Hi William, Thanks for the post. Just to reply to the last point about Jews killed the True Parents. It made me double take at first as well. But if the translation/transcription is correct, my way of understanding would be that because the nation of Isreal didn't set the right conditions etc etc as we teach, Jesus could not be saved from crucifixion. And this was the death of the 'True Parents,' the position Jesus was eventually meant to fulfill. Thats how I would look at it anyway. :)

Hi Connie, I hope you are enjoying Korea. The analysis in EDP is actually careful not to attribute the crucifixion of Jesus to Israel or the Jewish people en mass. Instead it says 'the main reason that Jesus had die on the cross was the failure of John the Baptist.'It was because of him that even pious Jews could not believe in Jesus. After the failure of John, Jesus started again. This time it was due to the failure of people such as some key religious leaders and Judas in particular that Jesus came into the hands of the Roman authorities. I am not aware of it saying anywhere that the whole people of Israel made conditions which led to the crucifixion.

This is very well analyzed, point by point. It was good to start out by mentioning that this is, after all a "translation on the run" so to speak. On another forum, I have read many posts written by Andy L. who has studied Korean extensively and who is now a professional translator. He told us many times that, when he goes back to the Korean text or speech, he finds that the translations were not totally accurate. There are always nuances...but how can the public be told: "Well, this is not what was really meant...".----That point made, I like how you put everything in perspective. The quote of Therese d'Avila is very moving and the statement that follows is an undeniable truth, namely that the Christian churches were aloof to the situation--isn't that called the sin of omission?--.What is appreciated also is the manner you wrote it, one can feel the calmness and the clarity of mind of the writer.

thank you William for taking us through this so methodically.

Dear William Haines ! Thank you for your article to express your opinion on this matter.I think the Christian Church should have stepped in.The anti-Semitism has different reasons.My English is notgood enough to express myself more clear.Sorry.Thank you!

Hi Inge, you are right anti-Semitism has several origins and causes and has taken many different multifaceted forms over the millenia. It is a very complex phenomena that no one has really got to the bottom of in my opinion. As time goes by I have come to the conclusion that in Europe the Jews were Abel, suffered the most, sacrificed the most, contributed the most to culture, civilisation, medicine, welfare, education, art, commerce, finance, trade, music etc. and maybe were (statistically) closest to God; and Christianity was Cain - envious of Jews and their propensity to prosper when they ‘weren't supposed to’ because they were supposed to have been superceded or replaced by Christianity which saw itself as the new Israel. I think the Holocaust was Cain killing Abel on a racial/continental/religious level. The Holocaust was an act of Satan, not an act of God. I wonder why Satan wanted to do that? I think the world would be immeasurable better with an extra 6m Jews if one considers how much the survivors have contributed to the world. It is a pity whoever researched the history parallels didn't have access to a history of Judaism. But that's just my personal view.

Thank you for your wise analysis.

Thank you for opening up this discussion. I was always confused on our movement's approach to evolution vs. creationism. As most of us realize, modern biology, genetics, and other subsets take the theory of evolution as the foundations upon which everything else is built. I'm grateful our movement can be comfortable enough with itself to bring these topics to light.

Well, Tokuwa, the 'movement' hasn't really had a position on it as far as I know. There are some publications that try to critique Darwinism and suggest an alternative but I don't think that alternative explanation fits the known facts as well as evolutionary theory. Some people say that there is no place for God in the theory of evolution but one can, and people did, say the same about Newton's postulation of an invisible intangible force called gravity as an explanation for the behaviour of the planets. It is rather ironic as Unification thought provides a much better philosophical underpining to spontaneous order and evolution than traditional Christian thought which is based on Greek philosophy.

Creation vs Evolution; this sounds a lot like Cain vs Abel... as scholars of Parentism, aren't we aiming to reconcile the two fighting parties, not defeat and destroy one while elevating the other? What are True Father's words on the subject, and what was the context? Carrying on the theme of marrying religion and science, creationism could be argued scientifically (at a stretch) by employing the notion of Boltzmann brains: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Good read William. To me it sounds more like a "Cardinal" Moment,in the analogy presented. And the telescope points to the hidden face of any of Jupiter's Moons... I was not aware of "the argument of creation vs evolution is finished => it is creation" , as it appears in the ODP. I know Father asked this Korean man to give speeches (wife attended), but then how 'fundamentalist' it/he was she never told me. Then again, some measure of intellectual truculence - even in our "community" - is not entirely a vision into weightlessness, is it?

Yes I agree with you Matthew, there is no necessary dichotomy between creation and evolution. But that is how it is presented in ODP. In fact anti-evolutionism is one of the themes running through ODP cropping up again in the argument for why North Korea is the ultimate expression of Satan's view of life. Creation and evolution are different categories of thought. Creation is a theological category. Evolution a descriptive scientific category. So to try to compare them with each other is a category error. Father has spoken on this subject from time to time and some of his words are in the Cheong Song Gyong. The impression I get is that he doesn't really understand the theory of evolution as it is a straw man he is criticising. I imagine he probably had evolution explained to him by a creationist. As to Boltzmann - I'll have to read up and think about it a bit more. I am sure my brain is more than a random fluctuation!

I watched "The Secret life of chaos" with great interest. It is quite fascinating to see that we, as a "modern" society, are still working on finding out how life really works and, as our understanding grows, new theories emerge. The old ones are not 'wrong' just outdated.----- When they talked about chaos, I could not help think of examples in human behavior, more precisely the challenging teenage years when nice and well behaved children all of sudden morph into hard to cope with beings. Out of my four children, one of them went through serious "chaos" for about 2 years but once he was through that turbulent time, he turned into a kind and inspired young adult. Puzzling, but true. From my limited experience, I can say that chaos may very well be a part of the constructive process. Maybe one day, when all of our brain capacities will be fully engaged, we will understand the mysterious logic of it all.-------- There is this creationism/evolution debate but I think too that it is not such a black and white/either-or issue anymore: the answer lies somewhere in the middle, a combination of both. Evolution within the species cannot be denied. Physically, Adam and Eve must have emerged from an earthly lineage, what made them different was the spiritual dimension. That spiritual dimension is still expanding: many have noticed that children nowadays are more perceptive, more spiritually open, they "see through" people, they sense things more keenly, etc. In other words, creation is still being created as we speak and all of us, in our own ways, are part of this glorious process. Thinking of the butterfly effect, we will never know what our final contribution will be but we can be certain that whatever we think, speak and do will go out into the greater universe and join with the thoughts, words and deeds of all to form the living tapestry of the world.

I am with William 100% on this one. I feel very uncomfortable with the attitude some people seem to have toward science. In Blessing and Ideal Family, p98, there is the following: "Even if there had been a human before Adam, it was not truly human. It was the same as clay. It was not a human being even if it looked like one. According to the law of the ideal of creation approved by God it cannot be considered a human being. Only Adam is a human being as desired by God. To restore this through indemnity is the mission of the Second Coming of the Messiah." In the strict Ideal of Creation sense before Adam there were no human beings. After the fall of Adam and Eve there no human beings either -- again, in the strict sense of the Ideal of Creation. Also from my very early days in the church (1977) I remember a transcript of a question and answer session with Father where someone asked him a question about Adam and Eve. He said that Adam and Eve were born in the usual way. (Does anyone else remember that document, or even still posses it? I see this as perfectly compatible with the scientific view.

Nigel, I found the following : http://www.tparents.org/Moon-Books/SM-Mast/MSTRSP-5.htm Some of the answers on this creation issue seem to contradict themselves. One of them is:"Question: Were Adam and Eve born of God as we understand birth? That is, physiologically? Answer: Through the power of God, Adam and Eve were created as a baby is created by humans today. Man was a special creation. "

Yes, thank you very much. I've been intellectually struggling a lot in accepting some church stands on the topic, while not being able to move too much in the opposite direction. I find it absolutely true that, in terms of approach, the ODP does not pursue in this particular subject what the DP seeks for, that is unity amongst science and religion. At the ODP ws here in San Marino, the all part related to this subject was discussed and given direction all the way to Creationism, but in the end it all came back to the doubt of Creative Evolution... what's the point there? Again, thank you. David

I also found this, taken from the Unification thought:"According to Christian fundamentalism, God created an adult man without a navel, literally "from the dust of the ground," instantaneously. Was it really so? From the viewpoint of Unification Thought, all beings are to be perfected through a period of growth. Accordingly, they cannot appear in their perfected forms, instantaneously. Creation took place systematically and developmentally, beginning with something simple and gradually developing to higher and more complex things, taking the simple as material for the complex. In addition, creation took place in such an order that the environment was prepared first, and then living beings were formed in it. Therefore the human being, who is the ruler of all creation, was created last, after all the natural environment was made."----It's taken from paragraph 6 on the following link:http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/EvolTheo/EvolTheo-03.htm The link to the Unification Thought on the evolution topic is:http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/EvolTheo/0-Toc.htm-----

So I am wondering how it is that such a peculiar expression of the Principle is being taught and promoted under the title of Original Divine Principle. It has errors much more serious than this one. When I point them out to people the first reaction is usually, 'Did Father approve of the lectures?' This in itself I find a curious reaction. So what if he did? Does that make any difference in terms of the truth or falsity of particular statements? Presumably he has sat through them or at least looked through the book as he has apparently 'authorised' Rev Yu to travel around the world teaching ODP. So I find the general lack of interest in the Principle amongst most Unification Church members such that they are often not interested in studying it, discussing it or arguing about it curious too.

I think the article linked to the Unification Thought makes clear the Unification Church's view on this matter. That we do not refute physical, scientific findings but disagree with the theory of evolution on the basis of it's assertation that the development of more and more complex organisms is purely coincidential. Instead our theory states that leaps in the development of humans beginning from the base elements on earth (referred to as "dust" in the bible) moving up through the various stages of life, were driven by the logos of God interacting with the physical world. Henceforth, not a random occurance. It goes on to suggest a few research papers that offer conclusions which lend themselves to our theory. One such paper questioning the ability of our mind to directly affect our DNA when one person was cured of a genetic disorder using a hypnosis technique. Other links in the above comments suggest that True Fathers view on the emergence of humans occured not through the normal proccesses of the development of life but the physical shell of the human form was used and we breathed in the "breath of God" through the nostrils. This suggests the spiritual aspect of humans to feel deep emotions and think deep thoughts and show creativity of a similar level to God's was endowed to us in a sudden burst of activity. From this point the purpose of the universe was realised. My question is, what is taught in the ODP lectures?

William, it is good that you generate such discussions. It is good for all of us to think, investigate, form our own opinions. That makes a discussion such a learning experience. I like it because I feel more alive when my intellect is engaged, when I dig deeper and ponder the possibilities. In an earlier blog, you talked of "midrash". I had never even heard of that word before. I found an explanation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash ---and thought to myself, what a great idea it is to have an opportunity to "investigate", discuss, let the juices of inspiration flow. This was done in the Jewish faith but, unfortunately it was lost in the Christian faith. Faithful were not supposed to "investigate", for God's sake NO!, the clergy did all the thinking for them, all they had to do was to believe. In the unification faith, it would do us all some good to ask questions, express opinions. It has not been a tradition but it would be good to encourage such exchange. This kind of forum/blog is such an opportunity.

I quoted most of the statements in the book in my blog. Another one is, "Principle completely complements Christianity's theory of Creation." What theory is was not explained. Another statement in support of 'Creation' and supposedly against 'Evolution' was "The species are different (sparrow, crow, tit)" This suggests that ODP supports 'special creation' which is what literalist fundamentalist Christians believe. The one thing Darwin did rule out was 'special creation' as he argued from the available evidence that all the living organisms we know of have a common origin. Subsequent research has only reinforced this basic insight. Orally Rev Yu described the theory of evolution several times as the belief that human beings are descended from monkeys which is of course a gross misrepresentation. To assert that evolution is 'random' or 'guided' is to make a philosophical and not a scientific statement. Neither are intrinsic to the theory.

“...we should dispense with the conservative attitude of faith which makes us afraid to question conventional beliefs and traditional doctrines.” Taken straight from the Divine Principle, Chapter 4 Section 2.5 In our study group yesterday, the participants all noted how the culture in our Unificationist community doesn't allow the freedom and witholds the trust to question things. This has to change.

Michael Rawlence wrote:"One such paper questioning the ability of our mind to directly affect our DNA when one person was cured of genetic disorder using a hypnosis technique."----I have studied healing techniques for many years and am very interested in that topic. It started in the 90s when I came across Louise Hay's book :"You can heal your life". I have studied Reiki, Pranic Healing and Healing Touch. What do they all have in common? They open our mind to the possibility of healing. The ability to heal is within, Einstein said it, Deepak Chopra said that our brain is our #1 pharmacy. I found an example of a healing of a genetic disorder through hypnosis:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrVE2cfGnxE How can hypnosis work? It works when the hypnotist and the one hypnotized are 100% aligned with the possibility of healing. In the tape it shows that when the hypnotist doubts, the result is not the same. When it worked the first time, what happened? The hypnotist tapped into the Divine power in him: God the Creator is not apart from us, He is also in us. But the ego, the human ego has to be put aside to align with the Divine and this has always been the struggle. But, when the alignment is achieved and people are cured, unexplainable/spontaneous healing takes place, they call it a miracle but all it is, really, is tapping in the Divine within. It should not be called a miracle, it should be the norm. More on placebo effect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP39e6eLu34

I read this article yesterday concerning arguments against Intelligent Design. John Avise argues that many things about life do not look like they are intelligently designed, but see much better explained by random tinkering than by thoughtful design. For example disorders of gene transcription and regulation, the unreliability of mitochondrial DNA, duplicons, etc... He proposes that evolution can go hand in hand with major religions, by doing away with the theory of intelligent design. What do you think william? here's the link to the article. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/05/04/0914609107.full.pdf+html

I agree with him. There are so many 'design faults' in the human body such as lower back weakness because originally we used 4 limbs to get about so the lower back was not 'designed' to bear the whole weight of the upper body. It is easy to chart the development of a complex organ such as the eye by incremental stages based on natural selection. The ID argument only holds water in explaining the starting conditions of the Big Bang. Had they been at all different there would not be a universe capable of producing conscious life forms. As an alternative to Darwinian evolution I think ID is scientifically, philosophically and theologically illiterate. I have spoken to some of its founders and advocates such as Jonathan Wells and was not impressed. The reason why people feel the need for it is because they are wedded to Greek philosophical categories which cannot explain self-generated order. I wrote a thesis on 'Spontaneous Order and Unificationism' which showed that Unification Thought is far more compatible with evolution than traditional Christian theology which is based on Greek philosophy. There are UC members who espouse ID but I think they are mistaken. I have a lecture presentation on this I can give if you want to organise it!

"They look as if they are the product of design but are actually examples of self-generated ‘purposeless’ order" One point to add to the discussion is that 'purposeless' order comes about because the 'laws' (really, maths,) governing the forces in this physical universe enable the structures here (like atoms) to form complex structures in temporary stable states. These themselves then form more complex structures, which can exhibit emergent properties and 'macro' rules that influence their behaviour. So we get all our complexity from the mathematics and the physical constants in this universe. The fact that there is another universe (with different laws and constants) congruent to, and connected in some as yet unknown way to this one will probably make a huge difference to the discussion, but in any case - I think the question isn't 'was the universe designed', but how did that super complex maths and those constants come about.

William wrote:There are UC members who espouse ID but I think they are mistaken. I have a lecture presentation on this I can give if you want to organise it!"-----If you do give this talk, could someone film it and put it on YouTube for those of us who cannot possibly come to it in person. That would be great!

"There is so much evidence that it happened" If this is the case is the "Icons of Evolution" criticism of bad science valid, or what about the claims of proponents of intelligent design? I would also like to know what is the evidence for evolution between species.

That all living organisms have a common origin seems to be the only conclusion one can draw from the fact that all life is based on DNA, the most complex molecule in the known universe. So all life is one. We are connected to all living organisms at a very deep level. Every species has a different number of chromosomes and genes which results in different genomes and thus phenomes. How such changes come about is a matter of scientific research. Also the process by which DNA came to exist is also unknown but may be discovered in the future. Another argument for evolution is homology, the interesting fact that salamanders, bats, porpoises, birds, crocodiles and humans all have 5 'fingers.'i.e. variations or modifications of the same pattern suggesting a common origin. This is unlike motor vehicles which are individually designed for a particular purpose. Motor bikes have 2 wheels, cars have 4, vans have 6 and lorries (trucks for any Americans out there) up to 20 or so. If every species was individually designed by God or the product of an intelligent designer one would expect them to be tailor made instead of based on the same model with all the weaknesses and problems that entails - rather like the first motor vehicles which had an engine fixed on to a wooden horse drawn carriage. Other evidence is the fossil record showing the development of new species with greater complexity. If there was a designer who really was intelligent why all these primitive prototypes? So evolution - the idea that all living organisms have common ancestors as appears in the classic tree strikes me as indisputable. The mechanism or process by which evolution happens? There are a number of theories none of which is able to give an adequate or complete explanation so far. But it is a very fruitful research program with many holes which are gradually being filled. Present theories will be adjusted and changed or maybe even overthrown as new evidence comes in. This is normal in science. In physics the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity are irreconcilable at the moment but that doesn't mean they should be trashed. They are merely the latest and best explanation of how things are in the areas where they work. The same can be said about the theory of evolution. ID as an alternative to evolution begs more questions that it answers and is not susceptible to scientific testing or proof. It can never be anything other than an assertion or piety.

Doris, there are very interesting implications of the idea of spontaneous order for human society. This was explored in some depth by F.A. Hayek. It supports the idea that a complex, fruitful, creative, progressive, diverse, self-adjusting and maintaining social order comes about when a society is based on simple universal laws which create a framework for people to have the freedom to pursue their own interests. This would suggest that the free market and limited government are the right recipe for a good society. Charles Murray in his book In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government explains all this in more detail.

William wrote"This would suggest that the free market and limited government are the right recipe for a good society." -----This made me think of Ronald Reagan who said:"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Needless to say, he is greatly missed.

Perhaps the origial divine principle lectures are emphasising that God is the original creator & that God's principles preexisted creation of the universe. Father emphasises that masculinity & feminity or positivity & negativity are prerquisites for all creation & development.This is the process of creation & development & not just spontaneous evolution.

William, you are touching on so many issues in this blog. Let me start from the last one. What would you say to men and women who gave their lives for God's providence for the LSA? When the time comes, and the video of our life is shown before us and we see that we have sincerely followed our heart and dedicated our earthly life for a cause greater than ourselves, sincerely loving and caring for people along the way...I don't know about anyone else but i would feel deep content, a peaceful assurance that I did the right thing. Just as in the physical world, no energy gets ever wasted, so in the realm of the heart and spirit too. No prayer, good thought, good deed, good word is ever wasted. The love shared among people along the way is an eternal treasure and no one can take that away. I think we have to contemplate the gems of the journey, the inspirations, the desperation, the pleas with God, His answers through small whispers or serendipitous encounters, synchronicity as many call them...that quiet reminder that the hand of the Divine is always present in our life and in those precious moments when we are aware, we realize that, indeed, God is real. This has been the discovery of men and women of many different faiths. Regarding the position of Britain, I would not worry too much. I don't believe that God, in all His mercy, would ever turn away from a country or withdraw His grace. That would mean His love is conditional. Sometimes we project human behavior on God...it only brings confusion and even some torment. Why put ourselves through that? Just as we, as parents, have patience and forgive our children, always wanting to give them a second chance, why would we think less of God Himself? You know, Father has said many things throughout the years. In earlier years, he was known to say very unkind remarks about American women. Maybe as an Oriental, he found them too outspoken, too bold, too loud, too much in charge...whatever. Even the anointed one has cultural prejudices, it is just human. Coming from a country where women are not seen much or heard in public, it must have been a cultural shock to come to America and experience a whole new dynamic.That is understandable. But you know who stood up to him on that issue? No other than in Jin Nim. She said in one of her talks that when Father used to go on about American women, she would look at her sister thinking : "here he goes again." Later, after she finished her studies at Harvard and through her many years in the US, she has come to love and appreciate women here, she said she went up to her father and said: "I am an American woman." The reason I share about that is to point out that just because Father says something, people should accept it without challenge and we know Koreans like to argue with each other. They have such strong character, strong opinions but they also respect someone who stands up to them and shares their conviction. So I would say to you, don't lose sleep over Britain's position. If you feel deep in your heart that your country has made valuable contributions to the world, throughout the years, and no doubt it has, so believe it and stand your ground. That is all that matters, and Father himself may admire you for having such conviction.

I agree with what you say Doris. It's just that I get really irritated when Father keeps banging on, accusing Britain of 'failing its mission' without supporting this allegation with a shred of evidence. And even more irritated by people who think Father must be right because he is the messiah and then concoct some lame explanation of how Britain 'failed'. To me they are like Job's comforters. For me it is a terrible injustice that Britain had its role as Eve nation taken away, through no fault of its own, and transferred to a country, Japan, that in Principle discourse was on 'Satan's side'.

It has all gotten too technical and too complicated...too much is material to make a church soap/drama: when all these feelings are exchanged between those who tell others they "failed" and the latter, in turn, feel discouraged and start to think:"what's the use?". What is wrong with this picture? What is missing? I am drawn back to the Bible, 1 Cor 13 to be precise. People, countries can have highest position but without love, it does not really have value. What drew us to passionately to leave everything and dedicate ourselves to make the world a better place by working together with other individuals of the same calling? It is something deep inside, something from the Heart. Maybe Jesus will have to come back after all to teach us again compassion, non judgmental attitude, forgiveness...this is the fiber that will hold us together and help us move forward. Everything else is just mere detail.

I think what you have proved in your series of blogs is that Britain has had a very important role in the providence and has, in my opinion, behaved as an Eve nation should. Through the course of reading the blogs, I keep on waiting for, and expecting a "and this is why we should duly accept our situation" and I'm glad I haven't found it. I think these are the important questions to ask, it's not ok for someone to say something and not explain it. But then I'm highly doubtful that we will see the day when True Father will answer these very particular points. I think the main comfort that we can take is that our nation did above and beyond of what we could have done in certain situations. And Britain has been blessed in a number of ways. English becoming something of a global language is a chief example of this. Continue with this topic though, if there is more to say. I'm currently visiting the Family Fireplace daily to read the updates.

Well, Philip, for many years it was the national obsession of the British movement to try to find the reason why Britain had 'failed'. None of them reasons amounted to much and so I think it is more honest to say that Britain did not fail its mission as defined in the Principle although of course if one wants to one can find all sorts of mistakes and dreadful deeds done by some Briton or other somewhere in the world. I could easily give an account of the many others ways that God used Britain to bring countless blessings to the world but I think I have said enough on this topic for a while. When I heard Rev Yoo's outpouring of Korean nationalism and how Korea was the only moral country in the world I was sorely tempted to give him a masterclass in nationalistic posturing by recounting the glories and achievements of Britain so that he could get a sense of perspective on Korea. But I let it pass. A mother has to let her sons . . .

William, you wrote:"When I heard Rev Yoo's outpouring of Korean nationalism and how Korea was the only moral country in the world I was sorely tempted to give him a masterclass in nationalistic posturing by recounting the glories and achievements of Britain so that he could get a sense of perspective on Korea. But I let it pass. A mother has to let her sons . . . "----- This is such an interesting dynamic....it made me smile because you did well to let it pass, answer a higher calling and not sink down to this Rev.'s level.... People who are secure in their 'goodness/achievement' don't have to defend it. It simply is. When people brag about it and inflate it, it is obviously an ego trip. I heard once someone talk about the "chosen nation syndrome": some of the Jews had it and when Jesus came, he tried to teach them to get off their high horses. We all know how difficult it was for him.----- I just saw a quote someone posted on facebook that reads:"The nine fruits of the sacred spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23) ... are the standards of the nation that Heaven advocates ... If you have such a deeply felt conviction, you will feel the heart of Jesus, who had to close his mouth and persevere while clinging to the rock and facing Jerusalem, though he had many things he wanted to say. SMM-----This is Father's standard, he knows the heart of Jesus. Unfortunately, many of the Korean leaders don't have his Christian foundation and certainly not his personal experience with Jesus. As you wrote the DP is coming on the Judeo Christian foundation. So, of course, this creates a conflict. The "fruit of the Spirit" are the nuts and bolts of CIG, without them the building falls apart.---Matthew 3:9 is another example of the' struggle to reach the heart of his fellow men.---Human nature has not changed much. ----I asked a friend who went to the ODP in Las Vegas if the same type of talk was given and she did not remember such emphasis on Korea so maybe it was just this particular Rev. Yoo's style and focus.

Your friend wouldn't have been exposed to the rhetoric of Korean superiority and super-sessionism because Michael Jenkins gave the ODP lectures in Las Vegas and edited at least some of them. Unificationist Koreans in my opinion has a 'chosen nation' complex in spades which is a pity as I thought we were supposed to be restoring not repeating the past. Mind you there are plenty of people who think indemnity means just that. My problem with Rev Yoo is that as he is 'the one' who has been authorised by Father to develop and give these lectures he is going around the world setting the 'standard' for the content and style. And to be honest, although he has some great anecdotes about Father, his exposition of the Principle is riddled with errors and rather narrow. One of the things I liked about people like Young Whi Kim, Bo Hi Pak, Rev Kwak etc. was their breadth of mind and heart and intellectual engagement.

William, whatever the details of the subject, one thing is for sure. Once you find yourself using a phrase like 'banging on' when referring to True Fathers words the you have lost your way and will never figure things out. What I mean by that is that there have been thousands of truly amazing thinkers throughout the millennia but none of them came anywhere near what Father has given us in The Principle. The Principle is not only the answer to many questions but many don't realize that it is also the key to solving very many more questions that it doesn't directly address. The Principle is a deceptively simple tome and even we long time members don't yet fully appreciate the significance and implications of what will result from it. Like those great thinkers, you will never figure stuff out with intellectual prowess alone. You also need the right heart/attitude to go along with the intellect. A ship is not much use without a compass/GPS. I’m sorry to say it as I'm convinced that you are a sincere person but the phrase 'banging on' is a red flag that you should pay attention to. When you find yourself to be comfortable using that phrase in reference to Father in a semi public forum then you need to take a look at your attitude to things. A more respectful translation of 'banging on' would be 'repeatedly'. Don't make the mistake of assuming that when Father is repetitive on a subject or theme over the years that it means he is somehow, forgetful, mentally odd or obsessive. It's far more likely that we are dense and the emphasis is needed so we 'get it'. I'm sure He'd rather talk about each thing once and being sure that we got it then move on to even deeper things. Jesus expressed the same frustration when he said that he couldn't talk of heaven much when his followers didn't even get the simple earthly things he had told them. I have sometimes become curious as to why certain themes come up again and again and seem even mundanely repetitive in Fathers speeches over the decades. My reaction was to take a deeper look not to whine that Father is repeating himself. Another thing that I've discovered about Fathers speeches over the decades is that apart from the actual information imparted in them, there is an incredibly subtle conditioning going in via his speeches. Father speaks and passes information to us but he also has a strategy to slowly transform our way of thinking. This effect will not be evident in the occasional listener/reader of Fathers speeches but those who have been exposed to his speeches hundreds of times over many years will be changed in ways that they themselves are not always aware of. After thousands of years of fallen history our very thought patterns have been conditioned to have mode of thinking that is fallen in ways that we are totally unaware of. Father will see it as glaringly egregious and I am slowly becoming aware of the fact that he has used his marathon speeches to effect positive changes in us that very few of us have even noticed. The subject of your post here is very interesting but I didn't want to comment on this until I first mentioned my thoughts on the subject of you using such a derogatory phrase to characterize Fathers chosen topics. Also, there comes a point when a Father (or any leader) proves himself so reliable and beneficial that it's just plain disingenuous to moan about there not being 'evidence' to back up something that he says is so. It's a bit like Shem and Hamm's attitude to Noah after his monumental achievement. Surely Father should be elevated in our hearts and minds by now to a point where if he says something is so, not matter how illogical it sounds to us then there is a far greater chance that the fault is in our logic/feeling than in the details of his declaration. Don't get me wrong, if I don't understand or like something Father says 'is so' then I'll scrutinize it to the fullest and won't fully accept it until my logical mind is satisfied. But my starting point won't be that Father has been 'banging on' without offering a shred of evidence. My starting point will be that what Father has said is more likely to be correct, however illogical sounding, than my seemingly logical point of view. I'll then tirelessly study the matter until I can enlighten myself. That's not blind faith, it's faith based on countless examples and past experiences that Fathers logic is a better bet than so called conventional logic.

Dear Peter, Thank you for your lengthy and concerned response to my blog. While I agree that the use of the phrase 'banging on' may seem rather disrespectful to some, I was following on the earlier report from Doris about the way two of Father's daughters reacted to him 'going on' about American women. I guess there are a plurality of spiritualities and ways of engaging with the Principle and Father of which yours is one. My own draws on different traditions because of my upbringing and is very much grounded in the Biblical tradition. In that tradition it is normal for people to dispute with God. One well known story is about a group of rabbis who were arguing about some point of interpretation of the law: "On that day, Rabbi Eliezer put forward all the arguments in the world, but the Sages did not accept them. Finally, he said to them, 'If the law is according to me, let that carob­ tree prove it.' He pointed to a nearby carob tree, which then moved from its place a hundred yards, and some say, four hundred yards. They said to him 'One cannot bring a proof from the moving of a carob tree.' Said Rabbi Eliezer, 'If the law is according to me, may that stream of water prove it.' The stream of water then turned and flowed in the opposite direction. They said to him, 'One cannot bring a proof from the behaviour of a stream of water.' Said Rabbi Eliezer, 'If the law is according to me, may the walls of the House of Study prove it.' The walls of the House of Study began to bend inward. Rabbi Joshua then rose up and rebuked the walls of the House of Study, 'If the students of the Wise argue with one another in law,' he said, 'what right have you to interfere?' In honour of Rabbi Joshua, the walls ceased to bend inward; but in honour of Rabbi Eliezer, they did not straighten up, and they remain bent to this day. Then, said Rabbi Eliezer to the Sages, 'If the halakha is according to me, may a proof come from Heaven.' Then a heavenly voice went forth and said, 'What have you to do with Rabbi Eliezer? The law is according to him in every place.' Then Rabbi Joshua rose up on his feet, and said, 'It is not in the heavens' (Deuteronomy 30:12). What did he mean by quoting this? Said Rabbi Jeremiah, 'He meant that since the Torah has been given already on Mount Sinai, we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, for You have written in Your Torah, 'Decide according to the majority' (Exodus 23:2). Rabbi Nathan met the prophet Elijah. He asked him, 'What was the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing in that hour?' Said Elijah, 'He was laughing and saying, "My children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.' " The traditional interpretation is as follows: "This extraordinary story strikes the keynote of the Talmud. God is a good father who wants His children to grow up and achieve independence. He has given them His Torah, but now wants them to develop it...." You may wonder and think, 'well that is Jewish spirituality', but the Principle, as I keep banging on, is nothing if it is not Biblical and one cannot understand the Principle correctly unless one understands it on the basis of the Biblical tradition which is the central providence of God. So one finds the following statement in the Principle: "It is the calling of our original nature to pursue freedom and autonomy. A person of perfect character understands the will of God and puts it into practice through his own insight and reason, without the need to rely on revelations from God. Hence, it is only natural that we pursue reason and understanding.” This says, more or less, the same thing as the rather more memorable and vivid story. So, the Principle describes itself as a new expression of the truth, an expression which is, or should be, more in tune with the current era. But it is no more Father's or the Unification Church's Principle than the Law of Gravity belongs to Sir Isaac Newton. Newton discovered the laws of gravity, he didn't invent them. Other people have gone on to refine his discoveries, apply them in ways he couldn't possibly have imagined and found better ways of expressing them. The Principle too is not new or unique. Most of the ideas in the DP one can find elsewhere because there have been lots of other great thinkers who have been pursuing the truth over the years. Still, I think the DP is a work of genius and I do spend quite a lot of time studying and teaching it. I just wish it was the teaching of the Unification Church. I just wish the Unification Church was based on it. If it was I am sure it would have grown in membership a lot more than it has over the last 30 years. So for me this issue of the role of Britain as the Eve nation is not an intellectual curiosity but something I have thought, prayed, read, asked and discussed about for 30 years. People sometimes get tired of me banging on about it and other topics about which I appear to be really obsessed. But according to the Principle it is 'natural to pursue reason and understanding' and not to 'rely on revelation'. So when I read Father's speeches or listen to the lectures I do so not only with my heart but also with my brain engaged. I am always looking for mistakes in Father's speeches. I know, what a heretical or blasphemous attitude, but I found many in the earlier editions of the peace messages and several dozens of my corrections have been incorporated in the final edition of the Pyeong Hwa Hoon Gyeong. I have also found many errors in the Original Divine Principle which I am also trying to get corrected. So there we are. That is my faith. I take the Principle and Father seriously enough to be willing to disagree and argue my corner with all comers. I have one lasting regret. I haven't heard Father speak very often but once in East Garden I heard him mention the failure of Britain and I regret not standing up and contradicting him.

William, you wrote:"I was following on the earlier report from Doris about the way two of Father's daughters reacted to him 'going on' about American women."---- It is a pity that we are limited to the written word here, as form of communication, because it is limited. What I like to add to what I had written about this 'going on' issue is that it was told by In Jin Nim in a loving way. She smiled as she spoke about it. She has been very open, telling inside stories no one else but her could tell and it is quite refreshing to hear that, to see that they are a normal family.------You also wrote:"In that tradition it is normal for people to dispute with God." I have noticed that people's upbringing in their faith of origin shapes their view of faith and relationships later in life. The fact that my husband was brought up a Protestant helped me a lot to get rid of my catholic baggage that contained a lot of fear of judgment and other aspects that were so deeply ingrained in my belief system. On the other hand, the positive aspects can be put to good use as the one you mention when people feel they have a voice, their opinion will be heard and it is alright to disagree. After all our reason and intellect were not given to us for decoration, they are meant to be used. As i write this, the fact that Jesus, as a young boy, was discussing the scriptures with the rabbis in the Temple comes to mind. By voicing his opinion, he was found to be 'wise beyond his years'. So that proves that there were forums for debates. Maybe this should be revived: a lot can be learned when the intellect and heart are engaged in debates instead of just telling others what to believe and never expecting any remark in return. -----You also wrote:"I just wish the Unification Church was based on it.(the teachings of the DP)" This could be a whole other blog. The one sentence in the intro to the DP that mentions that JOY in the purpose of creation, that one sentence alone has been on my heart for years: if only we had that joy if we truly lived in joy with God, with each other and with creation...how different life would be and then there are all the point of the 1st chapter: mind and body unity, 3 blessings, co-creativity and so on....if we truly embodied all that, can you imagine how life would be? Incredible...it would be incredible. There is enormous potential, the "truth" has always been out there, now let us find more ways to live it and become transformed by it. Wishing all of you reading this joy and loving give and take in your day.

I came to the conclusion that the UC was not based on the Principle first in 1976 when I realised that MFT at the time was based on communist economics. When I pointed out the parallels I was told it was indemnity. I puzzled over this as I thought indemnity was supposed to be about reversing what went wrong, not repeating it. I mentioned this to a leader only to be told not to be negative or critical or think but worse that this was the way things were supposed to be. At that point I offered up a prayer of gratitude to God that the UC was so small and had no chance of taking over the world because, if it did, most people would end up dying of starvation. A few years later, in 1985 I spent 8 hours a day for about 6 weeks reading and analysing all Father's speeches for the charity case in the UK. Apart from not having any sinful thoughts for 6 weeks, I could not find any correlation between what he said and the way things were organised. When I mentioned this to people I was just brushed off which in itself I found an interesting sociological phenomenon - the place of the Principle and Father's words in what purported to be a God-centred spiritual community. So yes, it might be fun to write a blog on this deconstructing the way the Principle functions within the UC.

You were brushed off because whoever you talked to probably did not know what to say. I think everyone was sincerely trying. The growth of the spirit and the heart is a slow process. We want to create a world of harmony and love and yet there is conflict within the individual....we want to create God centered , loving families but yet there are arguments and disagreements with spouse and children...it is not easy. There has always been a gap between desire and reality. The good news though is that, as time goes on, things are getting better. In my own life, I have come to understand more since I turned 50 than in the decades prior, it is as if curtains that were blocking the sunlight from entering the room were pulled back. Just two examples: I understood more about the Universal Prime Force by studying Reiki and practicing it and I understood more about co-creatorship by realizing that I am responsible for my creations, my circumstances. All the teachings about the Law of Attraction, the book 'The Secret' and many other recent publications have helped tremendously to wake us up to our own powers. I find it very inspiring, feel like finally, I am starting to get it. The consciousness all around us has risen so it makes it easier for everyone to "see the light" more clearly. What plagues us is ignorance. If we knew love truly, we would not want to live a day without it. The problem is we did not know love, we thought we knew, intellectually but not really from the Heart. It is all part of the learning process and during that process a lot of dysfunction has to be put up with. There is a lot of talk about "dysfunctional" families, the church has been some kind of a dysfunctional family and to be honest, i was part of that dysfunction too. I rather look back with a heart of compassion rather than judgment because, at the end, forgiveness is necessary to move forward and be totally free.

Your articles are always interesting since you have such deep knowledge of history and of all of the men who helped shape it with their ideas. Some people view countries as self contained spaces but man made boundaries do not stop the wind from blowing from one country to another, not do they stop ideas from spreading either. Undoubtedly, Korea was influenced by ideas coming out from England and apparently from Germany too. I googled "Philosophy in Korea" and got a great article on the German philosophical influence in Korea. I cannot find it anymore otherwise i would have posted the link. What I am trying to say is that no nation can claim that their current situation/ideology/philosophical understanding comes from their "own" people alone. Ideas have been spreading for eons so any broad minded person will admit that. Only narrow minded folks will try to give their nation all the credit. I remember when i came to the US in 79, the Japanese were in charge of MFT and Mr. Kamiyama told us that Japan was far superior to the US and that "they" have come to teach us and educate us. Well, to make a long story short, as a result many American members left, the teams were run like little armies.... years later apologies were given but it does not bring people back. In his book "Forty years in America" Michael Mickler (sp?) said that the Japanese influence on the US did not help, to put it mildly. It was the result of a cultural misunderstanding: the Orientals came to America, saw that the Americans were expressive, not "reserved and proper" as they were, and they took it as a sign of bad manners and told Father: "The Americans are too horizontal, let us make them vertical like us." Yeah, right....it was a fiasco. The Americans are "vertical" too, in their own way. That is why I am also against uniformity. No one can come anywhere and tell anyone "we are better than you". If they do, they are slaves to their ego which strives for superiority to feel important, and always make others feel inferior. One more point I wanted to mention: the DP was written in the fifties. Truth, as in the diagram we used to draw, always evolves as time goes on. it is not stationary. As our consciousness grows, so does our understanding. The "truth" in the fifties was very much centered on Korea (the parallels of history all lead up to it) and one the "one" Messiah. Now, years later, a bigger picture should be given to include all those who have contributed, through the years to the development of the mind and soul, giving credit to many who have been left out because , frankly speaking, Mr.Eu who wrote the book did not know about them. The second point: instead of focusing on "one man" being "The Messiah", focus on all people who are also anointed in their own way. Father himself said: "you are all messiahs". I, having been raised in the RCC, cannot anymore identify with worshiping people, I have honestly grown allergic to it. The anointed one comes to show the way all other should walk, finding their own way too. The disciple should emulate the master not worship him. This is what the Christians have done to Jesus who said:""I tell you the truth, anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the Father." John 14:12. Jesus clearly gave his disciples and those all around him the green light to "do great works" putting their God-given creativity in full use, multiplying their talents the best way they could, this is what brings the greatest joy to God. Just as we, as parents, are so happy when our children go out in the world and use their talents well and create something good for themselves so is God happy with us when we do the same, and finally blossom into the co-creators we are meant to be. We don't need anyone permission to do that, it is expected of us.

That's interesting Doris - about the influence of German philosophy on Korea. That is probably why Fichte and Hegel for some obscure reason are assigned to the Abel camp in the DP when they were the forerunners of fascism, nazism and communism. Beyond that I think the DP is a work of genius if one considers the circumstances in which it was written. It is surprisingly liberal and inclusive and broad minded and actually true. There are a few places where I think there could have been a better analysis but considering the resources that were available in 1950s Korea it is quite remarkable. I am having an allergic reaction myself at the moment to the extraordinary outburst of Korean nationalism I experienced at the Original Divine Principle workshop. Korean tradition is not based on divine revelation as is Judaism and Christianity which were the central streams in God's providence. Its folk traditions are not exceptional but on a par with those of any other pagan feudal pre-modern culture. Still, I think it was the only nation in which the messiah could have been born in this era. But if Korea and the UC do not recognise, respect, learn from, give credit to and inherit the foundation of God's central providence as it unfolded in Judaism and European Christianity we will end up making the same tragic error as Christianity did when it essentially rejected Judaism and became over-influenced and eventually corrupted by pagan ideas from the Hellenistic world. The important points where DP is different to traditional Christianity is where the early church deviated from Judaism. This I think is what has happened in Japan. The church there reads the Principle through the lens of pagan Japanese culture which is a mixture of Shintoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. Each of these have their good elements but all are on the periphery of God's providence. The Principle is essentially Biblical and can only be properly understood on the basis of a deep knowledge and understanding of Judaism and Christianity. So when Japanese leaders came to the west saying that their tradition was the 'heavenly tradition' they committed a terrible mistake from which the movement in the west has never recovered. Crucially the Japanese church's reading of the Cain/Abel relationship was deeply flawed and came to be used as a means for control and manipulation instead of liberation and salvation. It remains the standard teaching in the movement although it is wrong. In one sense one cannot blame the Japanese church or leadership for this. It is very hard to escape from the basic assumptions of one's culture and language unless one discovers and experiences a different or better way. Of course to do so one needs to be open minded and study widely. I get the impression they were neither encouraged nor had the opportunity to do so although I have a number of Japanese friends who have done so but of course they have been living here for many years. I think though it was an avoidable mistake for them to have the attitude that they were to bring the 'heavenly tradition' to the west. I can only think they thought that because Father told them that?

You wrote:"Beyond that I think the DP is a work of genius if one considers the circumstances in which it was written. It is surprisingly liberal and inclusive and broad minded and actually true." yes, considering the time and circumstances. You wrote:"It is very hard to escape from the basic assumptions of one's culture and language unless one discovers and experiences a different or better way." History proves this: just thinking what happened on the American continent: the Europeans -Spaniards, English, French and white Americans- did awful things to the Natives, both in North and South America. The history of the human race has been a very painful one. Hopefully, with time and growth and the merit of the age, people will come to a place of mutual respect and honor and experience what Jacob experienced when he looked in Esau's eyes and finally...see God in one another on a global scale. No more "isms", beyond the "isms" of all kinds, even unificationism, there is the world of heart, pure and simple. Just people loving and caring for each other this is the ultimate goal of religion, to "bind again"/re-liare to be bound again to our higher/God within self and to be bound again in heart with those around us. Sorry, I know I am preaching to the choir , here:-) Father wanted to go beyond the church, back in 99, that is why the World Peace federation was formed. I read a few months ago, Hyung jin Nim asked Father to go bring back the focus on the UC in order to give members a stronger identity, a stronger rallying point. It is an interesting development and only time will tell where it is going to lead. Nevertheless, whatever happens, I always remember what i heard in a speech I attended back in the 80's: "Whenever you have a question or a problem, go to a quiet place and ask God and you will surely get an answer." So, of course there is the organization, the workshops, the church business local and worldwide but there is also personal access to the Divine through our conscience. We have been told that long ago.

fascinating history! Thank you for sharing your knowledge about it with the rest of us. What you wrote goes to show that "we (as in people of the world) are all connected". This is an old American Indian saying and it proves true again, reading about the West/East, Great Britain/Korea connections. Therefore, no nation can ever take the credit because, just as in the case of South Korea, their rise in Christianity was on the foundation of the effort, sacrifice and lives given by Western missionaries. All this information you wrote should be in the DP book.

Thank you Doris. There are many missing chapters in the Divine Principle - for example the place and history of Islam, Russia and the Orthodox Church to mention a few. I think we should be applying the Principle to analyse God's providence in every country and write and publish the missing bits ourselves. I think the versions of DP we have work backwards from the conclusion that Father is the messiah and trace God's providence back to Jesus. In reality though God didn't know when or where the messiah would actually be born. I think he was running his providence in every country as much as he could but generally speaking there were mistakes or failures which meant countries such as Russia couldn't fulfil the destiny God had in mind for them and were instead invaded by Satan.

Very, very interesting. So, considering the huge role that Britain had in bringing Christianity to Korea, why is it that the nation "lost it's Eve position"? I find it peculiar when compared to other nations who have had such a strong role in persecuting TF and yet maintained their designated missions. America and Japan as two examples. Why should Japan be the Eve nation over Britain? And why, more importantly, is the role of other nations in the mission of TF not discussed and encouraged more enthusiastically? Maybe that would diffuse the statements and claims of one culture being more superior to another.

WALES!!!

No matter how much the word "failure" is mentioned regarding Great Britain, no one can deny that without the British missionaries' efforts, Christianity may have never taken root in Korea and without Great Britain, America would not be what it is today. On a personal note, I met the Unified family in London , was witnessed to by a Welshman (Chris V. Davies)so, in my book, I don't buy this idea of failure. William, it would be so interesting to add more information to the DP, all the topics you mentioned. That would make it more appealing, more educational. I always thought more meat has to put on the bones to give it more substance. I did some more reading on Rev. Robert and was amazed to find out that he was only 27 when he got killed. He accomplished so much at such a young age. How remarkable!

"I have never been able to accept that Britain failed as Britain in my opinion never had the opportunity to succeed under this scenario." and "we should be making more effort in the Unification movement to inherit the Judeo-Christian foundation of Abel-type democracies such as the UK instead of thinking that something is best because it is Korean and that Korean political culture should be at the basis of Chung Il Guk" I couldn't agree more.

This must have come as a surprise to hear Rev.Eu mention that there was a possibility that Father could have married someone from the West. You wrote:"A useful bonus for all of us of course would have been that Father would have learned to speak English fluently." Certainly, this would have been a great advantage. Communication is so important and we know that through the years a lot of misunderstanding occurred because of various interpretations by the various translators. You wrote:"In which case we should be making more effort in the Unification movement to inherit the Judeo-Christian foundation of Abel-type democracies such as the UK instead of thinking that something is best because it is Korean and at Korean political culture should be at the basis of Chung Il Guk" I agree on that one too. It would be foolish to disregard the progress made in the West and blindly embrace a system from the East without questioning that it could be improved for the sake of the betterment of all. I believe the old saying "God gave us common sense and we are meant to use it". This (written above) is a common sense issue. Many of us had an idealistic view of Korea and its culture but after having been there realized that they are a work in progress too and in no way should be unquestionably accepted as "the" model for CIG. As a matter of fact, I would run from any parochial system as fast as I can. This would be totally incompatible with the "follow one's conscience" paradigm. If someone would ask:"Are we there yet?" the answer is still "not yet, but we're on the way." let us keep on praying for guidance.

William I have just disocvered your blog. I am enjoying your thoughts. Some things about me for your readers: I spent 2+ years in UK 1976-1978. I had met the UM in Berkeley,USA in July 1975. In fact I am the first Englishman to join there - a Welshman had arrived a week before me. I was also the first to be deprogrammed in the UK. I escaped, after one week and came down to Lancaster Gate. Many continue to think that the deprogrammers were in fact successful in my case, and though I continued to be in the UM that I have been an irritant ever since. I live in the USA on the East coast. I wanted to comment on this line: <> I love this "what if" kind of thinking. Basically this imagination is used to explore all of history (in DP terms). What if the fall had not taken place? What if JC had not been crucified? What if....? We can talk of Plan A and Plan B... Plan A Jesus lives Plan B Jesus dies on the cross Of course in hindsight Plan B looks like it must be Plan A... the Plan that was meant to be. Hence the Christian justification for JC's death on the cross. My take: expanding on the plans. What appears to be plan B may, in fact, be plan C, D or even T or maybe plan X. Maybe "other plans" simply never materialized, and we see Plan B as the (only) alternative.How can we ever know the number of plans that were simply shelved, never to see the light of history? In terms of plans, I think we must definitely be on Plan M-2 ( having gone through the alphabet for the second time).

Thank you. Everywhere I go people ask me, one way or the other: are you blessed? :) Then I have to explain why not and it's not an easy matter, but I try to take it lightly or to find a way to laugh at it. Inevitably, after a while I found myself doing the same to others, especially to second generation children!? So, from now on I will answer - yes, I am blessed but I am not married yet :) And I will try to refrain myself from asking others if they are blessed but instead ask if they are married.

Good thought William !

Actually this is symptomatic of group slang, which in it's worst aspect could be called cultish. I don't know now in Britain, but in the past people would answer the phone with'Manchester/Cardiff centre' - centre of what, or what centre. Similarly, are you a member? And using a word in DP that was probably found in the dictionary when translating: subjugate, great word, but not in current usage sine before WW1, except how East European emigres described they country subjugated by Communism. But, re blessing & marriage, one can, I think beautifully, talk of being 'blessed in marriage'; I guess any religious persomn might say this, how about 'blessed by True Parents / Rev. Moon in marriage' - but in short, I guess 'married' is best - not that I think it was wrong to use 'blessed', it's just that the circumstances and external culture are somewhat different than they were, say, 10 years ago - and I suggest that Hyung Jin Nim is helping greathy in clarifying this, internally as well as externally.

Good topic. I looked up the meaning of the word and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessing Interestingly the UC meaning of the word is mentioned as equaling marriage. Another set of definitions: # the formal act of approving; "he gave the project his blessing"; "his decision merited the approval of any sensible person" # a desirable state; "enjoy the blessings of peace"; "a spanking breeze is a boon to sailors" # grace: a short prayer of thanks before a meal; "their youngest son said grace" # benediction: a ceremonial prayer invoking divine protection The latter may be what the traditional "blessing" means as in benediction of marriage. It is true that is sounds rather ambiguous when someone comes up and asks : "Are you blessed?", if feels like "not being blessed" is so very undesirable, like missing something. God's grace is abundant and all encompassing, no one should feel like they are out of the loop, so to speak. The option to say "I am blessed but not yet married" for the young people as Robert T. suggested seems a very good alternative.

Thank you very much for raising the issue, and all the comments, so far). I never thought about it in this light. Very sensitive topic. You are right, William, to use the terminology seems to be very problematic. As a result, I am thinking now of creative ways when I want to say that 'I am blessed,' in terms of 'I am married'. One method is, like the youngish feeling grey-haired generation among us used to say, 'I am from XYZ blessing,' or, 'I am from the blessing of ABC year' (but this runs quickly out of fashion, I believe, as there so many 'blessings' already being held; and many, many more will come in the future - and, are we not all the same?) Another method might be also, to just show your distinctive golden ring on your finger (without saying anything), or simply show a photo, you and your partner.

Well Christopher I think the term 'centre' fizzled out a long time ago too as they have all closed. In any case it was always a very utilitarian word as in 'Job Centre', Shopping Centre'etc. What a lack of imagination! So too subjugate - although the choice of this word and also 'dominion' as in 'dominate with love' reveal the limitations of the English language. In this respect Hebrew does much better - it has a larger religious vocabulary that has many words that reveal a richer and more nuanced understanding of restoration etc.

Good one William. Thanks for your investment. Really appreciate the deeper insight.

You are making a very valid point, William. Looking at major religions today, Christianity may still be the majority but others such as Islam are growing faster. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html Since the expositions to the Divine Principle is based only on the Bible, it may be difficult for the millions of people of other faiths to be even interested in studying it. Back a few centuries ago, Jesuits came to China. This particular group totally immersed themselves in the Chinese culture: they studied the language and became fluent in it, they wore Chinese clothes, studied the culture so they could explain Christ's teachings in a way the local people could understand and accept. They made good progress but apparently some other missionaries (not Jesuits) who came later on denounced the Jesuits ways to the Vatican and the Vatican rejected their effort. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n6_v123/ai_18150281/ http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol9780521857314_CCOL9780521857314A014 I read elsewhere (cannot find that link today) that if those early Jesuits in China had been left to do as they were initially inspired, China would be Christian today. I have brought this example to light to show that in order to teach people of other cultures (other then our Judeo Christian heritage) some may want to do just what those Jesuits did: thoroughly become familiar with other sacred texts and use them as example to illustrate the expositions to the Divine principle. It could be an out of the box experience and it may open so many doors.

Yes Doris, one could just as easily, if one was familiar with the tradition, expound the Principled based on other scriptures too such as the Ramayama. I studied Russian history and discovered the time identity parallels there too. It is claimed that the Principle is the completed testament but it assumes that a person who reads it is already very familiar with a living according to the spiritual truths revealed in the First and Second Testaments. So just as Jesus didn't see the need to repeat the 10 commandments Father has not repeated the Beatitudes. He just assumes them. So to understand the Principle properly one needs to do so on the foundation of a deep knowledge of Judaism and to a lesser extent Christianity. I still think it is other cultures that need to be transformed though an encounter with the Biblical tradition. For example the equality in value of men and women exists in Genesis - the image of God being male and female - but also the 10 commandments - honour your father and your mother. The oriental tradition of Confucious by contrast emphasises the relationship between father and son only and women rarely get a look in whatever their status. I think a lot of the problems of our movement stem from many of its practices being underpinned by oriental and not Biblical ethics. Still your point about the need to culturally adapt is valid. The place where this happened in the UC in the West was of course Dr Durst's California. But for many that was an out of the box experience too far.

Speaking of boxes, unfortunately there have been too many along the way that have slowed down progress. There was this belief that uniformity brings unity. It may, to a certain extend, but the problem is this approach to life may stifle creativity. We are created by a very creative Creator, how can we be expected not be be creative, if we , indeed, are made in His/Her image? Another point you brought up is that many practices in the UM that are underpinned by oriental and not biblical ethics. That is an issue that has been discussed in a forum I'm on, quite a few people are very aware of that. It ties in with what you wrote prior to that when you mentioned Biblical tradition. The main point I like to write about here is the closeness of heart between God and man that was opened with Jesus: namely the parent/child relationship, one of love, compassion, forgiveness. Those concepts, along with grace and mercy are not familiar to many of Oriental upbringing and that has brought a lot of problems over the years. I don't have to give examples, you know what i am talking about. The level of heart Jesus brought is, imo, the most powerful and deep than any other religion brought so far. It is very difficult to jump from the OT (Confucianism included) to the CT age without thoroughly digesting the NT, spiritually and heartistically (and emotionally). Other aspects of the Biblical tradition you wrote about, namely the equality between men and women has not been respected by Christians either. We almost have to go back to the era of the Gnostics to find that, although now it is coming back. http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/church_history/26160 What I wrote about here is more of the collective journey (different religions) but there is also the individual journey. In the past few years, I have focused more on the individual journey because although it is good to feel in the company of others on our walk of faith, if one feels that the company is not always conducive to the best of experiences, one should dig deeper within and ask and receive answers, validations of faith and life. It only enhances the experience of 'walking the walk'. It is good to communicate, it makes the journey all the more pleasant.

I don't do uniformity myself. In fact I am not all the enthralled by unity as it too easily is understood as uniformity of belief, practice, language, culture etc. The idealistic pursuit of unity by Popes, Napoleon, Hitler and the Communists amongst others caused more suffering than any serial killer or robber. I'd settle for peace instead any day. Personally I like a world filled with different nationalities, cultures, currencies, religions and languages. It is only through encountering the other that one discovers oneself. I didn't realise I was English until I went on a holiday to France . . . Well, as you are French I had better be polite! Yes Jesus is truly great. I love the two ideas that he taught through the Parable of the Good Samaritan - that whether one goes to heaven or not is not determined by one's religion, nationality or race but but how much one loves God and one's neighbour, and, secondly that one's neighbour is whoever it is one encounters in one's daily life and not one's family, relatives or friends for 'even the pagans do that.' However Doris, I am not a fan of the Gnostics. I think it was the encounter with gnosticism that corrupted the Jesus movement causing it to almost reject its Jewish heritage and infusing it with ideas such as predestination, rejection of the value of the material world, antinomianism, the pre-existence of Christ etc. There is a line that one can trace all the way from the gnostics to movements such as Marxism. Hans Jonas wrote an interesting book on the subject.

William, I had to smile when you mentioned being polite because I just wrote an e mail to my oldest son who is currently living in France, teaching English in a high school. I told him that , in France, being kind and polite is very important. When i was growing up, I heard stories how foreign workers coming from North Africa were being despised by locals because they would address them by saying "tu" (instead of "vous") which is a no-no when you don't know the person, or you are younger than them. Little details are important. In America, people are not too worried about manners. Each country/culture has its flavor, that is just the way it is. Diversity. When we look around, we see diversity all around us: what would the world look if there were only one type of flower, only one type of tree, of berry, of fruit....of color, of weather..and the list goes on. Just as we are surrounded by many types of everything, we could never expect to put people in the same, uniform way of expressing faith, love, etc. Some feel God by sitting in meditation, some others by going to a place of worship, some other by going out in nature. There is no "right or wrong" way...and sometimes our own way changes. As I get older, I am more drawn to silence and nature. All this thoughts could fit in the paragraph on co-creation. We are all individual truth bodies, co-creating our own world. This is a very empowering concept. Many people are not aware that they are constantly creating, each moment with their own thoughts/ their words/ their deeds. Those who blame others for their circumstances are definitely living in non awareness. It took me decades just to start to understand that and I am still longing to figure it out more fully. Going back to what you wrote about going to heaven -referring to the parable of the Good Samaritan- I believe too that it is not a matter to what church or religion people belong to. Beliefs are of the mind, what matters is what is 'seen, felt, done with the heart'. It is not the same - A broad topic in itself. What do others think of this? I would like to know.

OK I will bite. You put: " I think the DP can be thought, amongst other things, as an insightful book review – picking out significant themes and patterns. But who wants to merely keep re-reading the book review?" If it were just a book review then it would be a good a good idea to get back to the book but DP is not just a good book review as you yourself say "amongst other things" -- those other things have value in themselves. Principles of Creation in particular. I do not know the content of the Original DP lectures going on in the US but I suspect they are focused on chapter one. Having said that I agree that there is enormous value to be gained from reading the Bible -- particularly, I find, testemony or the language of experience. Something the DP tends to lack being more analytical. The Bible, however, often lacks completed testament experience -- for example: experience of developing a God centred family. When you attend a FFWPU Sunday Service you will here Bible readings, quotations from Father's words, and sometimes Divine Principle: all quoted as authoritative. But it is true that DP is not quoted that much -- I think partly for the reason I put above -- too analytical, not a story or quality prose. Whenever I give a sermon I nearly always go back to the DP to check what I am saying. Just this evening I was going to comment on something Jeff said on another blog about God's Omnipresence and had to go and check what DP says (and UT and UTheology) about omnipresence. It is still very valuable to me.

Maybe to call the DP a book review was a bit lazy. It contains a powerful interpretation of the Bible but there again, one can only appreciate it if one knows the text being interpreted and that I think is where we fall far short. The same applies to the long sections of historical analysis too. I find myself reading the Bible over and over again with the Principle as a sort of interpretative lens and getting a lot out of it.

I agree with most if not all of the above. I would say the DP is more akin to the Catholic Catechism in that it lays out a view or interpretation. In terms of Scripture, Unificationists may be unique in the sense that we value all scripture. Having said that the Cheon Seong Gyeong is my main scripture as it gives me a collection of Fathers words directly. After that I think in the future it will be the many many speeches he has given throughout his life. But surely our goal is to be able to become people who eventually embody the truth and make our own stories which can inspire and inform others? Is this not what Jesus taught? "I am the Truth the way and the life" The Living Word?

Just wish more of us would make more time to read, especially scripture. I have recently been reading the Divine Principe. Intended to read it during the last 6 weeks. I am on page 112. Always was a lazy student. But, the point about reading and rereading is so very crucial to ever really getting anywhere with studying God's word. Firstly as we grow older our perspective changes based on having more life experience, and so our ability to gain new insights is potentially renewed. But also, there is actually something spiritual about scripture, (yes, obviously...) which means that my ability to be sensitive and aware of my soul as I read is key to catching God's message. And for most of us that awareness is always fluctuating. But going back to my first point. A lot of people are too busy being vain and playing with their fancy phones. I think the solutions is to read the Bible on my phone more, and see if I can upload the Principle too. Better go and read my next two pages from the book on the shelf. Oh and I would count the Divine Principle as scripture. I know some people do read it again and again, like our youth ministry director; don't think I will ever catch up with him. And although it is very analytical it can still count as scripture.

I remember Rev Kwak saying that when he first joined the church he tied the DP to his wrist and read it constantly. The cord was long enough to leave it outside of the shower. One of the most powerful and spiritually fullfilling experiences of my life was reading the DP over and over for 40 days at Chung Pyung -- it was only after a couple of weeks that I finally understood (after many years in the church) the section on original value but not while reading but after reading and walking up the hill and seeing the beauty of creation. DP provided the concept that put words to the experience. I think this is the crucial point of all sacred text -- you cannot just read (and re-read)the words.

perhaps George Chryssides didn't do his research very well?

In a sense i am a little surprised hearing that the Divine Principle is not read very much, and then again i am not. Although i don't consider myself a Unificationist, i have read the book over 50 times, many times aloud and usually in prayer before, during and after. I must say that having done this, i have gained from it very much, but also came across passages that are not illuminating to me anymore and of which i think they deserve clarification or rewriting. Is it not a normal thing that as time passes and God's Providence progresses, new truth is revealed? I stumbled upon your blog shortly after i have begun writing a series of blogs on the Divine Principle. If you're interested, here's the url of my latest article, written today: http://lightonsunmyungmoon.blogspot.com/2009/07/divine-principle-5-general-introduction.html

The old, red, "Miss Kim" book ("The Divine Principle and it's Application") we used in the early 70's is the one that comes close to possess what it takes to be of readable, inspirational value - as my memory goes. I have not seen it in years, but I know some parts of it by heart. What this book has and all other later, longer or shorter versions do not, is Poetry. Poetry, style, imagery, without those a religious text does not "stick".

Matthew, One swallow does not make a summer. (Aristotle)

I took a quick look at Lover fo Truth's website. Here is a quote: "Contact me if you need to know more about Sun Myung Moon. Contact me if you're a Unificationist and you have doubts. I spent over 20 years of researching Rev. Moon and his movement. I was and am persecuted daily by them, but i refuse to let hatred or resentment control my actions. I believe in doing God's will." I just do not believe that Unificationsists would persecute on a daily basis -- I would find it hard to believe any would persecute at all. Of course feel free to go and have a look. But before you go here is another quote from the website: "When you think that Moon has always been evil, you make the mistake that you don't realize that Moon was once chosen by God for a central mission. When you believe he is good, you don't understand how he has fallen and failed his original task. In either case, you won't really grasp the work God did with him and you won't catch how he came under evil influence. You're short in understanding of both God's work and of how people who were once chosen can fall under evil temptations."

@ Nigel I don't think you can understand my viewpoints by having 'a quick look' at my website and picking out some quotes. I have read several of your comments on this website and you appear to me as a person who can formulate his thoughts well and who attempts to gain a deeper view on things. It may be difficult to understand where i come from and what i am saying, but that is partly because i have studied Unificationism through and through. As for the 'persecution on a daily basis:' When you live in a situation that again and again you make yourself known to some Unificationist, your daily life becomes such an impossibility that you have to move to another address, i would say that this alone amounts to being persecuted daily. I don't believe that most Unificationists would persecute other people, but you may not have been in my situation and that of many others who came into disagreement with the movement.

I was reading your article again, William, and thought that you are raising some valid issues. Many deep truths are outlined in the first chapter alone but unfortunately it stops at the outline. I always thought that more "meat has to be put on the bones" in order to make it a fascinating book. Topics like the UPF, co-creation, mind and body unity, being a mediator between the two realms... are an endless personal discovery, an experience of life not just "facts". Books have been written about each of these topics. What would be needed to make the book more interesting are personal experiences, stories just as there are stories in the Bible of transformed lives when people "see" the light. As you know, we grow by stages or to put it differently the layers of our ignorance are removed one by one (just like the layers of an onion). The light, the truth have always been there, we have had too many curtains separating us from them. Each time a layer comes off, it is a great experience until the day we can come face to face with the Light and be one with it. It is not, as I believed when I first heard the DP, that one gets it once and then goes on auto pilot. It is a constant climb up the mountain of self discovery and as your quote says, the discovery of God which, at the end are one and the same. It is the journey that people love to read about because all of us have similar experiences. To go back to the skeleton similarity: all skeletons are pretty much the same , it is what is put on them that makes us different and brings out a wonderful and unique variety. We get never tired of meeting new people, as each person reveals a new aspect of life, a new facet of the Divine. The same goes for experiences, they are all slightly different to make us ask , yet another person, "What is your story?". If a "Book of the Apostles" can be put together, it will be such a treasure and, most of all, it will bring to life concepts that without examples, will just stay as paragraphs in a book barely anyone opens up anymore.

Lover of Truth - 14 July 2009 The old, red, "Miss Kim" book ("The Divine Principle and it's Application") we used in the early 70's is the one that comes close to possess what it takes to be of readable, inspirational value - as my memory goes. I have not seen it in years, ... Raphaela - 14 July 2009 -------------------------------------------------------- To Raphaela, here is Miss Kims red book online http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/DP69/0-Toc.htm /Bengt de Paulis Finland

“When in Rome do as the Romans do”. Why men from polygamic culture are not polygames in Europe?One can pretend religious raisons to do so but financially it cannot work. I think in France this law(if voted) can help people to save money...and not to cheat. I am joking!

William, I am sure you do not mean to take the phrase "when in Rome" too far. If I visit a country certainly I will respect their customs but I will not take them on if they conflict. Actually I live in England and certainly do not do what a lot of English people do. At work a large portion of people (mostly men)use the F word, quite loudly and sometime quite often. Most people now will live with their partner before getting married -- if they ever do that. In other words it is not a good argument to say do as the English or British do. I like your point about seeing someones face as being important. People that wear sunglassess indoors (apart from medical reasons) do so to hide behind (seems often to be music stars). But it is difficult to legislate for good manners. If we want others to become more integrated into British society I think we have to make our society more desirable -- or rather to make the desirable elements of our society more prevalent.

Hi Nigel, the phrase was coined by St Ambrose when Christians in different places fasted on different days. Visitors were sometimes put out by this and wanted to fast on the same day as they were accustomed to. Ambrose implied it didn't really make any difference and instead of making a big issue out of it one should just go along with the custom where one happened to be. In the modern world it might mean eating the local food instead of expecting to follow the diet one is accustomed to. E.g. visiting Koreans should be served bacon and eggs for breakfast, unless they are Jewish, instead of kimchi and rice. In other words one should fit in and not inconvenience one's hosts. And wearing a burka, or niqaab for that matter, is in the same category as walking down a high street in an Islamic country wearing a bikini. The phrase doesn't mean learning and using the local swear words. To pretend that it does and that therefore one can wear a burka is disingenuous. And by the way Mulotwa, for some incomprehensible reason foreigners with more than one wife can claim welfare benefits for all their wives.

I was not pretending that the phrase meant something other than I thought it meant. I genuinely thought it meant to do what the locals do in situations like drinking alcohol when you usually do not. I am probably not alone in thinking that. Your explanation of where the phrase comes from makes a lot of sense and limits the extent of the guidance. But I think my point still stands -- when religious people come to live here this country can sometimes appear to be a crude and offensive place -- I know that there are times that I do. I think that people would retreat into religious isolation less if we had a more moral, God centred society.

Well, England as a whole is less civilised than it was 50 or 100 years ago. Still, I am offended when foreigners characterise Britain by the loutish behaviour one might see on a Saturday night and imply that that is all there is to English culture and that there is nothing worth imitating and therefore they are going to walk around in burkas because they are much more moral than us. If immigrants find Britain such an offensive place to live in I would suggest they go and live somewhere they feel more comfortable. Even if this was a more moral or God-centred country these people would still be wearing burkas and niqaabs just as they do in their own very 'religious' and 'moral' societies. So this not the reason for retreating into religious isolation. P.S. I wasn't suggesting you were pretending, but one does hear people giving this as an excuse for not fitting in.