Talk:Seminex

message: Missuse of the term ecumenical. If you look at the term, "ecumenical," as it is in use in the LCMS, you will see that "ecumenical moves" should actually be termed "movements of false-ecumenism." For this issues with the ALC, ect. were not ones of true ecumenism...it is clear to that doctrinal agreement was just an illusion. When ever this takes place, false-ecumenism is the correct term. The LCMS recognized this by declaring a conditional fellowship with the ALC when they ordained women. They knew that if real agreement existed, the ALC wouldn't have ordained women that close after making a theological "agreement" with the LCMS--192.160.64.49 22:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ecumenicism

message: In response to the 25 July 2005 changes by anonymous user 68.45.161.241:
The change was made from "moderate" to "liberal" in describing the AELC. I feel the label should remain as "moderate" for two reasons:
1.) This wing of the LCMS would in no way match what is meant in broader American society, or even what is mean in American Protestantism, by the word "liberal." The wing of the LCMS that the anonymous user calls "liberal" would, in fact, appear quite conservative on the general U.S. social and political spectrum; and it is also to the Right of, for example, the Episcopalian or UCC churches. Thus, "moderate" seems to be a label that will be most easily understood by general readers in describing its social and theological values.
2.) This wing of the LCMS, during the 1970s battles, did not identify itself with the label "liberal," preferring instead the term "moderate." Indeed, the term "liberal" was used exclusively as a derogatory term for this wing by its conservative opponents. Since this article should remain NPOV, it seems to make sense to refer to each LCMS wing by its own designation, rather than by the designations affixed by its opponents.
As an NPOV alternative, the dissident wing of the Synod could be termed "the self-styled moderate wing (which was labeled the liberal wing by its more conservative opponents)...". However, I don't think the article should uncritically substitute the "liberal" label affixed by conservative opponents as a substitute for the "moderate" label used by the dissident wing itself.
Ropcat 5:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Moderate" vs. "Liberal"

message: This quote is not cited.  I will put this on my to do list to look up if no one has the citation at hand.--RoninVII 20:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Orleans Resolution Quote

message: I am concerned by several changes by 68.74.164.7, which I've since reverted. There seems to be a practice lately of going to Lutheranism pages and using words like "extreme left," "political machine," etc., to describe opponents of the editors. These changes are all coming from a small handful of anonymous IP addresses. (See, for instance, the Gerald B. Kieschnick article and related Talk Page. (One of these anonymous editors simply deleted all my NPOV concerns from the Kieschnick Talk Page.))
I believe the Seminex article was reasonably neutral before 68.74.164.7 arrived. The views of both sides are represented. Neither side is characterized with labels like "extreme left," "radical right," etc. The article does not pass judgment on the theological or political stances of the LCMS leadership, the ELCA, the Seminex faculty, and so on. That said, I'd be happy to work with anyone who wants to elaborate on these themes, or who believes there are neutrality problems. That's what the Talk Page is for: discussion of these issues. Please use the Talk Page for this, rather than inserting loaded terminology presenting one side in a debate as extremist or devious. And please refer to the NPOV policy which states, "In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as such, not as facts."
Ropcat 00:48, 27 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV problems

message: I have been trying to clean up the article a bit.
There were several duplicated sections towards the end of the article. Unfortunately, I may have removed a duplicated section where a more neural POV was to be found. I'm going back through to correct any mistakes on my part.
I don't think this is that big of a deal, but I'm mentioning it lest anyone attribute my edits to malice should they look at my organizational affiliation on my talk page.Jonathan Auer 20:10, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
On second look, this entire article is full of copy-paste duplications. I'm going through each apparent dupe and trying to do a line-by-line comparison. If equal, I'll remove the second occurance of a duplicated section.
Jonathan Auer 21:00, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing this, Jda.
Ropcat 22:03, 27 March 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI on edits from section 6 "The end of" to end 

message: Thanks for these interesting observations. I agree that it would be valuable to investigate why the ELIM members and the Seminex faculty thought that more congregations would leave the LCMS -- obviously something of a miscalculation. I'm also intrigued by your comment on how the transpiring Watergate affair affected the ways that people were thinking about the Seminex battle at the time. 
Another area where I felt my writing on this article is inadequate is on the legacy of Seminex, which is the last section of the article. It would be interesting to hear where the majority of Seminex students ended up (AELC/ELCA or LCMS), and how that experience has influenced their later work, whether ministerial or not. And it could be interesting to hear what effect the core Seminex group had within the two church bodies in subsequent years. (Just speculating here, but I'd guess the most tangible influence of Seminex was the AELC forming and then prodding the LCA and ALC to unite.) The Legacy section could also include the competing "myths" surrounding the affair -- one of which might be the "Preus evil empire" interpretation that you mention, and another of which might be the conspiratorial-tinged interpretations of today's LCMS moderate groups.
Whether one agrees with the Seminex faculty or the LCMS leadership on the theological issues, it does seem that many of the students were hung out to dry (whoever one chooses to blame for that). It sounds like this was your experience, and I'm sorry to hear it. Perhaps a sentence should explain what happened to students who chose to return to CS. Did many leave Seminex for CS? What did they need to do to be "repatriated" (i.e. recanting use of historical criticism?)? Did they receive transfer credit for courses taken at Seminex?
Finally, there is not much description of how things ran at Seminex itself. Tietjen's book describes the place as wonderfully free-flowing and democratically run in its early years (which was always seemingly a goal of the student protest movement in that period, anyway); but then getting bogged down and growing more rigid, which proved annoying to students who had hoped to establish a more democratic institution than Seminex ended up being. That's just his perspective, obviously, but it seems like the school itself was an experiment that would be interesting to discuss.
I'll try to get a copy of the Board of Control's report. I'm sure it will help flesh out the story. If you have a chance to go back through your copy, or the Missouri in Perspective newsletters, that would most likely result in more great detail for this piece. I hope that this article will continue to grow.
Ropcat 04:01, 29 March 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: J. A. O. Preus II. MisfitToys 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: =

message: Is the Jacob Preus mentioned Jacob Aall Ottesen Preus, or someone else? Charles Matthews 13:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: J. A. O. Preus II. MisfitToys 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preus

message: It seems to me that this article should have a list of the faculty who walked out and started Seminex.  I attended there for one term but have nothing that reminds me of who all joined the students who walked out.  I've spent two hours now searching the internet for this information and haven't been able to find it.  I presume this information can be found in one of the historical publications but I have no access to any. Dismalscholar (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faculty List