text:
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)

title: Talk:Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod


text:
Breen (Star Trek)

The Breen are a fictional extraterrestrial species featured in the Star Trek science fiction franchise. They were first mentioned in "The Loss", a fourth-season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation which first aired in 1990. References to them were made in several other Next Generation episodes, but they did not appear until the 1996 fourth season Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Indiscretion". On Deep Space Nine, they played a significant role in the final story arc of the series in 1999, during which much information about them was revealed. The Breen's true appearance remained unknown to viewers until the 2024 fifth season of Star Trek: Discovery episode Mirrors while flashing back to reveal the history of the character L’ak.

Production history
The Breen were first mentioned in "The Loss", a fourth-season episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation which first aired in 1990. The episode established their race as one of several alien species to be unreadable by empaths, much like the Ferengi. References to them were made in several other Next Generation ("Hero Worship" S05 E11) and Star Trek: Voyager episodes but they were not seen until the 1996 Deep Space Nine episode "Indiscretion", which aired as part of that show's fourth season. They were depicted as running a mining facility from which Gul Dukat and Major Kira rescued Dukat's daughter, Tora Ziyal. According to DS9 writer/producer Robert Hewitt Wolfe, after having previously been treated as red herrings since their first mention on Next Generation, and as a running joke by the production staff because "they were these people who were out there who were dangerous but were never really responsible for any of the trouble going on", they would finally be used as the villains in an episode. Their true appearance would be concealed beneath masks, according to writer/producer Ira Steven Behr, because "I wasn't really in the mood to come up with a new alien race. So I said, 'Let's not see them. Let's just put them in costume because they normally live in the cold.'"

The look of the Breen masks, which includes a "snout", was derived from the visual suggestion that they are a snouted species, like an Arctic wolf. The Breen costumes were problematic for the actors playing them, since they made both seeing and breathing difficult: there was only a single small hole in the beak, about eight inches from the actor's nose, according to stand-in and stunt double Todd Slayton, who played Thot Gor. The costumes also included big, clumsy boots, and the outfits were layered like an armadillo, making movement difficult. The helmets, which were complicated to put on and remove, were held together with magnets, and were prone to falling off when someone bumped into them. The switches for the lights on the helmets were inside the helmets, requiring the actor to remove the helmet to turn the lights on and off. For reasons unknown to production personnel, the nine-volt batteries that powered the lights lasted only minutes.

In keeping with the Breen as a mysterious race, the sounds of the Breen's speech were inspired by the Lou Reed album Metal Machine Music, which the post-production sound staff were instructed to listen to when creating the electronic cackle that served as the Breen's voices.

History and culture
The Breen homeworld is called Breen, according to the 1999 Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "'Til Death Do Us Part", and was said to be a frozen wasteland in "Indiscretion". However, in the 1999 episode "The Changing Face of Evil", it was stated by Weyoun that it is in fact rather temperate. Among the Breen, pregnancy at a young age was a common occurrence, according to "Elogium", a 1995 second season Star Trek: Voyager episode, though it has not been established what is considered "young" in the Breen culture. The Breen have no blood. How the functions normally carried out by blood in other species are carried out in Breen physiology has not been revealed. Although the Breen diet is unknown, Lieutenant Commander Worf and Ezri Dax were given algae paste when they were prisoners of the Breen in "'Til Death Do Us Part".

Historically, the Klingons were among the first to discover the consequences of underestimating the Breen. As revealed in "'Til Death Do Us Part", during the Klingon Second Empire, Chancellor Mow'ga ordered an entire fleet of Klingon warships to invade and conquer the Breen homeworld. The fleet never returned and was never heard from again. The Romulans have a saying: "Never turn your back on a Breen". This adage was first stated (and illustrated) in the 1997 fifth season Deep Space Nine episode "By Inferno's Light", in which a captive Breen grabbed a disruptor pistol from the holster of a Dominion guard, whose back was turned to him in a Dominion asteroid prison, and used it to disintegrate two Dominion guards at the same time as one of them killed the captive. The Breen in question had not done anything besides sit quietly up until that point, giving no indication that he would be a threat.

The Breen established the isolated Breen Confederacy in the Alpha Quadrant (the quadrant of the Milky Way in which Earth is located, as well as the homeworlds of the Ferengi, Cardassians, and portions of the Klingon Empire and Romulan Star Empire). The Breen established outposts near the Black Cluster, according to the 1992 fifth season Next Generation episode "Hero Worship". They also established mining facilities consisting of Breen guards and slaves kidnapped from spaceships, such as Tora Ziyal, the half-Bajoran daughter of the Cardassian Gul Dukat, whose ship, the Ravinok, had crashed on the planet Dozaria, which was controlled by the Breen, as established in "Indiscretion".

In "Hero Worship" it is mentioned that they have always been politically nonaligned. They later become a powerful ally of the Dominion, a Gamma Quadrant empire, during the Dominion War that was fought during the final two seasons of Deep Space Nine. The Breen were revealed to have allied with the Dominion in "’Til Death Do Us Part", the second episode of the nine-episode story arc that served as the final story arc of Deep Space Nine in 1999. After this occurred, the Breen attacked Earth, destroying parts of San Francisco before being repulsed. They also proved a powerful foe during the Battle of Chin'toka, in which they fought alongside the Cardassians and Dominion against an alliance of the Federation, the Klingon Empire and the Romulan Star Empire. During this battle, the Breen helped destroy a fleet of the alliance's ships, including the USS Defiant. The Breen also assumed great responsibility in military matters. The leading representatives of the Breen Confederacy, called "Thots" (which Damar, leader of the Cardassian military, compares to his own rank of Legate, in the episode “Strange Bedfellows”), such as Thot Gor and Thot Pran, were given more powers, much to the bitterness of Damar, whose own people had earlier joined the Dominion. This was one of the factors which led to Damar changing sides and leading a rebellion to free Cardassia. After the Cardassians turned against the Dominion, the Dominion and the Breen were defeated in the Battle of Cardassia Prime in Deep Space Nine's series finale, "What You Leave Behind".

In the Star Trek: Lower Decks season 3 episode "Trusted Sources," the USS Cerritos encountered Breen occupying the planet Brekka while on a second contact mission. Three Breen interceptors attacked the California-class starship which proved to be no match for them. However, the Cerritos was saved by the automated Texas-class starship USS Aledo which quickly destroyed the Breen starships. In "The Stars at Night," Vice Admiral Les Buenamigo revealed that he was well aware that the Breen were on Brekka and had set up the Cerritos so that Buenamigo would have an excuse to unveil his Texas-class ships.

In Star Trek: Discovery season 5, the Breen have become the Breen Imperium by 3191 and are mentioned to be fighting over a new leader. Captain Rayner of Starfleet expresses concern that the Breen could pose a threat to the Federation. In a possible future witnessed by Rayner and Michael Burnham, the Breen were sold the technology of the Progenitors by L'ak and Moll and they used it to destroy the Federation. In "Mirrors," it's revealed that L'ak himself is actually a Breen and is described as being of royal blood. L'ak, who was considered an outcast despite being the nephew of the Ruhn Primarch of the Sixth Flight, had abandoned his people after falling in love with Moll. For betraying his people, L'ak has an eirgah on him, a blood bounty, and he and Moll hope that the Progenitors' technology will be enough to get the Breen to release the bounty on him. In addition, the Breen are shown to have two forms under their suits: a solid humanoid form that the Primarch claims they have evolved beyond and makes them weak to use, and a fluid form that the Primarch refers to as the Breen's true face. However, L'ak believes that both forms are actually one half of them, and that the Breen are in effect rejecting half of themselves. It's later revealed that six Breen Primarchs, including Ruhn and Tahal, are at war for the Breen throne. L'ak, as the last direct descendant of the Breen Emperor, is a crucial political pawn as whoever controls him hold legitimacy in the war for the throne. It's also revealed that Rayner's homeworld was occupied by forces led by Tahal who killed Rayner's family for resisting the occupation.

After Moll and L'ak are captured by the Federation, Ruhn demands that they be turned over to him while Burnham recognizes Ruhn's dreadnaught as the ship that she saw in the future that had destroyed the Federation. In the middle of negotiations, L'ak injects himself with an overdose of stimulants in order to create a distraction for Moll to escape, but he misjudges the dosage and gives himself a fatal injection despite the best efforts of Dr. Hugh Culber and a Breen medic to save his life. As a result, Ruhn threatens war on the Federation, but Moll, revealing herself to be L'ak's wife, offers up the Progenitors' technology to Ruhn which would allow him to win his war with the other Primarchs by force. The Discovery crew deduces that Moll is hoping to use the Progenitors' technology to resurrect L'ak and is using the Breen to do it, now leaving the Breen and the Federation in a race against each other.

Moll subsequently uses Ruhn's dishonor and lust for power above all else to instigate a mutiny against him. Moll kills Ruhn and takes control of his forces with the intention to resurrect L'ak and place him on the throne of the Breen Imperium. Learning about this, Tahal attempts to seize Ruhn's forces for herself, but Federation Ambassador Saru intercepts Tahal's fleet using the Federation's new pathway drive and coerces her into standing down. Finding a structure containing a portal to the technology close to binary prime black holes, the dreadnaught seizes it, forcing a Discovery away team to sneak aboard the ship in replicated Breen refrigeration suits and steal it. Moll and Burnham enter the portal before Discovery rams the Breen shuttlebay, inflicting heavy damage upon the dreadnaught and casting the portal back into space.

During a final battle for control of the technology, it's discovered that L'ak cannot be resurrected by it. Unable to destroy the dreadnaught, Rayner instead uses Discovery's spore drive to send it and a scout ship sent by Tahal to the galactic barrier. While both ships survive the jump, it will take them a couple of decades to return.

Non-canonical information
In Zero Sum Game, the first novel in the 2010–2012 series Star Trek: Typhon Pact, writer David Alan Mack establishes that the Breen Confederacy is made up of many separate species, all of which wear suits to disguise their appearances and subsume their identities into the Breen name. The known Breen species are:
 * The Amoniri, whose bodies have no blood and which require refrigeration in their suits to survive
 * The Fenrisal, whose pronounced snouts give shape to the traditional Breen helmet
 * The Paclu, who have four-lobed brains that cannot be read by most telepathic species
 * The Silwaan, whose appearance is most humanlike of the Breen subspecies
 * The Vironat, a gray-skinned multi-limbed species (introduced in the sixth novel in the series, Plagues of Night by David R. George III)

Technology and equipment
In "Scorpion", 1997 the third-season finale of Star Trek: Voyager, Lieutenant Tuvok states that the Breen use organic technology in their ships when discussing the bio-organic starships of Species 8472. Their ships are armed with cloaking devices and disruptor-type weapons, according to "Hero Worship".

In Star Trek Generations Riker mentions the Breen as one of only three species with access to Type-III hand-held disruptors.

During the Battle of Chin'toka, a Dominion War battle that occurred in the episode "The Changing Face of Evil", the Breen employ an energy-damping weapon that could shut down all systems on Alliance ships. The Klingons subsequently discover an engine modification that renders Klingon ships immune to this weapon, though it does not work on Federation or Romulan ships since they are powered differently. The Breen used this weapon to great effect, completely immobilizing the USS Defiant, and a fleet of alliance ships, allowing the Breen to destroy them at their leisure.

The helmet of the Breen suits consists of a visor that either glows green, or has small green and red lights on it, and a detachable "beak". The Breen's suits come in two types. The first is a standard suit that is worn by most of the Breen. The second is a more ornate version worn by Thots or other officials that has gold lining and distinctive gold stripes running down the top of the helmet and the "beak", as seen in later episodes of Deep Space Nine, such as "Strange Bedfellows".

In an alternate timeline witnessed in "Face the Strange," of Star Trek: Discovery's fifth season, the Breen were sold the technology of the Progenitors, a race that had seeded the galaxy with humanoid life, and they used it to wipe out the Federation.

In Star Trek: Discovery's fifth season, the Breen have massive dreadnaught-class ships with shields so powerful that they can block the Federation's scanners.

The non-canonical book Legends of the Ferengi claims that the Ferengi were sold warp technology by a Breen they called "the Masked Breen" (because they did not know the Breen all wore masks). In return, they gave the Breen both poles of Ferenginar (the Ferengi homeworld), several comets, and a frozen moon.

Other appearances
A Breen participated in the palio on Deep Space 3, according to "Interface", a 1993 seventh season Next Generation episode.

Breen privateers attacked Free Haven, a Bajoran colony, in "To the Death", a 1996 fourth season Deep Space Nine episode.

A Breen appeared on Star Trek: Voyager as a hologram enhanced by the Hirogen, in the seventh-season episode "Flesh and Blood".

The Breen function as a common recurring enemy for the Federation and the Klingon Empire in Star Trek: Online.

A Breen is one of the main characters in Star Trek: Renegades, a fan film posted to YouTube.

Reception
In June 2014, Charlie Jane Anders, writing for io9, ranked the Breen as the tenth least threatening villains of Star Trek, calling them "one of the bigger letdowns of Star Trek." Anders cited how the race was built up as a supposedly formidable race, with an energy-dampening weapon that disabled enemy ships, only for the Federation to quickly devise a countermeasure to it, after which the Breen's status as opponents faded.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Breen (Star Trek)


text:
John Kluge

John Werner Kluge (September 21, 1914 – September 7, 2010) was a German-American entrepreneur who became a television industry mogul in the United States. At one time he was the richest person in the U.S.

Early life and education
Kluge was born to a Presbyterian family in Chemnitz, Germany, and emigrated to the United States in 1922. He earned his B.A. degree in economics from Columbia University in 1937. Prior to attending Columbia University, Kluge went to Wayne State University for two years. He was of Scots-Irish, English, and German heritage.

During World War II, Kluge served at the secret P.O. Box 1142 interrogation facility outside of Washington, D.C.

Metromedia and Metromedia Company
Kluge's major move into media was by purchasing stock in the Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation in the mid-1950s. The Metropolitan Broadcasting Corporation was the successor of the DuMont Television Network, which was spun off from DuMont Laboratories after the television network ceased operations in 1956. Metropolitan Broadcasting consisted of two stations, WABD in New York City and WTTG in Washington, D.C., both former DuMont outlets now operating as independent stations. Kluge joined the company as its board chairman and largest stockholder in 1958, acquiring the bulk of his shares from founder Allen B. DuMont for about USD $6,000,000.

After gaining control in 1959, Kluge began the company's expansion further into broadcasting, with holdings in television and radio. In the early 1960s, Kluge bought an outdoor advertising firm, and in 1961 the company's name was changed to Metromedia to reflect the diversity of its interests.

In 1986, Kluge sold the Metromedia television stations to 20th Century Fox (then controlled by News Corporation), for a reported US$4 billion. Those stations would later form the core of what would become the Fox television network, (spun off from News Corporation/20th Century Fox with Fox Corporation decades later) which launched on October 9 of that year. The following year, Forbes placed Kluge at the top of its list as the richest man in America.

In retaliation for a lawsuit brought by Paul Winchell, who sought the rights to his children's television program, "Winchell-Mahoney Time", Metromedia management, under orders from Kluge, destroyed the video tapes. Winchell was later awarded nearly $18 million as compensation for Metromedia's capricious behavior.

Following the Fox disposal, Kluge's activities had been carried out through a private venture named Metromedia Company in which he was a partner with Stuart Subotnick. Metromedia's more recent activities have included Eastern European, Commonwealth of Independent States and China telecom/cable/radio ventures through Metromedia International Group and the ill-fated US telecom backbone operation Metromedia Fiber Network. In July 2008, the Metromedia Restaurant Group, part of the Metromedia Company, closed over 300 company-owned Bennigan's and Steak and Ale restaurants. Kluge and partner Stuart Subotnick were also the original team operators of the New York/New Jersey MetroStars Major League Soccer franchise.

John W. Kluge Center
In celebration of the 200th Anniversary of the Library of Congress, Kluge donated an unprecedented $60 million to create the John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. It was created as an academic center where accomplished senior scholars and junior post-doctoral fellows might gather to make use of the Library's incomparable collections and to interact with members of the United States Congress. In addition, his gift would establish a $1 million prize to be given in recognition of a lifetime of achievement in the human sciences, comparable to the Nobel Prize in literature and economics. The Kluge Prize would honor lifetime intellectual achievement in the same way as the Kennedy Center Honors recognize lifetime achievement in the performing arts.

Columbia University
Kluge gave over $510 million to Columbia University. Acknowledging the scholarship funds that enabled him to attend, Kluge gave more than $110 million to Columbia University between 1987 and 1993, primarily to endow financial aid for undergraduates from underprivileged backgrounds. His donations also help many of these students pursue Ph.D.s after they graduate by financing their doctoral studies. On April 11, 2007, Columbia University's President Lee C. Bollinger announced a $400 million pledge from Kluge, which the university was to receive upon the donor's death. The donation marks the fourth largest gift to an institution of higher learning in America, all designated for financial aid. This marks the largest pledge ever devoted exclusively to student aid to any single institution of higher education in the United States.

University of Virginia
In December 1997, John Kluge gifted the bulk of his world-class collection of Aboriginal Australian art to the University of Virginia. The gift led the University of Virginia to found the Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Museum, the only museum in the United States dedicated to the research and presentation of Aboriginal Australian art and culture.

In 2001, Kluge donated his 7378 acre estate in Albemarle County, Virginia to the University of Virginia. The estate, valued in excess of $45 million, was the largest gift in the university's history. UVa has been holding classes and seminars in the various buildings and on the grounds of Morven Farm in an effort to incorporate the land grant into their various course offerings. Many developments are in the works to improve the farm and make it part of the landscape of Charlottesville.

In 2009 he donated $3 million to the university to foster end-of-life compassion.

Political contributions
Through the 1980s he gave donations to both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates and to Senate candidates in various states. In Virginia he mainly gave to Democrats. In 1986 he gave $75,000 to the state Democratic Leadership Council, and in 1989 he donated $100,000 to gubernatorial candidate L. Douglas Wilder.

Personal life
Kluge was a collector of contemporary Indigenous Australian art, and owned works by prominent artists including Clifford Possum Tjapaltjarri.

In 1983, Kluge received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement.

Kluge was married four times. His first wife was Theodora Thomson Townsend, his second was Yolanda Galardo Zucco, his third was Patricia Maureen Rose, and his fourth was Maria Tussi Kuttner. Patricia Kluge kept their Albemarle estate in the 1990 divorce settlement converting it into an award-winning vineyard and winery which opened in 1999. She took out $65 million in loans and mortgaged the mansion to finance production expansion and a related real-estate venture, but defaulted and declared bankruptcy in 2011. Kluge had three children, Joseph (whom he adopted), Samantha (with Zucco) and John Jr. (adopted, with Rose). He also had three step children who remained a part of his life until his death: Diane, Jeanette Brophy and Peter Lockwood Townsend. He had homes in New Rochelle, New York, Virginia and Palm Beach, Florida with his fourth wife, Maria Tussi Kluge, at the time of his death in 2010.

title: John Kluge


text:
River Huntspill

The River Huntspill (or Huntspill River) is an artificial river, in the Somerset Levels, in the Sedgemoor district of Somerset, England. It was built in 1940 to supply process water to ROF Bridgwater, and has resulted in reduced flooding of the lower Brue Valley. Huntspill Sluice at the river's western end, also known as West Huntspill Sluice, separates it from the River Parrett.

A large section of the river and its surrounding lands has been designated as a national nature reserve which is managed by the Environment Agency.

History
The concept for the Huntspill River was first suggested by J. Aubrey Clark in 1853, as a way of improving the drainage of the lower River Brue. Despite his vigorous support for the plan, no action was taken, largely due to the difficulties of getting the two divisions of the Court of Sewers, one responsible for the river system above Langport and the other for that below Langport, to agree on who was responsible and how such a scheme would be funded.

At the outbreak of World War II a new explosives factory, ROF Bridgwater, was proposed. This would need 4.5 million imperial gallons (20 Ml; 5.4M US gal) of process water per day. Louis Kelting, the Chief Engineer of the Somerset Catchment Board revived Clark's plans, and combined the water supply solution with a drainage scheme. In addition to supplying water to the factory an area of 45000 acre was drained of which 4000 acre regularly flooded.

A 5 mi straight channel was excavated using a dragline excavator during the early years of World War II. It was constructed as a priority war work, because of its importance to the munitions factory. The plans had been drawn up in late 1939, and by January 1940 the first excavations were being made.

It ran from Gold Corner, where it was connected to the South Drain, to a new outfall on the estuary of the River Parrett, and had retention sluices at both ends, so that it acted as a long reservoir. It was intended that in the summer, when water supply was lower, it would serve as a reservoir with water pumped from the moors; in winter as a drainage channel, via gravity drainage.

The plans were for a 25 ft channel, with the excavated earth used to create flood banks at its edges. At this depth, water could flow into it from the moors by gravity, but problems were experienced with the design. Because the underlying soil was peat, the weight of the flood bank caused it to rotate and push upwards in the bottom of the channel. Experiments were carried out to find the optimum size for a stable channel, and the result was one that was only 16 ft deep. The flood banks could not exceed 15 ft in height, and had to be set back from the edge of the channel by at least 30 ft. Because of the lack of depth, water from the South Drain had to be pumped into the river. The existing pumping station at Gold Corner could not cope with all the water from the drain, as well as flood water from the moors, so had to be enlarged. Once the entire flow of the South Drain was entering the river, the section northwards from Gold Corner to the River Brue became redundant. Rather than allow it to silt up, it was enlarged, and Cripps sluice constructed where it met the Brue. This enabled water from the Brue, which had nowhere to go because its outlet was blocked by high tides, to be diverted southwards to the Huntspill river, with the result that flooding in the Brue valley was significantly reduced. The pumping station, with four Sultzer horizontal pumps which are powered by two-cylinder oil engines made by Crossley, has since been modernised including the conversion of one of the pumps to use electricity and replacing the fuel tanks.

Excavation of the channel cut through an area containing Roman salt works, the remains of which can be seen beside the river. The ground conditions made construction of bridges difficult, and required piles to be driven down to the underlying rock, some 60 ft long, and one bridge requiring 80 ft piles. The first of the pumps was operational by July 1942, and the pumping station was completed by the end of 1942. The total cost of the project was £411,594 (equivalent to £0 in ), which included £35,000 for the construction of the new pumping station, and £26,000 to purchase the machinery fitted into it.

Flora and fauna
A 366 acre stretch of the river, from Gold Corner to Huntspill Sluice (excluding the Cripps River), is a national nature reserve. The NNR is managed by the Environment Agency, rather than by Natural England, responsible for most of the other reserves in England. This arrangement is authorised by section 35 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and funding for the maintenance and upkeep of the river as a reserve is still provided by Natural England. The river and its catchment area include several Sites of Special Scientific Interest; of these, Street Heath, Shapwick Heath, and Westhay Heath are affected by water levels in the South Drain, while the water levels in Catcott, Edington and Chilton Moors SSSI are directly controlled by Gold Corner pumping station. This site has been designated because of the types of flowers found in its wet grasslands, the variety of wildlife found in its ditches, and its populations of wading birds, particularly lapwing, redshank and snipe.

The river discharges into the River Parrett just south of Highbridge. The Parrett flows into Bridgwater Bay, which is also an important national nature reserve, on the edge of the Bristol Channel.

Water quality
The Environment Agency measure water quality of the river systems in England. Each is given an overall ecological status, which may be one of five levels: high, good, moderate, poor and bad. There are several components that are used to determine this, including biological status, which looks at the quantity and varieties of invertebrates, angiosperms and fish. Chemical status, which compares the concentrations of various chemicals against known safe concentrations, is rated good or fail.

The water quality of the Huntspill River was as follows in 2019. Like most rivers in the UK, the chemical status changed from good to fail in 2019, due to the presence of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) and mercury compounds, neither of which had previously been included in the assessment.

title: River Huntspill


text:
Allan MacEachen

Allan Joseph MacEachen (July 6, 1921 – September 12, 2017) was a Canadian politician and statesman who served as a senator and several times as a Cabinet minister. He was the first deputy prime minister of Canada and served from 1977 to 1979 and 1980 to 1984.

Early life
Born in Inverness on Nova Scotia's Cape Breton Island, MacEachen graduated from St. Francis Xavier University, and lectured in economics for several years at the school. He was the son of Annie Gillies and Angus MacEachen, a coal miner from Inverness County, Nova Scotia. MacEachen's maternal grandfather immigrated to Cape Breton Island from Morar, Scotland, in 1865. MacEachen's parents both spoke the distinctive Nova Scotia dialect of Scottish Gaelic at home and MacEachen himself was a fluent speaker.

Early political career
MacEachen was elected for the first time to the House of Commons of Canada in the 1953 election as a Liberal under the leadership of Prime Minister Louis St-Laurent. MacEachen was re-elected in the 1957 election but was defeated in the Progressive Conservative Diefenbaker sweep in the 1958 election, the largest federal electoral victory in Canadian history.

MacEachen was re-elected to Parliament in the 1962 general election and again in the 1963, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979, and 1980 elections.

Cabinet minister
When Lester B. Pearson formed a Liberal government in 1963, he appointed MacEachen to cabinet as Minister of Labour. It was the beginning of a lengthy career in cabinet in which MacEachen served in several portfolios under Prime Ministers Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and John Turner. Over the course of his career, MacEachen held the following portfolios: Labour, National Health and Welfare, Manpower and Immigration, Privy Council, External Affairs, and Finance.

In addition to his ministerial responsibilities, MacEachen served as Government House Leader on three occasions and became the first Deputy Prime Minister of Canada in 1977 under Trudeau, a post that was held whenever Trudeau was in office until the latter retired.

In his memoirs, published in 1993, Trudeau wrote that MacEachen "had a very good strategic sense, both in and out of Parliament, and he lived and breathed politics." For Trudeau, he "was always a source of shrewd advice" and "was the kind of man I respected, because he had no ulterior motives; he said what he thought, and the reasons he would give were always his real reasons."

In 1968 MacEachen contested the leadership of the Liberal Party but did not do well, largely because there was a second Nova Scotian on the ballot. He was courted to run for leader again in 1984 but opted to support John Turner, the eventual winner.

In 1979, when the Liberals lost the election to Joe Clark's Conservatives, MacEachen served as interim Leader of the Opposition when Trudeau announced his retirement from politics. Trudeau's short-lived retirement ended with the defeat of Clark's government in a vote of confidence of his budget and the Liberals' return to power with a majority government on February 18, 1980.

MacEachen took the role of Finance Minister and announced the National Energy Policy as part of his 1980 budget. He also angered public sector unions in his 1982 budget by imposing a wage restraint package dubbed "six and five," which limited wage increases to 6% and 5% for the next two years. That was while double-digit interest rates and inflation were common.

Senator
Turner, the new party leader and prime minister, recommended MacEachen for appointment to the Senate, where MacEachen became Leader of the Government in the Senate. MacEachen was in that position only briefly, as Turner lost the 1984 election, but MacEachen started the practice of allowing opposition senators to chair a number of committees, a practice that continues today.

From 1984 to 1991, he served as leader of the opposition in the Senate, where he was regarded as the primary opposition to the Conservative Brian Mulroney's first term because of Mulroney's substantial majority in the Commons, with an opposition that was spread nearly equally between Turner's Liberals and Ed Broadbent's New Democratic Party. In 1988, after a request by Turner, MacEachen blocked the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in the Senate to force an election before the issue was settled. The agreement was the main issue of the 1988 election. After Mulroney's victory, MacEachen and the Senate passed the agreement.

After the election, MacEachen again used the Senate to block the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax. Mulroney recommended for appointment several new senators and used an emergency power in the Constitution Act, 1867, to allow him to recommend for appointment eight new senators. MacEachen then led a filibuster against the bill, with Liberal members defying Speaker Guy Charbonneau, who voted for Conservative motions. The Liberal senators used other tactics to delay Senate business. Soon, the motion was passed, and the Progressive Conservative majority passed new rules for the Senate to forbid such actions.

MacEachen retired from the Senate in 1996 after he had reached the mandatory retirement age of 75, and he became a dollar-per-year adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Further controversy ensued in 1998, when it was discovered that he was still using a full Senate office.

Retirement and death
After leaving the Senate, MacEachen retired to Nova Scotia spending the rest of his life at his house on Lake Ainslie in Inverness County, Cape Breton and in Antigonish. In 2006, MacEachen endorsed Bob Rae's candidacy to lead the Liberal Party, and was appointed honorary campaign chair of Rae's campaign.

MacEachen died at the age of 96 on September 12, 2017, at St. Martha's Hospital in Antigonish, Nova Scotia.

Honours
In 2008, he was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

St. Francis Xavier University holds the annual Allan J. MacEachen lecture in his honour. In 2000, the Allan J. MacEachen International Academic and Cultural Centre was opened in Mabou, Nova Scotia. The complex consists of a secondary school, Dalbrae Academy, and Strathspey Place, a performing arts centre. Dalhousie University's MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance is also named after him.

In 2021, Beaton Street, which is where MacEachen was raised in Inverness, Nova Scotia, was renamed Allan J. Memorial Avenue. The renaming coincided with the hundredth anniversary of MacEachen's birth, and was widely celebrated by many in the small Cape Breton community. Project chair Ben MacKay remarked at the unveiling ceremony that “There is no better example to leave behind for my generation, and all future generations of young people in this country.”

title: Allan MacEachen


text:
Mischief

Mischief or malicious mischief is the name for a class of criminal offenses that is defined differently in different legal jurisdictions. While the wrongful acts will often involve what is popularly described as vandalism, there can be a legal differentiation between vandalism and mischief. The etymology of the word comes from Old French meschief, which means "misfortune", from meschever, "to end badly".

Canada
The country's Criminal Code makes mischief a hybrid offence, punishable by up to and including life imprisonment if the mischief causes actual danger to human life. Public mischief is the term for the crime of wasting police time.

Scotland
Malicious mischief is an offence against the common law of Scotland. It does not require actual damage to property for the offence to be committed; financial damage consequential to the act is sufficient, unlike vandalism which requires actual damage to property to form the offence, the latter being defined by section 52 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.

United States
In United States criminal law, mischief is an offense against property that typically involves the intentional or reckless infliction of damage, defacement, alteration, or destruction of property. Common forms include vandalism and graffiti. Governed by state law, criminal mischief is committed when a perpetrator, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he/she has such a right, intentionally or recklessly damages property of another person, intentionally participates in the destruction of property of another person, or participates in the reckless damage or destruction of property of another person.

title: Mischief