Talk:Unification Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community:  Discussion - Notice board Guidelines:  Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation:  Key topics - Browse - Portal
	Korea-related tasks: purge Create North Korea South Korea Korea North Korean Cities South Korea-India relations Districts of Seoul National Institute of Korean Language Wanghusa Garakgukgi Korea YMCA Ji Cheongcheon Battle at Luozigou Battle at Dadianzi Battle of Bongohdong Battle of Samdunja Sampo Waeran Byeongin Yangyo Goguryeo-Wei War Lelang Conquest Xienpei Campaign Guda-guk Galsa-guk Gaema-guk Hangin-guk Chunchong King Taejong Jeamri Jinju fortress Improve North-South relations Sports Tourism Communications North Korean Missile Test (2006) Law Culture Politics Nat'l Assembly South Korea-U.S. relations Gangpeh Jirisan Joseonsa Pyeonsuhoe Korean architecture Gaya confederacy Samhan Goryeo Namsan (Gyeongju) Nangnang nation Korean royal court cuisine Bangjja Calligraphy Donghak Peasant Revolution Righteous army Korean Liberation Army Independence movement Culture of Korea Korean martial arts Korean swords Korean nationalism Korean knife Korean armour (see also Pages needing attention and Stubs) Images North Korean famine Kim Tschang Yeul Dong-A University Pohang Songguk-ri Japanese General Government Building, Seoul Jirisan Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) History of Korea Dangun Korean pottery Three Kingdoms of Korea Mongol invasions of Korea Goryeo-Khitan Wars Goguryeo-Sui Wars Military history of Korea List of monarchs of Korea Prehistory of Korea Translate Korean Wikipedia articles: ko:이범석 (1900년) ko:유관순 ko:이봉창 ko:박헌영 ko:김원봉 Japanese Wikipedia articles: 第一次日韓協約 第三次日韓協約 Discuss Portal nominations Votes Complete List (edit)

Contents 1 Top 1.1 == 2 Biblical vs. biblical 3 Trinity (again) 4 Anonymous "reporter" 5 Fishing industry 6 Wall between church and CARP 7 Purported cult 8 Chyung Pyung 9 Cult status 10 Josh Freed 11 Intro sentence 12 This article needs to be more balanced 13 Thank you Ed Poor 14 KOH 15 Amount of members? 16 Democracy and ecumenism 17 Lofland book 18 Automatic theocracy again 19 Theology 20 Allegations of marriage and sexual crimes 21 Political views 21.1 Exucmember Edits 21.2 Exucmember response 21.3 What do others think? 22 Second Coming of Christ 23 "Sexual Improprities" 24 Christianity Logo 25 Lofland's book 26 Liberation of souls from Hell 27 NPOV tag with no explanation 28 Mission of the Messiah 29 POV problems. 30 Sect 31 Proposed merge 32 Politics in the Unification Church 32.1 more on policital ideology 33 Numbers 34 MedCab Mediation Case 35 Dae-Mo-Nim 36 Present 37 New editor 38 Wise Use 39 improvements to article 40 Church/State quotes ... Where to put them?

[edit] Top

I'm new to this, so please forgive any mistakes in form. I have never liked the "Easter time, April 17, 1935" in the "official" history. April 17 wasn't Easter, or even a Sunday. I believe April 21 was "Western" Easter that year.

I may comment on later sentences later.

OK, I added what I believe to be a brief overview of the beliefs most Unificationists hold, as well as removing the erroneous April 17, 1935 as Easter, replacing it with "spring of 1935."

I may not have the formating or placement correct, however.

Comments from Unficationists?

Charles 12:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

The page on the Unification Church is quite informative, but shouldn't it be clearly stated somewhere that Rev. Moon is mad?

In this article, mention is made of their "novel view of the Trinity", while the Trinity article lists the Unification Church among groups that don't believe in the Trinity at all. It would be helpful to further describe what their view of the Trinity is and perhaps how it compares to the classical view. --Wesley, a trinitarian

I will write this up soon. For now, the UC considers God to be unique, absolute and eternal. Jesus is a human being who achieved perfection. The holy spirit is an essence or force. (This is rough and needs more detail, which is why there's no Unification Trinity article or section.) --Ed Poor

Selected quotes on Jesus from the Divine Principle:

• Jesus may well be called God because, as a man who has realized the purpose of creation and who lives in oneness with God, he has a divine nature. Nevertheless, he is not God Himself.

• While on earth, Jesus was a man no different from any of us except for the fact that he was without the original sin. Even in the spirit world, where he has abided since his resurrection, Jesus lives as a spirit, as do his disciples. The only difference between them is that Jesus abides as a divine spirit, emitting brilliant rays of light, while his disciples, as life spirits, reflect that light.

A 400-word explanation of Trinity is at [1] (Note that it's buzz-word laden. It contains 6 unique terms plus 9 terms used in special senses!)

Thanks Ed. I look forward to the fuller write-up. One thing I conclude from the above synopsis is that even though the Unification and Orthodox churches have very different teachings concerning the Trinity, the Trinity remains a practical doctrine, because it describes who God is, who we are, and what hope there is for the relationship between God and humanity. Peace, --Wesley

---

Um, was there a particular Washington Times article that link is supposed to point to, or is the Washington Times itself somehow related to the Unification Church? --Wesley

Rev. Moon directed members of the UC to start the Washington Times, in 1982. Ed Poor

Many say that he also funds the Times, which is a money-losing operation. I've added something to that effect. Rafaelgr

---

I think there should be an explanation of why it's called the Unification Church. I assume it has something to do with a desire for unity, but that's not explicitly spelled out. --Eric

Good point, Eric. My understanding is the Sun Myung Moon did not want to start just another denomination, but rather to create a movement that would unite all the denominations of Christianity. "Association for the Unification of World Christianity" is part of the long form of the church's name.

The church sees the Last Days as a time when the evil sovereignty of Satan will lose power and the good sovereignty of God will gain ascendancy. How quickly this happens is based in part on how much Christianity accepts the second coming of the Messiah, who will be born as a man on the earth.

Ed Poor

And that second Messiah is Sun Myung Moon, right? What would happen if he were to die? --Wesley

---

If Reverend Moon is "the Messiah" where are all the miracles? Where are the signs and wonders? "Tongue-in-cheek ED ly," one miracle was that Moon evaded taxes for a time. Next miracle would be for Ed to answer questions about his so-called software engineering skills. (then he get a plain cheese pizza slice, cold, to warm up in the microwave!)

In general, miracles are too flashy and expensive. The tax issue, which I was hoping not to get into will be covered in detail (since you ask) in a /tax case article (hint: the term trumped up charges comes to mind). As for my alleged software engineering skills, I'm still looking for the person who started that rumor. I'm a poor programmer, just ask my boss. But I will take that slice!! Ed Poor

You might have been (partly) kidding, but nonetheless I wrote these two articles in response to your comment: tax case, imprisonment

---

Thanks for restoring the nickname, Anome. User:Ed Poor

---

Thanks for thinking of my church, Vicki. Your edit has the "potential" to "warm" global interest in our international wedding <goofy grin>.

The church has been accused of doing so because of immigration rules.

Does the above mean "acceused of doing so to evade immigration rules, i.e., forming sham marriages for, say, economic advantage? If so, who is saying so, and what evidence do they give?

The only accusations I've heard were by the Phillipine government, which refused to recognize several marriages between South Koreans and Filipinas. Please tell what you know; such info should be in the article. Ed Poor 09:54 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

I put it vaguely because I couldn't remember whether it was Uruguay, Brazil, or another South American country: the accusation is that Moon deliberately arranged for church members from that country to marry Koreans so those Koreans could immigrate and own land. (I tried a quick Web search, but it seems to have slid out of the news stories. More later, if I get the time.) You seem to know more about this than I do--you could add the Phillipine info. Vicki Rosenzweig

---

There's a link to global warming at the bottom of the page, that points to the general article on global warming. That article makes no mention of the Unification Church. What does one have to do with the other?? I confess I'm a bit mystified. Wesley

I haven't the slightest idea, Wesley. I saw it last week and was going to remove it, but I make a policy of avoiding peremptory reversions on anything dealing with my church. I am such a fervent advocate for my church that I have frankly given up trying to write from a neutral point of view on it, so I look to people like you to keep me honest.

Interestingly, it was just after I fussed with Vicki over global warming potential that she adding something uncomplimentary about arranged marriages and immigration law to the Unification Church article. I'm going to let it stand, because I make it a point not to debate about my religion on wikipedia. Let others say what they will. Ed Poor

 ?!? Well, if there's no connection between the two, and the Unification Church has nothing to do with the global warming issue, I'm going to delete the link to global warming. If someone has a reason to put it back, I hope they'll share that reason, either by adding to the main article or explaining on this Talk page. As it is, it just looks very random. And Ed, I understand your reluctance, but if there's a clear factual misstatement and *nobody* is backing up the claim or providing any support for it, as seems to be the case here, I don't think you have anything to worry about. Wesley

---

Query about names: while looking for info about arranged marraiges and immigration, I came across this odd statement: "Mr Moon?s organisation has lately shed much of its spiritual identity, to concentrate instead on such issues as family values and world peace. Indeed it recently dropped the word "church", renaming itself the Association of Families for Unification and World Peace."

If this is true, it belongs in the article--but I don't want to do that on one source. Ed, it's your church: has it changed its name? Vicki Rosenzweig

Yes, for the most part. There are a few church entities that for legal or administrative reasons retain the old "Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity" name (HSA-UWC). For example, http://www.hsabooks.com (online church bookstore), and my friend Mike Shea hasn't changed the URL of the http:/www.unification.org website. But we've been "The Family Federation for World Peace" for several years now (see http://www.familyfed.org ).

One thing I want to make sure of is that people don't misunderstand the reason for the name change. The quote you cited seems like just the sort of misunderstanding we'd like to avoid: we didn't "shed our spiritual identity" if that means (a) transform into a different kind of religion or (b) change our name to conceal anything. If anything, we've broadened our aims, but we're still the same old Moonies you know and love :-) Ed Poor

Okay, so can you (as someone sympathetic to the church) write a sentence or two about this and put it in the article? I think the current name should be there. Vicki Rosenzweig

I'm not sure I can be NPOV about my religion. Let me pray about it... --Ed

I'm also not sure whether (a) the Unification Church itself is changing its name, or rather (b) the main projects the church has initiated are being combined into one over-arching organization. It might be some combination of A and B.

In any case, the overall aims of the Unification Movement have not changed in the slightest. Father Moon is still trying to do what he set out to do in 1946 (eight years before the church founding), which is establish the Kingdom of God on earth. The structure and name of any organizations created to attain these goals can be varied as needed, I suppose, but the overall goal remains unchanged. Ed Poor 12:07 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)

---

Church members take its teachings, the Unification Principle or Divine Principle, seriously.

This seems pretty insulting to me. Could you imagine an article saying "Episcopalians take their Church's teachings seriously" or "Sufi Muslims really do believe in their own religion!" Am I missing something? DanKeshet 12:10 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

I agree. That sentence should be taken out. I have winced every time I've read it, and I'm the one who wrote it. --Ed Poor

---

From the article:

The church teaches that ...Reverend Moon is the messiah, and that all the historical founders of all other religions have recently, in Heaven, proclaimed Moon's messiahship.

This is not an official church teaching, although the vast majority of members believe that Reverend Moon is the Messiah. As for other founders' proclamation of Moon's messiahship, I would say that not so many members would endorse that. Quite a few of my fellow members have expressed doubt about the authenticity of recently channeled messages from the spirit world, such as that concerning the December 2001 "proclamation". FWIW, I believe both points; still, neither is an "official" church teaching. --Ed Poor

Ed, you're just plain wrong. This is the teaching of the Unification Church. It is the teaching of Reverend Moon himself. If you disagree with him, then you are rejecting a person that the Church teaches is the infallible messiah/leader. By definition, the teachings of the Unification Church are written by Reverend Moon, not the layity. RK

---

Regarding the anti-Semitism charge, none of the dozen or so Jewish men I know who have joined the church regard Rev. Moon or his teachings as anti-semitic (although having joined, they might be not be objective on this point). One of these men, Dr. Andrew Wilson, teaches Old Testament at our seminary. I recall reading the AJC report in the late 1970s shortly after joining the church, but it seemed to boil down to this:

So some people who have rejected Judaism, and joined what the majority of Americans view as a cult, don't have a problem with Rev. Moon? Of course not! By definition, anyone who accepts Moon as their infallible messiah won't disagree with them. But what does that prove? I am curious...why not respect the opinions of the majority of Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews and Reform Jews who are deeply upset by Moon's statements? Jews find these teachings deeply anti-semitic and offensive. It doesn't matter if it is Rev. Moon saying it, or any of the pre-mediveal church fathers, or Martin Luther says it. Sterotyping and damning Jews is something Jews take offense at. RK

The church taught that (A) Jews committed sins during the Old Testament era, and (B) the worst sin was failing to recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

But Moon's claims are much worse than that. He repeatedly damns every Jew living at the time as a deliberate sinner. In modern terms, that is what many people would call hatespeech. How can anyone teach these things about Jews, yet expect them not to respond with pain and shock? RK

For those who consider any criticism of Jews as necessarily "anti-semitic", there is nothing more to be said. My church frequently criticizes sin, whether committed by its own members, historical personages (like Hitler and Stalin), or identifiable groups (like the Japanese nation in WWII, or Christianity during the Crusades).

That's insulting. No one ever claimed that any one particular criticism of any one particular Jew, or group of Jews, is anti-Semitic. Rather, it was pointed out that the slander of all Jews as damned sinners is what is so disturbing. Please do not obfuscate the point. RK

From my point of view, criticism is not necessarily adverse. If you look at Rev. Moon's Statement On Jews And Israel, whose URL I added to the article, you might see some of the positive things Rev. Moon has said. --Ed Poor 13:15 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

No one ever said that mere criticism is adverse. But anti-semitic canards are hatespeech. Your attempts to evade the point bother me. RK

---

Rabbi A. James Rudin, Assistant Director of the Interreligious Affairs Department of the American Jewish Committee wrote in December 1976 [2]:

A systematic analysis of this 536 page document reveals an orientation of almost unrelieved hostility toward the Jewish people, exemplified in pejorative language, stereotyped imagery, and sweeping accusations of collective sin and guilt.

Whether he is discussing the "Israelites" of the Hebrew Bible or the "Jews" as referred to in writings of the New Testament period, Rev. Moon portrays their behavior as reprobate, their intentions as evil (often diabolical), and their religious mission as eclipsed.

There are over 36 specific references in Divine Principle to the Israelites of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) -- every one of them pejorative. The "faithlessness" of the Israelites is mentioned four times on a single page (p. 330).

---

I would like to replace the article's anti-semitism passage with the following:

In the mid-1970s, before the church was well known, some Jewish leaders accused it of anti-semitism. For example,

Nonsense. The church was very well known among cult experts, including the author of this study. RK

Rabbi A. James Rudin, Assistant Director of the Interreligious Affairs Department of the American Jewish Committee wrote in December 1976 that the Divine Principle's "pejorative language . . . reveals an orientation of almost unrelieved hostility toward the Jewish people." [3]

Rev. Moon responded with full-page ads in major newspapers, saying, "The Unification Movement categorically condemns anti- Semitism, the most hideous, abject and cruel form of hatred" and chiding those who "did nothing to rescue the victims who were the captives of [Hitler's] satanic plans and designs." [4]

--Ed Poor 14:57 Aug 15, 2002 (PDT)

---

I rejectany attempt at whitewashing this encyclopaedia entry. The small amount of text originally added was accurate and in accord with NPOV. I could have written several paragraphs, but refrained from doing so at the time. But this attempt to whitewash milennia-old anti-semitic canards as some kind of friendly constructive criticism is appalling, and not at all convincing. RK

---

I don't want a whitewash either:

1. Please note that the only change I have made to the article re: anti-semitism is to add the external link to Rev. Moon's Statement On Jews And Israel.
2. Rev. Moon isn't infallible: "You should not trust me so much. I am a man, and I can make mistakes. When you make a mistake, it is not such a big thing. But if I make a mistake, the entire providence may be affected. Instead of just trusting me, you should be praying for me, asking God that He will be able to guide me." (source: Dan Fefferman, former UC official)
3. Neither Rev. Moon nor the Divine Principle condemns "all Jews" or "every Jew living at the time" as damned sinners.

Have you read Statement On Jews And Israel? --Ed Poor

---

It seems that the page's section on the teachings of the church are inconsistent. It says that the church has a "strong denial that Jesus came to die" - and about two lines later it says that "Jesus had to go the alternate course of dying on the cross". So what is it - does the church believe that Jesus died or did not die? Andre Engels

Jesus did die (He was crucified by the Romans), but His death on the cross was not predestined. If his disciples had been more faithful, and in particular if John the Baptist had supported him, he would not have had to go the way of the cross. He could even have been accepted as the Messiah in his lifetime by the Jewish people.

Okay, I will adapt the page to say that in such a way that it's clear to me too. Andre Engels

---

I have edited in the text from "Unification Church and Jesus". In case anyone disagrees with any editings to that text I have made in moving it here, the original text was:

The Unification Church teaches that Jesus' supreme sacrifice at Calvary and the atoning blood of the cross grants us the redemption of sins. His resurrection was victory over death, hell, sin and the grave for all eternity

Andre Engels

Now that you mention it, I'm not 100% sure about "his death serves as a redemption of our sins". I'll look into it, next chance I get. --Ed Poor

---

"In 2002, the church published a message purporting that all the historical founders of all other religions have recently, in Heaven, proclaimed Moon's messiahship (see Clouds of Witnesses)."

This is ungrammatical. You can't purport something; you have to purport <infinitive> something. So it'd have to be "which purports to demonstrate that", or possibly "claiming that". I'm not modifying this myself since I haven't read the message in question and don't want to inadvertently misrepresent this; nevertheless it needs fixing. --AW

---

I don't want to squelch any "negative" information, but... does the paragraph about being forced to sell squid and being related to the Aum cult really belong here? Of course, I might be unconsciously biased, since I'm a member of this church :-) --Uncle Ed 20:45 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

You're right, Ed. It has nothing to do with antisemitism. The writing here is unclear, and it needs links to substantiate the claims. According to which ex-members? Says who? Which members are forced? How are they forced? When? Where? Why? How often? What do the ellipses at the end mean? And that's only the first sentence. It's painful. Here is the removed text:

According to ex-members the Unification Church members are forced to go sell church merchandiese such as pots and vases and dry squid etc....

In Japan, the unification church is known as brother cult of Aum the sarin terror cult. Some leaders of Aum were from the unification church.Hayakawa

Q 21:56 Feb 14, 2003 (UTC)

Nice of you to take that unflattering stuff out, but I suppose we could dig up a paragraph or two of testimonies by ex-members. "They forced me to go fundraising 18 hours a day". The force being emotional and mental pressure, one supposes. Which of course leads into the whole brainwishing controversy. What strange power did Rev. Moon have over these hapless souls? How did he get American young people by the hundreds to give up promising careers to devote themselves, etc.? It's all rather boring to me, as Eileen Barker's book clearly shows that 90% of anyone who ever joined the UC in America simply dropped out within 6 months or so. People stay or go as they wish, so what's the fuss? --Uncle Ed

There's a controversy about brainwishing? I wish everyone had a brain! --Eloquence

I could while away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain
And my head, I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain. [5]

I meant brainwashing. Uncle Ed

---

Moved from Ed Poor's talk page:

Is Wikipedia one of Unification Church business? I was told so. Then I found you(The church member) are an administrator.

By that standard, Wikipedia must be an atheist business, a gay business, and a German business, as there are admins from all of these groups. Not particularly telling, is it? --Brion

You left out the powerful vegan meat-eating communist anarchist lobby. Koyaanis Qatsi

Who is the communist ??? Ant

D'oh. Important word up there, "administrator." Tell Mr. McCarthy to go back to sleep, nothing to see here.  ;-) Koyaanis Qatsi

1. As far as I know, the Unification Church (UC) does not own any businesses, at least in America; several UC members, however, have started business both to advance UC ideals and also (hopefully) to make money to contribute to the UC.
2. Wikipedia is not a business; soon, Jimbo will be incorporate Wikipedia as an official "non-profit organization". Moreover, neither Jimbo nor Larry, the two men who started Wikipedia, had had any contact with the UC until I jumped into the wiki-pond about a year after they started it.
3. If you're trying to discredit the Wikipedia by "linking" it to the UC, you'll have to try harder than that!
4. I haven't the slightest idea how I wound up getting sysop and developer rights, unless it's that I help out a lot and do what I'm told ^_^ --Uncle Ed 16:21 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps sie means that wikipedia is a "front" for the international Unificationist conspiracy? ;-) Martin

---

211.23.199.103 (Uncle Ed=Ed Poor, right?)

• Since this site is maintained by unification church member,you cant trust all of information on this page.***

The article (not a site) is open for anyone to update. To say it is "maintained" by anyone is incorrect. -- Zoe

• One of Wikipedia:Administrators is unification church member... maybe more?

So what? Anyone from anywhere has full access to edit these pages. -- Zoe

---

Thanks for the move (J & SMM) and cleanup, Zoe. --Uncle Ed 19:47 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

From the top of the article page:

Not related to the Unitarian Universalist Church

This is misleading. The UC's theology actualy is unitarian in that it believes in only one God -- as opposed to the "God in three persons" of most Trinitarian theologies. The UC's theology is also universalist in its teaching that every soul can, must and will eventually be saved.

The same can be said about Sikhism and some forms of Judaism, though they are in no way connected. I think we should be careful to avoid implying any link between the Unitarian Universalist Church and the Unification church, as they are plainly different organisations. Incidentally members of the Unitarian Universalist Church are not necessarily Unitarian, though I would be surprised if they were not Universalist. -- Chris Q 16:14 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I guess the sentence was meant to prevent confusion, since Unification and Unitarian start with the same three letters and sort of rhyme a bit. I'd like to think, though, that the Unification Church has achieved sufficient name-recognition that disambiguation isn't really needed.

I should add a section to the article comparing and contrasting Unitarianism with Unificationism. --Uncle Ed 14:06 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

It may be misleading, but I think a line of that nature is useful - those of us who are unfamiliar with the UC and the UUC occasionally confuse the two. It could probably be phrased better, though, and maybe placed at the bottom instead of the top. Martin

As Eloquence notes, this article needs a lot of work. And *sigh* who better to fix it up than I? (If 26 years of membership in it has taught me anything...)

I'd like to start by noting that although the church's theology is "unitarian" (as opposed to the 90% of Christianity that is trinitarian), it has no relation to the Unitarian Church. Moreover, the theology and practice of the church are strongly "universalist" in the sense that it preaches that all souls can and must be saved -- and as soon as possible, let's hurry! However, it has no relation to the Universalist Church other than this single theological tenet. Despite Martin's caution, the contrast with Unitarian Universalism might be an interesting place to begin with the church's theology. I'd also like to get Wesley's advice on that, as he knows considerably more about Christianity in general than I do. I know little other than UC theology and how it differs from the mainstream.

Readers might also be interested to know a bit more history of the church, from humble beginnings in Korea to extraordinary prominence (or notoriety? :-) in America.

I'm open to suggestions about how to organize the article. Also, are there any questions people have? --Uncle Ed 21:41 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know a huge amount about it (what I just added to the page ought to be taken in the spirit of a stub), but I've been hearing a lot lately about the Unification Church's political activities -- connections to various conservative causes in the US (particularly through the Washington Times and abstinence groups), and I hear a lot about their influence in Korea but I don't know much about it. There is a lot of information out there, maybe someone with more patience than me can put something a bit more adequate here. --Rafaelgr 14 Feb 2004

[edit] Biblical vs. biblical

• When a word is derived from and begins with a proper noun, it should be capitalized.
• One meaning of "bible" is the compilation most commonly known everywhere in the world as the Bible (proper noun)
• The word "biblical" here is explicitly referring to this compilation
• The word "Biblical" should generally be capitalized
• The word "Biblical" here should be capitalized

Please reply to points, maybe we can get a policy for other articles. I must point out that in my favour the dictionary definitions of "biblical" I looked up never refer to any text other than the Bible, but in my disfavour they are not capitalized in the dictionary. silsor 21:20, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

The point I have the most problems with is "When a word is derived from a proper noun, it should be capitalized". We do not capitalize godless, for example, and I'm sure there are many others like it. The real reason for the capitalization seems to be not so much the avoidance of confusion, but the predominant role of Christianity. And that is not a valid reason in a neutral, academic work.

In any case, the authority for the spelling of words should be the usage in the majority of dictionaries. If we deviate from that usage, that could be interpreted as a subtle endorsement of Christianity (hence POV). Also, Britannica, Columbia and Encarta all use "biblical". If you want to argue about it, this is the central question I would ask in cases like this: Is there a real risk of confusion with other "bibles"? I think it is quite clear there is not. It's really a similar methodology to the one we use to determine whether disambiguation is necessary.—Eloquence 21:50, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trinity (again)

The following is a sample of a "buzzword-laden" explanation of the Unification view of the Trinity:

According to the Principle of Creation, God's purpose of creation is completed based upon the four position foundation, which is established by fulfilling the three object purpose through origin-division-union action. To fulfill the purpose of creation, Jesus and the Holy Spirit stand before God as object partners who separately manifest the dual characteristics of God. They unite through give and take with each other with God as the center and form the four position foundation. God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit thus become one, and this oneness constitutes the Trinity. [6]

Note that there are eight (8) distinct terms, all with specialized meanings! Without understanding at least "purpose of creation" and "dual characterstics" this passage is like Orwell's duckspeak. I think that over the decades, UC members have failed to appreciate how difficult our theological terms have been for outsiders. --Uncle Ed 16:29, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous "reporter"

(cur) (last) 18:36, 8 Sep 2004 24.4.217.200 (Totally untrue) (cur) (last) 18:32, 8 Sep 2004 24.4.217.200 (I'm a Salon.com reporter and Moon expert, and a lot of this was frankly bullshit)

If you're a reporter, why don't you quote sources or use your real name? I use MY real name...

Have you read the Fraser Report? If not, how do you know what's in it? I'm going to revert this and the other changes unless they're substantiated somehow. --Uncle Ed 21:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fishing industry

Discussion of the church's involvement in the US fishing industry really belong here -- not at the Sun Myung Moon article.

"The Unification Church has invested heavily in Kodiak. It owns International Oceanic Enterprises, the parent company of both International Seafoods of Alaska, a Kodiak processing plant, and U.S. Marine, a subsidiary which runs a fleet of fishing boats on the island. Moon’s church has become the largest tax-payer on Kodiak, and the largest private employer" [7]

[edit] Wall between church and CARP

In 1992, when I was bookkeeper for the Manhattan District of the Unification Church, I was asked to transfer around $1,500 to CARP. I refused, telling the leader who requested this that I had been expressly forbidden by the national church treasurer to "donate" church funds to CARP. The leader professed not to know or care that this was illegal and insisted it was no violation of church policy, so I suggested drily that if they could get the church treasurer (whose office was one floor below mine) to give me a written letter authorizing the transfer, I would be happy to do it -- knowing that Kevin (a fellow whose eyes well with tears when he describes his mission in terms of "protecting True Parents" would hardly do such a thing The leader made one or two additional angry remarks and departed. I never heard anything more about it, and needless to say, I never wrote the requested check! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 18:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Purported cult

These paragraphs are from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate these statements and decide how to integrate them into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 10:53, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unification Church

Considered heretical by counter-cult groups for teaching that the Second Coming of Christ will be realized by the birth of a man on the earth who will get married and beget children having "no original sin"; for saying that founder Sun Myung Moon is this new Messiah; and for teaching that Jesus did not come to die on the cross but could have established the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth in his lifetime if the Jewish people (particular John the Baptist) had believed in him then.

Members have been called "Moonies" and branded a mind control cult by anti-cult groups who espouse the discredited "brainwashing" theories of Margaret Singer (see also Rick Ross or Steve Hassan).

Also called the "Moon Organization" and branded a front group by US Rep. Donald Fraser who chaired a subcommittee purportedly investigating the church for illegal political ties; when the Fraser Report was finally published, it admitted (in one hard-to-find sentence) that none of the allegations asserted in the rest of the report could be substantiated, and Fraser lost his re-election campaign and the IRS granted the church tax-exempt status as a bona fide religious group.

Detractors often cite Rev. Moon's 1983 conviction on tax evasion charges as 'further proof' that the church is a mere fraud; friend of the court briefs from many organizations called the tax prosecution politically motivated (see Moon tax case).

[edit] Chyung Pyung

Can anyone shed any light on this stub: Chyung Pyung? Rd232 12:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

About Chung Pyung: Chung Pyung (Cheong Pyeong) is a small town in the northern part of South Korea. It is a popular holiday and vacation resort. The Unification Movement has a workshop center (or retreat) in the countryside outside Chung Pyung. It is called "Heaven and Earth Training Center". However, members commonly refer to the retreat also as 'Chung Pyung'. Over the last years it has gained in size and visitors due to many events taking place there. More could and should be said about the town Chung Pyung itself, I guess. Rjen 03:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Followers from other religious backgrounds consider Moon and his wife to be fulfilling the ideals of their teachings. Members honor them as True Parents, a term that transcends sectarian bounds."

These two statements are unclear, seem to be out of place, and have a POV problem. I'm going to remove them. -- Alan McBeth 15:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cult status

This page refers to a cult. see moonies. Any attempt to remove mention of the fact that this is a cult, should be dealt with according to the strictest of wikipedia's policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.43.175.186 (talk • contribs) .

I've put it in a purported cult category. I don't quite see the point of that category, but I've changed it to be about groups that are alleged to be cults without clear concensus on the issue among scholars. (Nothing can be confirmed a cult, but you know) I'm not sure this was appropriate even still, but it now represents that some do call this group a cult. Is this satisfactory? On another issue was it a bad idea to suggest merging the List of Unificationists into this?--T. Anthony 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. We try to deal with every article according to Wikipedia policies. -Willmcw 06:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added the cleanup and NPOV tags, because this article is in very sad shape. Wikipedia is not a PR outlet.

I appreciate your desire to cleanup this article. Can you specify some areas where we can improve the NPOV? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget to mention that during his lifetime, Jesus Christ was considered a leader of a cult.--Objectivity 02:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The question of cult, sect, or religion status for a belief system comes down to numbers. Unfortunately, minority status for any social group generally carries pejorative baggage. The "purported cult" cat uses the qualifier to signal its negative image. If the category is to be differentiated at all, I suggest it be identified by group as a "minority religion", rather than a cult. --Blainster 12:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create that category and I'm not sure it should exist. However I did try to soften it with the explanation on the category page. As it stands now it should be more mild than Category:Cults. That said I don't think every minority religion is alleged to be a cult. I don't think the Religious Society of Friends represents more than 1% of any nation or US state, but I don't think they have faced cult allegations in over 200 years. (Outside of a few Christian Fundamentalist groups who deem all non-Fundamentalists to be a cult) The same could likely be said of the Zoroastrians or Unitarians.--T. Anthony 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Josh Freed

Perhaps a mention of him could be made as well? Seeing as he wrote a best-selling book about his efforts in pulling a friend of his out of the Unification Church, and his views on how it is a dangerous cult, would it not help the goal of objectivity to get his testimony in this? There's allready several quotes by Moon, perhaps this will help to balance things?

Here's a link to the book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0888930186/104-1205330-6948743?v=glance&n=283155

[edit] Intro sentence

Seriously, we can't start an article with a statement of opinion: "purported cult". The question of cultishness is discussed in the article, but it hartly qualifies for the definition. --Pjacobi 08:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but we can. --Nugneant 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article needs to be more balanced

It is my view, especially for the sake of young impressionable readers, that this article needs to be more forthcoming, objective and balanced, in a comparative way, as to what the Unificationist worldview is and what their objectives are, especially in the light of civilization's collective historical experience. Unification beliefs shouldn't be presented here in just their own words, like a witnessing track, but also from an, hopefully, objective historical observer's perspective looking in. A young person has no way of discerning reality from someone's personal beliefs. This article is written in such a way, for the most part, to imply that these beliefs are to be assumed as empirical reality. I have a unique experience of being a teacher of Unificationism for about a decade. I have tried to edit the article, but so far all of my edits have been reverted by the user KI. I may have been over-zealous at first. I made some milder edits again. I would welcome a civil dialog to come to an understanding. Marknw 01:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverting non-vandalism without an explanation or discussion was against policy. The neutral point of view requires that all major viewpoints be included, without promoting any of them as the truth. The role of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the NPOV. All of our articles should be the best possible, both for young readers and for older ones as well. In this instance the best thing would be to link to books or articles (but not blogs or forums) that discuss the church and its teachings. As we proceed I ask all editors to participate with a civil and collegial attitude. Cheers, -Will Beback 01:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to continue vandalizing Wikipedia. Will appreciates it. Tchadienne 16:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tchadienne I am happy to discuss with you the points you don't agree with and see if we can work something out. Marknw 23:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Marknw, thank you for your attempts to improve and balance this article. I am far from considering your edits vandalism, but I'm nevertheless worried about the new section "A Brief Critique of Unification Theology". If I don't misunderstand the meaning of "critique" here, it should at least be mentioned and referenced, from whon this critique originates. If it is your own analysis, it will fail our central policy of no original research. Also the notes on your userpage imply, that you write from personal experience and analysis. --Pjacobi 15:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I need to think a little more about how to make it better I quess. I'm open to suggestions. Marknw 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict, partially answering an older version of the above posting)

Actually not, if it is your own view -- except you have written a non-self-published book on the subject. But, looking for a pragmatic solution: I'd guess that the Unification Church isn't short on critics, right? Can't you find a published critique (hopefully by an author of some authority), which goes along the same lines as your analysis?

If you look around in Wikipedia for other articles of religions, you would (or should) usually not find criticisms of their beliefs. Note that, e.g. for agnostics, the belief systems of different religions look only marginally different absurd.

A typical method to "sidestep" this, is the specifically address conflicts of theology: "Whereas religion X claims to be the modern day religion Y, scholars of Y reject this claim and pinpoint these essential diiferences ...". Or "X uses the term Foo for ... but Foo originates in religion Y, where it quite contrarily meant ...". Even this more legitimate criticism needs carefull formulations.

Pjacobi 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see I have a lot of homework to do. I do not want to damage Wikipedia. If you see something you think I need to remove please let me know. Marknw 15:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Ed Poor

Thank you for your input on the edits I added to the Unification Church article.

Doesn't it seem clear from the Divine Principle that the "Kingdom of Heaven" is a political reality to Rev Moon and from the balance of all his speaches that a theocracy is exactly what he has in mind?

Do you have the result of Andrew Wilson's translation?

Thank you again. Marknw 18:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor"

[edit] KOH

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:marknw"

the "Kingdom of Heaven" is a political reality to Rev Moon and from the balance of all his speaches that a theocracy is exactly what he has in mind

It depends on what "theocracy" means. If it's an old-fashioned, do-as-I-say-or-my-soldiers-will-kill-you sort of evil dictatorship, then I don't think that's what he hand in mind at all.

If it's a family atmosphere where everyone on the planet can feel God's presence and voluntarily refrains from doing anything that would give God pain, well duh! --Uncle Ed 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

So it seems we are in agreement Uncle Ed. It is a political theocracy. Whether it has the potential to become evil or not would be up to history to determine. My point in putting it in the article was to make the intent of Rev Moon's ideology clear for the those trying to understand what he is all about, not only from an insider's faithful beliefs, hopes and interpretations, but in the light of the sober reality of civilization’s historical experience. Take the Byzantine Empire or the Carolingian Empire for example. We have seen this kind of thing in Christianity before. Thank you again for the feedback. Marknw 21:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with you that we are "in agreement". I do not interpret the passage as describing a political theocracy. Next time I get a chance to see Andy Wilson's translation, I'll post it here so you can see. I think it's just the opposite of what you think it is. Please don't get me wrong. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, for me it is not just that one passage, but the bulk of Rev Moon's teachings and speaches discribe a political reality of an actual Kingdom and not just a "family" as you said. Some groups see the Kingdom of Heaven as a political reality, some see it as a metaphor. When I read the Divine Principle and Rev Moon's speaches, it seems clear to me that, to him, it is an actual political Kingship. In fact, he has established a "nation" of "Cheon Il Guk" that members are reguired to pledge aligence to as "Loyal Subjects" and "citizens" ( see "Love King".) Thank you again for the discussion Uncle Ed. Marknw 21:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are using "political" to mean "imposed by force" than I disagree 100% with your interpretation of my church leader's words. But if "political" means "on a scale larger than family or clan", then I agree.

Are we talking about scope and size and numbers of people? Or "degree of force used to impose the idea"? In heaven, there is no coercion. Please address this point and stop thanking me for agreeing with you when I don't! --Uncle Ed 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Uncle Ed. I'm just trying to be polite and respectful. I do not doubt your sincerity or the sincerity of the church in thinking they are working for the sake of the good. But, doesn't every political movement think they are working for the greatest good? It seems to me whether or not the theocracy is popularly accepted or it is established through force is beside the point. I think most Americans would agree that any attempt, peaceful or otherwise, to dissolve our constitutional democratic republic would be contrary to our western values. Rev Moon and his followers spend a great deal of time and money trying to affect our political process. The important point to me is to understand what kind of political state Rev Moon is advocating for. Regards Marknw 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia has a wonderful article on what a theocracy is. They are not always "evil" as you said. But, I think most people would appreciate being informed by Wikipedia as to what a group actual stands for politically. It can be difficult with a religion to tell when it is speaking in metaphors and when it is not. With Regards and Respect Uncle Ed. Marknw 22:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ironically, KOH is an anagram of HOK, architects of Green Cathedrals for the Church of Baseball. Wahkeenah 23:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, despite what you said earlier about us "agreeing", it appears we disagree about what the UC's teaching are about democracy. Your remarks above imply a belief on your part that the UC is anti-democratic and that opposing democracy is anti-Western. The passage that follows, by Tyler Hendricks, convinces me at least that the UC is pro-democratic.

DP explicitly terms the separation of powers, 'to decentralize national power and prevent it from being concentrated in a specific individual or organization,' as the basis for 'the structure of the ideal society" (DP 469)." Dr. Hendricks goes on to say, "Divine Principle approves the structure of democracy; it is the spirit of the people which is the problem." ... The ideal of the Messiah's second advent, which Rev. Moon is pursuing, is not to create a new political system, but rather to do all he can to center the present system, democracy, upon God's will (DP 471)." [8]

I found this quote simply by googling "automatic theocracy" - and it was the second hit. If you have a few minutes to glance at the rest of Tyler's remarks, you might find that church teaching is much less anti-democratic than it's ofter portrayed, or maybe even not opposed to it all. --Uncle Ed 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Steve Hassan: "Moon's stated ambitions include the establishment of a one-world government run as an automatic theocracy by Moon and his leaders. Bush's faith-based initiative seems to be ideal to help them in their quest for a one world theocratic government. I am sure President Bush is not aware that Moon has repeatedly said that America (and democracy) is Satanic." [9]

The subtle (not so subtle?) difference here is that Hassan claims that Father Moon wants to govern the world personally, contrary to what Hendricks said; and that Hassan claims Moon called democracy Satanic, while Hendricks quotes Divine Principle as saying just the opposite.

I suggest we create a section on the article called something like "Teachings on democracy" which shows:

1. Quotes from church sources about democracy and heaven
2. Interpretations of these quotes by church leaders
3. Interpretations of these quotes by church opponents

How does that sound, Mark? --Uncle Ed 16:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I probably should get back to my real job this morning. But over time that sounds great. Regards (and thanks) Marknw 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I don't read, in the Divine Principle canon, that Rev Moon thinks democracy is evil or bad, but I do think he believes it is a necessary, but transient, stage of development in history that will eventually conclude in the establishment of a benevolent theocracy:

"Thus, when the Messiah returns to societies under the rule of democratic governments well-matured by the Christian spirit, he will be able to establish God's sovereignty upon the earth with the wholehearted support of the people. This will be the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. We need to understand that democracy was born to undermine satanic monopolies of power for the purpose of God's final providence to restore, by the will of the people, a heavenly sovereignty under the leadership of the returning Christ." -Divine Principle

Regards Marknw 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Good quote, Mark. Perhaps this also relates to the oft-neglected concept of "foundation of substance" or more specifically, "foundation for the Messiah". In order for a Perfect Adam (e.g., Jesus) to fulfill his messianic mission, the people have to want him to be the Messiah.

One might say, informally, that Messiahship is an elective post (but that's my own interpretation).

Another related concept (well understood here on the wiki!) is that you only have as much authority as other people give you. This holds true especially for relationships and associations of a voluntary nature, such as church membership or ball game attendance. As Yogi Berra said, "If the fans don't come out to the ball park, you can't stop them." Cheers. --Uncle Ed 19:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Uncle Ed. While what you say about authority is true, it does overlook the power of ideas and 'isms' to move societies emotionally in dramatic ways. The beauty of a forum like Wiki' is that people can rationally inform themselves from different points of view.

Some Christians see the "Messiah" as a metaphor for your own "christ nature" or Christ returning internally as the "king of your heart" or Jesus as the "King of the Jews" as a sacred allegory or the Kingdom of Heaven as a spiritual reality but not a political one, etc. Some see the Messiah as an actual historical religious and political leader that will come to establish an actual political kingdom with a king and queen and all that comes with it. From my experience and reading, Unificationism and most Unificationists are of the later point of view.

I feel this is relevant because Rev. Moon and the Unification movement is politically partisan and politically proactive in the U.S. and all over the world. Regards Marknw 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the church politically partisan and politically proactive? Can you give some examples of this for the article? Endorsing a candidate for high political office would be an excellent example, such as Reagan in 1980 (but only if you can document it).

I think rather that we make broad religious or philosophical statements about politics, rather than getting directly involved. In the United States, there are strict rules limiting "political activity" for churches who wish to keep their non-profit status.

On the other hand, some of the organizations Rev. Moon founded aren't churches, such as CARP.

• The Unification Church has also been linked to a variety of associated organizations. Some of these include The American Freedom Coalition, Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles (CARP), CAUSA USA, American Leadership Conferences, American Constitution Committee, National Committee Against Religions Bigotry and Racism, Conservative Action Foundation, National Council for Church and Social Action ... [10]

Wikipedia readers may be interested in how the UC views the relationship between religion and politics. This relates, as you probably know, to the "separation between church and state". The latter forbids the government to interfere with religion or to establish one religion as the dominant one. However, the UC maintains that there is no rule against churches trying to influence government.

For example, a campaign to get senators and congressmen, governors and judges, and the president himself to be more mindful of God (however they conceive Him) and to seek His guidance (e.g., via prayer) would not be illegal or unconstitutional in the US, would it? --Uncle Ed 13:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the vigorous discussion Uncle Ed. I may be mistaken, but I think Rev Moon's political involvements and monetary contributions are already well documented in Wiki'. My point is that the political activism (partisan is in the eye the beholder I guess) comes out of the Unification ideology. Most Wiki' readers, from my point of view, would probably appreciate a more complete insight and understanding of that. I'm trying to think of the one young person, doing a homework assignment, trying to understand the phenomenon of Unificationism. The article, the way it was before, seemed to lack an outsider's point of view about the ideology.Marknw 14:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amount of members?

There should be something in the article about the amount of members in the US and in the rest of the world. At least just an estimation. As an outsider reading this article I can't tell if the amount of members is closer to 10 thousand or 1 million. -- S Sepp 12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's closer to 10,000. A couple years ago, Tyler gave me a copy of the membership database which (as vice president and later president) he had compiled and maintained, with the help of his assistant Go Ezaki. The database then had 5,800 records. Sorry, I can't remember if that was "couples" or "adults". I'd have to check on that, but it definitely did not count children, even those who reached adult age. Those are in a separate Second Generation (UC) database with around 3,000 to 5,000 records. Sorry, again, off the top of my head.

I usually tell people the American (USA) church has around 8,000 members.

Tyler estimates there are over 100,000 ex-members. That is, people who joined as adults, moved in as a full-time volunteer for at least 6 months - and then quit.

Sociologist Eileen Barker might have more accurate statistics.

By the way, it looks like the attrition rate is rather high. By my reckoning, 92% of Americans who joined the church full-time left the church. (And if anyone thinks we've found a surefire brainwashing technique, they can think again. :-) --Uncle Ed 13:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy and ecumenism

Cut from intro:

This vision, however, was not along the lines of the democratic model of ecumenism common in the West. Moon views himself as the new messiah, and as such Christianity (and by extension all religions) should unite around him.

Who says that Moon's vision contradicts the democratic model?

And can we get a source for "Xty and all religions should unite around him"? (Not denying this, but it seemed jarring in the opening following hard on the heels of "not ... democratic" esp. in view of recent discussions with Mark about "automatic theocracy".) --Uncle Ed 16:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Ed, I thought I did link ot to the "Cloud of Witnesses" USA today advertisement. Is that not enough? I can find more quotes if you like.

It does seem pretty clear that Rev Moon's vision of the future does not look like the democracy we have today. Doesn't it? Or am I wrong about that? At the risk of sounding disingenuous, I'm not trying to be hostile towards the church. I do however think that it is important to look clearly, soberly and objectively at the implications of the Unification Ideology as it has been articulated by Rev Moon from the very beginning in the Divine Principle and continues until today. I think we just have to take him at his word. It would be up to the observer to decide whether that is good or bad. But an observer can't make that decision without having it all clearly out in the open. Rev Moon says many nice and wonderful things about love and peace. Everybody likes those kinds of things. Where the rubber meets the road, however, is the applied political ideology. With Regards Marknw 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? That heaven will not be a democracy? (All religions teach this.) Or are you hinting with phrases like look clearly & rubber meets the road that you see contradictions in the teachings?

Perhaps instead of conductiong your own analysis (see Wikipedia:Original research) it would be more fruitful to quote a critic directly. Try this format:

• Moon opponent Dusty Rhodezze says that the church's theology is "utterly at odds with its political activism ... they say that democracy will lead to heaven, but I say they're bent on destroying democracy with a Taliban-style religious dictatorship."

I hope this helps. --Uncle Ed 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does help. And thank you. As I said before, I know I have a lot of homework to do to make my contribution better. And I am grateful to you for your guidance and feedback. I tried from the beginning to use as few as my own words as possible and let the Divine Principle and Rev Moon's words speak for themselves in illustrating the political aspects of the theology. The article, the way it was before, seemed to me to be written only from the point of view of a believer and the points of theology implicitly assumed to be objective reality. Even when you said above "What are you saying? That heaven will not be a democracy?" that speaks volumes about your own beliefs about heaven. Many people don't see heaven in those kinds of terms. I will try to make it better. With Regards Marknw 18:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lofland book

Cut:

An American sociologist, John Lofland, encountered one of the first UC missionary groups in America, associated himself with them, and observed them over many months. His account of this experience is published in Doomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization, and Maintenance of Faith. Lofland does not identify the group explicitly, and disguises the identities of the individuals. He later indicated that he thought that the movement would soon fade away, and he wanted to spare any embarassment to the individuals involved, many of whom he judged vulnerable.

Did Lofland ever concede (in writing, maybe?) that the group he mentioned in his book was indeed the Unification Church?

User:ianpanderson Yes he does, see his webpage at University of California, Davis [[11]]

Also, did he tell them he was "thinking of joining"? If so, was this true or a ruse? If he studied them under a ruse, we should mention this in the article.

User:ianpanderson Agreed

I think an article about his book would be better, first, then summarize his findings or "experience" and cite the article with the {{main}} template. --Uncle Ed 17:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

User:ianpanderson I think this is a fascinating historical resource from an an observer who had a unique perspective on the first members of the Unification Church, and I would still like to see it linked from the UC page.

I agree that it's a fascinated resource about how this Korean-born church took hold in America, even if Lofland changed all the names and faked his true intentions. I wish someone would read the book (or at least skim it) and then summarize its findings. It's the earliest non-UC account of the US history of the church. --Uncle Ed 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic theocracy again

A Google search for "automatic theocracy" "Andrew Wilson" led me to the following - but it wasn't easy to find:

• Dan Fefferman: He never used words even resembling "automatic theocracy" but rather described "heaven on earth" as naturally emerging from a succession of democratically elected honest politicians.
• Sun Myung Moon (retranslated): God is active in the realization of all human affairs. Therefore, when the democracies produce a succession of many uncorrupted politicians, it will become heaven on earth. Don't you agree that this is the way it should be? [12]

I'd prefer for the article to used the retranslation only, unless you'd care to collaborate on a "theocracy dispute" section - which I'd be glad to do. Church opponents say things like:

• Opposition to constitutional democracy is a theological premise of The Divine Principle, the basic text of Unificationism. Moon's speeches are riddled with contempt for "American-style democracy," which he denigrates as "a good nursery for the growth of Communism." "We must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world," Moon has declared. [13]

I think that should be balanced with former church official Dan Fefferman's statement: He never used words even resembling "automatic theocracy" but rather described "heaven on earth" as naturally emerging from a succession of democratically elected honest politicians.

And also balanced with the DP idea about the balance of powers, comparing legislative, judiciary, and executive branches to 3 functions of the human body (lungs, heart, stomach I think).

Sound like a plan? --Uncle Ed 19:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you. Do you approve of the changes I made? I think that I would like to leave the other translation up if that's ok, given what a direct statement it is, unless the church somehow officially retracts that version of the speech as an error. Marknw 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Before I answer that, I'd like to call your attention to the "show preview" button. Rather than saving dozens of time per edit, would you perhaps consider using this button to see how each minor change looks before committing your changes? This makes it easier for others to follow the article's progress. --Uncle Ed 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have two answers. I disagree with used by Rev. Moon and his followers to justify his authority but I really like how you fixed the "automatic theocracy" thing. --Uncle Ed 13:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theology

The section I renamed is inaccurate about the "orgins" of UC theology:

Unification Church Theology is based on Rev. Sun Myung Moon's and his early follower's mostly literal and historical re-interpretation of selected Biblical narratives, a self-referential religious re-interpretation and specious revision of world history, and a pseudoscientific ontology of the universe dictated into a book called the "Divine Principle" also referred to, in Unification Church teachings, as the "Completed Testament."

In 29 years of church membership, I have seen no evidence that UC theology has been influenced by any followers, early or not. It's all been a one-way transmission from Moon to followers. Who says that followers had any influence on theology?

And who uses phrases like self-referential (sounds like a dig), specious revison of history, and pseudoscientific? We need to identify the source of this POV rather than stated it as fact. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you feel the way you do. The way I phrased that was kind of harsh. But I see it as simple statements of fact in the light of reason, rather than a POV. That is why I put the DP quotes there to illustrate my points. This is an encyclopedia after all and encyclopedias originated in the age of enlightenment and reason. It doesn’t take an external exposé to show that there are some simple things that you can point out about the DP. It is like saying the "the grass is green", "the sky is blue." It is not meant as a dig. I think even folks who are involved in UC would appreciate knowing how DP compares to modern scholarship. Isn't that the very reason why someone would look-up Unification Church in an encyclopedia, say rather than a church flyer? Many churches have to deal with the reality that a lot of their beliefs do not square with modern science and research. That reality does not diminish the value of the religion at all. Look at the Catholic Church for instance. It may be an opportunity to deepen a persons faith that they may not get any other way. The basic thrust of this paragraph needs to be in the article somehow. You may like my improved version even less. I’m willing to work with you. Regards Marknw 15:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire section. It's a hopeless mishmash. I suggest you work on it by yourself, say at User:Marknw/Moon quotes. --Uncle Ed 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle Ed. I want to work with you on this, but you can't just delete whole sections without discussion. We need to colaborate on this. Please restore what what you deleted. Regards Marknw 15:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussed at length. It's all your own argument that the church is wrong: it contradicts itself or its ideas don't "match reality".

We can collaborate in your userspace, where I have preserved the deleted text.

Before your work can go into a Wikipedia article, it has to meet encyclopedic standards such as Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Sources. I'm glad to help you with this. Then we can put the section back. --Uncle Ed 17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle Ed, The way the article stands now, it is written from the Unification Church POV. I agree that my edits need to be refined. But I do not think that they should be sent to my user area. This feels like censorship. I have a feeling, no matter what I post there that is not from your own POV, you're not going to like it. Isn't the real reason you deleted it is because it does not agree with your own POV? For the record, I have not deleted one word from the article. I'm sorry we can't seem to work this out. And we were doing so good. I think I will just let other users weigh in on it. With Regards Marknw 17:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1. No, censorship would be if I just deleted your contributions and refused to discuss them, as User:FeloniousMonk and User:ScienceApologist do at Intelligent design. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
2. If the entire article is written from Unification Church POV then slap an {{npov}} label on it. But until you came along, the consensus was that it was no more pro-church than any other article about a church.
3. If you think the parts of the article that explain the church's teachings are biased, how about giving an example? It's not "from church POV" to say that "the church teaches X", is it?
4. Surely you don't think that "founded in 1954 by Sun Myung Moon" is written from the Unification Church POV - I wonder if you are just making a tit-for-tat response because I userfied most of the quotes section you were developing. --Uncle Ed 19:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle Ed, I appreciate the points you have made. But, I feel the points I was trying to make in the article were also very important. I think it is best to let a third party weigh in on our edit dispute. I did enjoy the exchanges we had. I hope we can come to an understanding, or at least agree to disagree. Have a good weekend and Happy Fathers Day if it is appropriate. Regards Marknw 20:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of marriage and sexual crimes

Cut from article:

However, Moon fathered at least two illegitimate children: one, named Hee-Jin, by a Korean student who is euphemistically referred to as Moon's "second" wife, although they were never married, and another whose identity was disclosed by Nan Sook Hong in her book (referenced below). There are claims of others (e.g. Myung-Shik Woo). Moreover, former Unification Church leaders have claimed that Moon and his wife had an enormous row in London in 1978 after their daughter found out about his plans to father children by yet another woman.

Introducing a passage with "however" implies that Wikipedia itself casts doubt on what came before. But it is not the place of the article or its contributors to argue pro or con (see WP:OR).

But we can fix this passage and then put it back.

Who uses the claim of illegitimate children to bolster the charge of sexual abuse of female members? We need to name them, and say WHY they believe one thing is related to the other.

Or if it's an unrelated matter, then it should not be introduced with a however. One is a charge of sexual abuse (a crime in both Korea and the US); another is an assertion of fathering a child out of wedlock (not always a crime).

It would be interesting to readers to know whether the church acknowledges any children fathered by Sun Myung Moon other than those mothered by his wife of 46 years, Hak Ja Han Moon. --Uncle Ed 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an interesting passage from former church official Dan Fefferman, from a church-related web site:

• Hee Jin Nim was acknowledged by Father as his son during his lifetime and honored publicly after his death. Some of Father's early speeches and prayers make reference to Hee Jin's death in similar terms to Heung Jin's. (both were "second" sons, both died tragically in accidents as teenagers.) When I was in Korea in 1970 Father, Mrs. Won Pok Choi and President Young Whi Kim explained the conception of Hee Jin in these terms: Father's first wife (the other Mrs. Choi) was in the process of divorcing him. The process is a long drawn out affair in Korean law. During this time in the mid 50s, Father began cohabiting with Ms. Myung Hee Kim. Because her pregnancy would have negative affects on Father both in terms of the divorce and in terms of criminal law, she moved to Japan to avoid getting Father in trouble. The baby was born there. However, while in Japan, she was either raped or seduced by a Japanese man. Father told us that if she had returned to him after that, he would have accepted her. However, she was so ashamed, that she hid from Father and stayed in Japan, returning only years later (perhaps after Father's marriage to mother.) She offered Hee Jin to Father, and Father accepted him as his son. So the answer is that
  1. Father and his first wife were no longer married from God's viewpoint as Father understands it and
  2. the relationship with Myung Hee Kim was acknowledged, but not at first, because of legal implications. [14]

I would interpret this as an assertion by church sources that:

• Moon's first wife left him, at which point (from UC POV) Rev. Moon was "single"
• Thereupon, he married Myung Hee Kim (from UC POV) but he could not register this marriage legally. At this point, he would be "remarried" in the eyes of the church but "still married to his first wife" by Korean law (I guess)
• Finally, he married his third wife (then-teenaged Hak Ja Han) in early 1960. This marriage is recognized legally by Korea.

The question of what viewpoint one takes when interpreting events is paramount in this matter, as in controversies over fundraising and conversion. If earthly law alone is considered, then some things look irregular or even criminal. If there is no afterlife, then contributions to a church can't affect the fate of departed loved ones: non-existent people neither suffer nor feel joy any more Harry Potter (a fictitious character). If God and the afterlife do exist, but Rev. Moon isn't the Messiah (and DP isn't true), then all UC evangelism is dedicated to a false end, a chimera, an unattainable goal, and induces people to waste their lives for nothing.

Fortunately for us Wikipedia contributors, we don't have to settle this matter or any other matter. Wikipedia's neutrality policy allows (requires actually) articles to duck questions of which POV is correct. We need only describe each POV fairly.

So the church asserts one thing, and its opponents assert another. That's all. --Uncle Ed 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political views

Mark, I'm glad you didn't give up on the politics of the Kingdom of Heaven. Lord knows, someone has to do it.

I only spotted two errors this time, neither one important enough to justify another Wikipedia:Text move or "userfying". I've marked them with the {{citation needed}} template.

Keep up the good work! :-) --Uncle Ed 15:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Uncle Ed, Thank you for your kind words and feedback. I made some changes in wording. Please let me know what you think about them. With Regards Marknw 16:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, I recast your argument as assertion by (unnamed) critics, but you still need to name them. You can't just make up your own anti-UC argument and put it in the argument. --Uncle Ed 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand why you would recast this part that way. Isn't it a main tenant of the church?

Some critics assert that the conclusion of the Divine Principle titled "The Second Advent" is an attempt to persuade the reader that the "Second Coming of Christ", as foretold in the New Testament Bible, has been an actual historical event in the country of Korea [citation needed]. They interpret the following quotation as indicating that Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his followers to justify his authority as the "Christ of the Second Advent" and rightful spiritual and political monarch of a literal and external, rather than a metaphorical or internal only, "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth." [citation needed] Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon was chosen by God and called by Jesus Christ to fulfill the mission of the Messiah, Savior and Lord of the Second Advent with the responsibility to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. "True Love King" According to Rev. Moon, this nation of Cheon Il Guk has already been established. [citation needed]

Thank you Marknw 17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between a "tenet of the church" that something is predestined to happen and "an attempt to persuade the reader" that it DID happen.

I'm also doubtful that the UC claims SMM as the "rightful ... political monarch" of the entire world. Unlike Strider in The Lord of the Rings, Rev. Moon is not a "king in hiding". By church thinking, a man can become The Messiah only by the will of the people. Before and unless they will it, even a perfect man or restored Adam is not a messiah.

The aspect of the people's decision to accept (or exalt?) someone as the Messiah is perhaps what you are missing here, Mark. Please review the DP regarding the Foundation for the Messiah. The fact that Wikipedia has no article no this topic should be a clue that it's not an easy one to explain or understand. --Uncle Ed 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ed, The point I was trying to make in the article was that the DP teaches that the Messiah is an actual person rather than just a metaphor, as other religions believe, and that belief enfluences the UC political outlook. Isn't it common knowledge that the UC asserts that Rev Moon is that person? Respectfully Marknw 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the politics section much more generic and without opinion (I hope). What do you think? Regards Marknw 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I am so sorry to hear you are going. I valued your feedback. In Buddhism it is believed that it is your adversaries that make you better. Like sandpaper. I think that is why Jesus said "love your enemies." I feel that my edits are better because of your feedback. I enjoyed our bantering back and forth. With Regards and Thanks Marknw 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ed_Poor"

[edit] Exucmember Edits

Hello Exucmember, I would like to change some of the edits you made. It is wikipedia policy to colaborate on major changes to an article. You made some statements that seem heavily from your own POV. It is polite to ask before moving a whole section. I would like to change back some of the edits you made to the politics section I was working on. I would also like to colaborate with you if you have an interest in this subject. With Regards Marknw 05:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exucmember response

I would like to ask for help in solving a major problem on this page, the disproportianately large section on politics in Divine Principle. Marknw disagreed with my interpretation of Wikipedia:Article size guidelines and reverted my edits, including deleting my summary and clarifications (the clarification was of an otherwise misleading statement he made - source of claim in USA Today ad should be identified). I am not interested in getting into an argument with him, and I will leave it to others to resolve.

1. Article size and creating new, linked articles.

Wikipedia:Article size:

Readability issues

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases; if an article is significantly longer than that, then it probably should be summarized with detail moved to other articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). For most long pages, division into sections is natural anyway; even if there is no "natural" way to split a long list or table, many editors believe that it should be done anyway, to allow section editing.

Technical issues...

Wikipedia:Summary style:

The length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. So we must move information out of entries periodically. This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new entries to hold the excised information. This style of organizing articles is somewhat related to news style except it focuses on topics instead of articles. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic.

This guidelines article goes into much more detail, and by my reading, corresponds very well to the edit I made by creating a new, linked article just for Marknw's analysis of politics in Divine Principle. What do others think?

2. Original research

I was hesitant to mention this, because I think something like what Marknw wrote is a valuable contribution, but his analysis of the political ideology in Divine Principle may violate Wikipedia official policy unless he gets substantial help in rewriting it.

Wikipedia:No original research:

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that have not been previously published by a reputable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position … What is excluded? An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following: …It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

emphasis in original: Wikipedia:No original research (official policy).

Notice that the mention above of citing a reputable source refers not to such citations in the course of making one's argument, but rather that the analysis itself must be attributed to some reputable source. It seems that Marknw's analysis as currently presented is an original analysis, and as such violates Wikipedia's official policy. Opinions?

Hello Exucmember. Welcome to the discussion. I guess I'm a little at a loss understanding your protest. The article has 6,512 words, the section I added has 601 words, of which 89 words are of my creation. Here are the words I wrote:

"Divine Principle political ideology

The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation Cheon Il Guk.

Rev. Moon was also portrayed as the leader of all religions in a nationwide USA Today advertisement "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."

Political statements in the Divine Principle

The Divine Principle asserts that existing modern democracies have been a necessary, but temporary, stage in history and politics:

Political statements in Rev. Moon's Speeches"

Out of those, which do you object to? The majority of this article is dedicated to discussing the theology in the DP (much of which from the UC worldview) and UC idealism. I am curious why you're focusing your objections on just what I wrote. There is a political ideology clearly codified in the DP. I feel this needs to be illustrated (also) to add balance to the article itself. Do you have a suggestion as to how the DP & UC political ideology can be discussed in the context of this article? Thank you for your collaboration. Respectfully Marknw 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened the political section. You may need to empty your browser cache (hit refresh 3 times or so) to see the latest. Regards Marknw 14:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do others think?

I have delayed responding, as I found your (Marknw's) earlier actions offensive and your subsequent response disingenuous, but have no desire to be in conflict with you or to express any emotion in my comments. You say it is Wikipedia policy to "colaborate" on major changes to an article, but all I did was create a new page for the large section you wrote, which conforms in an exemplary manner to Wikipedia guidelines, as the page was getting too long (more than 32k), and that section was the most peripheral in my judgement (and, I would guess, in the judgement of most readers). Many people are honored to have a new page created from their material, and some editors boast about new pages they've created, even when they are not very substantial. Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly urge editors to be bold in editing. I am happy to collaborate, and I took the appropriate first step in doing so. Perhaps you thought I should ask your permission first before editing anything you wrote. You said you would like to collaborate with me, yet your actions - deleting everything I wrote - do not seem to conform to that claim.

You claim that what I wrote in the article (a small summary of your material) "seem[s] heavily from you own POV." I do not think so, I don't think most editors would think so, and I think it's odd that you would say so; I did not contradict your assertions or edit your content. Ironically, I think most readers might well characterize your section as POV. It certainly is out of place at present, discussing political implications in Divine Principle on the Unification Church page (section 5) before the book is even discussed (section 6.1). This doesn't really belong on the Unification Church page at all; it should be discussed very briefly on the Divine Principle page, with a link to the substantial essay that you wrote.

Your presenting a thesis and defending it with quotations from the book is prototypical of "original research" in the humanities, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You should be careful how you present it. -Exucmember 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Coming of Christ

Dear Steve Dufour,

Regarding your edit:

Many other Christians, most of whom expect Jesus to return in a supernatural way, strongly reject such a proclamation, citing the Gospel of John (see Chapter 14, verse 6) in which Jesus of Nazareth states with finality that "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

I consider myself a Christian but I do not believe that Jesus will return in a supernatural way. I believe that Christ returns every day in the hearts, thoughts and actions of good men and women (metaphorically speaking). I would say that most Christians probably believe that the Second Coming of Christ is mysterious and transcendent of their ability to understand, but not "supernatural." It just seemed like a sweeping personal view on your part to say that "most of whom expect Jesus to return in a supernatural way." You may be correct. I just don't know. Do you have a source for that info?

What do you think? With Respect Marknw 16:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It has always been my understanding that the majority of Christians believe in the Second Coming of Christ in a literal way. I would consider the return of a dead person to life to be supernatural. If you want to take out my comment that is fine. Maybe it doesn't belong there. BTW in my experience most Christians are do not "strongly reject" or show "offense" at my beliefs as a Unificationist even if they don't agree with them. However the dedicated anti-Unificationists (who are mostly ex-UC members) are always saying that they do, as they did a number of times in the article.Steve Dufour 06:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steve for your reply. I would only like to humbly suggest that you may be able to re-phrase your statement in a more accurate way. There would be a difference between say, the popular beliefs about the second coming (see folk religion) and the official statements of beliefs by the clergy. If you wanted to draw a comparison, as you did, it would be more accurate to compare the official beliefs of the UC with the official beliefs of each denomination - to say it in a different way; compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. It is from the dominant UC POV and self-interest to want to frame the discussion of the messiah and the second coming only in literal historical terms. There are other ways of interpreting them both that are valid. By adding your phrase "most of whom expect Jesus to return in a supernatural way" you are turning the paragraph into comparing one literalist interpretation (Moon as the "historical" "messiah") with another literalist interpretation (supernatural physical raising from the dead of Jesus) subtly implying that those where the only two choices. The way the paragraph was before the passage from John is open to many interpretations. Christianity itself is going through a period of challenge and self-examination regarding the literal (fundamentalist) interpretation of the sacred scriptures and reconciling that with modern scholarship. From my own POV, the big question in Christianity today (and all religions for that matter, including the Unification Church) is can there be an ulterly sacred and religious way to read the holy scriptures (including the DP) without reading them literally? For myself, and many others, the answer is a resounding yes. In regards to your edit, it is not a matter of being "offensive", it is a matter of providing Wiki' readers with a more complete picture of the debate.

If I may, I would like to respectfully suggest that criticism does not necessarily mean "anti-Unificationist." I do see myself as highly critical of fundamentalisms of all kinds, but I would defend the right for the UC to exist. It would be unfortunate and self-defeating for the UC to see (and paint) critics as only "dedicated" enemies. Criticism makes us better, don't you think? That is the beauty of living in an open society. Moon and the UC make some incredible claims and are very aggressive and proactive (God bless'm) in the marketplace of ideas both political and religious. The UC is also very critical of other schools of thought and does not hold back in its public criticism of them. It would be only natural and right for the UC ideology to be examined rigorously in a like fashion. I don't want to remove anything you wrote. I do think it is important to try to keep the content quality of Wiki' as high, balanced and comprehensive as possible on this subject. Sincerely Marknw 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I agree with you on many things. I myself do not take everything in the Divine Priciple or Rev. Moon's talks literally. I think the move away from fundamentalism is a good thing, mostly. I sometimes attend services at a local Unity Church, which, as you probably know, has moved a long ways from fundamentalism.Steve Dufour 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Sexual Improprities"

I took this section out because I don't think any serious, sincere student or critic of the UC makes this claim. Besides it is far from the most serious accusation that has ever been leveled against Rev. Moon or our church. I think the most serious would be that by being anti-communist we were really planning to provoke a global nuclear war between the USA and the USSR which would wipe out all life on earth. A much more serious charge than, "an 86 year old man had sex with someone he shouldn't have 50 years ago"; don't you think?Steve Dufour 03:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I am certainly in no position to judge Moon on his sex life, but it does seem relevant to this article. It seems, like the rest of us, Moon has had trouble, all along, practicing what he preaches.

"Hee Jin Moon and Myung Hee Kim Dan Fefferman December 25, 1998 Question: Why did Father take a concubine Miss Kim who gave birth to their son Hee Jin while he was married to his first wife Song Gil Choi? Why was this never acknowledged? Hee Jin Nim was acknowledged by Father as his son during his lifetime and honored publicly after his death. Some of Father's early speeches and prayers make reference to Hee Jin's death in similar terms to Heung Jin's. (both were "second" sons, both died tragically in accidents as teenagers.) When I was in Korea in 1970 Father, Mrs. Won Pok Choi and President Young Whi Kim explained the conception of Hee Jin in these terms: Father's first wife (the other Mrs. Choi) was in the process of divorcing him. The process is a long drawn out affair in Korean law. During this time in the mid 50s, Father began cohabiting with Ms. Myung Hee Kim. Because her pregnancy would have negative affects on Father both in terms of the divorce and in terms of criminal law, she moved to Japan to avoid getting Father in trouble. The baby was born there. However, while in Japan, she was either raped or seduced by a Japanese man. Father told us that if she had returned to him after that, he would have accepted her. However, she was so ashamed, that she hid from Father and stayed in Japan, returning only years later (perhaps after Father's marriage to mother.) She offered Hee Jin to Father, and Father accepted him as his son. So the answer is that 1) Father and his first wife were no longer married from God's viewpoint as Father understands it and 2) the relationship with Myung Hee Kim was acknowledged, but not at first, because of legal implications. BTW, this is the Ms Kim who was blessed on stage at MSG to Confucius." [15]

I would agree with you. The political goals, like establishing a fundamentalist theocracy ("Declaration of the Establishment of Cheon Il Guk") on the Korean peninsula, is what concerns me the most. There were about 4 million casualties of brave men, women and children during the Korean war in the effort to keep South Korea a free secular democracy with the freedom for all religions. Regards Marknw 18:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem most people have with Rev. Moon is that he teaches that the Christ should marry and have children, not that he has "trouble practicing what he preaches". I am a little disappointed in you Mark. I thought you wanted to have an honest discussion about your sincere concerns. Steve Dufour 04:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that only Christians will object to the fact that Moon says that Christ should marry and have children. Of course, non-Christians may wonder how Moon justifies his view on Christ, because it is a view that does not seem to be supported by the Bible. Personally I think that a person who claims to be the Messiah or condones that he is seen is as the Messiah but who does not practice what he preaces has something to explain. Andries 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andries, My point was that he did marry and have children, as he preaches.Steve Dufour 01:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I'm sorry you feel disappointed. I was sincerely responding to your inquiry regarding the sexual improprieties section. Moon makes claims to authority based on other claims of sexual and parental infallibility. His actual personal history seems relevant to those claims.

It is of concern to me that on June 13, 2006 Moon opened a massive "palace" (including a police force) in Korea, crowned himself king and declared the beginning of a new nation, ("True Love King") all based on his literal, historical and political interpretation of the New Testament (and great deal of over confidence). How do you, Steve, think the South Korean government will respond to Moon's plans? I think it would be wise for every Unificationist to think carefully about this course of action. Do you think that literal political kingdoms is what religion is all about? Hasn't history taught us that when a religion gets involved in government, it ruins an otherwise perfectly good religion every time. I have many dear friends who are Unificationists and I, for one, am concerned. Please convince me I have nothing to be concerned about. Just out of compassion, any "reality check" (sexual improprieties) would be important to include in this article. Sincerely Marknw 23:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a sincere person could be concerned about the possibility of a Unificationist based theocracy coming into existence in the future. However I don't think the South Korean government is very concerned. I have been to Korea a couple of times in the last few years and I would guess that they think our activities are good for the economy and the tourist trade. I certainly didn't encounter any hostility towards my being a Unificationist. Considering that Unificationists make up about 1 million or so of the world's 6 billion people and are spread among, almost, all countries I'd say we have a long way to go before there is any real danger of a Unificationist theocracy.Steve Dufour 01:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. You do make a good point and it actually makes me feel a little better. I am still concerned about deleting information about Moon from this article. Again, it seemed you were asking for feedback about deleting the sexual improprieties section. Just a little research (even in the church literature) shows that Moon has had less than a perfect track record. In order to temper extreme views, both positive and negative, it would be important to keep the info here balanced between the idealism and the reality as much as possible. UC people have, from time to time softened, moved and deleted what they see as critical statements. I think the long term effect will be to make the article seem biased and useless for any serious research. If the church would want to be respected it should have no fear owning up to the unpleasant realities as well as the good things. Look what the Catholic church is going through with its sex scandals, yet I am sure they will survive by being honest and forth-coming about it. Trying to hide it and pretend it does not exist just causes more damage in the long run. Thank you for sharing your perspectives. Marknw 02:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Rev. Moon "has had less than a perfect track record" is not something the article should assert as fact. It is quite obviously a matter of dispute. I suggest you quote a church critic (like maybe Nan Sook Hong), using this format:

• Joe Fingerpointer says, "Moon's track record is less than perfect. He's a bigamist and an adulterer. Look at all the kids he had out of wedlock." (ref: book or article)

This, of course, would be balanced with the UC point of view, which AFAIK goes something like this:

• Church official Dan Fancypants said Moon's 'bigamy' is a mere artifact of legal delays in South Korea; his first wife had already left him. And the extra progeny wasn't about sex but only to guarantee the lineage.

Steve, check me on this, would you? --Uncle Ed 14:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable Ed. However there is really no way to *disprove* the accusation that you had sex with some un-named person 50 years ago.Steve Dufour 01:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Logo

Question: Why it is "christianity" logo in this article? For example Jehovah's Witnesses cult is in it's theology nearer to christianity then Unification Church and it has its own logo. [14:36, 24 July 2006 217.172.148.1]

Unificationists, like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, consider themselves Christians even if other Christians do not.Steve Dufour 04:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Even before User:217.172.148.1 made his comment above, I was concerned that this very response would come. Conservative Christians would regard belief in the Trinity to be central in Christianity, and would consider those who don't believe in a traditional (Nicea/Chalcedon) interpretation of the Trintiny not to be Christian. I don't think you want to invite this fight for something as minor as which template goes first. [1] What "looks better" is a matter of opinion. [2] There is a main template that is just for this page; that one should have priority. (Other pages always have the main template for the page first.) [3] At present, a reader can't even see the main template without scrolling down, but a user may well click on an item in the table of contents, and never see the main template; if the templates are reversed, both will be visible.

The main template should definitely be on top. -Exucmember 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Unification Church is mentioned in the "Christian-Related Movements" section of the Christian demomination article. See also Christian movements.

The church's full name (as translated from the original Korean is "The Holy Spiritual Association for the Unification of World Christianity". It's not much of a leap from there to assume that an "association" trying to unify Christianity must either be "Christian" or "Christian-related". (Ah, but what do I know? My 29 years of UC membership may perhaps have given me a pro-UC bias ;-) --Uncle Ed 14:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed! I would like to see the Christianity Logo box thing taken off the article because we Unificationists don't use the symbol of the cross because we don't think the crucifixion of Jesus was a good thing. As a Unificationist I certainly consider myself a Christian, that is a follower of Jesus.Steve Dufour 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As an ex-member, I don't think I have a pro-UC bias (although I have been accused of it on Wikipedia; less surprisingly - especially given my username, which I chose to head off the first accusation - I've also been accused here of having an anti-UC bias), and I think an organization has the right to define itself in relation to the Christian tradition (as Andrew Wilson used to put it), but would anyone like to respond to my assertion that putting the Christianity logo above the main logo for the page invites this kind of criticism? -Exucmember 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The question to what extent the UC church is Christian depends, I think as a lay person, on the importance given to Jesus, the Bible relative to other scriptures and its own extra-biblical scriptures, the Divine Principle. It is not enough that the UC accepts Jesus as the messiah and the Bible as scripture because some Hindus do this too. Andries 23:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that a group is Christian only because it claims to be so. Andries 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a person is Christian because he or she claims to be either.Steve Dufour 01:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Wilson's statement is more nuanced than a group being Christian because they claim to be. No one has responded to the three points I made in relation to why the main template should be on top, though Steve's opinion that the Christianity template should be deleted would certainly seem to support my view. And I wouldn't disagree with his arguments, but I'm not going to be the one to remove it. -Exucmember 02:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lofland's book

I removed this paragraph:

An American sociologist, John Lofland, encountered one of the first UC missionary groups in America, associated himself with them, and observed them over many months. He wrote a book about his findings called Doomsday Cult: A Study of Conversion, Proselytization, and Maintenance of Faith, although the Unification Church was not a "doomsday cult". Lofland does not identify the group explicitly, and disguises the identities of the individuals. He later indicated that he thought that the movement would soon fade away, and he wanted to spare any embarrassment to the individuals involved.

Every year there are thousands of sociological papers and books written about every group of people under the sun. The fact that someone wrote one about the UC is not in itself important. If you think it is find a copy of the book and write an article about what it says.Steve Dufour 05:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, good call. Lofland's book is often mentioned. But if you actually read the book, it is not only the title that is misleading. His snide and dismissive attitude toward the Unification Church members shows an ironic contrast to the ideal of the objective social scientist, and seems to be what leads to the obvious errors. Perhaps one reason it is mentioned by critics is that it paints an unflattering portrait. -Exucmember 01:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lofland's book should be mentioned because the theory of conversion that he proposed in the book became one of the most popular one ever and was generalized for other new religious movements.(The generalization is a flawed one, because my conversion story to a NRM almost completely contradicts his theory.) I have read several summaries of the book. Andries 00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the redirect from doomsday cult to destructive cult, but this may have been incorrect. From what I understood, the early UC had clearly millenialist aspects that Lofland described. Is that correct? Andries 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that at one time some sociological researchers would pretend to join "doomsday cults" (In this sense these are groups which predict a date for the end of the world, the Seventh Day Adventists is perhaps the most famous.) for the purpose of seeing how the members would react when the predicted date came and nothing happened. What they often found, according to the article I read, was that the group would rally and become stronger after that happened. This could be what Lofland was trying to do. What might be done is to have a section about all the books and studies that have been done about the UC and include it there.Steve Dufour 04:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I think you are confusing Leon Festinger's research of an UFO cult with Lofland's research. Andries 09:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right. I did look over Lofland's book, but many years ago and I don't remember much about it. Then I read something somewhere about the "doomsday cult" research, but I might be wrong in thinking they are connected. Steve Dufour 13:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation of souls from Hell

Why take this off? It is part of UC belief. It is also a difference between our beliefs and that of mainstream Christians. I also think people might be interested to learn that.Steve Dufour 04:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag with no explanation

User: 67.161.16.209, thank you for attempting to contribute to Wikipedia. Your addition of the NPOV tag to this article, however, may not be helpful if you don't discuss specific issues, as required by Wikipedia policy.

From Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#Adding_a_page:

Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasing that are problematic.

I honestly don't have the slightest idea whether you think the bias in the article is in favor of or against the Unification Church. If you don't raise specific issues here, anyone may remove the tag at any time. -Exucmember 07:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to give the person a day or two to come back and say more. I think the article is more neutral than most on religion which are mostly written from the members' POV. For instance see the articles on the Mormons and the Unity Church. I am not neutral since I am a member and a defender. I'm mostly just keeping an eye on things and trying to balence out some of the negative comments. Exucmember, I think, is doing a good job of trying to be neutral. Steve Dufour 05:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that the tag came back. Steve Dufour 05:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove it this time. If a person leaves the tag without so much as a comment in the edit summary (much less discussing it here), at least saying which direction he thinks the bias runs, I think we should just delete it immediately. I can't see how it serves a constructive purpose other than to personally vent. -Exucmember 18:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mission of the Messiah

Cut:

The messiah is viewed as an incarnation of God in the sense of a person who has completed a natural growth process to perfect oneness with God, which all persons should achieve but cannot due to sin. To be the messiah is to be in a role of savior, which does not require ontological status as God the Son, one person of the Trinity (as understood in traditional Christianity).

I take issue with:

• natural growth process - omits mention of Responsibility
• should achieve but cannot - contradicts UC interpretation of Matt. 5:48

How can we revise this? --Uncle Ed 19:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole presentation of DP should be rewritten so that it makes sense to an ordinary reader, since you asked. :-) Steve Dufour 05:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV problems.

This article is incredibly POV, with a bias in favour of the Moonies. The problems are mainly with weasel words and attempts to justify supporters or denigrate detractors with highly inappropriate, nonencyclopedic language, like " Moon has made explicit statements about many racial, ethnic, and religious groupings, which some may choose to label "racist". " This article needs a huge amount of overhaul work. [unsigned comment by User:The Diplomat 13:51, 28 August 2006]

You are welcome to make any contributions you like. Steve Dufour 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It is vague and hence unencyclopedic. Andries 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Both sides, members and critics, have let the other say things without demanding a high level of documentation. True, it is not very "encyclopedic". If there were people who had an intellectual interest in understanding the UC, not mainly to criticize or defend, and some of them wanted to take part in editing the article then maybe it would be different. Steve Dufour 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC) p.s. exucmember is mainly a critic and I am a member and it is a pleasure to work with him on the UC related articles.

Steve, you may have read my criticism above in relation to some member saying Hak Ja Han was the second wife:

I think this is an excellent example of something that is a little more typical than ideal in Korean culture (a pattern transported to a surprising extent into the culture of the Unification Church in America) of what outsiders call deception but which is really a person fooling themselves into thinking that they can say something that is technically correct from one point of view (or just slightly incorrect) but is actually misleading, and that it's somehow okay. In one sense we shouldn't be too harsh on the Koreans for this, as they lived in a society where honesty might be met with brutal repression in the first half of the 20th century and violation of rights and priveleges by the powerful during the second half. In other aspects, Korean culture has its strong points, but if American Unification Church members don't insist on honesty, fairness, transparency and other virtues which are relatively stronger in the West, the Unification Church in America can never succeed here. Outsiders might be surprised at the lack of awareness of within the American Unification Church of the need for correcting such obvious, basic problems.

You have usually been quite fair, but I have to say that you may have fallen into a similar trap to the one I described (or at least made sloppy edits, which is not characteristic of you) in an edit today on the Unification Church page [16] and on the Hak Ja Han page [17]. In both cases you deleted a lot more information (all of it critical) than your edit summary reason would justify. I think it would be better for the church and its efforts to improve its reputation for you and other supporters to rise above the standard of the critics and be more fair and objective than they are. I have seen you do this a number of times, and I think this makes a careful, neutral reader more likely to conclude that perhaps at least some of the criticism is exaggerated.

Btw, I am mostly a critic on some pages, but on others I am mostly (or entirely) supportive, disagreeing with the critics. But in all cases I try to be fair and accurate. I'm not trying to push an agenda other than reality as I see it, and I think I'm pretty free of any psychological/emotional need to criticize the church (which is very common among ex-members who would care to spend the time to contribute to a forum like this). -Exucmember 20:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sect

This article describes in the summary the UC as a sect. The problem with the word sect is that there are several definitions for the word and the UC does not seem to fit the most popular one, (split off from a larger group because of doctrinal differences without being a novel religion). Which definition is meant? May be we should write that the UC is a separate organization in spite of its attempts to be euchumenicalAndries 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I think "sect" was misused, or misunderstood, by the author of the original sentence. BTW a bigger problem with the article is: "WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT???" To me the "Unification Church" means "the group of people who believe in and follow Sun Myung Moon". In that case the group started in about 1945 when he began his religious work, not in 1954 when the "Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity" was founded. Steve Dufour 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The "early ministry" was before 1954. The stuff about the cardboard and mud shack and other details of what he and follwers did then show a lot about who Sun Myung Moon was, and reveal much more about the man and his organization than most of what's in this article or in the Sun Myung Moon article. In fact, in the latter article, his biography before 1960 consists of little more than a description of multiple arrests! The UC article should have something about the early ministry in Pusan and the difficulties with Ihwa (correct spelling) and Yonsei, with perhaps a slightly more detailed version in the SMM article (especially of Pusan). And what about the trek south after being liberated from the forced-labor camp? -Exucmember 03:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

I strongly oppose a merge. There was some limited discussion on the Talk:Moonies page in 2003 (and one comment in Feb. 2004) that suggested merging, but I think the evolution of the Moonies article in the years since has made it clear that Moonies is an article about the pejorative slur, and the Unification Church article is about the organization. Who would propose merging Nigger into Black people or African American? Even the proposal would be regarded by some as highly offensive. There are separate articles for African American, Black people, Negro, and Nigger, as there should be. I have no doubt that User:OwenBlacker added the tag in good faith based on the extant comments from several years ago; he seems to be a highly capable editor. The Unification Church article needs one sentence about the pejorative slur "Moonie," to counter ignorance by some and intolerance by others. But I really don't think many people who are familiar with the specific issues involved here would advocate a merge at this point, if they respect the situation of the offensiveness of the term "Moonie." -Exucmember 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, if people go to the "Moonies" article they can link to the UC article. On the other hand I think Unification Movement should be merged into the Unification Church article since they are really the same thing. That is it is about the group of people who follow Rev. Moon, not just about an organization. Steve Dufour 02:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was responding above to the idea of merging the Moonies article into the Unification Church article, which I think was based on ignorance of the issues. I can see the arguments for and against considering the Unification Church to mean followers of rev. Moon, to have started in the 40s instead of 1954, and to continue into the era of FFWPU, but I lean toward your view. Nothing changed radically when the UC was founded, and the same was true for the FFWPU (which Andrew Wilson called a "name change" in writing somewhere I read, but don't ask me to find a citation). The Unification Movement article does not really stand on its own anyway. Do you think a merge tag should be put back (single, not multiple merge) to get others' opinions? -Exucmember 16:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politics in the Unification Church

I reverted an addition that was ignorant of the scholarly literature and added a citation from Timothy Miller using footnote format, which up to now has not been used in this article. In the process, as I was looking over the article, I couldn't help being bothered again by the original research regarding User:Marknw's POV on politics in the Unification Church. The article I created for him to hash out that topic with others was named Politics in Divine Principle, following his implicit claim that Divine Principle is the basis for the Unification Church's political views (though he cites other sources). Anyway, I really think a whole article can easily be filled with the topic "politics in the Unification Church" (probably a better name), which could deal with anti-communism, political ideas in the teachings, conservatism and ties to conservatives, claims of "automatic theocracy," and perhaps even politics (or polity) within the Unification Church organization (if anyone is interested in that). What do people think about changing the name Politics in Divine Principle to Politics in the Unification Church and expanding that article? -Exucmember 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. If the name is not changed then the excerpts of Moon's speeches should be removed, because they are now off-topic. Andries 19:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. I will help you when I get the time. Steve Dufour 02:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Exucmember and Steve,

The actual name of the section is "Divine Principle political ideology." The meaning is that The Divine Principle is not just a "theology" but also a political philosophy or ideology. The DP lays out a very definite political vision for the future world. That vision is well documented in the DP as well in Moon's speeches and actions. If you are going to have a large section on the theology of the DP in this article, it should also have a section on the political ideology as well. Otherwise you are not telling the whole story and leaving out a very important aspect of Unificationism as a philosophy. I disagree that the section should be moved to a seperate article as it is a very important component in fully understanding Unificationism academically. This section is not about "politics in the Unification Church." Respectfully Marknw

There are a number of problems with your arguments. There obviously should be only one section for theology/teachings. (Right now there are two.) The theology should be presented very briefly, with the main article being Unification theology. The fact that these two sections and the main article are woefully inadequate right now is one of the biggest problems in the Unification Church category of dozens of pages, and needs to be addressed by current members.

1. How can a sub-section on "Political statements in Moon's Speeches" be a part of a section on "Divine Principle political ideology"?

2. The assertion that the political ideology in Divine Principle deserves equal time with its theology is ridiculous. No one who reads the book would think that the political ideology comes close to the importance of the theology in terms of what this book is about. Even if it were equal in importance, political ideology should be a sub-section of the teachings, not a separate section.

3. It is not necessary, not even desireable, to "tell the whole story." That's why there is a main article on Unification theology, for example, and why the section on theological beliefs should be brief in the Unification Church article. This is obviously even more true for political ideology.

4. We can debate the name of the article. Some candidates might be "Unification Church political ideology" (a bit derogatory/POV), "Unification Church political philosophy" (better), "Unification political philosophy" (sounds too much like generic pro-unifying policy), or the broader "Politics in the Unification Church" (has the advantage of providing a place to put political topics that are not quite political philosophy). -Exucmember 05:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've given the Politics in the Unification Church a start by quoting the Divine Principle sections on Cheon Il Guk and communism. I think that gives a basis for understanding the topic. Of course a lot more information should be added. Steve Dufour 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Exucmember and Steve, Ex said:

"The assertion that the political ideology in Divine Principle deserves equal time with its theology is ridiculous. No one who reads the book would think that the political ideology comes close to the importance of the theology in terms of what this book is about. Even if it were equal in importance, political ideology should be a sub-section of the teachings, not a separate section."

I have read the DP and much of it is a political reinterpretation of selected Biblical naratives. It also contains a large amount of self-referential literalist religious reinterpretation of the last 2000 years of world political history. So, I'm at a loss to understand why you would say:

"No one who reads the book would think that the political ideology comes close to the importance of the theology"

The conclusion of the DP is a detailed call-to-action for political change in the world under the leadership of the "Messiah of the Second Advent." It is commonly understood that Moon is believed by UC members to be that leader.

The DP clearly reinterprets the narative of the life of Jesus in the NT as having the goal of an actual/literal political kingship rather than a kingship as a symbolic spiritual metaphor, parable or alegory.

The section "Divine Principle political ideology" is only a 535 word section in an article of around 6,700 words. I am also at a loss as to why you would want to move it on the grounds of size considering the size of the other content on the beliefs of the UC.

Again this section is not about politics in the UC or UC political involvements. Its about the political ideology clearly codified in the DP and in Moon's speeches and actions.

I strongly object to removing this section from this article.

Respectfully Marknw

You really need to write the article, publish it somewhere else, and then cite it. Steve Dufour 10:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will go ahead and remove Marknw's section on the grounds that it is original research. I do agree with a lot of what he says however. Steve Dufour 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, did you see my comments above in Talk:Unification_Church#POV_problems (posted today)? I think you may have gone a bit overboard again here. Let's give Marknw the benefit of the doubt on his borderline original research and provide a very brief summary of the gist of his view in this article and a substantial section on political philosophy in the Politics in the Unification Church article. The assertion he seems to be making that political philosophy is as prominent in the Divine Principle as theology may be patently absurd, but I agree with you that much of what he says is accurate; and it seems important, as well as fair, to include his perspective (except perhaps with some judicious editing of some aspects). It seems to me that's the way Wikipedia works. Remember also that there are quite a few important things to say about the Unification Church for which there simply is no extant citation. -Exucmember 04:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Steve,
Please restore the section "Divine Principle political ideology" that you deleted. I will ask for arbitration otherwise. It seems to me that you are prejudiced by your own POV. I do not agree with your characterization of the section as "original research." I am happy to discuss any problems with the section point by point. Thank you. Respectfully Marknw

I happen to agree with your main points. But what you really should do is write a book about it and hit the TV and radio talk show circuit. Steve Dufour 15:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Marknw,
Why are you being so obstinate and utterly inflexible? Apart from the original research aspect, your contribution is out of place.

1. It does not deserve its own section in this article, because it is too peripheral to the topic, unless you take the utterly bizarre view that political philosophy is as important as theology in Divine Principle. Even then it probably doesn't deserve its own section. You have not budged an inch on this.

2. When an article gets too long, the first thing that should be done is to look to see whether some part of the article is peripheral, and has enough coherence and interest to stand as an independent article. Then a summary can be written for the existing article and the text moved to the new article. I did this for you (Politics in Divine Principle). You rejected it with no compromise and deleted my summary. Your only defense so far is to cite the number of words in the section you wrote, claiming that it's not that much compared to the whole article. You have not budged an inch on this one either.

3. What you wrote clearly has elements of original research. You should comb through what you've written to eliminate them. You have refused to do so. You have not budged an inch on this one either.

4. I attempted to get a discussion going of what the most appropriate name would be for a separate article. Steve and I seemed to lean toward the larger topic of Politics in the Unification Church, which you rejected, claiming that it is instead "Divine Principle political ideology." But when I asked you how political statements in Rev. Moon's speeches could fit under that narrow heading you had no response. You also had no response to alternative names for this topic. You also did not respond to my claim that the word "ideology" is somewhat pejorative. It seems like you don't want to discuss anything except to insist on having things exactly your own way with no modifications. You have not budged an inch on this one either.

5. I raised a number of other points, and you have not responded to any, except to repeat your borderline original research thesis.

If your position is that your POV is perfect and can tolerate no modifications of any kind, I'm afraid you will not get as far with it on Wikipedia.

Like Steve, I also happen to agree with many of your main points. Sometimes ex-members retain something of an "I'm right and the rest of the world is wrong" attitude that many church members seem to have inherited from Rev. Moon's pattern; I hope that's not what's going on here. I'm an ex-member too. And Steve is fair-minded, not at all a POV zealot. Why won't you work with us? -Exucmember 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ex,

I would be happy to discuss point by point the problems you see with the section I wrote. It does not deserve to be deleted however. Uncle Ed tried to deleted it in past and it was restored then. I made it much shorter at that time. It is true that we may not agree on the certain points and may never agree. I do however feel that it is very important to make the point, in this article, that Unificationism is as much a political ideology in its doctrines as it is a theological one. Any student trying to research Unificationism would not get a complete picture otherwise. For example, I could not explain Communism to you without talking about the political doctrines of Karl Marx. I feel You and Steve are dominating this article too much. Please allow others have a voice. Respectfully Marknw

Dear Ex,

You said:

"I think we should talk about the issues we raised before you put your section back wholesale with no modifications"

I prefer that we restore the section and then discuss it. If you do not restore it, I will ask for protection from the wiki staff. I do not understand why you feel it is a urgent matter to remove this section right away, if at all. Regards Marknw

Marknw, I just made a major edit to the structure of the whole article (and had an edit conflict twice). Your edit which includes:

Reverend Doctor Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation Cheon Il Guk, "True Love King", "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification", "Declaration of the Establishment of Cheon Il Guk".
Moon was also portrayed as the leader of all religions in the online article "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."

needs some serious work. I will try to put back the gist. Also, I would really appreciate it if you would use the "Show preview" button and check your edits and correct them before posting them. also, you might consider making a few minor changes as part of a single edit. Otherwise you have so many edits just to make a small change and it's very hard to work with. -Exucmember 19:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned the problems in detail with this entry in June. You chose to completely ignore the issues I raised and just reverted my proposals to fix the misleading and factually inaccurate aspects of what you had said. -Exucmember 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ex

I was trying to shorten it. I will to be more user friendly. Somehow, I feel, you are under, what I would consider, the mistaken impression that you own this article. I do not think that is correct. Please refrain from deleting my work. I do not agree with what you have done with the section. It changes the meaning completely. Regards Marknw

I do not own the article. You will see that I am rather cooperative here even though I may disagree with people. You, however, have seemed to make virtually zero effort to cooperate. It is because of this that you leave us no option but to "delete your work." For one, you have to integrate your work into an existing Wikipedia structure, in this article and others, as appropriate. You can't just create a section that doesn't logically belong, ignore objections raised since June, and repeatedly revert to the exact wording and structure you want. Are you completely incapable of cooperating? -Exucmember 19:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ex,
I'm sorry Ex, I just do not agree with your characterization at all. I feel that this is a very important section that needs to be in this article. Again, I ask you respectfully and politely, please stop deleting it.
Here is what I said to you in June:

"Hello Exucmember. Welcome to the discussion. I guess I'm a little at a loss understanding your protest. The article has 6,512 words, the section I added has 601 words, of which 89 words are of my creation. Here are the words I wrote:

"Divine Principle political ideology
The Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church, is portrayed in some church publications as a monarch of the nation Cheon Il Guk.
Rev. Moon was also portrayed as the leader of all religions in a nationwide USA Today advertisement "Cloud of Witnesses" and the church website "Messages From Spirit World."
Political statements in the Divine Principle
The Divine Principle asserts that existing modern democracies have been a necessary, but temporary, stage in history and politics:
Political statements in Rev. Moon's Speeches"

Out of those, which do you object to? The majority of this article is dedicated to discussing the theology in the DP (much of which from the UC worldview) and UC idealism. I am curious why you're focusing your objections on just what I wrote. There is a political ideology clearly codified in the DP. I feel this needs to be illustrated (also) to add balance to the article itself. Do you have a suggestion as to how the DP & UC political ideology can be discussed in the context of this article? Thank you for your collaboration. Respectfully Marknw"

Again, please explain why you feel that is is so urgent to delete this entire section right away? Thank you Marknw

[edit] more on policital ideology

I shortened the sections on political philosophy and took away the section title to help it blend in with the rest of the article. It is now down to just 379 words. Very few are my own words. Regards Marknw 00:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It is much improved. Steve Dufour 01:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Steve for your kind words and all your feedback. Regards Marknw 16:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thought as I read the new version, that it is very much improved. You've done a good job, and I appreciate the fact that you integrated it into the article and responded to feedback. I have a few suggestions, but they are minor. Thanks. -Exucmember 17:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a lot of edits to Unification Church category pages in the last week (especially Talk pages), but I haven't made any edits to the politics section during this period; I thought it was better to leave it alone for awhile, especially in light of the great improvement. I would like to propose some minor changes. It will be much quicker and more efficient if I just make my proposals by making the edits with brief comments in the edit summaries. Marknw, please don't take them as meddling with "your" work; I'm just trying to make a better presentation for readers, and sometimes multiple perspectives can be helpful. I'm sure the reasoning for some of my ideas will be immediately apparent, and we can talk about the others. -Exucmember 19:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

I guess the article really should say something about the total number of members. You might check out this site [18] the part on the UC starts a little down the page. Steve Dufour 15:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I will go ahead and say 1-3 million. [19] Steve Dufour 16:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the page you cited, and it doesn't have nearly enough information even to contribute to a guess. No number is better than a number that may be more than double or less than half the real number; it seems like leaving it out would be better than junk information. I read somewhere an assertion by a sociologist of religion that church members and critics alike tend to inflate the number because it seems to confer more significance. (This is true of other churches too.) Steve, what do you think of really being honest, and calculating a number of those (members only) who've participated in the blessing? This would not include yet-to-be-blessed members, or children, but that could be stated. The calculated number would still inflate the real number, as many people have left the church. Another possibility would be just to make a guess based on inside knowledge for the major countries, and see what you come up with. -Exucmember 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also hard to define what is a "member". To me there seem to be about 100,000 members in Korea, 10,000 in the USA, more in Japan than the USA, thousands in some other countries for instance Russia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and some South American and African countries. Hundreds each in most of Europe. And as I said, some in almost every country. I would guess the total to be between 500,000 and 1 million. I was avoiding the question of the number until someone else put one in the article. But it does seem like it would be an important piece of information to someone wanting to know about the church. Steve Dufour 17:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I looked at the page you cited again more carefully, because the first time I didn't see the pertinent info you were referring to. And I came across the fact that you had already done exactly what I had proposed:

Email correspondence from: Steve Dufour [stevenjdufour@earthlink.net], received 4 March 2005.

---

"I have some information for you on the numbers of Unification Church members. I have been a member since 1974 and it has always been hard to get a good estimate of the total number of members. One thing that did happen is that in February 2003 Rev. Moon asked one person from each church family in the USA to go to Korea for a two week outreach program. A bit over 2,400 went, which was the goal. Not every family was able to send someone and a few families sent more. Also a few Europeans went too and were counted with the Americans. "Americans" also includes people born in other countries and living in the USA, some joined the church here and some joined in their home countries. I would consider a family that would do this on short notice [if I remember correctly we were given about two weeks notice] and at some expense to be dedicated church members. So about 2,400 families, maybe 10,000 members in the USA. "

So, including children, there are about 10,000 dedicated members in the U.S., and presumably some significant number of other people who might consider themselves members. I'm pretty familiar with the Korean church, and I don't think there could be more than double the number of U.S. members. (I think the number you cited is even more inflated than the indefesible church claim of 50,000 U.S. members.) On the other hand you may have underestimated the number of Japanese members; I think it's double the Koreans. Would you say the European total, including Russia, is about the same as in the U.S.? So, very roughly, if we double the 10,000 U.S. number (to include everyone who might consider themselves members), double that for Korea (40,000), double that for Japan (80,000), add 20,000 for Europe including Russia and former Soviet block countries, and add a wild guess of 40,000 for the rest of world, that totals 200,000. Do you think any of my guesses are off by orders of magnitude? -Exucmember 17:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are not orders of magnitude off. I think 500,000 would be closer to the real number than 200,000. BTW thanks for noticing my contribution to adherents.com Steve Dufour 20:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Steve, can you do a breakdown of world numbers similar to the one I've done? If you do, you might find that you have to revise your total estimate downward. In any case, I'd like to know what you think. -Exucmember 01:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm off to work now. Let me get back on that. There are about 200 countries in the world and some members in almost all of them. Steve Dufour 12:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur with exuc's estimates. In 2004, Tyler Hendricks gave me a database with all adult ("first generation") U.S. members names. It contained 5,860 people. That would be around 2,930 familes.

I also have the second generation database, but I want to double-check with the 2G department before quoting exact numbers. But it's between 2,000 and 5,000 children (including college-age and older).

I would therefore estimate the U.S. membership at 8,000 people. Around 1:50,000 Americans is a member, a very tiny minority. --Uncle Ed 14:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ed. I think most Blessed families have 2 or more children. Of course some are childless, one is very unusual. So 2,930 families would have at least 6000 children, I would guess. As I mentioned above I was in Korea in 2002. I stayed with a local church center in Daegu which is the second or third largest city in South Korea, and about one tenth (my bad, really one fourth the size 2.5 million vs. 10 million) the size of Seoul. Our center had a couple of hundred members and it was only one of five in the city. The feeling I got from my experience over there and talking with other members was that there are about 10 times the number of members in Korea as in the USA. That is where I got the number 100,000 from. I have not been to Japan since the 1970s when I was on the IOWC team. At that time there were less members in Japan than Korea, clearly. Of course many Korean members were not as hard-core dedicated as most American and Japanese members at that time. All the best. Steve Dufour 01:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of saying "by informed opinions" the number is 200,000 to 500,000? Steve Dufour 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Well yes, original research. But maybe better than a untrue number, or no number at all.

I went ahead and and changed it to: "Estimates of the number of its members range from 250,000 to 3,000,000." hoping to get the something from both sides. Steve Dufour 09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't put information in the article that we know to be incorrect. Membership numbers like 2 or 3 million are not "estimates"; they are wildly inflated figures put forward by some church members and by some detractors to advance their respective POV agendas. One source in the cited reference (Adherents.com) estimates 250,000 and another 500,000. These are reasonable numbers, and we can cite the source. All the others (2 million, 3 million, 1 million "dedicated" members) orginated from some church spokesman or detractor. I remember when the HQ people decided to start saying "3 million, with 1 million 'dedicated' members" (replacing "2 million"). Apparently the membership rose from 2 million to 3 million in one jump at a time when the American church was not growing. Just like 30,000 adult members in the U.S., it was a fabrication. The trouble with this kind of lie (by some church members and by some detractors) is that one has to keep it up to support one's agenda, or even increase the numbers, regardless of whether the actual numbers are increasing. Let's use reasonable numbers for which we have citations. Why not say "250,000 to 500,000 members"?

250,000 to 500,000 members would seem to correspond roughly with 10,000 to 20,000 members in the U.S. That's in the neighborhood of Steve's 2003 numbers. Does anyone else remember when Gordon Melton was travelling around to centers in the early 80s, talking to members, observing activities, asking about local associate members, etc.? He must have done the same thing earlier also, but I was not aware of it. His number, "less than 5000," probably doesn't include children, and as such fits reasonably well with the Steve's 2003 estimate. Other scholars cite similar numbers, and we can add those citations as we find them.

Btw, Steve, you didn't finish telling me what you thought was the numbers breakdown for the rest of the world. I think your guess for Korea is too high. In the early 90s the number of Korean members in metropolitan Seoul (half the population of South Korea according to Wikipedia) who actually participated in activities (corresponding to "A" members or to your 2,400 families in 2003) was not more than the number of correspondingly dedicated members in the U.S. Of course they have a lot more "associate" members (and some of them may have been "mobilized" while you were there), but some haven't participated in any activities for many years, and some of these probably don't consider themselves members anymore. I know a number of ex-members in the U.S. who are still on church mailing lists many years later. But even with 100,000 Korean members, how in the world do you get 500,000 total? -Exucmember 21:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You estimated that Japan had more members than Korea and there are at least some members in almost every country, not just more than 50 as the article says. I would like to say 200,000 to 500,000 but that would be original research. The statement that "estimates run from 250,000 to 3,000,000" is true anyway and supported by the adherents.com website. Otherwise the article could not mention a number at all. Steve Dufour 14:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MedCab Mediation Case

A case has been filed with the Mediation Cabal regarding this article. If you are a neutral party and interested in mediating, please review Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Suggestions for mediators before starting mediation, then feel free to dive in! If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 20:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem has been resolved. See above. Steve Dufour 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave the case page open, in case anyone would like to drop references in there and close it. Thanks! ~Kylu (u|t) 22:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be really cool if we had one or more neutral people here. :-) Steve Dufour 23:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Kylu. Marknw 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm the mediator who has taken this case. From the conversation above, I gather that the problem has been sorted out, and mediation in no longer needed? If this is so, that's great, as I feel it is sometimes better for the involved parties to get on the same page and sort stuff out together without mediation. However, if any mediation is needed, please leave a note in this thread (I'm watching the page), and we can begin to sort out anything that needs doing. Warm regards, Thε Halo ^Θ 09:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dae-Mo-Nim

Dae-Mo-Nim in fact means Godmother, not Great Mother.

Do you mean that the English word "godmother" is 대모 (daemo) in Korean? If so, perhaps we need the article to say that the meaning of "Great Mother" is a usage peculiar to the Unification Church. There's another lady called Little Mother, I think.

Readers may also be interested in the literal meaning of the term, in addition to the way Western UC members translate it. --Uncle Ed 17:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Present

(Varying ideas of what's most important in the UC)

Cut from redemption section:

Since its early days there have been subgroups within the Unification movement because of cultural differences and differences of points of view among members. There are now several subgroups. However, they do not regard themselves as different groups, and there is considerable overlap between them. There are those who identify more closely with the early followers of Moon, and those who identify more closely with the children or grandchildren of Moon. There are those who regard the principles of Unificationism to be more fundamental than allegiances to particular people. And there are two spiritualists, the more popular who claims to channel Heung Jin Moon (Unificationists frequently add the Korean honorific suffix "nim," e.g., "Heung Jin Nim") and Mrs. Moon's mother Soon Ae Hong (called "Dae Mo Nim," meaning "Great Mother"); and one that claims to channel Lee. All these subgroups have the official sanction of Moon and the Unification Church. There are also a number of small, splinter groups that have no official sanction, but claim to be inspired by Moon. There are also many individuals who consider themselves Unificationists but are not part of any subgroup.

I'd like to know more about these "subgroups", but the account above is so vague as to be useless. It amounts to a claim that the Unification Church is "not unified" but divided into a number of disparate factions. Now, this may be so, but it needs some documentation and a lot more specifics before being placed in the article.

As a member since 1977, I can tell you that the biggest visible division in the movement is between those who are "full-time members" (like missionaries and church leaders) and "associate" or "home" members, who live in their own apartments or houses, have "outside jobs", etc.

The other chief division among members is between (A) those who have a "church mission" and (B) those with a "business mission" or are part of a "church-related organization" (like CARP).

As for "two spiritualists", this is a bit silly. There are dozens of "spiritually open" members. Currently, there is only one "official" spiritualist, Mrs. Hyo Nam Kim - and I'm a bit disappointed that no one (including me) has gotten around to writing an article about her: she channels for Dae Mo Nim, who is Mrs. Moon's deceased mother Soon Ae Hong. The lady who receievs spiritual messages from Dr. Lee isn't considered a spiritualist by church members. Tens of thousands of members have reported receiving "messages" from the spiritual world - that's not the same as being spiritually open: seeing and discerning spirits, having out-of-the-body experiences, etc.

But if there is information about factions, by all means include it. Just remember to add sources. I myself could be a source for the old "Jean-Jacques" group in New York City. It was a faction of members who felt that Rev. Moon had "failed" and that Jean-Jacques Triffault was the "true Abel". They had somewhere between several dozen and 200 adherents in the early 1990s, but their influence dwindled after Wayne Miller and Zin Moon Kim confronted Jean-Jacques. Kim rather cleverly required Jean-Jacques to secure the permission of his spouse and the member's spouse before counseling any church member; and failing that, he could apply directly to Kim himself. When this guideline was publicized, Jean-Jacques's influence rapidly waned. --Uncle Ed 18:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I cut out the section because it seemed to amount to just original research. It was orginally titled "the present and future" or something like that and the point seemed to be to predict that the church would split into different factions in the near future. Steve Dufour 02:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I had a completely different response to this section. Perhaps it's true that the person who wrote "and future" had the idea of schism in mind. But the main conclusion I saw being drawn from this passage was that Unification Church members were not in fact mindless automatons marching in lockstep as the media caricature (especially in the 70s) suggested. Rather, the members were being portrayed as thinking people with varying opinions who valued different things at different levels, but were nevertheless united in purpose and saw themselves primarily as members of the church rather than members of a faction. Given the absurd and false stereotype of Moon's nameless brainwashed minions perpetrated by the media, some information along these lines seems a very valuable addition to the article, even though information as "inside" as this is by definition harder to source. On the other hand, there is a lot of information that is relatively hard to source that we've allowed, because we know that it is accurate, and sourcing in regard to a controversial topic (e.g., London's Daily Mail says Moon's church breaks up families) doesn't necessarily guarantee accuracy. The best way to refute that members don't think for themselves is to relay that they have differences of opinion (in addition to what unites them). -Exucmember 05:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons I think the deleted passage made, on the whole, an extremely valuable contribution to the article. I think we should find a way to put the essence of it back in. -Exucmember 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

However it is still original research. What might work is to mention some of the different things going on without making a general conclusion. Steve Dufour 16:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Would you like to take a stab at it? -Exucmember 06:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can come up with. Maybe something about Cheong Pyeong might be a good start. Steve Dufour 07:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New editor

I hope this works, sorry I'm new at this. Anyways I'm not sure about any of you but I AM A UNIFICATIONIST. There are not a lot of us so I may be able to provide a lot more insight than one who just goes through websites. I have also attended a speech by Mr. Moon, or True Father as we call him. I have the 'Divine Principle' which is like our bible. If this is any importance email me: jkennett@uoregon.edu -Newyorker588 00:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Feel free to contribute. You may want to start by reading recent sections on Talk pages like this one. You'll find that there is a surprisingly cooperative spirit for such a highly controversial topic. You'll find that there are several current and former Unificationists who are active here, all long-term members, including seminary graduates, those who have studied Divine Principle in the original Korean, and - don't take this the wrong way - those who have been teaching Divine Principle since before you were born. I mention this because it might be more productive for you to think of yourself as part of a team; there are also others here with knowledge of the subject. But most of all, welcome to Wikipedia! -Exucmember 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Welcome Newyorker! If you want to work on something, we have discussed before that the articles need more information on Father's early life and the early history of the church. Of course whatever you write has to be documented. Have fun. Steve Dufour 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wise Use

I don't think the church is too important in the "wise use" movement. For one thing I have been a church member for 30 years and this is the first time I've ever heard the expression. Steve Dufour 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We better write about the Third Blessing before referencing the Wise use movement. Is UC pro- or anti-environmentalist? What is the UC stand on conservation vs. "sustainable development"?

How about animal welfare vs. PETA-style animal rights advocacy? Inquiring minds want to know, Steve. --Uncle Ed 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out my articles on plants and animals on the encyclopedia project. I guess one here on the third blessing might be a good thing. Steve Dufour 14:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Here, sown by the Creator's hand, 
In serried ranks, the Redwoods stand; 
No other clime is honored so, 
No other lands their glory know. 

The greatest of Earth's living forms...
God stands before you in these trees.

Nice poem, Steve. --Uncle Ed 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It was written by the man who designed the Golden Gate Bridge. Steve Dufour 18:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] improvements to article

Thanks exucmember for your work. However I took off "It spread to Japan, the United States and then world-wide." For one thing the church didn't just "spread", missionaries were sent out by deliberate plan. To say "it spread" gives the wrong picture of what happened. Anyway all the information is given later on so nothing is lost to the reader. Steve Dufour 08:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church/State quotes ... Where to put them?

I was researching one of my many eclectic interests (ie: the separation of church and state) and ran across these two quotes which show an explicit intent to abolish the wall of separation and create an automatic theocracy...

• My dream is to organize a Christian political party including the Protestant denominations, Catholics and all the religious sects. Then, the communist power will be helpless before ours. We are going to do this because the communists are coming to the political scene. Before the pulpit, all the ministers of the established churches must give their sermon on how to smash or absorb communism -- but they are not doing that. We are going to do this. Unless we lay the foundation for this, we cannot carry it out. In the Medieval Ages, they had to separate from the cities -- statesmanship from the religious field -- because people were corrupted at that time. But when it comes to our age, we must have an automatic theocracy to rule the world. So, we cannot separate the political field from the religious. Democracy was born because people ruled the world, like the Pope does. Then, we come to the conclusion that God has to rule the world, and God loving people have to rule the world -- and that is logical. We have to purge the corrupted politicians, and the sons of God must rule the world. The separation between religion and politics is what Satan likes most.
  • Master Speaks: The Significance of the Training Session 1973-05-17

• The time is coming that we have to abolish the concept of separation between church and state. We need a political party centered upon religious ideology. The world of democracy is based upon the ideology of brotherhood. That is why Cain and Abel struggle exists there. Changes of power always head towards the satanic side. This democratic period in human history is passing away. Soon the heavenly sovereignty will be established to lead the world.
  • True God's Day Midnight Address, Reverend Sun Myung Moon, World Mission Center 1996-01-01

There appear to be quite a few related pages and some level of controversy around Reverend Moon so I felt it would be wise to ask what is the best place to incorporate these into? I have already added them to WikiQuote but I am looking for guidance for an applicable subject page and section. I would prefer to put it under separation of church and state but I cannot see how to add it there. Other possibilities include Sun Myung Moon, Unification Church, or possibly dominionism. Any suggestions? Low Sea 18:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue should be mentioned. One thing to be noted is that the expression "automatic theocracy" was only mentioned this one time by Rev. Moon and it was the words of the translator. You can do some research on this by just Googling "automatic theocracy". Steve Dufour 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)