Talk:Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod

Official LCMS Statement Regarding Logo Use on Wikipedia
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)

Infallibillity vs Inerrancy
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
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 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?
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)


 * 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
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:65.31.202.105, 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
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
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???
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)

Pope
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.


 * 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 .''

''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: http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=579 . 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
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
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 68.127.86.172 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)

Seminex
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)?--67.208.53.205 (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

President-Elect Harrison
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
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)

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Isn't Anti-Catholic
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
I found this article that explains better the Lutheran Church-Missouri Snod views on creation, inteligent design and evolution:. 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:. 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)

Consistent name format of Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Official seal
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
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
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
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)
 * 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)

"suffrage"
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)

Suggested Correction - Relationship with other Lutheran bodies
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Word Salad in "Law and Gospel"
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)


 * 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)

Calvinist Politics
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)
 * 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)

LCMS National Youth Gathering locations and themes
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.189.148 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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)

President Harrison denounces disturbing ideologies
https://reporter.lcms.org/2023/president-harrison-denounces-disturbing-ideologies/ soibangla (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Requested move 25 August 2023

 * 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 → 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, 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, Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod/Archive 1 and Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod/Archive 1. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Lightoil (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support move to . Agree with nom that the current title gives a misleading impression of a MOS:ENBETWEEN relationship. Per MOS:TM, we should use the standard "spaced en dash" formatting unless independent sources consistently use the em dash; from what I've seen, sources aren't terribly consistent, so the MOS should hold. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Follow up to page move
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)
 * 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. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

LCMS and episcopal polity
The LCMS has a form of episcopal polity which is more independent. Presidents are installed in episcopal manner, along with the role of District President being equivalent of Bishop. Because the role of President is consecrated with valid apostolic succession and being equvalent to Archbishop, it is a factual statement that the LCMS has an episcopal polity. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Unless you can supply a source that explicitly says that the LCMS has an episcopal polity, then you are engaging in original research. The source you provided does not support that claim. The president is certainly not consecrated with valid apostolic succession as that term is commonly used - that is, by a bishop who was in turn apostolically consecrated in a line back through the centuries. The LCMS, in line with the Lutheran Confessions, states that such a process is not forbidden and can be desirable, but there is no requirement for it. Indyguy (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @IndyguyThe English district names their Synod Presidents as Bishop. Sources: https://englishdistrict.org/about-us/staff BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @BonifatiusSecuris: That doesn't prove anything. His official title as far as the synod is concerned is "district president", and the English District's use of the title "bishop" irritates many in the rest of the synod. Moreover, the title "bishop" it itself doesn't necessarily mean that there is an episcopal polity. You're making unwarranted inferences and still need to have a reliable source that actually states that the LCMS has an episcopal polity. Indyguy (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source saying that we have a congregational polity? BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 03:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Christian Cyclopedia article on "Polity" on the LCMS website describes the various types of polity and says specifically "4. The cong. system is different from others, e.g., papal, presb., and episc. see also Collegialism; Territorial System. Most syns. in Am. have the cong. system, in which, e.g., also the right to call, elect, and install ministers, teachers, and ch. officers rests with the local ch." Indyguy (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say we have congregational polity though. A congregational polity does not give the head of the church power to remove churches without permission. In addition, the LCMS’ church structure is episcopal in everyway but name (other than the English district mentioned earlier, which uses the title Bishop regularly). It is true that we give more independence to congregations, but we do not give them complete self-rule. All congregations are part of a Synod with a regional President/Bishop, who are subservient to the LCMS President/Archbishop. Because of our structure, we are indeed a church with episcopal polity, and we have valid consecration. Furthermore, the Book of Concord states that not only is episcopal polity recommended, but it is encouraged. However, the logic of saying the LCMS has a congregational polity is like saying the Orthodox Church has a congregational polity. We are ran in a way very close to that of the Orthodox Church, which has an episcopal polity. Here is a source from the Book of Concord on episcopal polity and it's importance. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The source I provided says that most synods in the US have a congregational polity. I agree it doesn't specifically say LCMS, but considering that the Christian Cyclopedia was published by the LCMS and the article doesn't single out the LCMS as being unlike most synods in the US, that means the LCMS has a congregational polity.
 * The fact that the district presidents are subservient to the synodical president does not mean that the congregations are subservient to the district presidents. The synod's constitution explicitly states that synod is advisory to the congregations.
 * Again, please provide a reliable source that states that the LCMS has an episcopal polity. So far all you've given is your own conclusions, which is considered to be original research on Wikipedia. Indyguy (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * https://resources.lcms.org/multimedia/life-together-as-synod-module-10-district-presidents-and-the-council-of-presidents/: Each of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s 35 districts has a district president — “a pastor among pastors”.
 * This is the same thing as "First Among Equals" in the Orthodox Church. This would mean that we have episcopal polity, or a modified version of it. All the sources I have provided have came from primary sources. I would appreciate it if you provide a primary source also, preferably an official LCMS statement or doctrinal affirmation. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 18:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, that source does not state that the LCMS has an episcopal polity. It is also original research on your part to assert that a "pastor among pastors" is the same as "first among equals". (They are not). I am again reverting your edits until you can provide a source that actually says what you are advocating. Indyguy (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No where does the LCMS say that we have a congregational polity. It would be agreeable that we have a Synodical polity, but we are not congregational. Nowhere in the LCMS Encyclopedia that you linked to me say that the LCMS has congregational polity. The only official (non-infered) statement is that we have a Synodical polity. Until they make a statement, it would be best to have it say “Synodical”, without adding “Modified Congregational” or “Modified Episcopal”. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a search on the LCMS website for the word episcopal, and the only hits that came up were for references to other church bodies and nothing with regards to the LCMS itself. When I searched for polity, one of the first hits is "Historic and Current Voting Practice in the Conventions of the Synod ...", which on page 3 states "The church consists in the community of believers and all ecclesiastical authority resides in the congregation." It also references the book Church and Ministry by C. F. W. Walther which the synod in convention affirmed in 1851 and again in 2001 as the official position of the synod. In light of the difficulties that Walther and the Saxons experienced with Bishop Stephan after they arrived in Missouri, he was against an episcopal setup for the Lutheran church in America.
 * Whether we state this as "synodical/modified congregational" or as "synodical/congregational" is not a big deal to me. I think the "modified" adjective was added to distinguish the LCMS from churches that have only a tenuous relationship, if any, with a larger body. "Synodical" covers that well enough. Indyguy (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The LCMS church structure is really it’s own form, albeit historical. Several cases in the early church had parishes that ran in the same way as the LCMS. For example, Saint Ambrose, with valid orders, was elected by the laity to become bishop. It wasn’t a form of congregationalism however, but it was close to how the LCMS ordains. Because we have valid ordination by priests (laying on of hands) while laity has a say, it would be safe to change the description for polity as “Synodical” without any labels. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with using "Synodical" by itself because it has a meaning/context that is not familiar to anyone other than North American Lutherans. The source that you cited in your most recent edit (https://www.lcms.org/convention/governance) doesn't support its use since the source's title is "Congregational Governance" and the word "synodical" does not appear in it. You also are misunderstanding what ordination in the LCMS signifies. A pastor (very, very rarely is the term "priest") receives his position by the "call" of the congregation, and his ordination/installation is an acknowledgement by the larger church body of that call. The LCMS, in accord with the Lutheran Confessions, agrees that the rite of ordination (at the time of a pastor's first call) or installation (for subsequent calls) should not be omitted, but the rite, with its laying on of hands, is not what gives him the position of pastor (although he will usually not take up his duties until the rite has been performed). It is therefore different from ordinations in the Catholic or Orthodox church. I'll also note that the district president does not even have to be in attendance; he can designate another pastor as his representative. Indyguy (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The term may be unfamiliar, but it is more accurate than “congregationalist” or “episcopal” due to neither fitting the category. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Then you should be able to find a reliable source that says so. I've already provided one that says that "all ecclesiastical authority resides in the congregation". I think that necessarily implies a congregational polity. As I said before, I don't object to the phrase "Synodicall/congregational". Indyguy (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not all power is given to the congregation. If you read section 2.3 of the LCMS constitution and bylaws, it says that all congregations that are part of synod must comply with all policies passed by the LCMS. Congregational polity is where all congregations are autonomous (not under any authority except regions, which are usually only symbolic). Because the LCMS has a hierarchical system, even with degrees of congregational autonomy, in no way is it congregational in polity due to our structure and requirements for member churches. In actual congregational churches, the congregation can choose all of it’s laws, occasionally even doctrine. Synods are unique to Lutheranism, so it would only make sense that the polity is to be labeled  as “Synodical” instead of congregational, because congregational polity is a seperate form of church governance. BonifatiusSecuris (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't respond to this earlier. Any congregation can leave the synod at any time without the synod's consent as long as the constitution and bylaws of the congregation are followed. The synod/district can remove a congregation if the congregation's doctrine or practice violates doctrinal standards. Even the Southern Baptist Convention can disassociate churches that don't comply with SBC doctrinal standards, and I don't think anyone would classify the SBC's polity as anything other than congregational. Indyguy (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm stumbling upon this discussion several months late, but it's probably worth noting that LCMS theologian David Scaer explicitly described the synod's polity as congregational in an essay he wrote on Francis Pieper: "With his Law and Gospel, C. F. W. Walther had earlier shaped the sermons of the synod's preachers and his Church and Ministry had provided the design for its congregational polity, but Pieper was its theologian." (David P. Scaer, "Francis Pieper (1852–1931)," in Twentieth-Century Lutheran Theologians, edited by Mark C. Mattes, 19)
 * Melton's Encyclopedia of Protestantism (p. 433), Clifford E. Nelson's Lutherans in North America (p. 188), and Mary Todd's Authority Vested (p. 120) also describe the LCMS as having a congregational polity. Bnng (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, since I happen to have some sources handy, a few notes on the English District's use of the term "bishop." An overture was submitted to the 1981 synodical convention, requesting permission to use "Bishop" as an alternative title for synod and district presidents and vice-presidents. Resolution 3-19 ("To Retain the Terminology of 'President' and 'Vice Presidents,'") declined to allow it. The synod's Commission on Constitutional Matters restated this position twice in 2000, then said that it "bishop" may be used informally as an alternate title in 2011 and 2015. While I don't have a problem with a district president being referred to as a bishop, the synod, through its national convention, has decided otherwise. It's therefore not correct to cite the English District's continued use of that title as an endorsement of it or of an episcopal polity by the synod as a whole. Bnng (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Bnng. That's very helpful and corresponds with what I had thought was the case. Indyguy (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)