THIS is just odd (Mollie)

The LCMS Reporter staff didn’t publish any letters to the editor this month. Instead, they published something that makes me wonder just how bad their mail must be. Check out what I mean:

‘Reporter’ still gets letters

Although there is no “Letters to the Editor” column in this month’s Reporter, don’t assume it’s because we didn’t receive any letters in the past month. That hardly ever is the case.

If you’ve written a letter that doesn’t appear in print, please remember that may be due to any one of a number of factors, including lack of space in a particular issue.

Sometimes, letters are more appropriately handled via one-on-one communication than through print. Other letters may address topics that do not have broad enough readership appeal to warrant printing.

Still other letters may be based on or contain incorrect information — in those cases, our staff attempts to convey the correct information back to writers or asks experts to communicate directly with writers.

And there are times when the staff decides to lay aside letters that do not “put the best construction on everything,” to quote Martin Luther.

I wrote a letter to the Reporter in response to an article it published. It dealt with public statements, so it wouldn’t have been better handled via private communication and there were no 8th Commandment issues in play. It didn’t get published.

Anyway, I’m wondering just how negative their mail must be to have to publish a column like this.


Comments

THIS is just odd (Mollie) — 37 Comments

  1. There’s no need to speculate. The article is straight forward.

    The editor of the Reporter isn’t willing to print any of the mail he has received since the last issue.

    Remember, the Reporter isn’t about news, the whole story, or even the truth. (If that were the case, they’d have to devote a whole page to corrections and detractions) The Reporter is about maintaining the image of LCMS Inc.

    That’s why the Reporter didn’t print Mollie’s letter.

    TW

  2. “letters are more appropriately handled via one-on-one communication than through print.”

    Because we as a Synod must keep our dirty laundry hidden from view at all costs, dontchya know.

  3. So, “Martin”, you are suggesting that Mollie is lying?

    Then I am sure you would agree that, according to your own logic and standards, you shouldn’t be putting such insinuations out in print in an open forum without first bringing your concerns directly to the accused party.

    I’ll go ahead and protect your reputation by deleting your comment above until you have had time to follow Matthew 18 and take your concerns directly to her.

    I’d have called you personally on this, brother, but this is the only way I can communicate with you since you choose to remain anonymous.

  4. Phillip,
    I don’t agree with taking down Psudo Martin’s comment.
    As opposed to the Reporter this is an open forum.
    If we delete his comment’s then we become no better than what we dislike.(in this case) No matter how I feel about Psudo Martin and his platform, we as a group need to show him the error of his way in an open format. If you delete his comment the others cannot see if he was just being the north end of a south bound horse, or has a legitimate gripe. I do however agree with you that following his logic he should have gone to Mollie first. But then he would have to expose his real idenity. Humm such a tangled web we weave.

    As far as the reporter is concerned, free press is only as free as the editor in charge. Like my boss will say “Until you own this place…”

    John

  5. Yes, John, but supposedly we DO “own this place.” If not, why are we expected to pay the bills?

    I heartily doubt the editor has the last word on the Reporter, and I suspect this was his oblique way of disagreeing. If there was “no room” this month, that could have been said in a one-liner. Instead, we got a short course in “Why you did not get printed.”

    I wrote Mr. Isenhower and inquired if all the letters were answered privately as was suggested in the column. (In the past, I have not found that to be the case with synod publications.)

    One individual (who gets good press around here) inquired as to my identity and promised a reply upon my giving it. I pointed out that I was traveling under my baptismal name (and asked if others who were “Anon” would identify themselves to me.) I heard no more.
    [That was supposed to be “one of the good guys”!]

  6. Ah Helen I’ll rephrase. Untill you run this place.
    Running and owning are two different things.
    my Mistake.

    Now I use my full name but I doubt if i will ever be a delegate (or asked to be) and if someone dislikes my position so be it. I was never the popular kid anyway.

    Now if you and I were to have a one on one conversation I would want to know who you were too. Until then…

    John

  7. Might our discussion w/ M. Luther be (yet) another good place for the below LC eighth commandment quote?

    “284] All this has been said regarding secret sins. But where the sin is quite public so that the judge and everybody know it, you can without any sin avoid him and let him go, because he has brought himself into disgrace, and you may also publicly testify concerning him. For when a matter is public in the light of day, there can be no slandering or false judging or testifying; as, when we now reprove the Pope with his doctrine, which is publicly set forth in books and proclaimed in all the world. For where the sin is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it.”

    Alas, once a Lutheran (pseudo or otherwise) publishes, it’s hard for them to hide behind the skirts of the 8th commandment.

    Advent Blessings +,
    -Matt Mills

  8. Just what is so wrong with suggesting that the reporter might actually be telling the truth. In what way does this malign any person? And–at Christmas–when I am with my parents–I will ask why they gave this name–since so many think it is such an odd one. Yikes!

  9. “Martin”,

    You do not leave us an email or any way of verifying that you are who you now claim to be: someone actually named “Martin Luther”. So, for all practical purposes, you must be considered a troll writing under a pseudonym until you identify yourself.

    Regarding your question, fair enough: what was wrong about your first post was not that you suggested that the Reporter was telling the truth, but that you were implying that Mollie was not telling the truth about the letter she sent them.

    But BJS does have a very open policy on posting, and I probably should have let your post stand since you are so comfortable with it. I really thought you’d think about this and thank me for taking your post down! It really doesn’t put you in a good light.

    Let me just say that I find it interseting that you get far more tolerance here than you would at any website associated with the current powers that be in Synod. I hope you will be more appreciative of the leniance, charity, and latitude we show you and be more respectful of our authors in the future.

  10. Martin Luther,

    Please tell me why the Reporter didn’t print Mollie’s letter.

    Did Mollie’s letter break the 8th commandment?

    Did Mollie’s letter contain inaccuracies?

    Was Mollie’s letter too long to print?

    Did Mollie’s letter deal with private matters?

    Which was it?

    TW

  11. Wow! This is soemthing else–my only suggestion was that “PERHAPS” what they wrote was true. I did not and was not calling anyone’s integrity into issue. I say that even though mine has been questioned repeatedly. As to why they have not responded–I do no not know–omniscience is not one of my attributes.

  12. Martin Luther,

    So, which was it —perhaps?

    The Reporter had a letter from Mollie, but didn’t print it. Assuming (perhaps) that what the editor of the Reporter wrote is true. Which of the reasons cited in the article kept the Reporter from printing it (perhaps)?

    Perhaps the 8th commandment, perhaps inaccuracies, perhaps too long to print, or perhaps private matters?

    TW

  13. “Martin Luther”
    Please do not be discouraged from posting on this site.
    It is always helpful to see other viewpoints in order to discuss and learn from them.

    Also, if Martin Luther is indeed your real name, you should feel honored to be called by it.

    I look forward to your future posts.

  14. TW writes: Assuming (perhaps) that what the editor of the Reporter wrote is true. Which of the reasons cited in the article kept the Reporter from printing it (perhaps)?

    Answer: your guess is as good as mine–again–all I am saying is if you do not know why–why assume you do?

  15. I don’t think all viewpoints are helpful. It is good to discuss different ideas, but Heartbroken’s idea that one can always learn from “other viewpoints” isn’t true.

    I know that 8 x 2 = 16. If “Martin Luther” feels passionately that it really equals 12, or equals 12 ‘for him’ because he “views” numbers that way, I don’t see how engaging him in “dialog” helps me. It might help him if he realizes the idiocy of his ways, but it really can’t help anyone else.

    I know Jesus died for my sins. Others ‘view’ the cross differently. But my justification – or anyone else’s! – doesn’t change because someone has a different “viewpoint” on Calvary. Truth doesn’t change simply because someone brings a different “perspective” to the discussion.

    It’s best when people who are ignorant ask questions rather than give opinions. This idea that we all get closer to truth by listening to everyone express their thoughts has destroyed our culture and is destroying our church.

  16. Martin Luther wrote: “all I am saying is if you do not know why–why assume you do?

    That’s my question to you. Your original comment suggested that the Reporter didn’t publish any letters, including Mollie’s, because all the letters either broke the 8th commandment, contained inaccuracies, were too long, or dealt with private matters.

    You assume to know that Mollie’s letter wasn’t published for one of those reasons. I ask again, which one?

    Will you please finally answer the question?

    TW

  17. ORIGINAL NOTE: If you’ve written a letter that doesn’t appear in print, please remember that may be due to any one of a number of factors, including lack of space in a particular issue. Sometimes, letters are more appropriately handled via one-on-one communication than through print. Other letters may address topics that do not have broad enough readership appeal to warrant printing. Still other letters may be based on or contain incorrect information — in those cases, our staff attempts to convey the correct information back to writers or asks experts to communicate directly with writers. And there are times when the staff decides to lay aside letters that do not “put the best construction on everything,” to quote Martin Luther.

    So…TW…take your pick…

  18. So, you are saying that Mollie is lying.

    ORIGINAL NOTE (the part you left out in comm. #18):
    “I wrote a letter to the Reporter in response to an article it published. It dealt with public statements, so it wouldn’t have been better handled via private communication and there were no 8th Commandment issues in play. It didn’t get published.”

    TW

  19. Original: If you’ve written a letter that doesn’t appear in print, please remember that may be due to any one of a number of factors, including lack of space in a particular issue.

    Just read that for what it is worth–DUE TO ANY OF A NUMBER OF FACTORS… Extend them as much grace as you desire to have extended. If I can read and understand English–her letter was not present in this past issue because (and to quote thema again): due to any one of a number of factors, including a lack of space…

    Of course, you are welcome to read anything you want into that!

  20. Martin Luther wrote: “her letter was not present in this past issue because (and to quote the again): due to any one of a number of factors, including a lack of space…”

    “Any number of factors” is a non-reason.

    “A lack of space” is an odd reason since they had plenty of space to print the article itself. They could have simply put a small box at the bottom of the page reading, “The Letters to the Editor do not appear due to lack of space.” That would have saved even more space.

    Frankly, if the Reporter hadn’t just printed an article about me and the BoD that was utterly false from beginning to end (October, “Issues, Etc.”), as well as several previous articles regarding our recent history that were equally dubious, I would be more willing to give its staff the benefit of the doubt.

    Why is it so difficult to admit that the Reporter is a public relations tool, and not news or information?

    TW

  21. Over 60 years ago my father gave me sage advice, “Just ignore him”. I suggest whenever Martin Luther writes anything – JUST IGNORE HIM! Has anything ever been resolved by arguing or trying to reason with him in the past? NO! By just ignoring him we can start to get to the meat of the issue and not get side tracked by his inane comments.

    John Thomas

  22. TW: Why is it so difficult to admit that the Reporter is a public relations tool, and not news or information?

    Who ever said it wasn’t?

  23. John Thomas,

    Although I am inclined to agree with you that nothing has ever been resolved by speaking with Martin LUther –

    Yet what Rev. Wilken has been doing is demanded of us by the 8th Commandment – to defend a person’s reputation when slandered. Mollie was slandered by Martin, even though he doesn’t want to admit it. Todd has been defending her. This is meet and right.

  24. True, Rev. Eckert, but the attention seems to leave “ML” feeling ‘justified’ rather than repentant.

    All “official” publications of lcms, inc. have become “public relations” or “propaganda” tools (your choice).
    That’s why we have to look elsewhere to find out what’s really happening.

  25. TW,

    I suspect that the Reporter has been a public relations tool for a long time. However, if they printed things that are not true regarding (as you say and I have no reason to question your statements) they should allow you and Jeff (as a pastor and member in good standing at LCMS congregations) to respond.

    In my opinion you and Jeff have been open and honest about the events involving KFUO and the former Issues, Etc.

  26. I meant to say regarding “the Issues, etc situation.”

    My observation is that Pr Wilken usually makes ML look as silly as he is.

  27. If the Reporter and those responsible for the Reporter are not telling the truth to its readers and to members of the LCMS, those responsible must be called to repent of their sin of bearing false witness against their neighbor. Will they listen? Have they hardened their hearts? How does church discipline work when those given a position of leadership, power, and authority need to be disciplined?

  28. Pseudonyms have little credibility and those who hide behind the revered name of others, like Martin Luther, can only be hoping that some of the credibility of the good name assumed rubs off on them. It doesn’t. Let each put his own name to what he says or simply remain shrouded in obscurity.

  29. As a matter of curiosity (It will get me in trouble one of these years) I asked Joe Isenhower, in a post, whether all the letters not printed got individual responses.
    I was “inspired” by his list of reasons for not printing. 🙂
    Having contributed over decades to the “black hole” which must exist under a Letters Editor’s desk, I was not surprised to be told that, No, not every letter gets answered; we don’t have that much staff. Also, sometimes letters are referred to those with more expertise on the subject, and they decide whether to answer. [I am paraphrasing, so don’t skewer Joe if I got it wrong.]

    I report this merely to make public the fact that at least one [post] to the Editor got answered. Individually.

    God bless!
    Helen

  30. Wrt “Martin Luther”: Do we have actual evidence that this poster’s name is not Martin Luther? He has claimed that it is his given name. While that may ‘sound convenient’ to us as we see things from him requiring an argument against him, it is unbecoming for us to continue to accuse him of pseudonymity unless we have actual evidence of it. Two things ought to be remembered: most known direct descendants of Luther are not Confessional Lutherans, and there are a good number of folks named “Martin Luther”–5 listed ones in Wisconsin alone (I recall a Martin Luther who lived in the Bentonville, AR area back in the early 1980s, as well as his son, Vinton Luther, who was a fairly decent bass).

    Please note that I condemn myself in this comment, as well, as I’m sure that even if I haven’t posted in such a way that I’ve treated his asserted real name as a pseudonym (and I’m pretty sure that I have), I have definitely thought of it as such. Mr. Luther, taking you at your word that this is your real name, I am sorry for any indication in the past that it might not be. I wish that all blogs, boards, and so on required identifiability, so that such suspicions would not arise. (This is one of the reasons that anonymity is extremely rare on Confess and Teach for Unity e-lists, only granted when I consider it absolutely necessary.)

    EJG

  31. Thank you, Pr. Stefanski, for indicating that the Martin Luther of these blog exchanges is apparently not a pseudonym. I don’t read these blogs regularly enough to be aware of the previous exchanges which apparently laid claim to the name. While Mr. Luther must tire of indicating that it’s his real name, I suppose there are those times for him when the assumed pseudonymity of the name is an advantage. With the high honor of bearing such a name comes the responsibility —especially in the blog exchange format which thrives on anonymity/pseudonymity —of making it clear to the reader that “Martin Luther” isn’t a pseudonym. It might be as easy as using a middle initial. Assuming the pseudonymity of a name like ‘Martin Luther” or “Martin Chemnitz” or “CFW Walther” in blog comments is an understandable assumption. I don’t consider it to be at all’unbecoming of us.’

  32. Pr. Stefanski: If his true name was Martin Luther, why would he not want to give contact information for himself so the admins of this board could at least communicate with him? He uses a garbage “email” address. He could very easily verify to us his name by simply either providing his true email address, or emailing to any admin letting us communicate with him a bit.

  33. “Martin Luther,”

    Please answer Norm. Explain your email address. It certainly makes you look like a troll and we really can’t put up with that.

    Pastor Rossow

  34. With the high honor of bearing such a name comes the responsibility —especially in the blog exchange format which thrives on anonymity/pseudonymity —of making it clear to the reader that “Martin Luther” isn’t a pseudonym. It might be as easy as using a middle initial.

    Pr. Bestul, that is an excellent idea…as is the idea of his giving the admins the ability to contact him (easily, that is; I have no doubt that Mr. Fisher could ‘hunt him down’ if he were so inclined). As I indicated above, on the rare occasions that I allow anonymity on CAT 41 mail lists, etc., I do know who the poster is.

    EJG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.