User talk:Mystichiker

Welcome!

Hello, Mystichiker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Woogee (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Could you please use edit summaries? Thank you. Woogee (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this. It is very helpful to other editors if you would briefly state the reason for your edits. LloydSommerer (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} I am so sorry. I just stumbled across this editing without studying up on the protocol. Thank you for alerting me to the edit summaries and the discussion. I have a lot to learn and the structure does not seem to be easy to learn. I will try to do better in the future. So far, all the editing I have done is to neutralize a few heavily biased articles. In the future I will summarize the edits and try to learn how to respond to comments and engage in the discussions. Thank you, again, for your responses. How do I respond when someone 'talks' to me? I'm sure it is obvious to you. Do you both see this entry? Mystichiker (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They both can see this entry, and if they are watching this page, they will find it. You can also use the talkback template on their talkpage to let them know they have a message on your page. -- /MWOAP|[[User_Talk:MWOAP|

Concern with biblical citations

Given your comments on Lsommer's page, I just wanted to let you know that there was a big discussion on the use of Bible citations in the Lutheranism article several years ago. It went through the RfC process and it was decided by consensus that it was okay to use Biblical citations, with the caveat that for the Lutheranism article they also needed a citation from one or more dogmatic books. The dogmatic books could be from either conservative or liberal perspectives, and each citation did not require need one of each. The POV is still neutral when, in denominational articles, it is speaking of what a certain denomination holds about Scripture. Through over a year of labor by various people, pairing out some Bible citations, and doubling up others with various dogmatic books, the article was brought up to standard. To the best of my knowledge, when a consensus decision has been achieved through an official process on Wikipedia, it takes a repeat of that process to alter the consensus.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the history. As an ordained Lutheran pastor, I take issue with many of the assertions and dogmatic citations which are not representative of Lutheranism in general but only a fundamentalist minority. It has come clear to me that this editing process is time intensive enough to favor the most strident over the most neutral, which explains why Lutherans of the more liberal persuasion would not invest the time necessary to create a balanced "consensus." Is there any interest on the part of Wikipedia editors or administrators to consult official statements of belief made by major representative bodies? For example, the largest Lutheran denomination in North America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has an easily accessible website with official statements such as, www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/The-Bible.aspx

Thanks for your response. I see you don't agree with how the article describes Lutheranism. Use of terms such as "fundamentalist" is usually not recommended on Wikipedia due to the fact it reflects of a non-neutral POV. While everyone has a POV, the articles must remain neutral. In the previous discussions on the talk page, it was decided that pan-Lutheran sources such as the Lutheran Confessions could be included as sources, but were not absolutely necessary, as denominational doctrine books could also work.

As for the positions on the ELCA website, I've looked at it before, but generally found it too vague in nature to use as an encyclopedic source. Several years ago, I attempted to find a definite, "yes or no" position on inerrancy on the webpage you mentioned, and was unsuccessful. In addition, it is a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers citations from secondary and tertiary sources when available (which is why the Bible citations needed to be doubled up with doctrine-book citations). I've read some of Braaten's dogmatics, but most of it is written in theologicese that is difficult to understand and pertains to obscure academic discussions that I don't know much about. Most of the doctrine books cited in the Summary of Doctrine section are ones that are on the internet in the public domain.

This article is maintained by a diverse group of people, including some in the ELCA and Scandinavian national churches. As for reflecting the diverse views of today, the article already has a paragraph on, "Today, Lutherans disagree about the inspiration and authority of the Bible" and an entire history section on the diverse views on ecumenical issues.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and for your explanation of how "fundamentalist" may be misunderstood. It was the strident POV in the Bible and Judgment sections that stood out to me. Your remarks relative to the ELCA website make my point exactly; i.e., that Lutherans disagree about the Bible and that the ELCA (a U.S. majority of Lutherans) has a more vague definition of the word of God than the Lutheranism article depicts. I have entered my proposed editing on the Lutheranism talk page under the Bible section. Thanks, again, for working on this.Mystichiker (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]