Maybe stop and take a breath. Institutions move slowly. Everyone found out yesterday. The human response is to react. Also, not all of the items you've listed are necessarily for public consumption but may be decisions that get made between him and his priest. There are too many "what if's" to go through, but I suspect the next time each of the organizations he is a member of meet, they will suspend him pending the outcome of the court case. If/when a guilty verdict or plea is given, full removal from offices and authority makes sense.
A correction on the timeline: the Synod knew about Mohr since early afternoon on Jan 28. The Jan 29 announcement only became public because it was in a public "preview" folder.
No, Josef, the standard for the preaching office is not to wait for the civil magistrate to act. For example, we do not allow a drunk to stay in the pulpit until he gets a DUI. The church has a duty to apply 1 Tim. 2:3 without fear or favor.
By way of contrast, an LCMS pastor in North Dakota was arrested for CSM on Monday this week. By Tuesday, he had disappeared from his parish website and Synod roster without any announcement or waiting for the outcome of a court case. His DP has the power to do so in terms of the bylaws for dealing with sexual misconduct.
It is a glaring deficiency in Synod governance that ranking members receive a different process and standard than parish pastors.
Institutions can and do move fast. This is a situation where speed is critical to the Gospel's reputation and to victims' comfort and care.
"institutions move slowly" this is the third in three years, one would think by now they'd have a clear system set up if not in the last three years, then well before then when other denominations had similar things going on.
One quickly loses credibility, or is shown to be merely a partisan snake-oil salesman, through sloppiness. While I appreciate your efforts to provide transparency, your citation of Ms. Wendling in footnote #2 is not accurate. In the video you have linked it is *not* her that is making a diagnosis of the biblical figures. It's not clear if it was her idea to make that slide, but it is not her that is making the diagnosis. That presentation may raise other questions about other topics, but it does not present evidence concerning what you have charged.
Chris, I am happy to make a correction. I assume you are saying she was not the author of the content, only the presenter.
Please let me know who authored the slide that applied mental-health categories to biblical figures, and I will include that information in the footnote.
Thanks for addressing this. I don't know anything about who authored the slide, but if you watch the first 5-1/2 minutes of the video you see that it is a different presenter who tries to make the biblical examples pertinent to Wendling's presentation by claiming they exhibit "mental health issues." (Again, it may raise its own concerns, but it does not indict Wendling.)
To be clear, no statement was made about authorship of the slide, only that Wendling presented it. I did not hear her caveat the content or disclaim it, although Rev Manley was clearly very uncomfortable with it. Again, I am happy to issue a clarification in the footnote that Wendling is not the author of the content based on your representation.
I apologize. Having re-watched the video, I realize that it was me who had not been careful. I have been in error. I hadn't turned up the volume quickly enough to hear her introduce the slide as her own. Thank you again for your work on bringing transparency.
Personal opinion, I think the DP should be put on restricted status and prevented, at present, from serving in any pastoral capacity. He should also be excluded from receiving the Lord’s Supper at this point. However, he should not yet be removed from the roster. Yes, he has been arrested and charged. No, he has not been convicted or plead guilty/confessed. Legally, we must assume innocence until guilt is proved. Odds are, he’s guilty. However, that is an assumption, not a fact. We cannot remove someone from the pastoral office based on assumptions. That said, his time in the ministry is over either way. Who would trust him, even if he were found to be innocent? Our primary concern s/b for the alleged victims and their families and the protection of members from potential harm.
People, the Mr. Mohr is in federal custody. He has no access to the public or his office, cannot perform any of his duties of the office, and has no access to children. At this point, the Synod announcing publicly that he has been removed from office and defrocked would serve little purpose. The Also, if you read the report carefully, at the hearing Mohr did not contest the court's decision to place him in custody, a fairly clear indication that he has no intention of pleading "Not Guilty." So, the man appears to be accepting some measure of responsibility for his actions. The Synod is not covering for him nor leaving the door open for him to return to his former office and duties. You are just on a witch hunt. Do you not realize the 8th Commandment applies to you? Especially in regards to accusations of neglect of duties of Pastors, including Synod Presidents. It just amazes me how everyone just assumes that offenses against the 8th commandment are justified if the person has an office of authority and we don't like how they do things. The "oblique reference" you noted is to procedures which, when followed, will result in all the things you have demanded, so your complaint is unjustified and incendiary. Shame on you. Repent. You are not doing God's work when you behave like this, you are doing the work of the Accuser.
"Rev. Mohr was appointed to the Seminary’s Board of Regents by the LCMS Council of Presidents in September 2024. His service on the board has been suspended in the face of these charges."
Maybe stop and take a breath. Institutions move slowly. Everyone found out yesterday. The human response is to react. Also, not all of the items you've listed are necessarily for public consumption but may be decisions that get made between him and his priest. There are too many "what if's" to go through, but I suspect the next time each of the organizations he is a member of meet, they will suspend him pending the outcome of the court case. If/when a guilty verdict or plea is given, full removal from offices and authority makes sense.
A correction on the timeline: the Synod knew about Mohr since early afternoon on Jan 28. The Jan 29 announcement only became public because it was in a public "preview" folder.
No, Josef, the standard for the preaching office is not to wait for the civil magistrate to act. For example, we do not allow a drunk to stay in the pulpit until he gets a DUI. The church has a duty to apply 1 Tim. 2:3 without fear or favor.
By way of contrast, an LCMS pastor in North Dakota was arrested for CSM on Monday this week. By Tuesday, he had disappeared from his parish website and Synod roster without any announcement or waiting for the outcome of a court case. His DP has the power to do so in terms of the bylaws for dealing with sexual misconduct.
It is a glaring deficiency in Synod governance that ranking members receive a different process and standard than parish pastors.
Institutions can and do move fast. This is a situation where speed is critical to the Gospel's reputation and to victims' comfort and care.
a. Rev. Chepulis is awesome (District President of ND).
b. I did not even hear of this former pastor being arrested. I've got to watch the news, apparently.
"institutions move slowly" this is the third in three years, one would think by now they'd have a clear system set up if not in the last three years, then well before then when other denominations had similar things going on.
Also note Wendling lists pronouns on her bio...
One quickly loses credibility, or is shown to be merely a partisan snake-oil salesman, through sloppiness. While I appreciate your efforts to provide transparency, your citation of Ms. Wendling in footnote #2 is not accurate. In the video you have linked it is *not* her that is making a diagnosis of the biblical figures. It's not clear if it was her idea to make that slide, but it is not her that is making the diagnosis. That presentation may raise other questions about other topics, but it does not present evidence concerning what you have charged.
Chris, I am happy to make a correction. I assume you are saying she was not the author of the content, only the presenter.
Please let me know who authored the slide that applied mental-health categories to biblical figures, and I will include that information in the footnote.
Thanks for addressing this. I don't know anything about who authored the slide, but if you watch the first 5-1/2 minutes of the video you see that it is a different presenter who tries to make the biblical examples pertinent to Wendling's presentation by claiming they exhibit "mental health issues." (Again, it may raise its own concerns, but it does not indict Wendling.)
To be clear, no statement was made about authorship of the slide, only that Wendling presented it. I did not hear her caveat the content or disclaim it, although Rev Manley was clearly very uncomfortable with it. Again, I am happy to issue a clarification in the footnote that Wendling is not the author of the content based on your representation.
I apologize. Having re-watched the video, I realize that it was me who had not been careful. I have been in error. I hadn't turned up the volume quickly enough to hear her introduce the slide as her own. Thank you again for your work on bringing transparency.
Thank you, Chris. I appreciate your generosity and accept the apology.
"clergy abuse"? Really? Who came up with that title for the "pastoral letter"?
Personal opinion, I think the DP should be put on restricted status and prevented, at present, from serving in any pastoral capacity. He should also be excluded from receiving the Lord’s Supper at this point. However, he should not yet be removed from the roster. Yes, he has been arrested and charged. No, he has not been convicted or plead guilty/confessed. Legally, we must assume innocence until guilt is proved. Odds are, he’s guilty. However, that is an assumption, not a fact. We cannot remove someone from the pastoral office based on assumptions. That said, his time in the ministry is over either way. Who would trust him, even if he were found to be innocent? Our primary concern s/b for the alleged victims and their families and the protection of members from potential harm.
People, the Mr. Mohr is in federal custody. He has no access to the public or his office, cannot perform any of his duties of the office, and has no access to children. At this point, the Synod announcing publicly that he has been removed from office and defrocked would serve little purpose. The Also, if you read the report carefully, at the hearing Mohr did not contest the court's decision to place him in custody, a fairly clear indication that he has no intention of pleading "Not Guilty." So, the man appears to be accepting some measure of responsibility for his actions. The Synod is not covering for him nor leaving the door open for him to return to his former office and duties. You are just on a witch hunt. Do you not realize the 8th Commandment applies to you? Especially in regards to accusations of neglect of duties of Pastors, including Synod Presidents. It just amazes me how everyone just assumes that offenses against the 8th commandment are justified if the person has an office of authority and we don't like how they do things. The "oblique reference" you noted is to procedures which, when followed, will result in all the things you have demanded, so your complaint is unjustified and incendiary. Shame on you. Repent. You are not doing God's work when you behave like this, you are doing the work of the Accuser.
Pastor, you are going to love the article that will be released soon!
Pastor, please reference this from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "An attorney for Mohr, John Schleiffarth, said his client entered a not-guilty plea."
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-courts/article_de4d1ba3-f73b-41e0-870d-c0c2dd501c5b.html
Excerpted from a January 30, 2026, Concordia Seminary-St. Louis "Statement regarding Rev. Michael Mohr" (https://www.csl.edu/2026/01/statement-regarding-rev-michael-mohr/):
"Rev. Mohr was appointed to the Seminary’s Board of Regents by the LCMS Council of Presidents in September 2024. His service on the board has been suspended in the face of these charges."