Talk:The Shepherd's Chapel

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Arkansas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arkansas.

Christianity

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

In Answer to Critics by Pastor Arnold B. Murray

(Lengthy statement removed as apparent copyright violation of [1] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link below to review the Shepherd's Chapel Statement of Faith.

Source: ^[1] I have been a Student for more than 20 years. I felt the need to insert Pastor Arnold B. Murray response to what was listed in this section to be fair to readers that may stumble on this page. Thank you. Karen2011 (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Moved from article and deleted as apparent copyright violation by Arxiloxos (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ http://www.shepherdschapel.com/statement1.htm

Removed shepherdschapel.com as primary source

The removal of shepherdschapel.com as a primary source was mainly because it is also listed in the external links. Wikipedia standards would technically dictate that this should be one or the other but not both. Since the information currently referenced by this as a source is also referenced by a secondary source, it seemed more logical to remove the source instead of the external link. (Also, it's a primary source that would probably not meet Wikipedia's standard of "reliable," but that's another discussion altogether.) If it's necessary to use it for reference, then link to a direct page, but don't just as a link to the homepage for non-specific information. Butlerblog (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinitarianism vs Modalism

While Murray taught that God exists in three forms, his teaching is that those are different manifestations of the same deity (ie. same God in a different form), which is modalism. That is not the same as trinitarianism, and in fact is an opposing viewpoint. Trinitarianism is the teaching that God exists in three separate but co-equal persons that are distinct and are not simply a different form (as they are in modalism). This may be confusing for the average layperson, since Murray teaching that God exists as YHVH, Yeshua, and the Holy Spirit sounds like trinitarianism. But what he is saying is that this is one God revealing himself in different ways (which is Modalism). So... do we take it out? It's documented by a source. We'd have to reach a consensus that the source is unreliable. Furthermore, the article links to Murray's response to criticisms, which includes his own response to his teaching on trinitarianism. I think for now, maybe the best alternative for NPOV would be to move the contested sentence to the criticisms (keeping the same source), and maybe changing the wording to note the distinction between these two views of the Godhead (without getting off-topic, since both are wikilinked). Butlerblog (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from criticism section to doctrine, since it is a doctrinal position. The criticism is valid (since modalism is non-orthodox, and is considered heresy by orthodox denominations), but since it's a doctrine, it makes more sense in the doctrine section. The criticism, for lack of detail in sources, did not go beyond simply stating that it was heretical. If more detailed critic arises (that is citable, of course), then it may make sense to add something in the criticism section. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.shepherdschapel.com/statement1.htm

[1]