Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 60

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 07:38:06 -0400 To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: The tortured heart of a forgiving God, and abortion On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Paul Greene wrote: > >Amen! My gut feeling is that NOBODY has the right to take away a > >child's life, even one that it not yet born. Whether I can back that up > >with persuasive arguments or sophistry enough to please the pro-choice > >camp is irrelevant. > > > >Just as we have laws against murder, I think there should be strong > >restrictions against abortion, allowing it only in the case of > >preserving the mother's life. Once the human act of love has caused > >conception, I don't believe it is the right of human beings to > >terminate any human life. > > Damian; > > Do you admit to this being strictly your own *personal* opinion? > > And do you also admit to your opinion being in direct contradiction to the > Tradition book? Dear Paul, Yes, I admit both. Yet that changes nothing. I believe that there will be NO human-induced abortions in the Kingdom of God. Abortion is currently permitted because of the wicked way in which people live, just like the existence of the penal system, and even police forces, come to that. Father has spoken on several occasions that the position of God is that of a man who was to be married, and an enemy seduced his fiancée and had children by her. How can He curse the woman who did this to Him, or His enemy, or their children, since in some way He is responsible since He created them? Yet the degree of pain He experienced from this betrayal was most extreme. The standard of heart of God is to love even the child conceived by His enemy in the womb of His unfaithful beloved wife. How then can we not love our own flesh and blood! God cannot curse the offspring of his enemy as they are also His own creations. To curse His fallen children is to curse Himself, and His beloved. God's heart is such that he works to save the enemy who stole His beloved, and sacrifices His own family to achieve that end. When True Father was undergoing prosecution/persecution by Martin Flumenbaum, True Father said to True Mother who was pregnant at the time that she needed to love the prosecutor more than the baby in her womb. That is the nature of God's heart. God has mercy on those who deserve utter destruction and death, and loves them more than His own children. Jesus died on the cross with that heart. True Parents have sacrificed so very much for that same end. Though they deserve destruction, God loves them. Those who betray their spouse in the Blessing commit a sin worse than Satan, who fell from the growth stage. Those who are Blessed have entered into the perfection stage. How can God forgive such people? They have become human trash in His eyes, and worse than Adam and Eve. This is why Father has to make great conditions to allow for their forgiveness. How can a spouse forgive such a betrayal? It is an act of supreme selflessness to forgive such a wound. Let us not forget the magnitude of the sin God is forgiving. Just because God forgives does not mean that the sin He forgives is not grave.. I once had a conversation with one of the True Children in which he said that Father does not favor the death penalty, since to execute a criminal is an admission of the society's inability to love and forgive that criminal. True Love conquers all, even the heinous crimes of Hitler and Stalin, who have now received the Blessing of True Parents. And let us not forget that it was the sin of Eve that created Hitler and Stalin over a long series of generations. So, we see that the crime of the Fall was the cause of all the evil in all of hostory. Let's not take sexual sin as a triviality. It is not. If my daughter becomes pregnant at 15, or has boyfriends she is sleeping with at that age, I would be grievously humiliated and judged by my inability to love her and to impart the Heavenly tradition in her heart. The standard of heart that allows for casual abortion is extremely far from God's heart, in my view. In True Parents' Names, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:27:02 -0400 To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Crime and Punishment in the Kingdom of God On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Richard Lewko wrote: > The very suggestion from me that the ideal world will be a place of law > and order elicits images of a police state complete with death squads > from members of this list. I believe that this is a reference to and a misinterpretation of what I said, and it is in line with what Dan said. I am not in favor of an Iran-like police state, or any other kind of police state. What I was saying was that the act of unprincipled love is so serious that Father teaches that we cannot pay the price to redeem ourselves from that sin, even if we were to pay with our lives. That is why we absolutely need a Messiah. All other sin which we commit, short of those which the Bible says merit death, we can restore ourselves, through the principle of returning resurrection. Those sins would be things such as fornication, rape, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, murder, and so on. I have not heard Father ever say that, but it seems that through the principle of indemnity, we can restore our personal minor offences. Ancestral sins such as ancestors keeping slaves, genocide, abuse of women, indemnity appears to be visited on us in the form of disease and misfortunes, according to Daemo Nim. Some sin, such as the sin of killing Jesus, appeared to be only paid for only in blood. Through the process of returning resurrection, we are able to eliminate much of that sin, through enduring the oppression from spirits who oppress us. Mr. Sudo clearly teaches this point, that a sinner cannot resolve his own sin. I suppose he does not mean all kinds of sin, since the principle teaches how we can make indemnity conditions to resolve some of our sin. This would apply to sin which merits death. As a result, the sin of unprincipled love is more serious than the sin of murder. If you murder a person, that person leaves their body, and goes to their appropriate place in the spiritual world. If you seduce a person into sexual sin, then you send that person to Hell. So, Jesus said about a person who corrupts others: But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. (Matt 18:6) My understanding of Father's teaching is that in the world we are attempting to build, there will be no death penalty. In a speech I read recently, parents will be held responsible for the misdeeds of their children, though I don't know to what age. Most social deviance would be corrected by means of education, and a true reformatory. The correctional institutions of today do very little correction, and that is one thing that very much needs to change. Prisons tend to be places where young offenders become more effective criminals, rather than become reformed. I would opt for some creative means to imbue young people in the Principled way of thinking, and allow them to reform their actions. I would imagine that a true reformatory would be more in the line of a retreat or workshop center rather than a prison, although there would have to be some security constraints in the case of people who have a tendency to violence. The Chinese and Vietnamese use the word "re-education camp". While the name appears sound, the reality was that they were more like concentration camps. The father of one of my co-workers died in a Vietnamese re-education camp. > I wish someone would humor me with an answer to my "rhetorical" > questions: > > 1. Do you believe that in the totally restored world there would be > any limits imposed by society on individual behavior? Yes, absolutely. The model for that would be parental discipline. > 2. Do you believe that the same ideal society has any right to impose > punishment on an individual that commits unprincipled acts? > ("unprincipled acts" meaning anything contrary to the ideal) Yes, there must be consequences for unprincipled acts. However, in a more ideal society than we have, I believe moral suasion would carry much more weight than it does now. > For the record, my answer to both of these questions is a resounding > YES. Granted, I would anticipate that the incidence of punishable deeds > would be quite low, but I don't believe it will ever be zero as long as > there are people in the indirect dominion. Agreed. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:30:46 GMT From: "Damian J. Anderson" Subject: Re: Damian, why spam? Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification In article <>, (HRobin153) wrote: > Through his postings Damian is giving people a chance to be exposed to the DP > without getting entangled in a rapidly changing institution. This is part of > Damian's > contribution to God's Providence of Restoration, that he decided to pursue on > his > initative. I personally find his postings to be useful and a brilliant use of > his time. > > You appear to think Damian is wasting his time. Why? Thanks Hammond, It's funny how Bill Taylor is so fixated on the Unification Church and Rev. Moon and yet at the same time so scathingly negative about it. I am doing my best to get people to pay attention to Rev. Moon's teachings, but who knows what Bill Taylor's intentions are? Dennis Smith and Tilmann Hausherr have just run out of steam, as I knew they would. Craig Maxim is just such an endless whine of negativity that I tune him out. There is nothing original there. His cynicism is a very unoriginal sin. It is not as if he even has anything important to say, except "beware, beware, of the big bad bogey man!" :-) That gets old very fast. Since this is a medium permitting free speech, Craig is free to drone on and on about how bad the Unification Church is. For me, it does not matter if individual Unificationists have fallen short of the mark. What I find remarkable is the degree to which one can find dedicated loving and sincere people within the ranks of UC members. The ideal is in no way besmirched by the failure of its adherents to live up to the ideal, it just means that the ideal is difficult to attain. We have been commanded by God to give His blessing to the world, even though we may be unworthy. Those who accuse are taking the position of Satan, the accuser. That just goes with the territory, and after a while, becomes part of the landscape. It is ugly, but we can live with it. Since my time is at a premium, I find very little value in debating with naysayers such as Craig, and my initial interest in responding to Bill has waned. I do not post to debate with such as him. If people have intelligent questions, I may answer them if I feel inclined, but I see no obligation to do so, especially in his case when he is so rude about it. Just because he makes accusations and demands answers in no way entitles him to any response. --- Damian Anderson
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 17:57:14 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: The conundrum of absolute faith On Sat, 1 Aug 1998, Dan Fefferman wrote: > Here are Father's own words in a similar vein: > > "The day and the moment will come when even God seems to be saying 'I don't > know you.' At that time you will feel that you are utterly alone in all the > universe. If under those conditions you still do not give up, but insist, 'No > matter what God thinks or what True Parents say to me, no matter how > unsympathetic the church members are, this is the right way and I will go on > anyway.' Then at that moment you are elevating yourself to the highest level > of faith. Once you reach that level you can be trusted unconditionally by God > and by me, and eventually the whole world." > > (Way of Tradition Vol III, page 267) > > As I pointed out in a previous post, Father speaks of three levels of > obedience: 1) obeying without knowing why 2) obeying while trying to seek > God's truth and 3) obeying after knowing God's heart. The above passage may > give us a clue as to what number 3) means. Being alone in the universe and > persevering against all opposition is precisely God's situation. Could this be > the true meaning of "absolute faith?" The irony is that this type of faith is > practiced by doing what you know to be right "no matter what God thinks or > what True Parents say to me." This is how Father became the absolute messiah, > by persevering even when God, Jesus and the entire spirit world denied his > opinion. Perhaps each of us is destined to go this course in order to win > God's ultimate trust. > > Dan Fefferman Very good point Dan. Even Abraham who was asked to sacrifice his son took three days agonizing in the mountains before he obeyed. And even though Jonah refused to do God's will in the short term, God was still able to work through him successfully. The heart makes all the difference. As Jesus said, the one who says he will not obey but later obeys, is to be preferred over the son who says he will obey and does not. This is definitely not elementary or blind faith. This is a true son's faith, where he does what his conscience tells him even if the direction from God apparently contradicts his conscience. I know for a fact that Father has tested many leaders in this way, giving them a direction to test them, or giving them an impossibly difficult mission just to see what they are made of and what they make of it. Those who pass this course successfully go to deepers levels of trust with Father where God can use them in new ways. Others became apostates when tested and left the way of God's will. I had professors at Cambridge who, I was told, would put mathematical problems on the entrance examination that had never been solved by anyone, that had been stumping the best minds for years. Occasionally, a genius would come along who would not know that it was supposed to be hard and solve the problem. God is looking for heroes, people who transcend the mundane to achieve greatness. Even if the overwhelming majority fail, someone will rise to the occasion and accomplish the will, making it possible for everyone else to follow. I see Sun Myung Moon as that kind of man, and I aspire to emulate him. There have been several situations in the last few years where I felt all alone, and even God was not giving me any hints. Then my deepest gut feeling and conscientious sense was what I had to follow. This is the place where we truly meet God anyway, is it not? God is the subject of our conscience. I find these days that I read Father's words for guidance and for helping me to find the right way to go in a difficult situation. They also give me incredible strength and insight. Leaders' opinions are just that, opinions. Having seen enough infighting between even high level leaders, I find that I must not rely on what other people say without listening to the voice of my conscience. I listen to what others have to say, digesting and processing each person's viewpoint. But ultimately, I have my responsibility before God and take orders from no man.. Father's direction is given to us out of love, because Father sees clearly the path we must go in order to attain our goal of building the Kingdom of God and becoming true people and true families. But I do not view them as orders, but as strong recommendations, which I value highly, and which I will follow in the best way I know how. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 14:26:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: Absolute obedience On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Dan Fefferman wrote: > And here I thought I was a knee jerk liberal! No worry. Both liberals > and conservatives trace their origins back to Jefferson, and it's > Jeffersonian principles I'm trying to uphold. But I have to admit I am > a little sensitive about "obedience" right now. In church the other day > we had some guy from UTS tell us that absolute obedience means that "if > Father holds up a white card and says it's a red card, we should > believe it is a red card." Two thirds of the audience agreed with him. > I found this utterly shocking and called out: "No! ... Conscience > before parents, conscience before parents, conscience before God!!!" > Which opinion do you think is correct? Dan Fefferman, You misunderstood what Rev. Oh said, and then began your heckling which ended up disrupting and prematurely ending the meeting with General Kim. She had a lot more to share, but felt that we were not ready for it. Rev. Oh was asked to define absolute sex, and in the process of that, he defined absolute faith, love and obedience. As you said, he said that if Father holds up a white card and says that it is a red card, then to agree with him would be absolute obedience. He did not say what we should or should not do. People were merely agreeing with his definition, not with the premise that we should obey what we do not understand. He was explaining that in Korean, there are words for two kinds of obedience, hard obedience, and soft obedience, for which there are no terms in English The hard kind is the one which will believe white is red, or vice versa. The soft kind is the kind where you obey because you understand. I told him that we do have a word for this kind of absolute obedience in English. It is called "blind obedience." He did not like this term. Since you were in the back, and interested in being right, you failed to hear this interchange, or even the whole spirit of what he was saying. In a military operation, sometimes you are asked to do what you do not understand. That is when the virtue of the chain of command and the requirement to follow orders comes into play. Absolute obedience refers to obedience even in the case where we do not understand why. This was the case of Abraham's obedience in sacrificing Isaac, or Noah's obedience in building the ark for year after year. Sometimes this kind of obedience is called for in God's providence. In this case, I choose to obey NOT because I understand what is being asked, but because I TRUST the person doing the asking. That is the distinction in my mind. You can use the "conscience before teacher" argument only so long as you realize that you cannot claim to be fully in touch with your conscience until you have overcome your physical body with your original mind. I can assure you that the conscience is a MUCH more brutal taskmaster than even Father himself. Your true conscience will demand of you what God and True Parents will not. Why else would Father say that he never prayed for God to lessen his suffering? Rather, he wanted to take all the pain and suffering that was due to all of humanity so that those who would come after him would have an easier path to walk. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 21:48:52 -0400 (EDT) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: Re: Absolute obedience On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Dan Fefferman wrote: > I think part of the problem here is that we probably think of different > examples when we consider the question of "absolute obedience." While one > person thinks of God asking Isaac to sacrifice his son, another thinks of a > misguided church leader demanding absolute obedience in Father's name. Father has explicitly said in his speeches that the Cain-Abel principle where "Abel" demands obedience from "Cain" is NOT the principle that Father has taught: This year I bought clothes and gifts for Mother and the children. Even though I bought them, it does not violate the Principle. Japanese leaders aren't you teaching a principle that I do not teach, when you say, "I am Abel because I am a church leader. You are Cain. Cain obeys Abel. This is the Principle. So obey." There is no such principle. The person who does not fulfill his mission and become the embodiment of love is not Abel. A Day When We Welcome the Blessing September 22, 1978 The principle of absolute obedience applies to our absolute obedience to God's will, not to some human's will. Even God himself applies the principle of absolute obedience with respect to His eternal principles. And certainly Father more than any of us lives by that standard of absolute obedience. God's will looks like folly to the Satanic world. > I suppose that even those who argue against my take on the relation between > conscience and absolute obedience would agree that a person should not obey a > church leader who commands us to do something against God's will? Absolute obedience does not even apply here, and is not even an issue. No church leader can COMMAND any form of obedience. Obedience is something you give, not something you demand. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 15:34:25 EDT From: Dan Fefferman <FefferDan@AOL.COM> Reply-To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: absolute obedience Getting back to Damian, who asked for a reference to Father's concept of three levels of obedience. Here it is: <> What I think Father has in mind here is: children's obedience -- no questions. Just do what your parents say. When mommy says "stop!" you stop. You don't need to know why, because if you take time to figue out the why's that car coming across the street will kill you. Formation stage. adolescent obedience -- asks questions but obeys. "Will I ever get to eat the fruit, why shouldn't I eat the fruit?"Still follows the commandment, but needs to understand the why's and wherefore's. Growth stage. parental obedience -- beyond the need for questions. Knows God's heart and even anticipates God's needs, sacrifices all for the beloved. This is "absolute obedience." Completion stage. Dan F
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:59:47 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Subject: Re: Damian's Secrets Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification (Posted and mailed) Craig Maxim <> wrote: > A member (Ed Poor) recently posted a comment made by Sun Myung Moon in which > Moon said that there were NO SECRETS in the UC, and yet when I go to Damian > Anderson's webpage for some speeches, I get this message : > > AUTHENTIFICATION CODE REQUIRED What was the URL? I have only one protected directory that I know of and that is material that is not ready to go online yet. > Apparently there "are" secrets. You are so funny, Craig! Of course there are some things I will not tell you, like the code for my ATM account at the bank, the passwords to my web and e-mail accounts, and the combination of the safe where I keep all that gold stached away! :-) > If not ...... when do I get my CODE ? Maybe someone else can give me > one, Damian surely won't, he wouldn't even let me join his mailing list > knowing he could never answer the questions I pose or the critiques I > have developed. That particular mailing list is not appropriate for you. It is for Unificationists who want to collaborate for the purpose of evangelism. You do not fall into that category. I created alt.religion.unification as a forum for people to discuss Unificationism openly, and you use it extensively, so be grateful. Just don't expect that you deserve an answer to every taunt and accusation. > There appears to be a speech where someone is commending Damian > for his web-work , and I wonder if it is Moon. That would certainly explain > his willingness to remain blind. True Parents did commend me for my Internet minstry when I had the opportunity to report to them on an hour long flight from Kodiak Island to Anchorage, Alaska back in September 1996, after spending ten days together in a workshop and then river fishing for salmon and ocean fishing for halibut. It was a very enjoyable experience But there was no public speech to that effect. ITPN, --- Damian J. Anderson
From Wed Aug 12 14:06:55 1998 Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:02:21 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Subject: Re: Damian's Secrets Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification (Posted and Mailed) wrote: > In article <6qptnv$l82$>, > wrote: > > > I'm surprised to hear that Damian wouldn't let you join his > > mailing list. Did he give you a reason why not? > > Yes. Privately his first response was "You've got to be kidding !" > But more recently it is that this newsletter is only for Evangelism. > And so I assume that there are no non-unificationists allowed > on it. If there are, then shame on Damian. Believe it or not, there is a guarantee of freedom of association in our country, the USA. So, while I may be willing to discuss aspects of our church in a public forum, I am not necessarily obliged to allow these same people into my living room where they would be around my family and my intimate friends. In the same way, I do not choose to permit Craig Maxim or his cronies in that particular discussion group, and that it my right. On the other hand, I have no problem with him being on the mailing lists where I send out Rev. Moon's speeches, or other church related material. > It is my understanding that you have to be "recommended" to be > involved in it. If true, then that's very suspicious. I know that people > feel that it has done good, but my overwhelming impulse is that > I don't care much for things done in secret. People should be willing > to stand for what they believe. No closet Moonies. No closet ex's. > Aren't we all looking for the truth ? Then we shouldn't be ashamed > of what we find that to be, or our mistakes along the path. If there is > no such thing as "absolute" truth, then why bother ? I do stand for what I believe and I am very public about it. That makes me a target for people like you. > > If there's a speech you want, let me know. I'll post it right > > here on good old a.r.u. > > > > Ed Poor <--- "very good, always helps" > > Just give me the code. : ) All the speeches I have available are already on the web at the address listed below. ITPN, --- Damian J. Anderson
On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Paul Greene wrote: > The "church" does *not* take care of the personal needs of it's members. > Way back in the old days, I used to believe the adage "If you dedicate > yourself for the sake of the greater purpose, your individual purpose will > be taken care of". But it's not true; the UC as an organization will not > take care of your individual or your family needs; the exception might be > for a small number of high level leaders that are considered indispensable. I think this is a misunderstanding of what Father taught. I believe that if you seek to serve the whole purpose, God will bless your life. I do not expect any organization to take care of me in my old age. I expect to live off investments, or off the capital I have with those whom I have loved. And, I can't really see myself stopping working anyway. Though I would much rather teach workshops than work on a computer. > I never reached the point where I resented this fact; but I did come to the > conclusion that no one was going to ever take care of me or my family; I > had to do it myself, even if it meant that a local church leader might have > some critical feeling towards me because I wasn't "dedicating myself enough > for the higher purpose". This also includes the mobilizations that Father > periodically calls; if I or my wife runs off for several months or a year > to satisfy the demands of the "mobilization" it's going to damage our > family and no one else is going to pick up the pieces when it's all over > but us. You have to decide between you and your wife how much you are prepared to offer, and then do that with all of your heart. But to make a big offering for the sake of God's providence and then to blame the "church" for not taking care of you is absurd. The "church" is simply the group of people who are working together to support God's providence. Such complaints would be against God, and Satan would then invade your offering. > >And contrary to what you may believe, not everyone in the Unification > >Church is poor. I am not. > > Yes, but your situation is not at all typical of the average UC member. > Please correct me if I get my facts wrong, but I believe you graduated from > UTS in the early eighties and then went directly to graduate school, got a > degree in some technical field, then got a high paying job with an outside > company right after graduating. I went to graduate school to study in a technical field at the direct instruction of True Father. Moreover, I never took a dime from public money to do so. I chose to borrow money, and then work hard to pay it back. In fact, I have never taken a salary from the church, or a church business. Anyone else could do the same if they chose to do so. But there is a lot of work involved. Sorry, but I am not going to apologize for being successful in what I attempted. > You didn't spend 10 or 15 years of your > adult church life in front line missions like most of us did; which leaves > someone in their late 30's or 40's with a growing family and entering the > real world job market with nothing on their resume that's worth anything to > an outside employer. You do not understand at all the struggles of many > members that hit the job market at the age of forty and end up stocking > shelves at a grocery store or delivering pizzas for Dominos. I think that every adult member of the church has to be willing to take responsibility for all their decisions, and not to feel browbeaten by zealous leaders who are asking for help to achieve the latest providential goal. If Father asks, then it is between you and God what you do. Father does not force any of us to do anything. While I spent only 15 months on MFT, I donate more money now to True Parents than I ever did on MFT. So we need to choose wisely how we want to make our offering. Not everyone is required to do it in the same way. Also, I have had more success witnessing on the Internet than I ever had going about the streets attempting to get people interested in hearing the Principle, which I did my fair share of. When I was on MFT, I guess I intimidated people, because I got arrested and put in jail seven times. So, door to door sales or street witnessing were just not my thing. > You also keep referring to what the church is like in your area, but > Washington DC is not typical of the rest of the country. I think the church > itself there is in a more mature state than the rest of the country > (compared to Panama, the church in DC is light years ahead); and I also > think many of the members that ended up in that area were brought there in > the first place because they had some professional skill that enabled them > to work for one of the high level projects that Father started in the DC > area. But what's happening in Washington is not necessarily typical of the > rest of the country; the rest of the country doesn't have nearly as many > "professional" members with decent paying careers and the local church > organization is often badly organized and/or badly disunited. I think that Washington DC is a very successful church community and can be a model for the church elsewhere. You are an American, and have spent a lot of time around Father I imagine, so you can advance the level of the church where you are. For various reasons, it would be difficult for me to go overseas as a foreign missionary right now. But I may be able to go for a few weeks at a time, and I may yet do that. When I was in Brazil in 1991, the members were going out witnessing and rarely bringing home even one guest for a lecture. I tried that for one day and decided to forget that approach. I put an ad in the local newspaper advertising free English lessons. I soon had guests coming all day long, from eight in the morning until closing prayer at night, and I was teaching them English by our reading the Bible and Divine Principle in the two languages. In that way, the people learned English and DP, and I learned Portuguese. You need to be creative and not insist on doing things the way they have always been done. You may like to look up my report on my experiences in Brazil in the September 1991 Today's World. I taught the DP to 27 people in 40 days. Even before Father started talking about it, I had suggested buying farm land and developing agricultural projects and providing work for people there, and educating them. The article mentions this, if I remember correctly. If I were a foreign missionary today, I would be teaching people computer skills too, probably. Father wants us to transfer technology, and know-how. I would be starting businesses and employing local people and church members. I would become rich, and also provide wealth to the employees. I would encourage the development of companies in which the employees had stock ownership, and share in the growth, and have incentive to work. Then I would educate them in Father's vision, and raise up excellent members and employees. And, I would pay them better than the competitors, not worse. With Hyun Jin Nim the new VP of FFWPUI, with a Harvard MBA, I expect that our church businesses will be a lot better run in the future. > >Hard work and thrift can bring great > >results. I went to graduate school since I came to Washington and have > >established myself firmly in a lucrative profession, and paid off all > >the graduate school bills, as have many other church members. I can > >think of several doctors, lawyers, accountants and computer > >professionals in our community. > > Yes, and I would bet that a great many of these member "professionals" were > those that left working in a front line mission, much to the chagrin of > their local church leader, and pursued a career *in spite* of the criticism > they faced from the church leader. Why not do both? We have professional members who are also witnessing, and doing pre-Blessings. In Washington, we have about 80 families out of 300 which have already done 10,000 blessings. If the leaders object to your following a career, it is because of their small-mindedness, so you have to educate your leaders. We have reached 2.5 million pre-Blessings here in Washington and plan to go on until we have reached 3 million. Then we will start on lots of witnessing to young people to find matching candidates. > So yes, they have their career and the > good income, but who is better off; the professional that pursued the > career, or the "faithful" person that stayed working in front line missions > until they were in their 30's or 40's, became nearly bankrupt because of > the expense of raising a family in the real world, and enters the job > market without any marketable job skills? The way of thinking in the church > 10-15 years ago was that definitely the "faithful" person was doing the > right thing; but the career oriented person is actually the person most > useful to the church today, while the "faithful" person is choking on debts > and struggling just for basic economic survival. This is a false choice. There is no reason why one cannot do both, follow a career, and follow True Parents. > >Enough already. Stop the bitching and let's take responsibility ourselves! > > Damian, to be honest I was quite irritated by your post. You have not had a > typical course in your church life yet you are comparing your own personal > situation to others that have gone a very different course than yours. Kate > and Cheryl voiced some very real and valid concerns that a very large > number of members have; to survive in the "real world" many members have > had to "unlearn" some of the church "true-isms" that we were taught in the > early days. What was taught by the "church" is not necessarily what was taught by True Father. People need to learn to find a way to do both, to support the spiritual mission, AND to raise their families. We MUST do both, or we cannot survive as a movement. I have had my fair share of difficulties in my life of faith, and have made the best choices I could make at the time. When all is said and done, I will go before God when my day of reckoning comes, and have to account for my actions, as we all will. What I object to is these knee-jerks complaints against "leaders" when it is Father who gave the direction for IOWC. And hey, sometimes irritation is an incentive for growth! :-) Necessity is the mother of invention, and creativity. > This "dissatisfaction", "resentment", "grudge", or whatever you want to call > it isn't going to go away just by stomping your foot down and demanding > "stop your bitching". I don't think that complaints against Father's direction in a public forum serve any good purpose. If members have a problem with IOWC, then they have a problem with True Parents and they have a problem with God. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:27:11 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Reflections on witnessing 1970s to 1990s On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, CC wrote: > This *is* a good discussion topic and one that perplexes me very much. > > Two years ago, my husband and I decided to take some initiative and > organize some DP lectures in our home. Sort of like a home-church > approach. I got a group of good friends to commit to listening to the > whole series. We had Mike Smith come over each time and he gave > excellent presentations....... Nobody *got* it! I just didn't know what > to think. It was like...... response. No questions. No > comments. No discussion after the lectures. > > The only comment I got was one of my friends said, "I don't believe you > guys really think Adam and Eve were actual people!" > > I just don't know what to think about this. Maybe people just aren't > searching the way we were then? It was discouraging to say the least. > > CC Hi CC, I was in workshops in England in 1978 with John Haydon, Mark Palmer and John Ralph I believe, and I remember thinking at the time that such a small percentage of the people accepted the principle as a proportion of all those who heard it. We had a small number of those at 2 day go to 7 day, and of those even fewer went to 21 day workshop. It seems that the way we brought result at the time was just to have lots and lots of people come to 2 day workshop. If you were to teach to just one couple, you might be disappointed, but if you were to have a hundred per month or something of that order, you may have a better result. Also, the interaction of the people at the workshop is also helpful. Perhaps your recollection of the past is rosier than it really was, or maybe it was rosier for you than it was for me or others. For me, witnessing was always a struggle. In fact, I have had much more response in a positive way from witnessing on the Internet than I ever had from street witnessing. And fundraising was even worse. In my short time on MFT, I landed in jail no less than 7 times. Perhaps witnessing has a lot to do with numbers. To get one successful contact who is eager and ready to hear the Principle, you have to talk to a lot of people. On the Internet, lots more people can read what is written, than if you were to speak on the street. Still, prayer and spiritual preparation have a big effect. When we are really on the ball spiritually, God speaks through us. When we are not, it falls flat. I know that I go through phases of being off center and on center. Many people who were associated with the church in the past have come to receive Father's words from the Internet or found members talking about the Principle and have reconnected as a result. I am optimistic about the future. It is just that the church will never be as it once was, with the majority of members in their twenties and single, bright eyed and bushy tailed, excited about the providence. We have become a family movement, and in our maturity, we are now more ready to take on the really tough problems. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:38:45 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: A guest believes in DP and TP, now what? On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, CC wrote: > I guess even before we began there was an inherant gap in the whole > process anyway. In the "old" days the idea was, once you *understood* or > had a conversion experience or whatever then you joined. Simple at that. > Of course, that process couldn't go on forever, but it hasn't been > replaced or updated with anything else. Sunday service? Sorry, that's > the *last* place I would bring anyone. I believe that if people accept the principle, then we have to introduce them to heavenly tradition. You can have your own family services and not rely on Sunday service if it is not something that your guests could relate to. You can teach people our traditions of prayer, pledge, Hoon Dok Hae, service, home church, or whatever things which you really value. Ultimately, they need to learn the tradition of tithing for the higher purpose, and so on. There will come a day pretty soon when there will be no church, and you and I will be the keepers of the tradition since we were the disciples of the Lord during his lifetime. Father has said that the reason why the church had to be replaced by the family federation is that the era of religion is over, and the time for God to dwell in the family has come. That happens when we practice absolute faith, absolute love and absolute obedience, and I would add absolute sex. The legacy of True Parents is in the body of his teachings and the traditions that he has left behind. If you think that you can do a better job in raising the members than the local church leader who gives Sunday service, then I suggest that you do just that, and become an innovator who can give the other church leaders an example. Nothing wins people over more than success. Good luck, ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:08:19 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: Establishing the heavenly tradition in our homes On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, TN wrote: > I think your earlier description of a narrow gate is accurate. If the > blessing is open to all people, what about those that can't/won't follow > this fund-raising course? What is the goal? How is their spiritual > growth/progress to be measured? I for one would never attempt center life > or fund-raising again, but I still need a relationship with God and True > Parents. What course do I follow? The logical replacement for fundraising is tithing. Father strongly emphasizes the practice of tithing, and I truly believe that all your financial dealings are blessed by God when you offer Him the first and the best. You can find references to tithing in chapter 13 of the Tradition book at: Tithing > I think the change I'm referring to is that people like me can be included > in the Providence now. My impression of the past was that the movement was > in a pioneering mode and that there wasn't much time for those who weren't > the pioneers. Now that we're reaching the promised land, those that are the > stragglers (like me) are being included. Again, this is just my impression. > > ITPN > TN In the past, we were wandering in the wilderness. Now we are settling Canaan and attempting to establish the Godly tradition in the land. So, different times call for different measures. This is the time for the whole world to be included in the True Family of humanity, God's family. This is the significance of granting the Blessing to the whole world, even to Hitler and Stalin. The motto for this year is: To love and to be proud of True God absolutely is the completion of the 360 million couple blessing and the elimination of the blood lineage of the satanic world. God wants to eliminate the Satanic lineage and establish the heavenly sovereignty, tradition and culture on the Earth. For that reason, Satan is fighting most strongly to stop the emergence of that ideal, so he is attacking the standard bearers of that culture, the True Parents, the True Family and the Blessed couples. We are the standard bearers of the tradition, and need to do all in our power to establish it. Father gave a speech by that title God's Will and the World Rev. Sun Myung Moon The Standard-Bearer of Tradition May 10,1974 Tokyo, Japan There are a few traditions which are most important to establish, I believe: (1) Daily prayer as a family (2) Daily reading of the Word (Hoon Dok Hae) as a family (3) Tithing (4) Attendance at church service, or give your own. (5) Public service - living for the sake of others. (6) Pledge as a family on Sundays and holy days. (7) Worship your spouse and meet God through absolute sex. If you establish these traditions in your home, then that will be the best witness to your wife and relatives. This was something you asked about in another post. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:12:29 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: What is BIF? On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, CC wrote: > MVH wrote: > <While translating BIF I keep feeling: "This is so clear. Many should be > able > to understand this. The language is 'simple', it covers many subjects of > <todays reality (misuse of love)." > > What is BIF? I probably should know. > > CC CC, BIF is the book "Blessing and Ideal Family", which is a collection of excerpts of Father's speeches much like the Home Church book or others were. You can find the entire book online on my web site at: It is by far the best book to describe the meaning and significance of the Blessing and the providential meaning of the change of blood lineage and so on. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 09:16:30 -0400 (EDT) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Cc: Unification Faithful <HOME_HARBOR_INN@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM> Subject: Receiving holy wine without knowledge There has been a lot of talk recently on this list and elsewhere about giving the holy wine to people without their knowledge. Father said at a recent speech, though to be sure when I would have to go through my notes, and I have heard that he has said it on several occasions, that we could give the holy wine to anyone, absolutely ANYONE whether they understood anything or not about its significance. He explicitly mentioned that it could be given to murderers, prostitutes, homosexuals, children, and single people as well as married faithful couples. Everyone without exception needs to be brought into the Kingdom of Heaven. The motto Father announced for 1998 was: To love and to be proud of True God absolutely is the completion of the 360 million couple blessing and the elimination of the blood lineage of the satanic world. The meaning of the mass distribution of the holy wine is to cut off Satan's blood lineage from the world. It was Father's direct instructions on this matter that began people giving the holy wine to people on the street without telling them anything. He said you could give it to anyone along the highway, you could even force it down their throats and they would be grateful in the eternal world and would bow down to you. He was not really suggesting that we should use force, but he was making his point in his usual graphic and humorous way. He said the main point was that people ingest the holy wine in any way you could get it into their system. That was the reason for the holy water, holy candy, and all the other delivery vehicles for the salvific holy wine. Whatever Rev. Kwak now says after the fact appears to contradict what Father himself has said. Since this appears to be an important point for many people, I will make an effort to find the particular occasions on which I heard Father say this, since whenever Father has recently spoken in Belvedere, I have been there. All of humanity inherited the Satanic blood lineage as a result of the Fall without their knowledge or consent, and now in the last Days as a result of the conditions made by True Parents, people can receive the holy wine and the change of blood lineage without any knowledge or condition at all. However, this does not constitute the Blessing, until they make the pledge of the vows, but it does nontheless cut them off from Satan's lineage. I hopes this helps as a clarification. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson