3Ddisplay%26gid%3D20052995655655607101111555%26pg%3D20053040942236960101111555
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326221334/http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_fellowship-lordssupper.pdf to http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_fellowship-lordssupper.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Official seal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove tables 

message: 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)
replies: text: Never mind. I've found it. Bnng (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saxon Lutheran immigration 1838–1839 

message: 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 71.220.3.13 (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture of Red Church Not Related to LCMS 

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

message: The LCMS is part of the Lutheran World Relief (LWR) - yet the article states "Maintaining its position as a confessional church body emphasizing the importance of full agreement in the teachings of the Bible, the LCMS is not associated with ecumenical organizations..."  So this seems to be in direct conflict.  The LWR is eccumenical and includes the ELCA, which is a denomination that the LCMS would certainly not consider confessional and in agreement with "the teachings of the bible".  There also is no mention in any section that the LCMS is a part of the LWR.  Can someone suggest an edit? Mateck (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a good source for the information? I didn't see anything on the LWR website with regards to LCMS membership, and this page on the LCMS website says that the LCMS funds specific projgects, but says nothing about being an official member. I know the Lutheran World Relief article says that the LCMS has such a role, but no reference is given. As I recall, the LCMS pulled back from working with LWR in recent years. Indyguy (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point - I was using the wiki article as a source.  Perhaps that needs to be changed. The section you reference on the LCMS site only references "LCMS World Relief" and not "Luthern World Relief".  I am assuming that is not the same origination.  I'll do some more research - but I suspect you are correct and the other article needs to be edited. Mateck (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Correction - Relationship with other Lutheran bodies 

message: I don't know where to file this, but many parts of this article come across very clearly as the work of partisans trying to advance specific, contested viewpoints, mostly about the image of the church--but one line in particular stands out to me as someone who's just high on their own theological supply: "the Gospel, in which the forgiveness of sin is promised for the sake of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ." The more I stare at this string of theological-sounding words, the less sense it makes. The forgiveness of sin is promised . . . _for the sake of_ Jesus' resurrection? What is this supposed to be saying? Does this actually comport with any Christian teaching, Lutheran or otherwise, as currently written?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:67A8:230:850:6385:59CE:B1BA (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have an added a clarification tag to this with an explanation pointing to this discussion. Hopefully, some editor will come along and rewrite this sentence. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Salad in "Law and Gospel" 

message: During the politics discussion, there is a reference to "the primarily Calvinist presuppositions about the totalizing rule of God that informs much, if not most, of U.S. evangelical understanding of politics and Christianity." This is an insanely sweeping claim about social/political history and there's not so much as one citation. I can't tell if it was written by a pro-Calvinist who wants to claim credit for US evangelical political activity or someone who's very anti-both and looks down on all of it, but I can't see the justification for an assertion this huge that is unsourced, not to mention tangential at best. Is it OK to ax it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:67A8:230:80EB:FC11:B42:995E (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a citation needed template to the statement since it clearly needs one. I think there is a difference between the LCMS and evangelical churches as to how to influence politics, and some of it is due to differences between the Lutheran and Calvinist understandings - the question is how much. Indyguy (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calvinist Politics 

message: Year	Location        	Venue                                                             	Theme                  	Bible verse
1980	Fort Collins, CO	                                                                  	Rejoice in His Presence	
1983	San Antonio, TX 	                                                                  	Amigos de Cristo       	
1986	Washington, DC  	                                                                  	On Wings Like Eagles   	
1989	Denver, CO      	                                                                  	Blessed in the Journey 	
1992	New Orleans, LA 	                                                                  	Time for Joy           	
1995	San Antonio, TX 	                                                                  	River of Light         	
1998	Atlanta, GA     	                                                                  	Called to Be           	
2001	New Orleans, LA 	                                                                  	Higher Ground          	
2004	Orlando, FL     	Orange County Convention Center                                   	Beyond Imagination     	Ephesians 3:20-21
2007	Orlando, FL     	Orange County Convention Center                                   	Chosen                 	1 Peter 2:9
2010	New Orleans, LA 	Ernest N. Morial Convention Center and the Louisiana Superdome    	We Believe             	John 20:31
2013	San Antonio, TX 	Henry B. Gonzalez Convention Center and the Alamodome             	Live Love(d)           	1 John 4:9
2016	New Orleans, LA 	Ernest N. Morial Convention Center and the Mercedes-Benz Superdome	In Christ Alone        	Philippians 4:4–7
2019	Minneapolis, MN 	Minneapolis Convention Center and U.S. Bank Stadium               	Real. Present. God.    	Psalm 46
2022	Houston, TX     	George R. Brown Convention Center and Minute Maid Park            	In All Things          	Colossians 1:15-20
2025	New Orleans, LA 	TBA                                                               	TBA                    	TBA
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.189.148 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If the suggestion is to include this table in the article, I don't think that people who want to learn basic information about the Missouri Synod need detailed historical information about the organization's youth gathering events over a 45-year period. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  LCMS National Youth Gathering locations and themes 

message: https://reporter.lcms.org/2023/president-harrison-denounces-disturbing-ideologies/ soibangla (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Rolling Stone, of all publications, wrote an article about this. Apparently, the attempt to push LCMS in a fascist direction is mostly the work of one man, Corey Mahler (although Harrison didn’t specifically mention him by name). Mahler has a popular podcast and Twitter feed, which gives him a large audience, mostly “hardcore young men” (as he described them). I don’t know if Mahler or this controversy is notable enough to cover on Wikipedia, yet. But if enough other sources write about it, I’d even suggest writing an article specifically about Corey Mahler. His attitudes are definitely outside the mainstream, even by conservative standards (for instance, in addition to his racial views, he also claims that any tradition that does not embrace polygyny and male superiority is anti-Scriptural and therefore doomed). 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:EBA2 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Incidentally, Mahler also calls Eastern Orthodoxy “A false religion masquerading as Christianity”. That would certainly have surprised Martin Luther himself. But it does track with the way his beloved Nazis despised everything Slavic. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:EBA2 (talk) 10:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Harrison denounces disturbing ideologies 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod →  – or . The current use of an unspaced en dash in the title seems to be sending the wrong message here. It appears to be used in the sense of MOS:ENBETWEEN, i.e. it indicates an association or relationship  the "Lutheran Church" and the "Missouri Synod" as distinct separate entities. That, of course, is not the correct indication. What should be indicated is that the Missouri Synod is a  of the Lutheran Church. So there should be spaces around the en dash, like what would be used for the volume title of a multi-volume publication or the title of a work in a series (e.g. Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1). Or it should be an em dash. As far as I can tell, the church itself does not use the current Wikipedia article title's punctuation; the church uses an unspaced em dash. An em dash, as used by the church, would convey a more appropriate indication. The lede section (e.g. the opening sentence) and infobox of the Wikipedia article actually follow the church's style rather than using the current article title. However, my impression is that Wikipedia ordinarily uses a spaced en dash in such situations, e.g. as in a MOS:LISTDASH (I don't know of any articles that use an unspaced em dash in their titles the way the church does it). This change should ideally affect various other articles e.g. , other topics found in the prior RM discussion at Talk:Eastern District of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Requested move 26 January 2019, Lutheran Church–Canada, and Evangelical Lutheran Church - Peru, but those could involve other issues, so it may be best to try to get an agreement about one article first. Some articles already use the suggested format; see Lutheran Ministerium and Synod – USA and Evangelical Lutheran Church – Synod of France and Belgium. See also the prior discussions at Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Consistent name format of Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod/Archive 1#Uncategorized discussion and Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod/Archive 1#Official Name and Typography. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oppose: Most sources use a hyphen and sometimes an endash without spaces. The LCMS itself says that it should be an emdash with no spaces. This article used a endash with no spaces until an editor changed a couple instances in it recently. It may be that the endash was a compromise between the hypen and the emdash. To me the emdash looks strange in the title font, but that's just my opinion. :Indyguy (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have tried to read this opposing comment, and I don't really understand its rationale. It says that the LCMS itself expresses a preference for an unspaced em dash (without providing a citation to where that preference is expressed; although I agree that seems to be their practice, as I said in my original comment from observing some church-published material, "the church uses an unspaced em dash"), but it does not argue that Wikipedia should use an unspaced em dash. There is a hypothesis of a visual compromise between a hyphen and em dash, but I'm not aware of any Wikipedia guideline or policy or common Wikipedia practice supporting such a visual compromise. Punctuation marks convey a meaning, and I believe the meaning conveyed by the current title is incorrect and not supported by MOS:DASH. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 25 August 2023 

message: Now that the page has been moved to Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, the name of the category Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod and its subcategories needs to be changed, as well as the names of the articles for the 35 districts of the synod. Is there an automated process for doing this? It would also be good to change the text in any articles that link to this page and the commons category for consistency. Indyguy (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming such a move would not be automatic, I just opened an RM for the 35 districts at Talk:Eastern District of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Requested move 24 September 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow up to page move