Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:18, 20 January 2007

/Archive May 20, 2006

"Explanation" vs. "Exposition"

It is more accurate to speak of the Lutheran confessional writings as giving an exposition of Scripture rather than an explanation. "Exposition" means a "setting forth" while "explanation" has more of the connotation of "talking about something." The Lutheran Confessions do not talk about Scriptural doctrine, they set them forth. I don't think that exposition is that sophisticated a word.--Drboisclair 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please leave the link to creeds in the definition

Lutherans consider their confessional writings to be creeds, so I think that it is appropriate to leave this reference in this paragraph. The writings of the 16th and 17th Century dogmaticians could also be defined as simply making statements about Lutheran doctrine. The Lutheran confessional writings have more formal authority.--Drboisclair 23:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are just going to confuse readers. Lutherans do NOT regard the Lutheran Confessions on the same level as the Creeds proper. Ptmccain 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that idea from? I know that the Confessions have a descending order of importance from the Apostles Creed to the Formula, but what is your authority for saying this? Please remember that this is a joint venture. We don't have to dumb things down here.--Drboisclair 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that we are on the same page here. The Lutheran symbolical books, AC, Ap, etc. were not considered creeds as were the Apostolicam, the Nicenoconstantinopolitanum, and the Athanasiam. SDG!--Drboisclair 19:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Creeds?

Confessional Lutherans certainly do consider the Lutheran Confessions to be equal to the three Ecumenical Creeds. Equally true, equally binding. What is at issue, exactly?

--Uac1530 06:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue was simply which word to use "exposition" or "explanation."Ptmccain 11:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not necessary to turn this article into a stub

The excising of information of this article turns it into a mere stub. There is disagreement as to essential and non essential here.--Drboisclair 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Overformatting

There is no good reason that I know of to bold and italicize every (less two) instance of The Book of Concord in this article. Discussion? Keesiewonder 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I started to change it. Have at it. Justas Jonas 13:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Article without Discussion

Please elaborate on the article movement war that seems to have started. Keesiewonder 13:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes more sense to title it this way. More descriptive and will make it easier for folks to find. Keesie, you do not have to stalk me on Misplaced Pages, do you? Since you've only been editing since last November or so, I'm sure you might not be aware of the Misplaced Pages guideline on harassment, but you really need to read it and follow it. WP:Harassment. Thanks. Justas Jonas 13:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, just like at Martin Luther, it is beginning to appear that you, JJ, are in the minority. I am not the only one who did not like your edit ; nor was I the first to question you about it. Probably no other regular editor besides us three has had a chance to see it yet. Since when does Justas Jonas speak for all English speaking Lutherans? If you can cite someone like the Bishop Mark S. Hanson or Rev. Matthew C. Harrison on this "ease of use" criteria, I'll be more interested. And, before you go around accusing others of stalking, consider, first, the possibility that the common denominator may be that you and I are both Lutheran, and, second, you may feel stalked because you appear to frequent less than 20 different articles. Keesiewonder 15:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Keesie, the reason I know you are in violation of WP:Harassment is the fact that you are obsessing over my every edit and keep tossing up nutso accusations on the Admin boards. You seem to think that you need to be the Mother Hen over my edits and my participation on Misplaced Pages and it is truly weird. Just cut it out, ok. Go about your business and I'll go about mine. There is no Wiki policy requiring any user to get your permission before editing, or to provide his/her credentials to you in order to satisfy whatever list of qualifications you have created in your mind. This is just getting ridiculous. Stop harassing me and stop whining. Edit and be done with it. If you don't like what I've done, revert it. If I don't like that, I'll revert it. Or maybe I won't. Calm down and find something better to do with your time than stalking and harassing me. It's totally creepy!18:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I find the accusation by Justas Jonas above both disturbing and completely unfounded. I am familiar with the user he has I believe unjustifiably personally attacked, and know that she has a pronounced interest in the subject of Lutheranism, as she is perfectly entitled to have, and is doing what she can to improve and manage articles related to the subject, for which she should be applauded, not condemned. I am also aware that she is a very active contributor on a number of subjects, and that her own comment above, that the accuser may have come to that conclusion because of his own comparatively narrow interests, is probably accurate. And it is a standard guideline to discuss moving a page or any other such drastic move before doing so, in accord with wikipedia's official policy on consensus. I strongly urge Justas Jonas to familiarize himself with these subjects, before his own misconduct potentially draws the attention of administrators. Badbilltucker 15:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

BadBill, you may not be familiar with precisely what I'm talking about. Keesie has taken to tracking me about on Wiki and has posted conspiracy theory accusations about me on the arbitration boards, without following proper procedures, and without even bothering to inform me. So, there's more to this than you are aware of Bill. Of course she is entitled to edit however she wishes, but her problem is that from nearly day one she has persisted in running me down, telling me continually I'm a new user and she is so vastly experienced. Frankly put, the lady , has some serious issues. It's just getting downright creepy. Justas Jonas 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, BadBilltucker. (Thankfully, I'm wise enough to know you are not stalking me! ;-) ...) Might you be comfortable moving this page back to where it belongs? Or shall we patiently wait for CTSWyneken? (OMG! Maybe he's stalking me too. Nah! I don't worry about such things.) Anyway, regarding the movement of this page, as it is now, it's broken and is favored by only one user who has yet to answer my questions regarding his being able to speak for all English speaking Lutherans. Thanks for your thoughts (BadBilltucker or CTSWyneken). Keesiewonder 18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The official policy for naming conventions comes into play here. To quote the nutshell summary of the page, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The shorter name is to my eyes the more easily recognized one, and, being shorter, makes inserting links to it in other articles easier. Also, there is not to my knowledge any other book called the "Book of Concord", so the qualification regarding ambiguity does not come into play here. On the basis of the above, I believe that the page would be best named "Book of Concord", as it best meets all of the qualifications quoted above. Badbilltucker 19:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Material from the German Misplaced Pages entry.

Do we still need this on the article's page? It didn't appear so to me ... so, I've moved it here for safe keeping, just in case ... Keesiewonder 16:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. I don't see any need for it in the article either Keesie. Gasp! Did we just agree on something? <g> Are you going to go through and remove the bold face words in the article that are out of place? I think they look odd. Justas Jonas 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Translation of the German Misplaced Pages entry

Source:

The Book of Concord was published on June 25, 1580 in Dresden as complete collection of the so called "symbolical books of the Lutheran Church" in the German language. In this sense it can also be described as canon or corpus doctrinæ of the Lutheran Church. The authentic Latin text was published in Leipzig in 1584.

The Book of Concord contains:

• the three so called ecumenical symbols (creeds)
  • the Apostolic Creed (Apostolicum)
  • the Niceno-Constantinopolitanum (called Nicaenum)
  • the Athanasian Creed (Athanasianum),
• the so called Lutheran particular symbols
  • the so called unaltered Augsburg Confession according to the supposedly German original copy,
  • the Apology of the Augsburg Confession according to the German translation of Justus Jonas the Elder,
  • the Smalcald Articles of 1537
    • with the appendix of Philipp Melanchthon on the power and authority of the pope
  • the Small Catechism of Martin Luther
    • with the appended wedding and baptismal booklets,
  • the Large Catechism of Luther,
  • the Formula of Concord.

The concept "ecumenical symbols," which had been used since 1577, however, has not been employed accurately.

Coming in like bulls in a china shop

Before removing things wholesale and moving articles editors should have the courtesy to discuss doing this. The article was fine as it was. The translation of the German Wiki article is a useful resource, since the Book of Concord is a German and Latin collection of documents.--Drboisclair 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

DRbois, you make some good points. It is kind of funny though that Keesie will throw a temper tantrum at my every edit and chew me out about not touching articles without discussing them, but then comes along and does a big chop job on the BOC article, which I actually happen to agree with, but it is truly amusing to see how she operates with a double standard. Funny! Hypocritical too. I don't see though any "value added" by using the German WIKI article. Is there something really new or different in it beyond what we have without it? I am not sure. Justas Jonas 19:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drboisclair. I completely agree about the article moving, and thank you for clarifying why you like seeing the German translation. Since we're on the English language Misplaced Pages, and since there is a high amount of overlap between the section now called Documents constituting The Book of Concord and the section called Translation of the German Misplaced Pages entry, it initially seemed quite redundant and a bit messy to me. There also was not any material in the talk page or the (then broken) archive link. But, I certainly do not feel strongly about the translated section; so, stay it does! Please take a few minutes to read the threads above if you have not already, and please accept my premature editing of the translated section. Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still wondering though why it is perfectly ok for Keesie, at least in her mind, to drastically change a page, but not others? Hmmmm?Justas Jonas 19:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It provides for English speaking people in general and English speaking Lutherans in particular the way in which Germans, for whom most of the original language of the Confessions, define them. They have an advantage over us in that they can read the German documents like we would read the newspaper. It answers the question: In the Lutherland what do they think about the Lutheran Confessions today? I think that it is helpful, but I am only one editor among many. Thank you for responding so quickly and with respectful courtesy.--Drboisclair 19:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)