Talk:David Lipscomb

message: This article does contain some minor and serious errors.  One that claims that Lipscomb's pacifist and antiwar views were possibly shaped by the Northern occupation of Nashville is ignorant that his position was firm and well stated before the Civil War.  The destruction of the war did tend to help others agree with Lipscomb, but didn't change his beliefs.
The statement that there were few objectors to WW1 within the Churches of Christ is clearly false because the Churches of Christ were the largest religious group of objectors to WW1. Carltonh 17:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The comment on Lipscomb's opposition to football is misleading. Even if accurate, it gives a false impression of him because of how different football is today than it was over 100 years ago.  In the early years, there were players who specialized in trying to physically injure the opponent's star players to gain advantage.  There was far less safety and the violence was more real than just the shoving and tackling through protective uniforms of today.  The effect of the comment seems to be a POV attempt to trivialize his pacifism, though it may have been unintentional.  The comment could remain, but clarification would have to be made, yet would then seem like a tangent.  Carltonh 14:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem at all trivial to me.  While certainly better-regulated, the violence of American football is very real, even today.  It always seem incongruous to me that schools like Easter Mennonite played football, even in a Christian conference.
The incongruity that you perceive does not count as evidence of David Lipscomb's opinion, which has so far gone uncited.  Josh a brewer 18:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Football

message: Can anyone help confirm the name of Granville Lipscomb Sr.'s first wife (David Lipscomb's mother, who died in Illinois)? Some sources say Nancy, one says Ann. Nancy Ann? Or is Ann a nickname? Not to make an endless geneaology or nothin' :) Alan Canon 14:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nancy or Ann Lipscomb

message: Isn't it wrong to say that Lipscomb was an anti-war activist?  I don't think that Lipscomb was an activist in any modern sense.
:The category was originally "Category:Anti-war people" but there was objection to the name as being to broad (isn't everyone anti-war?). You can see the discussion here. Unfortunately there are people, as you note, that aren't considered activists, but are still noted for their opposition to war in other ways. The category renaming may have solved one problem and created another. Maybe its the best we can do for now? JonHarder 21:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually since Lipscomb encouraged people (Christians) to refuse to sign up for Selective Service (the draft), it is fair to call him an anti-war activist.  The CoC was punished for such beliefs on occasion, until it "gave in" on the issue.  Tolbert Fanning was convicted of treason, and Gospel Advocate and other writers were directly threatened by government, especially immediately after the death of Lipscomb in 1917. Carltonh 16:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think readers can understand that saying someone was an activist doesn't mean they always have done the same thing. Newton was a scientist, yet didn't have access to a computer. Lipscomb was an activist yet would find modern street protests very bizarre indeed. The same role can change through history, but the word often still applies. - cohesion 05:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anit-war ''activist''? 

message: What are the chances of this ever becoming a page?  Isn't this a likely "permanent" redlink, or is there now a project to write an article on every month of the CE?  Rlquall 20:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a discussion of partial dates at WP:DATE#Partial dates that offers no opinion about the appropriateness of such a link, other than that month/year articles exist for January 2000 on and that date links should only be used if they are relevant to the context. Personally I would not link it, nor would I link individual years. Who selects a year to get further information? I don't. JonHarder 22:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 1872 

message: The changes made by Josh a brewer contain some errors and POV.  Lipscomb was not a premillenialist.  You might say he bridged the line between amillenialism and postmillenialism with influences from each.  If anything, he argued against dogmatic speculation on future prophecy.  So a reference to premillenialism, especially in this section, seems unjustified.  If I am wrong, please show Lipscomb's premillenialism AND its relevance to this section.
Further, Josh has made changes giving the false stereotype of anarchists as violent bomb-throwers.  This is unwarranted POV.  Many were pacifists like Lipscomb, especially Christian anarchists.  Other changes Josh has made are really unnecessary repetition stated in other sections.  If there are no other objections I think I should reverse most of his changes.  Carltonh 22:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree.  Lipscomb was skeptical of government, but probably not an anarchist (for one thing, he did advocate payment of taxes).  He might legitimately be considered a postmillenialist (Campbell definitely was one), but not a premillenialist. I doubt whether either term truly belongs in the article and "premillenialist" most definitely does not.  Lipscomb was still alive during the major time that premillenialism was debated in the Churches of Christ and did nothing to prevent its eventual supression from the pages of the GA.  I would I also don't know if the "legend" about football and the university is verifiable or encyclopedic, although I have heard it and always heard how the high school had to buy adjacent property to build its stadium so as not to violate his will donating the campus.  I also think that we need a published reference on some Lipscomb and Harding faculty members not voting, more than just that it has been stated. A lot of the recent edits seem to me to be little more than unverifiable POV Rlquall 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've put the discussions of pacifism and anarchism together in order to cut down on redundancy and to consolidate two sections that did not need to be apart.  I maintain that the term "anarchist" is problematic.  Someone with the time and inclination should work on finding a better word or explanation of Lipscomb's position, though I've done some of this work myself.Josh a brewer 18:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipscomb's Anarchism 

message: Having read much of Lipscomb over the years, though not recently, I think the claims that he was related to premillenialism should either be referenced with evidence or deleted.  Unlike Campbell's postmillenialism, Lipscomb preferred to not speculate about prophetic texts.  I don't think he could be called amillenialist, postmillenialist, or premillenialist.  He was influenced by postmillenialists, had some similarities with future amillenialists and preterists, and had a radical nature that can be compared to some proto-premillenialists, but I think he should be considered an agnostic on millenialism itself.  The Boll time frame before Lipscomb died should be evidence too. Carltonh 20:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Premillenialism?

message: This article needs to cite Lipscomb's actual writing.  Secondary sources are important and necessary in wikipedia, but we also need to ground the facts of Lipscomb's doctrine in his own words.  Perhaps people at colleges and universities where there are libraries with plenty of early resources can help us by citing old numbers of the Gospel Advocate and other primary source material.Josh a brewer 16:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipscomb's writing 

message: The only part of the "Church of Christ" section that is currently relevant could be placed under the "Influence and legacy" section.  Right now people are trying to use the "Church of Christ" section to define "liberalism" and to shape Lipscomb's legacy.  This article is not the place for that.  Liberal and conservative are unhelpful, anachronistic terms in this article. Josh a brewer 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section management 

message: An unregistered user deleted a statement about Fanning being convicted of treason. I reverted the text, posted a citation needed, and began this talk page for it. I did not create this sentence, nor am I familiar with the issue. From a quick search a found an online paper/thesis citing the Treason of Fanning. The research paper makes this claim on pg36 Federal government convicted Fanning of treason, confiscated his possessions, and burnt his property (Wilburn, 1969:217–9; West, 1954:78) and cites West, Earl (1954) The Life and Times of David Lipscomb. Henderson TN: Religious Book Service. as its source. The paper is not exactly a reputable source, but the book that it references is. I have read that Fanning was accused of treason, but not convicted. The person that created the post and the person that tried to delete the post should talk about it. --Trackn (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacifist and anarchist beliefs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on David Lipscomb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922082629/http://www.therestorationmovement.com:80/lipscomb,bio.htm to http://www.therestorationmovement.com/lipscomb,bio.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified