Talk:The Shack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Novels (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

NYT article on the book[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/books/24shack.html?th&emc=th

Nothing spent on marketing?[edit]

The statement from the article "The Shack has achieved its #1 best selling success with a $300.00 web site and word of mouth. Nothing has been spent on marketing[4]." is sourced to a page that, upon looking over the text, apparently contains no information relating to the claim. I'm personally doubtful of this since the first I heard of this book was a poster in a local train, and those as far as I know aren't free. Seems like this change isn't really backed up to me.Unitg3d (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Brad Cummings maxed out twelve credit cards and Paul Young borrowed money from friends to promote and produce The Shack. The $300 story is a romantic fabrication.

I find it interesting that everyone keeps saying that there is no theology in the book and that it is just a fictional novel, well, finally, the author Paul Young says in his own words that the book is full of theology.Lets put this fiction to rest with the $300 marketing fantasy.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wup-bxSlPEc&feature=related Jimbo8less1 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

self published?[edit]

I believe it was published by friends who formed a company to do so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.71.197 (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Windblown Media was formed by Wayne Jacobson and Brad Cummings to publish The Shack after the 26 publishers to whom they pitched the book, all turned them down.The two spent 16 months editing and rewriting the book. Only chapter fifteen is Young's unadulterated writing.Jacobson, Cummings and Young all had completely different narratives for chapter eleven.Jacobson and Cummings excised 40% of Young's original manuscript.Windblown is going to publish their first outside of their own triumvirate of authors, towards the end of this year.

Criticism section[edit]

There's a new sentence about 'Theologian John K. Langemann's rebuttal entitled "Beware the Shack" (which I pruned). This author doesn't seem notable of themselves, and the book seems to be low volume (the forum on it's web page when I visited had no posts whatsoever). While there's definitely a place for a criticism section here, I don't think it should include a list of everybody that disagrees with the book. Any thoughts? Will I remove this new sentence? peterl (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree- I removed it. Staecker (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Staeker. Before anyone re-adds the Langemann critque, consider this discussion. It also applies to other critics that may be mentioned.

Langemann: It might be useful for you to give us some background about why you think this critic (amongst the many other others) is notable. That he has written an apparently large book doesn't make it notable. It may also be useful for you to consider why this book is notable - what does it say that other critics haven't? What else has this theologian written? Why is he notable? (That he is a theologian does not, in itself, make him notable).
This book: You say that the book is 'selling more' than the other critiques. What evidence do you have of that? As I noted, the forum had zero entries when I visited, suggesting that the book is not widely read. It is also interesting to note that this publisher (Rock Solid Publishing) does not appear to carry any other titles. Is there something that makes this critique notable? You say that you consider it more pertinent and thorough - what make you say that?
peterl (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, And nor is your is your promotion of The Shack a neutral point of view. Do Tim Challies, Chuck Colsen, Norman Geisler,Albert Mohler,Randal Rauser have neutral views? I'm prepared to put a neutral, unprovocative, sentence listing Langemann and his book under criticism.

If you want a war on this issue, It is possible to ensure that you spend all of your days rewriting your articles hour after hour, day after day. Grow up and realize that such a provocative book is going to invite criticism. No amount of censorship on your part of moderate criticism, within a supposed democracy, is going to stop, or blunt opposition to the book. Maybe you should employ Paul Young's philosophy toward criticism, if you know anything about him at all. - - Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious Gogo? From your comment I assumed that you were new here, but I see you're an admin and your talk archives go back 3 years! I don't see any evidence that peterl (or me?) has been promoting The Shack. And you don't need to point out that Challies, Colsen, etc are not neutral- of course they're not. Our article on The Shack needs to be neutral, but of course the cited sources are not neutral- this is why we are citing them as critical of the book. And of course wikipedia is not a democracy. Your second paragraph there sounds like a threat to edit war about this. Surely that is not a tactic befitting an administrator. Let's hear your opinion about Langemann and his book specifically if you think they are notable. Staecker (talk) 02:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, sorry Gogo- I checked the diffs closely and now I see that comment was from User:Johnathon777, and Gogo's sig was stuck on the end by accident. So, to respond more specifically to John- You'll need to tell us in particular what makes the Langemann book notable. As I said above, the sources cited do not need to be neutral, but just the article which we are writing. And you can check out WP:NOT for how Wikipedia is not a democracy. For the record, I'm pretty sure that none of the major contributors to this article are trying to promote or shield The Shack from criticism. I myself am the one who first added the critics into the article.
By the way, are you John Langemann? If so, this doesn't prohibit you necessarily from adding this content, but you should be aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. Staecker (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, you list Tim Challies under the Criticism section. Has anyone asked him how many booklets he has sold to make him 'notable'? Also, how about looking beyond the first page when Googling Langemann. Have you Googled "Beware the Shack" also? If Tim Challies has a right to be cited as a critic, so does Langemann. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The primary criterion for referencing a source in a Wikipedia article is the source's reliability, not its or its author's notability, as peterl's initial post seems to imply. If the source is reliable, there was no reason to remove it. That being said, I cannot find anything to verify either the reliability of the source or the authority of its author, so I agree the removal should stand. -- Meyer (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


'Johnathon Replies:' The forum on the Beware the Shack is not functioning and web site builders are working on it with a possible view of installing a different forum engine. Why not google "John Langemann" and read some of the articles that he has written on religious topics. Windblown Media also has no other titles (except for ones recently added which were written by one of the co-owners of that publishing company, Wayne Jacobson)They expressly tell people on their web-sites that they are not looking for any aspirant writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talkcontribs) (This comment moved to bottom by Staecker)

OK I googled Langemann. On the first results page it looks like there's only one relevant link: this one, which comes up as the fourth link for me. Please tell us something that makes Langemann and his book notable. Has the book sold a lot? Is there some other reliable measure by which it has been successful? Have Langemann's other writings/books been influential or successful? This sort of information would be helpful.
I also see that you dispute the "$300 marketing" claim. Do you have a source that Young & friends went into lots of debt to promote the book? If so, that would be an interesting fact to include. Staecker (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The 12 credit cards that Brad Cummings maxed out appears in a number of places, but maybe the Shack's own official website may be a good authentic source for that information. theshackbook.com/discuss/index.php?topic=2836.0 - Young admits to having borrowed money in a talk that he gave to an audience of over a thousand people at Asbury First United Methodist Church Rochester New York on 29 June 2009. You can order the 2x cd set from Melody Guadagnino, Office Mgr at 585-271-1050, Extension 103 to hear that. BTW the democracy mentioned earlier referred the U.S.A not Wikipedia.

OK thanks I've added a sentence about that. It's an interesting fact. I also googled "Beware the Shack" and didn't find anything interesting. Should I have? (By the way, it would be helpful if you respond at the bottom of this section each time, and sign your comments at the end with ~~~~. Thanks-) Staecker (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're not interested in seeing blogs and Christian organizations mentioning the book 'Beware the Shack', of course you wont find anything interesting. Do you want website urls? The point is for the sake of consistency, if Tim Challies is 'notable' enough for you to include as a critic of the Shack, then Langemann is at least as 'notable' as a published writer and theologian.Please don't try and play gatekeeper for motives other than the ones you state. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed endorsements and blurbs[edit]

I removed a paragraph from the Reception section that contained nothing but endorsements and blurbs appearing in editions of The Shack itself. Definitely not reliable sources. -- Meyer (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is that not reliable? Would it be better if the endorsements appeared in third-party sources? (They do, but probably as repetitions of the book jacket.) I've seen the Peterson and the MW Smith quotes repeated ad nauseum in several sources. Staecker (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The sources should be from a third-party and independent of the article subject, which would exclude sources that are just repeating cover blurbs from the original book. The source should also meet a certain standard of scholarship, that is the author of the source should be an acknowledged authority in a relevant field and/or the source was reviewed and edited by a reputable publisher in a relevant field. Therefore the opinion of a musician would not be a reliable source relevant to a theological novel, even if the opinion were published in an independent source. Of the three opinions mentioned in the section I deleted (Peterson's, Smith's, and Judd's), Peterson's was the only one that might potentially pass the scholarship criterion, however since I could find no source for his opinion that did not ultimately originate from his blurb in The Shack itself, I deleted it with the others. If you can find such a source, feel free to restore Peterson's opinion. -- Meyer (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Peterson sings from the same hymn-sheet as Young, Jacobson and Cummings. He calls himself a doctor (although he does not have an earned doctorate only two honorary doctorates) and he lectures Greek and Semitic languages although, he does not even have undergraduate credit in any of those subjects. He has written between 20 and thirty books, one "The Message" which he calls a Italic texttranslationItalic text of the Bible. Like The Shack, its just a figment of the author's imagination and does not even come close to a translation.But the same people who love the Shack, love The Message or is that Massage? Because like the Shack, it massages the itchy ears of what certain people would like to hear which resonate with the image they have created of God as opposed to the 'boring' austere picture that the Bible paints of God. So, there you have it. Peterson, by your evaluation should then be super notable. ¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, The Shack is not the work of a theologian. It is meant to be inspirational Christian fiction, which I would classify as artistically similar to what Smith does, and quite different from what a typical theologian does. As the IP says, Peterson's brand of writing (at least in The Message) is also typically more inspirational than technically theological. So I'd say that Peterson and Smith are equally qualified as "experts" in the relevant field to comment on the book. (I don't know about Judd.) But I think these comments are intended to show how wide-spread the evangelical embrace of The Shack has been. If Oprah had liked the book (seems like she might), then I'd like to see her quote in there too. Not because she's a theology expert (is she an expert on anything?) but because she's a major public figure whose endorsements mean a lot to some people. I think Smith and Judd are included in that spirit. Of course Oprah is much more high-profile than Smith, but among evangelicals I give them even odds. (And John- to sign it's 4 tildes.) Staecker (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Authorship by someone who has also produced works in a similar genre is not in itself enough to make a source reliable. Endorsements are generally of insufficient encyclopedic value to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. And in any case, there is still no independent source for the three removed opinions. -- Meyer (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes a person a theologian? Young was a son of a full time pastor who became a missionary and then a pastor again of many churches. He himself obtained an undergraduate degree in religion at Warner Pacific College in Portland, Oregon (Cum Laude) and then spent two years at seminary in Regina Saschatewan. Then, in The Shack, as Mack (whom he says is he), he says that as far as religion goes, he's way deep and way wide. Does that make him a theologian (he certainly thinks he is one, even though he feigns humility and says that he's just an 'accidental writer' wanting to communicate his 'out of the box' ideas to his children). He had been 'accidentally' writing for over thirty years (not having published a book of course)and he's been honing and tweeking his theology for a long time as well. Must someone be a Phd to be a theologian? ¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting to see that you have reverted to the fantasy that the Shack was initially funded by $300. As pointed out and cited previously, it was funded by Brad Cummings 'maxing out' 12 credit cards, as well as Young borrowing money. The $300 story is as much a fantasy story as the book is.¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to see the credit card story is back in again¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.208.237.128 (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel?[edit]

What is weaselly about the criticism section? Staecker (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't anything weaselly but weasel words; words like "influential," "stern critique," "sympathetic guide" are trying to influence the reader instead of letting the reader draw their own conclusions. The criticism section is also covering other topics like the authors supposed view of the Bible and supposed heresy. Also, there's no need for a criticism section, most of the current information could be combined with the Reception section. Criticism sections invite people to find and insert criticisms and often steer off the topic. Basileias (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the words "influential" and "stern". I left the 'sympathetic guide' phrase in there as it's needed to make it clear what that writer was saying. I've removed the template, but more edits and material is welcome. peterl (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I merged the criticism section into "reception". (Really I just removed the section heading.) I don't see any more weasel words in there, though I don't think there was a problem before. The section does not cover "the authors supposed view of the Bible and supposed heresy", it covers the criticisms of the book based on such things. I don't think this is off-topic. Staecker (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
When it says "...in which he criticized "the author's low view of Scripture"..," to me that's targeting the author. Based on other reviews I've looked up and read the book isn't a theological work on the Christian Bible. I removed that statement and a couple more minor words. Hopefully what I did is agreeable but I won't edit war over it if you disagree. Over time having it in the reception section should cut down on some of the critical spam. Basileias (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"isn't a theological work on the Christian Bible"? It's a novel- not a theological work at all. But the novel's theological content is absolutely based on (Young's interpretation of) the Christian Bible. This criticism of Young's view of scripture is entirely based on the content of The Shack, since Young is known for absolutely nothing else. But I guess we can leave it out... Staecker (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very much a theological work which the author has finally admitted in one of the most current interviews on You tube. Langbal``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.56.203.237 (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

External link to 'Beware the Shack'[edit]

I have inserted www.bewaretheshack as an external link as it contains articles which provoke thought about the theology being promoted in 'The Shack'.(talk)````

I'd I've removed it. As we have previously covered in excruciating detail, that reference is not reliable or useful. I don't know if you are the user that has previously been blocked because of disruptive edits. If you are, I would suggest you stop. A reminder to sign your posts with ~~~~, not four back-apostrophes as you did. peterl (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have been blocked for three months. I have tried to use the unblock appeal facility, but find it an impossible maze to get through.It seems to be unnecessarily complicated to get to the place where one can register an appeal.Please read the last section of my user page to see why I feel the blocking should be lifted.Jimbo8less1 (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bestseller[edit]

Does anybody have a reference for The Shack's run as a NYT bestseller? The ref in the article is to the current NYT list, which is useless. Staecker (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I found this link (http://www.hawes.com/2009/2009.htm) that's supposed to have past listings but it looks self-published. The access date from the wiki citation doesn't seem to match with what I'm finding. If you look for NYT bestsellers on Amazon.com, it does come up. I can't find anything else other than second party mentions. Does the NYT have a history listing that I don't know about? Basileias (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

A criticism section was recently re-added. All of the sources fail the third party requirements. Properly sourced reviews should go into the "Reception" section. Basileias (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The critics are all WP:notable, and there seems no doubt that the websites are reporting their criticisms correctly, so I see no reason for that section to be deleted and have reinstated it. PamD (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The Albert Mohler radio show is referred to in the New York Times article cited above, so it makes sense to include it. I came to this article having read the book for my Book Group, and was puzzled that although there was reference to responses to criticism of it, there was no sign in the article of any criticism. Looking at the history, I found and reinstated the "Criticism" section for completeness and balance. PamD (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
On further looking at the page history, I see that the content of the "Criticism" section was long-standing content in the "Reception" section. On 17th June it was moved and reformatted as a new "Criticism" section, which was then entirely deleted (not just reverted to its original state) 2 days later. PamD (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I re-titled the section back to what it was. Criticism sections invite people to find and insert criticisms, often taking over half the article. Generally for most popular books they have a reception area to house the positive or negative reviews. I removed the Driscoll portion because your citing a video and mostly that is not allowed. Basileias (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, just noticed the reception section is still there. Going to consolidate. Basileias (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason not to include a video in this case: the point being supported is that this WP:NOTABLE person made these comments, and the video is where he makes them. Not a problem. Videos and audios etc are acceptable as WP sources. PamD (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
There is already a reception section. Positive and negative reviews should go there. Also, since the sources are all "Christian" sources they are not neutral. Please see here for the video issue. Really, all these sources fail because they are not third party.
However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable third-party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable source.
Basileias (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've tweaked the link and changed the heading level. But NONE of these sources are third-party. I really can't see why they should be here. peterl (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Problem sources for the Criticism section[edit]

Positive or negative reviews should go into the already established reception section. User PamD is adding the following sources. I believe they all fail the Wikipedia reliable sources. The reasons are one is a video and none are "neutral third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Basileias (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I did not add these sources, I replaced them. They had been in the article since at least March 2009. They were removed by Basileias on June 19th 2011. When I came to read this article for the first time, after this deletion, I was puzzled because it mentioned responses to "objections raised by critics like Colson and Mohler" and "a detailed response to several common points of criticism" but gave no information on or access to this criticism. This seemed unbalanced, so I looked into the history and replaced the deleted section. PamD (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Why then not restore it like it was? As a longtime editor you should know the problems a Criticism only section creates, especially in this article. Basileias (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would also point out that the "Reception" section includes: (a) an unsourced paragraph about a non-notable book by a non-notable author (Rauser), and (b) a paragraph whose source is the website of the book's publisher (Jacobsen). And no-one has felt the need to delete these. Interesting. PamD (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Jacobsen link is notable because it's the closest that exists to an "official" response to the book's criticism. I don't have an opinion about the Rauser reference. The sources replaced by Pam above are good to include. Staecker (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I note from WP:RS that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves," so these sources can be used to back up quotes by Driscoll, Mohler, Jacobsen, etc. Two caveats: we need independent evidence that these critics are notable. Having a Wikipedia page is probably a reasonable guide, and a book specifically about The Shack is also notable. Secondly, they are primary sources, which "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, [but] must be used with caution in order to avoid original research... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." However, there are no such interpretive claims. On the whole, the Reception section looks pretty good now. -- 202.124.74.81 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Themes[edit]

Should we have a specific section on the themes of the book? Sheodred (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Be bold!
peterl (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
But first have a reliable source for the material. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

JW perspective?[edit]

As far as theology and doctrine goes - does this book not follow Jehovah Witness' perspective on Adam, and the nature of Christ? CharlesThomas (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(I added the section title.) I don't know much about the JW perspectives, but the book's author is definitely not a Jehovah's Witness. Any agreement with those perspectives would probably be unintentional. Staecker (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

POV[edit]

What remaining POV issue(s) are there with this article? I'd like to address them so I can remove the POV tag. peterl (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

From here.
Reception section
  • Sourcing video that is not from a third party source was one issue.
  • Sourcing the Albert Mohler radio show, again not from a third party source.
  • Placing in "...the author's low view of scripture", which has nothing to do with the book and I believe opinion. The rest of the Colson comments are fine. They deal with the book.
  • The Geisler comments are fine as he is a known author.
Some of the issues are common in any Christian debate. Sourcing preachers own self published venues one has an endless stream and criticism over everything. That allowed generating criticism for the sake of just generating it and drawing inference from competing groups. That is probably why the guideline says their to come from non self published sources.
I just noticed that you wrote in that section "...NONE of these sources are third-party. I really can't see why they should be here."
I tried to take it here, but another editor would not allow any changes to what is there now.

Driscoll comments[edit]

Mark Driscoll's self-published website is a reliable source for the statement made in the article, which is "In his "Doctrine" series, Mars Hill Church pastor Mark Driscoll criticized The Shack for presenting a non-Biblical view of the Trinity including the use of graven imagery, goddess worship, and modalism." Please stop removing this sourced content. Thanks. PamD 09:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that this content was first added in February 2009, and has been part of the article since then. It was previously discussed above, at #Problem sources for the Criticism section. PamD 07:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I have raised concern about the sources in the Criticism section. In short, I do not think that all qualify per guide lines. I submitted the issue to have the sources verified. No one took interest. At this it seems only I am interested. I have decided to remove the POV tag. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to put it back. Basileias (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

QUESTION about the movie: Who was the Black woman who comforted Mack as a Youth?[edit]

I just went out an saw "The Shack" movie at the local theater, yesterday (Saturday, March 25, 2017), and, in one scene, a young Mackenzie ("Mack") Phillips gets the daylights beaten out of him by his father. Shortly after that scene, a Black lady, probably in her 30's, I'd guess, speaks to Mack and comforts him. Then, later in the film, God is depicted by actress, Octavia Spencer, also African American. I asked a woman sitting next to me in the theater if the actress portraying God was the same one who spoke to him earlier in the film, and she said yes.

That would make sense, because the real God, as I understand Him, would appear in a form that is familiar and friendly to us, and the Black lady who spoke to Mack as a child was a friendly personality in his life.

But, I looked all up and down the credits, and I could not find the Black lady who is the actress who portrayed that woman who spoke to Mack. (And, I think she was rolling out dough, like God, when He appeared to Mack, as a woman: Not that this is relevant, but there are numerous Scriptures in the Christian Bible portraying both God and Jesus as having feminine qualities, and the same with Lady Wisdom, who is also equated with Jesus, and Jesus is Very God in nature, so, while I'm traditional in the fullest sense of the word, I don't see any Biblical contraindications or issues with God's feminine qualities, tho we mostly relate to Him as male, and rightly so, I think.)

Can anyone solve this mystery for me? This is important because it makes sense that the same actress would portray both characters, so as to drill home the point that God appears to each of us as we need. But, the fact I could not find this in the credits (or in any online article: Who is the actress?) is troubling.

PS: I did post my question here, but seeing as like no one frequents that page, I figured I'd "cross-post" it here. Thank you if anyone can answer my question.96.59.130.139 (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)