Talk:Divine Principle

Wolli Kangron vs. Divine Principle

I expected to see a discussion here of whether the title of this article should be Wolli Kangron or Divine Principle. All of the articles in English that I have seen that mention the book call it Divine Principle, which is certainly as it should be. The name in English is Divine Principle (even readers of the 1996 translation Exposition of the Divine Principle usually refer to the book as Divine Principle). This could be confusing given the existence of more than one translation referred to as Divine Principle (a confusion that already existed before the 1996 translation), but this is a confusion that exists in the real world and so is more worthy of comment in the article than pretending the confusion doesn't exist. This article is in English; it seems more logical to me that the title be Divine Principle and the redirect be Wolli Kangron. I am rather new to Wikipaedia, however. Would someone like to explain the contrary view? -Exucmember 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been almost two months and no one has commented on what seems to me to be an obvious mis-naming of this article. I will move the article to Divine Principle and make Wolli Kangron the redirect if no one responds. -Exucmember 07:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no objection here, I moved the page for you. Jonathunder 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to neglect this point so long. I've been away. ;-)

Please see my post at the bottom of the page, where I recommence addressing this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Article needs work

This article needs a lot more work. I think it should explain the basic tenents set forth in the book. I'll come back to it and add to it as I can. Next time I visit this article, I will place a list of hoped for changes here. Everyguy 07:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

The quotations added to the article do not appear intended to convey the gist of the text, but rather to highlight certain views in order to reach a particular conclusion. As such, they do not conform to NPOV and so I suggest that we remove them. -Will Beback 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Will, I respectfully disagree with your judgement in this case. If you read the DP as a whole, the gist of it is to declare the coming of a new political age under a literal religious "King." It is common knowledge that Unificationists believe, and advocate for, Rev Moon as that King (see "True Love King"). Are not the political statements in the DP very relevant to any student trying to understand the gist? If you read The German Ideology would not the political vision for the future expressed there-in be the gist of it and everything else the rationalization for it? With regards and thanks Marknw 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Will, I added the rest of what I put on the Unification Church page also. I would appreciate your opinion on it. Regards Marknw 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotations, especially long excerpts, do not belong in Wikipedia. Wikiquotes is our sister project created specifically for the purpose. Our job here is to summarize, not quote. As for the theocracy stuff, I agree that it is important but we also need to retain balance. For example, if there are five important points then we shouldn't devote 75% of the article to just one of them. Since it is a major topic, it should probably get an article of its own. Looking over Category:Unification Church, is see that Godism might be a repository, or even Theology of the Unification Church. Otherwise, suitable titles might be "Unification Church views of government" or "Politicial views of the Unification Church".

Thank you Will, I'm a little confused. Every time I tried to summurize the points in the past, a Unificationist would come along and delete my edits saying it was just my POV. I had to resort to the quotes just to make the point without it seeming to be my POV. Any suggestions? Also, my main point is that the political ideology is written into the Divine Principle itself. How can the reader know that if they can't read it for themselves? It is not just the UC "point of view" on politics. The political ideology itself written in the DP is what drives the UC view. Similar to the way the political ideology of Karl Marx or Chairman Mao inform and motivate a communist activist, the political ideology in the DP motivates Unificationists. The point I'm trying to communicate is that the Divine Principle is not just theology, it also contains a theocratic political ideology that Unificationist consider as canon. I may be mistaken, but it is my impression that the UC related organizations spend the vast majority of their resources (Washington Times) and efforts on political activism in the US and all over the world. The reason for it is written into their "holy scripture" the "Divine Principle." Regards and thank you for your help. Marknw 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, I rearranged things a bit. Let me know what you think? Regards Marknw 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a specific book. So comments from Moon given in a different forum that don't addess the book are misplaced. The book is avaiable online, so extended quotes are also unneeded. Links to the quotations in context would be much better. -Will Beback 01:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Will for your suggestions. Could you please address my concern about summurized edits being deleted for being my POV? I can try your suggestion, but I have a feeling it will be deleted shortly as that was my experience before. Rev Moon is the Author of the Divine Principle. Again, my point is that there is a poitical ideology expressed in the Divine Principle. It would very difficult to make my point without talking about Rev. Moon, the Author, or quoting him and the DP. Can you see my point? I am open to suggestions however. I do feel strongly the religious theology POV needs to be balanced with an understanding of the political ideology. Will, could you please elaborate a little more about how we can come up with a working solution? Thank you again, regards Marknw 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, Just as an expample this segment is entirely from certain religious POV that has the affect being a believer's direct evangelizing witness for Rev Moon.

"presentations of his teachings with biblical, historical and scientific illustrations. Moon gave Eu special instruction regarding the content of these texts and then checked them over meticulously. These efforts resulted in Wolli Hesol (Explanation of the Divine Principle), published in 1957, and Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle), published in 1966. Since then, Wolli Kangron has been the basic text of Moon's teachings. According to its preface, Wolli Kangron expresses universal truth; it inherits and builds upon the core truths which God revealed through the Jewish and Christian scriptures and encompasses the wisdom from the Orient."

To say that the DP is "historical", "scientific", "universal truth", and "revealed by God", is that not pretty heavy duty quoting and POV also?

This other segment is very misleading about the content and sounds like a endorsement:

"The first part deals primarily with theological concepts, such as the nature of God and His creation, the human fall, and others. The second part deals with the process through history by which God continues to work to eliminate the ill effects of the human fall, and restore humankind to the relationship with God that would have existed if the fall had not occurred."

My question is, what is the purpose of this article anyway? Isn't to try to give the reader a quick synopsis of the content of the book? Not just from a believers viewpoint, but also from an attempted neutral point of view?

Regards Marknw 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose is to summarize the book and give its context. Short quotations are suitable, but not long ones. Just try to keep the article properly balanced. If anyone removes proper material alert me, another eidtor, or admin. Thanks for your cntributions to Wikipedia. -Will Beback 03:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Exucmember Edits

Hello Excumember, I am happy to colaborate with you on this article also. With Regards Marknw 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-interpretation of history and the Bible based on numbers?

I thought that the Divine principle re-interpreted the history and the Bible based on numbers. If this is true (I may have misunderstood or misremembered) then please state this in the article. Andries 18:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are somewhat correct in your understanding. Numbers are very important in the Divine Principle, as they are in the Bible - which is why you see a bunch of 3s, 7s, 12s, 21s, and 40s when you read it. However I don't think you could say that the numbers are the main thing. Maybe the best thing to do is check it out yourself. Steve Dufour 08:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Parallels of History

Is it not appropriate for you to consider putting in the parallels of history, which I believe is one of the very astounding revelations of the Principle? --F345 09:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you add a chart? I'd suggest making it vertical (left collumn OTA, right collumn NTA) rather than the tradtional horizontal chart used on the blackboard. You can see excatly how to do tables at Help:Table. -Exucmember 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Meat in due season

Included in the balanced view of the Divine Principle should be at least the contention of what it really is; in light of the gospel of Christ; added as an alternate theory of what the providential role of Rev. Moon as the "faithful and wise servant" spoken of by Jesus as being put "over" the "house of God" or "de facto ruler over the Church" as over the Pope though he was Korean exactly correspondent to the position that Joseph also was given by Pharoah "over" the "House of Egypt" as over "the kingdom as de facto ruler" though Joseph was a foreigner. The "meat in due season" that this servant then brings forth could then be "seen" in the light of the remarkable though flawed book "Divine Principle" Rev. Moon did produce. we then could actually see if the "profile" Jesus made fits Rev. Moon; as with the "beatings" and so forth along with the "eating and drinking" of those given in marriage and being given: Jesus specifically saying that the children of the resurrection to come would not marry nor be given in marriage. Thus we could "balance" the hypothesis of Rev. Moon being the Messiah or the Lamb with the other hypothesis that he may have to go through a providential course not entirely clear to him until the end: very much like a way to warn him in the "future" that had been "pre-arranged" by God should he begin to err: this is fact being the "sign" long foretold by John appearing in the internal providence as "the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" which is the position of Joshua leading in the children of the 12 tribes of Israel into One Earth and "stopping" Mr. Sun and Mrs. Moon as Joshua once stopped the Sun and the Moon who stood in those positions; the Child in the Name of Christ Jesus that Jesus "lifted up" as "the Head" being the One in the position of the Tabernacle or Lord of the Second Advent that Joshua goes before; not Joshua as the image-identity of the Lord of the Second Advent as Rev. Moon asserts in his book; ( forgetting that Joshua stood in the position of the Messenger as walking before the Priests carrying the Ark; and the Tabernacle as the Body of Christ that is the Temple of God on earth; with the Ark signifying where God "sat" within Christ as being "in him". ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Book and teaching

Let's try to distinguish between the Unification Principle, i.e., the core teachings of the church - and Divine Principle (any of several books which present the core teachings). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that Foundation for the Messiah be merged into this article as:

1. by its own statement it is one of the "concepts in the Divine Principle" -- so surely belongs here
2. it has no third-party sources establishing notability independent of DP.

It will also have the advantage of introducing three whole citations to this previously completely unverifiable article. Maybe it'll start a trend. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Completely agree. -Exucmember (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In general' it's less work to merge (or at least apply a {merge} tag than to "prod" an article with a deletion tag. Unless you're doing it to get our attention. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I prod-tag an article when (i) there is no clear-cut article it should be merged into (as happened far more frequently prior to the creation of List of Unification Church affiliated organizations‎) and/or (ii) the prod-ed article contains no verifiable information to be merged. Of course the prod-tag also has the advantage that it sets a definite deadline (whereas merge-tags can stay in place for months, or even on rare occasions years, without any decision being made). Incidentally, if you think an article that has been prod-tagged should rather be merged, it makes more sense to be WP:BOLD and merge it yourself (particularly if its an article you created) rather than simply replace the prod-tag with a merge-tag. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of third-party sourced material

This article cites third-party sources in its bibliography section, but there is virtually no discussion in the text which draws on them. Such discussion should be added to the article, including both description of what the text says (from any of a large number of sources that are not yet mentioned in the article) as well as criticism. -Exucmember (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Subject and Object

Merge Subject and object (Divine Principle) per Ed Poor's request -- though nothing in this article other than its name suggests relevance to DP

Maybe we church members have not done a good job explaining the teachings we believe in (and live by). I spent 2 hours today conducting a Hoon Dok study group on the topic of Subject and object. We contrasted it with Cain and Abel, for one thing.

But with copious references like this I don't know how anyone can say it's not relevant to DP. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"But with copious references like this I don't know how anyone can say it's not relevant to DP." Very easily. The article did not mention DP even once, and this lengthy reference does not explicitly mention it until near the bottom. How then is the average reader meant to infer a close relationship between this topic & DP? Telepathy? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, we Unificationists accept the existence of telepathy, but your point is well taken. The connection should be made explicit. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is there the comparison with Marxism? There doesn't appear to be any suggestion (citation) that anyone has suggested any equivalence, so why the "defence before accusation" statements? If there is such suggestion it should be referenced here - else remove the comparison? TheresaWilson (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason there's a comparison with Marxism is that, according to Dr. Sang Hun Lee, there's a close parallel between the subject-object relationship and the "left-Hegelian" thesis-antithesis relationship. I'm sorry I didn't flesh this out in the article (or now, I should say, the section).

Subject-object interaction is the key part of Origin-division-union action, which is the Unificationist counterpart to the Thesis-antithesis-synthesis concept of Dialectical materialism. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. As I merely merged the article, rather than being the original author, I cannot tell you with certainty. My impression is that Unificationism to a considerable extent defines itself as an inversion of Marxism/'anti-Marxism', and often does so using heavily Marxist terminology. Whether such terminology/comparisons/etc is actually helpful to the average reader (who is neither a Unificationist nor a Marxist) is also a good question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This section contains the only reference to Marxism, nowhere is there any reference to anyone comparing the two. It appears to have dropped out of the sky. The two paragraphs:

"The Unification Thought idea of subject and object contrasts markedly with the Marxist idea of thesis and antithesis. Karl Marx posited that progress comes when the latter overcomes or destroys the former. Reverend Moon, on the other hand, asserts that progress comes via the cooperation between the two parties or beings."

and

"The Marxist analysis asserts that commerce is coercive or corrupt, on the grounds that producers exploit laborers and that the profit they make by selling manufactured products should go entirely to the laborers (see labor theory of value)."

have no relevance without some external reference. TheresaWilson (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<unident>It may not be directly mentioned in DP, but it does crop up now and then in Unificationism -- I can remember a Unificationism-articles-regular insisting that Dialectical materialism was an appropriate 'see also' for the article on some Unificationist or other. If you want more information, I suggest you ask Ed Poor, who wrote both the first and second statement that you are querying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the contrast is more directed to Hegel than to Marx, although Marxism has Hegel's logic as its philosophical basis. See this chapter for details. And if anyone wants to work on this with me, here the dialectical materialism perspective on this is outlined here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem appears to be that this merge-article/section offers no context as to how discussion of Marxism or Hegel fits into the Divine Principle. It just looks parachuted in. This is why I originally prod-ed it. Neither of the two links you give relate this material to DP (the second doesn't appear to mention Unificationism at all). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct link between Subject-Object & Divine Principle

Can anybody provide a RS directly linking S-O to DP? Both the section itself & Ed's " this chapter" appear to place it in the context of Unification Thought rather than the DP itself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Google? I did a search for "subject object divine principle", and the 3rd and 7th hits were to an amateur analysis and the church's official textbook, respectively:

• According to unification teaching the relationship of subject and object is fundamental to all existence. Chapter 1 of the Principle, ‘Principle of Creation’ expands on it. [1]
• Through the agency of universal prime energy, the subject and object elements of every entity form a common base and enter into interaction. This interaction, in turn, generates all the forces the entity needs for existence, multiplication and action. [2] (See give and take or give and take action)

I concede that our church theology is obscure to non-members, but it's not exactly being hidden under a bushel. (I hope everyone 'gets' the reference to the Sermon on the Mount. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good. We have progress. As you are the original author of this piece, the proposer of merging it here, and somebody who understands "our church theology", you might consider WP:CITEing the more reliable material that your search has turned up to write a section that actually links the section-topic to the article topic (strange as that idea might seem). I would however note that none of your Google-hits that I looked up made the S&O → Marx/Hegel/dialectical materialism link that is the main topic of the current section. I would therefore suggest that, unless an RS making the full 'DP → S&O → Marx/Hegel/dialectical materialism' connection turns up, that the last stage should be left out as introducing it is WP:SYNTH. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ed: I would further point out that it is now close on a month since this material was merged, at your request, and that it remains wholly unsourced. If some progress isn't made to provide sources for it (and to link it to the article topic), then this material will be removed per WP:V. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Theology vs. textbook

This article should be principally about the theological beliefs of the Unification Church. The fact that the publishers of Wolli Kangnon ("Exposition of the Principle") chose to translate the title into English as Divine Principle was unfortunate and remains a source of confusion even today. If we want an article on the textbook, I would like to call such an article Exposition of the Divine Principle (although that link currently redirects here), since that is the official English-language title of the book. That article could explain the origins of the Korean manuscript (co-written with or ghost-written by an early disciple), as well as the 3 English translations: (two in the early 1970s) and the latest in 1996.

Anyway, we can merge Unification theology (small t) into Divine Principle, as the first page has hardly any content. There are some books with titles like Unification Theology waiting to fill that slot if anyone has the time to write about them.

Unification thought, on the other hand, still requires a separate article. It is not so much a theological exposition as it is a systematic comparison of Unification Church philosophy with traditional philosophy. It also brings out and develops in much more detail - or at least the late Dr. Lee's series of books and articles did - elementary theological concepts in a more philosophical way, such as:

• Theory of Art
• Theory of Education
• Theory of Values
• Theory of Ethics

Rev. Moon likes enumerating things: everything seems to fit into pairs subject and object or trios (like intellect, emotion and will). So he famously said that his teachings can fit into three main books: Divine Principle, Unification Thought, and Communism: a Critique and Counterproposal. These comprise the theological, philosophical and political aspects of his teachings. Note that the second is generally ignored completely by the public (and rarely acknowledged even by members), while the third is often misunderstood as recommending some sort of theocracy - maybe if I start writing about it, people will see that it actually recommends against every sort of dictatorship based on an official government ideology.

If we really want to give Wikipedia readers a concise (and comprehensive introduction to Unification Church teachings), we have our work cut out for us. It will take much less effort, if we help each other. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I can see with this is that neither Unification Thought nor 'Communism: a Critique and Counterproposal' appear to have generated sufficient third-party coverage to sustain independent articles. Your statement "generally ignored completely by the public (and rarely acknowledged even by members)" seems to confirm this for the former. Therefore if they are to maintain any continued existence, they probably need to share an article with Divine Principle, whether that combined article is called Unification theology, 'Unification philosophy' or 'Unification teachings'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An article on "Unification Church teachings" sounds like a good idea to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably the best way to create such an article would be to rename this article, create a new overview lead (with current lead becoming the 'Divine Principle' section-lead) & stub-sections for Unification Thought & 'Communism: a Critique and Counterproposal'. This restructure would also be a good time to find sources for the large amount of unsourced material in this article currently, and find third-party sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This article was started by Ed in 2003: "Divine Principle is the main theological textbook of the Unification Church, held to have the status of scripture by members of the movement." So it started out being about the book. The book is probably notable in itself. However the expression "Divine Principle" is used more often by church members to refer to the church teachings rather than to the book itself. It could also be said that nobody reads the book except to learn what the church teachings are. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the book is sufficiently notable in itself. But there's not sufficient notability there to cover two articles, and if "Unification Church teachings" was created in addition, there'd be a strong argument for immediate WP:MERGE per the overlap criteria (and lack of non-overlapping notability). The question is, what does the WP:CONSENSUS want that one article to be -- one on 'Divine Principle' or one on "Unification Church teachings"? Pick one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned before that I have not been able to interest myself in working on an article on UC beliefs. For one thing I think most people wouldn't find it very interesting to read. For another it would be original research to read church sources and then explain what they mean. BTW the best secondary sources I have found on the topic are fundamentalist Christian authors who want to expose UC teachings as heresy. They have to explain them first before telling us why they are wrong. On the other hand noted "cult apologist" Massimo Introvigne in his book on the church hardly talked about UC beliefs at all. His focus seemed to be, "It's a religion no better or worse than any other. Why can't we all just get along?" Steve Dufour (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh. To get back to your question. I would prefer to leave this article to be about the book and remove some of the details on its content as well as other topics. I'd rather deal with church beliefs with shorter articles on various topics. I know some people have other opinions. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'd like us to distinguish somehow between the teaching and the textbook. It appears that the 1973 edition of the textbook was given the name Divine Principle. But there have been several textbooks and editions. Also, the name of the teaching translates better to Unification Principle. The Korean word Tong-Il (in Tongil Wolli or Tongil Kangnon) means unity or unification - not "divine". --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ed, if you can find reliable third-party sources to support it, you can distinguish away to your heart's content. As far as Steve's "shorter articles on various topics" idea goes, I suspect that it would very quickly run into problems finding sufficient third-party coverage to establish notability for these "other topics" individually. This applies likewise to a potential article on 'Unification Principle'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced history section removed from article

Between 1935 and 1946, Sun Myung Moon wrote down notes in the margins of his Bible. These notes formed the basis of the original concept of the work.

The earliest manuscript was lost in North Korea during the Korean War. Upon arriving as a refugee in Pusan, Moon wrote a manuscript which is referred to as Wolli Wonbon (meaning "the original text of the Divine Principle"), dictating the last chapter to Won Pil Kim, his first disciple. He then guided Hyo Won Eu, the first president of the Unification Church of Korea, to prepare more systematic presentations of his teachings with biblical, historical, and scientific illustrations. Moon gave Eu special instruction regarding the content of these texts and then checked them over meticulously. These efforts resulted in Wolli Hesol (Explanation of the Divine Principle), published in 1957 (but never translated into English), and Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle), published in 1966. Since then, Wolli Kangron has been the basic text of Moon's teachings. According to its preface, Wolli Kangron expresses universal truth; it inherits and builds upon the core truths which God revealed through the Jewish and Christian scriptures and encompasses the wisdom from the Orient.

"Principle" is a direct translation of the Korean term wolli, and the word "Divine" was added to indicate that the material dealt with spiritual and religious principles. Plural is not normally used in Korean, and there is a sense that these principles fit together into a unitary whole anyway. Unification Church members sometimes refer to the Divine Principle (or simply "The Principle") to mean not only the specific translation of Wolli Kangron, but to all three texts, as they are seen as the progressive development of an explanation revealing something that already existed in the universe before the books were written. Indeed, sometimes "The Principle" is used to refer to the universal principles out there in the universe, apart from the books.

A translation of Wolli Kangron named Divine Principle was first published in English in 1973 and was subsequently revised in 1974. In 1996 it was completely re-translated, primarily by Andrew Wilson and Jin Goon Kim, and re-titled Exposition of the Divine Principle. Manuals were translated to English by Young Whi Kim (president of the Unification Church in Korea during the 1970s) and Chung Hwan Kwak (International Director of Education of the Unification Church). Young Oon Kim (a female professor and the church's premier theologian) and David S.C. Kim (the first president of the Unification Theological Seminary) each wrote unofficial texts; these are now out of print.

[End of removed section. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ]

'Contents' section

This section appears to be a muddle of:

• Things the DP says
• OR commentary & editorialising on the DP
• Things UC insiders have said about the DP.

I'm going to attempt to seperate things out into a cleaner structure. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

...but I didn't get far -- most of the sub-sections in the 'contents' section bear little resemblance to the chapter-headings in the book. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine if the article started out explaining the role of the DP book to the church, then gave the table of contents, and then had some comments and criticisms from various sources. A lot of the interpretations in the årticle now are really WP:OR. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a synopsis wouldn't be unreasonable. The trouble is that what we currently have is a 'Contents' section that is mostly OR commentary masquerading as this. Ideally, this should be followed by what neutral third party commentators say about it, followed by a lesser amount of coverage on the views of UC insiders and of critics (in roughly equal measure). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is plenty of published material like this on Unification teachings (most of these relate to something very specific in Divine Principle), but it's mostly commentary (and discussions of issues) by ecumenical religious studies types published in academic books several decades ago and not available on the Internet. It's going to take some work.

I'm hesitant to criticize Ed Poor - I know he's done a lot for Wikipedia - but most of the articles on individual Unification theology/teachings topics (almost all not nearly notable enough) were started by him, apparently written off the top of the head, and usually with no sources. Generating a large number of such articles leaves Ed (and the Unificationism he represents) open to the criticism of using Wikipedia for proselytizing rather than what's best for the encyclopedia as implied in its guidelines. Ed, perhaps you should do some of time-consuming work of running down these citations which are needed for a good quality article.

And Hrafn, if you're going to take such an interest in Unification articles, perhaps you should spend some time finding some of the citations which are available (on the web or elsewhere). For someone who spends so much time insisting on better citations, your contribution of sources has been thin. I'm not saying that this article is necessarily the most natural fit with your particular background, but certainly many of the articles would benefit from your constructive contributions. -Exucmember (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Exucmember: there is no expectation (in WP:BURDEN or elsewhere) that editors will be in a position to contribute numerous citations on articles they are challenging the verifiability of. I tend to contribute citations either on (i) areas where I have knowledge and resources (mostly creationism-related) and/or (ii) where there are sufficiently narrow search-terms to allow a casual editor to find citations (most recently Hak Ja Han). I have created, from scratch, single articles that have more sourcing than most of the UC area combined. It is all very well to blame Ed (and it was his reputation on creationism-related articles for a less-than-stellar compliance with WP:V & WP:NOTE that led me to the UC area in the first place), but the rest of the UC experts seemed largely happy to let his articles remain unchallenged and unimproved until I came along to upset the apple cart. If you won't self-police your area of expertise (for notability and verifiability), then you've got to expect that casual editors will from time to time wander into this area and police it for you -- often, given their lack of expertise, in a bull-in-the-china-shop manner. No, I wouldn't accept such heavy-handed inexpert attention in the creationism area -- but then again I wouldn't accept the low standards that invited it in the first place, and do my best to make sure that fact-tags & notability-templates were provided with citations well before material might be deleted. And I have taken a chainsaw to poorly sourced articles there (most recently, Gap creationism) and merged/nominated for deletion articles there that don't meet WP:NOTE -- fighting, at times, both creationism-boosters & creationism-opponents to do so. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving this apparently mostly WP:SYNTH material here, until citations can be found and/or rewrites made. While some small parts of it is cited, these parts are to fragmentary to stand on their own, plus a number of those citations are to DS itself (meaning that these sections are possible, and in some cases probable, synthesis). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Part 1

Chapter 1: The Principle of Creation

God is viewed as the creator in the Divine Principle. God has polar characteristics corresponding to (but more subtle or "internal" than) the attributes we see expressed in his creation: masculinity and femininity, internal character and external form, subject and object. God is referred to as "he" for simplicity and because "masculinity" is associated with "subject." God is omniscient and omnipotent, though bound by his own principles and the logical consequences of human freedom; in order to experience a relationship of love, he created human beings as his children and gave them freedom to love him or not as they chose.

Subject and object

What is the relationship between internal nature and external form? The internal nature is intangible and causal, and stands in the position of a subject partner to the external form; the external form is tangible, resultant, and stands in the position of an object partner to the internal nature. The mutual relationships between these two aspects of an entity include: internal and external, cause and result, subject partner and object partner, vertical and horizontal. Let us again use the example of a human being, whose mind and body are his internal nature and external form, respectively. The body resembles the mind and moves according to its commands in such a way as to sustain life and pursue the mind's purposes. Mind and body thus have a mutual relationship of internal and external, cause and result, subject partner and object partner, vertical and horizontal.

— Divine Principle, Chapter 1

Reciprocal interaction

Paired entities (two beings, or two aspects of a being), such as subject and object, masculinity and femininity, or internal character and external form, engage in reciprocal interaction or give-and-take action, which "generates all the forces [needed] for existence, multiplication and action."

Chapter 2: The Human Fall

The Divine Principle says that the Fall of Man was an actual historical event (rather than an allegory) involving an original human couple, who are called Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis in the Bible. The elements in the story, however, such as the Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the forbidden fruit, the serpent, etc., are interpreted to be symbolic metaphors for ideal man, ideal woman, sexual love, and Satan, respectively. The essence of the fall is that Eve was seduced by an angelic being (Lucifer). Eve then seduced Adam. So love was consummated through sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve apart from the plan of God, and before Adam and Eve were spiritually mature. The Divine Principle says that there was a "spiritual (sexual) fall," between Eve and the angel, and a "physical (sexual) fall" between Eve and Adam. It also says regarding Adam and Eve's son Cain killing his brother Abel as a literal event which contributed to humankind's fallen state. It says that since the "fall of humanity," all of human history has been a constant struggle between the forces of God and Satan to correct this original sin.

Part 2

Restoration of God's original ideal — theology of redemption

A fundamental teaching of the Divine Principle is that God possesses both male and female attributes and that the most perfect substantial expression of God is to be found in a "true love" relationship between a fully perfected man and a fully perfected woman, living in accordance with the will of God. This love can then grow between parents and children. "True love" is understood to mean a sacrificial love that it is unconditional, unchanging, and eternal.

The Divine Principle differentiates itself from traditional Christianity through its view of the Trinity and its view of the reason for Jesus's death. It teaches what some theologians have called the "economic trinity," a relationship between God, Adam, and Eve (with the messiah in the role of perfected Adam). It does not teach that Jesus or any man is ontologically one with God as "God the Son." Rather, Jesus became Godlike through a natural process of growth to personal perfection that would otherwise be available to all persons except for original sin preventing it. The "pre-existence" and the "logos" was not Jesus in a personal sense, but rather the prototype for perfected man which Jesus came to embody during his lifetime.

The Divine Principle teaches that Jesus' death was not a preordained necessity. Like traditional Christians, however, they do believe that his death serves as a redemption of humanity's sins and that his resurrection was a victory over death for all eternity.

The Divine Principle further teaches that:

• God appointed Jesus to establish the literal (political), rather than symbolic, Kingdom of Heaven on earth, preferably in his lifetime. Due to the failure of the Jewish people to accept "him whom He had sent" (John 6:29), Jesus had to go the alternate course of dying on the cross. (See the section on the role of Elijah below.)
• With the mission of establishing God's kingdom unfulfilled, He will appoint another Messiah to accomplish His purpose. "I have purposed, and I will do it. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass." (Isaiah 46:11).
• Moon has spoken of himself as "Messiah of the Second Coming" and "True Parent" and monarch ("True Love King") of a literal "Kingdom of Heaven" on earth (see Divine Principle quotes below).
• In the Last Days, (a literal angel) Satan will be brought to repentance and become a good angel again and all souls now in Hell will be liberated and restored to Heaven.

The role of Elijah and the role of the messiah

The Divine Principle's teaching about the mission of Elijah is a key to understanding its conception of the mission of the Messiah.

Elijah had the role of harbinger or forerunner. He was to reveal to Israel and the world the identity of the Messiah, and the person fulfilling this role was slated to work with the Messiah to usher in the kingdom of Heaven.

In particular, John the Baptist was to play the role of Elijah in relation to his kinsman Jesus.

Based on biblical texts (especially in Matthew), the church believes that Jesus was appointed by God to be the Messiah, not only for the Jewish people but for all of humanity.

The prophecies concerning John's ministry ("in the spirit and power of Elijah" and "make ready for the Lord a people prepared") are cited by the Divine Principle in support of this view. Moon singles out John for intense criticism for failing to provide active support for Jesus and asserts this as the primary reason that the Jewish people did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Foundation for the Messiah

The Foundation for the Messiah is one of the most important concepts in the Divine Principle.

The Divine Principle explains that in order for fallen people to receive the Messiah and be cleansed of original sin they need to establish a foundation for the Messiah. The course of laying the foundation for the Messiah needs to follow the course which Adam's family should have taken at the beginning of human history.

The foundation for the Messiah consists of two parts. The foundation of faith restores a person, called a central figure, to the position of perfected Adam through making an offering over a set time period. The foundation of substance makes a condition to remove fallen nature by restoring the proper relationship between two central figures, originally Cain and Abel.

The foundation for the Messiah can be established on different levels. The Divine Principle teaches that the conflict between democracy and communism was a part of the foundation of substance on a world level, with democracy being in the position of Abel and communism in the position of Cain.

Ken Sudo, one of the church's most respected teachers of Divine Principle, said about the foundation for the Messiah on the individual level:

In your insides, we must establish a foundation for the Messiah, in our own insides. This is your portion of responsibility. Otherwise, the Messiah will be here on earth, the Messiah of mankind, but he won't be the Messiah for you. He'll just be a great man. "Oh, he is great." That's all. Just like Hitler. The German people must have felt this way -"He's great; he's powerful." No difference, no big difference. There is no preparation for the Messiah. This is the problem.

Second Coming of Christ

Main article: Mission of the Messiah

Virtually all Unification Church members consider Father Moon to be the new Messiah. The Unificationist view of the messiah is of a man (or ideally, a married couple) representing God as "True Parent(s)."

In 2002, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification published a message which it says describes a conference at which all the historical founders of all other religions have recently, in heaven, proclaimed Moon's messiahship.

Many other Christians strongly reject such a proclamation, citing the Gospel of John (14:6) in which Jesus of Nazareth states with finality that "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (King James Version)

The Principle of Indemnity

Main article: Indemnity (Unification Church)

Indemnity, as explained in the Divine Principle, is a part of the process by which human beings and the world are restored back to God's ideal.

History

History is viewed as God’s attempt to bring about God’s will regarding Adam and Eve. First, a person, group, or nation in the position of Adam must have faith in God and demonstrate that faith in some extraordinary way. Second, another person, group, or nation must follow that person of faith. This condition will enable God to send another person with the mission of Adam. In Unificationist viewpoint, this person is the Messiah.

Jesus

Unificationists view Jesus as the Messiah on the national level. Unificationists believe that Jesus fulfilled the condition of faith that Adam lacked, but that he did not gain a sufficient following during his lifetime to fulfill the condition of substance needed to achieve his ultimate God-given mission of building the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Unificationists believe that, through his death on the cross, Jesus created a condition such that all who believe in him can achieve spiritual salvation and thus be united with him both on earth and beyond. They also view that someone in the position of Adam, or the Messiah, must come again to fulfill the condition of substance. This would be the second coming. The Messiah does not, in Unificationist theology, have any superhuman powers that are not available to anyone with faith. The Messiah can make errors of judgment. Unificationists specifically do not believe that Jesus, or anyone in the position of the Messiah, is God.

Rev. Moon

The majority of Unficationists view Moon as the actual historical Messiah or "Christ of the Second Advent" (See Divine Principle quotes below) and rightful spiritual and political leader of all mankind. He regards his own mission as that of “True Parents,” the parents that Adam and Eve should have become and the true monarch of the literal theocratic "Kingdom of Heaven" on Earth that Jesus should have established.

[ End of apparently WP:SYNTH material Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC) ]

Uncited sections

I removed two sections which were only cited by the book itself. Unless secondary published sources talk about these things they shouldn't be a part of this article. The table of contents could also be removed except that it is common for WP articles on books to include it. Borock (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of content section with third-party references

I've started a rewrite of the content section, with third-party references. I hope someone with more interest in this than I have will continue it. There are literally hundreds of third-party sources discussing the concepts in Divine Principle. -Exucmember (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

People who are interested can read the DP itself online, in several versions. I am going to take off the tags. The article is now well-sourced and does not need the help of an expert more than most WP articles do. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The book itself is no substitute for a scholarly discussion of the book's contents -- which this article lacks. Half of the article's references are for a single, short and uncontroversial sentence. At the very least, the article is heavily unbalanced and incomplete. It contains no learned analysis of the the theology contained in this book, nor its relationship to orthodox Christianity. It is an unhelpful mess. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When I took off the tags I didn't intend to say that the article was perfect, just that it is no worse than most which could also use expert help.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that the article, as it stands, provides little (if any) useful information on its topic -- and, as such, is "worse than most which could also use expert help". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The great irony is that there are lots of reliable sources in which scholarly discussion of the book's contents has taken place. The vast majority of this discussion is sensitive, insightful, and respectful of the book, which probably ought to be regarded as the core of Unificationism. In a climate in which hatchet-job criticism of Unificationism is so prevalent, and can even be found among academics like Horowitz, academic discussions of the ideas in Divine Principle are by contrast thoughtful and genuinely seek to understand. It's simply astounding to me that Unificationists don't take the time to look up these sources and make this a full-length, informative article that tells the story about Unification beliefs and their relation to the Christian tradition. If I were a Unificationist I would certainly think this was a valuable project, definitely worth the time it would take. -Exucmember (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Generally I feel that that would be against the spirit of WP policies. People not directly involved in an issue should be the main editors. 2. I don't feel comfortable writing my own version of Divine Principle for the public. I think that would also be original research. 3. People who are interested can easily access UC websites and read the DP, as well as various commentaries, themselves. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve: I don't think Exucmember was asking for "[your] own version of Divine Principle for the public" or WP:OR. He was asking for inclusion of "scholarly discussion of the book's contents", as I have likewise done myself. This is entirely within the spirit of wikipedia -- specifically WP:GNG -- which calls for significant coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. by third party experts). If such sources exist, then they should be summarised for this article. If they don't (which would be surprising), then this article shouldn't exist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not object if this article were merged to Unification Church. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand Steve's response. As I was trying to think of a candidate for third most important Wikipedia article about Unificationism after Sun Myung Moon and Unification Church, I couldn't think of a better candidate than this article. There have been a number of entire books written by theologians about the ideas in Divine Principle, certainly enough to write an accurate, informative article. Of course some poeple might think that Divine Principle is not of central importance but that instead at the core of Unificationism is the personality of Sun Myung Moon. -Exucmember (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the core of Unificationism should be God's love, the other two are important too.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP having a good article on the DP would be nice. I've already explained some reasons I don't feel like taking responsibility for it. I don't see any problem with keeping this article or merging it to Unification Church since the basic info on the DP is already there. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is in fact very little on the DP in Unification Church, and what is there is fragmentary, and does not distinguish between views coming from DP and those coming from less formal/less systemicised sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal (old)

I think that Unification Church and antisemitism should be merged into this article. The main substance of that article is criticism of some sections of the Divine Principle which seem to some people to be antisemitic. As far as I know (and I have been a UC member for over 30 years) no one is seriously saying that UC members hate Jewish people or are hostile to the Jewish religion in any way, which having a separate article on "Unification Church and antisemitism" might seem to imply. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Steve's reasoning. My only concern is that charges of antisemitism in Divine Principle (which honestly are based primarily on misunderstanding) would tend to overshadow the far more important topics that at present are barely covered (or not even covered!) in the Divine Principle article, which is grossly inadequate. -Exucmember (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the issue of 'Unification Church and antisemitism' solely (or even overwhelmingly) about allegations of antisemitism in the DP? (It would seem that the issue also slops over into Moon's speeches as well.) If not, a better home for this material may be Unification Church. Of course all this is problematical due to how poorly sourced the material is -- which may need to be corrected before a home can be determined. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Rev. Moon's speeches in question are about the application of the DP, that is calling UC members of Jewish ancestry to repent for the failure of Jewish people at the time of Jesus to support him. There would be no problem in mentioning that in Divine Principle. It is a legitimate point of criticism and should be mentioned in the article. (AFAIK no one has ever said that Rev. Moon hates Jewish people either.) Also the issue could be briefly mentioned when the DP is discussed in Unification Church and Sun Myung Moon.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the tags since there doesn't seem to be a consensus to merge the articles, or much interest in the issue. Another problem is that doing so would create a "controversy" section to this article and there is even less consensus for that. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over the charges of antisemitism

The charges of antisemitism are not aimed at the followers or even the church policies, other than of course the fact numerous UC members are (were?) Jewish. Most of the flak comes from a three-decades-old analysis of DP, along with a continuing reaction to Father Moon's statements about the Holocaust as Indemnity (Unification Church).

As advised by Jayjg and others, we cannot assert that "it's all a misunderstanding". That is not our editorial role as contributors. We also must avoid a WP:COI violation, and it behooves those of us who are church members to avoid even the appearance of a violation.

We may, however, be able to place side by side (for readers to compare and contrast) the specifics of the theological antisemitism charge with the church's response. I began to do that in the Unification Church antisemitism controversy article. I think we have an consensus among Wikipedia contributors that none of us wants to label the charges as true or false: we all simply want to describe the charges in terms of who made them, when, and on what grounds - and also to describe the rebuttals in the same terms.

For example, when the rabbi said all mentions of ancient Jewish people were negative, we can follow that with Johnny Sonneborn's rebuttal which includes DP passages which Sonneborn says are positive.

• "The Jews all fell into faithlessness" (cited as being representative of the "fact" that all mentions are negative)
• "It was by faith that Abraham ..." (cited as being representative of the "fact" that not all mentions are negative)

It's a bit difficult for some of us, as members, having an interest in seeing a "fair" or even "positive" account of the church and its teachings in such a prominent place as Wikipedia. If we on occasion we seem to cross the line from NPOV-syle fairness into advocacy, recall that the ArbCom said that text should not be deleted from an article merely because it advances a point of view. If balance is needed, there are editorial ways of providing it, such as adding a simple phrase like there are various viewpoints about this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Critical response

Yamamoto's 30-year-old book, which is representative of typical Christian objections to UC theology, should be mentioned in more than a footnote. Let's bring the following quote into the article:

"The doctrine of indemnity is not biblical. 'In simple language.' states Ruth Tucker, 'indemnity is salvation by works.' Bob Larson makes a distinction between Moon's doctrine and biblical theology, saying, 'Moon's doctrine of sinless perfection by "indemnity [forgiveness of sin by works on Moon's behalf], which can apply even to deceased ancestors, is a denial of the salvation by grace offering through Jesus Christ.' 'Farewell,' said John Calvin. 'to the dream of those who think up a righteousness flowing together out of faith and works.'"

The point is both to describe the church's idea, as well as to describe contrasting and/or opposing ideas. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree Ed. Actually the disagrement between the DP and traditional Christian understanding is the "big story" that is of interest to the general reader. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. -Exucmember (talk) 07:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The church makes no denial of the salvation by grace offering through Jesus Christ but rather has continuously praised Jesus as the eternal source of salvation. We need to write an article (or a section in the current topic) on the UC doctrine of Spiritual salvation. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Who failed at Christ's advent?

While the church definitely sees the fall of man as the failure of Eve as well as Adam, it is a little less clear (to some) whom the church blames (and for what) at the first advent of Jesus Christ. (I had started to write a bit about that, but due to slow follow-up the article was deleted without a redirect; so, I'll have to start over.)

Anyone who has sat through a film or video of Rev. Moon's landmark Madison Square Garden speech would leave with the unshakeable impression that Unification Theology places the bulk of the blame on John (see Failure of John the Baptist). Yet Christian critics of the church, putting words in Rev. Moon's mouth, say that the church accuses Jesus of failing. I think this is at best a translation error, and more likely a PR tactic to make Rev. Moon look bad by (falsely) quoting him as bad-mouthing Jesus.

Can someone help me research all the relevant quotes and viewpoints? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ed: this material was merged (by myself) from Jesus failed -- an article created under that title by yourself. The wide impression that the UC believes that "Jesus failed" is a legitimate controversy and thus a legitimate topic for this article (though one badly needing third party sources, particularly ones linking it to the book that is the topic of this article), Michael Jenkins's comments on the subject of "Jesus and the Kingdom of God" is of no interest to anybody outside the church. I am reverting the retitling (with a template) and will remove completely (as {{irrel}}evant) if the retitling is restored (and will immediately AfD Jesus failed if you attempt to restore the quote there). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that Cirt has removed it entirely -- a move I concur with. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Has this concept been discussed in any independent reliable secondary sources? Cirt (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- I would say "yes" -- Yamamoto, Enroth, Lewis, Roberts (from the Google Books search) all look like they qualify. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! So those could be used, instead of drawing WP:OR inferences from primary sources affiliated with the article's subject. :) Cirt (talk) 06:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it appears that the ultimate source of this controversies is statements made by Moon (in 1971 & 1974, according to Enroth), rather than the book that is the topic of this article. It would perhaps be more appropriate to include this material in Unification Church therefore. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Or else start a new article: "Unification Church beliefs." Steve Dufour (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this topic-area's rather dire history of premature & non-viable stubs, I would very much prefer a gestation as a section within an article on an appropriate broader topic until it develops enough material and third party sources to survive on its own. Unification Church#Beliefs is not yet large enough that WP:SUMMARY needs to be applied to it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed that Indemnity (Unification Church) be merged into this article. There is already a section covering it here which duplicates some of the information in the other article. "Indemnity" in the Unification Church doesn't have any other meaning or importance than as a part of the Divine Principle so the information on it might as well be given here in the main article on the topic. Borock (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Indemnity (Unification Church) as it stands is a badly unbalanced article -- with most of the WP:SECONDARY sources essentially acting as window-dressing, whilst the bulk of the article is primary-sourced. A couple of paragraphs based upon the secondary sources would be a huge improvement, and fit nicely into a section here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I started this article years ago but revisiting it I see that it is not going anywhere. I think most of the secondary information is already in Divine Principle and the long quotes could go to Wikiquote. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I put the quotes in Wikiquotes' page on the DP.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I will merge the articles and then delete the quotes, since that is what people seem to agree on. Borock (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unmerge proposal

I came here looking for information on True Family, and I was astonished to be redirected to an article about ... a book? ... some theology? If Rev. and Mrs. Moon, their children, and their grandchildren are what their followers think of when they say "True Family", then shouldn't we get some more information about them? At least a list of the ones who are still involved in the church or who did something significant before dying.

Where's Ariana Moon? Could we at least have a redirect to In Jin Moon (her mother), founder of Lovin' Life Ministries and current head of the Unification Church of America? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the merger seems odd. Here was the discussion which led to it: Talk:List of Unification Church members#Merge in True Family. It seems to have been an afterthought.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Publication date

What's the source for saying 1966? The article on Moon himself says it was published in 1957. Or is it a different book (despite being linked to here) as that article gives the transliteration of the Korean as 'Wolli Hesol'. Lovingboth (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been a UC member since 1974 and I have no idea where that date or the 1957 date comes from. Neither makes much sense in terms of UC history.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge to UC?

It seems to me that the notable topic is Unification Church beliefs, which is already a section in Unification Church. I'm not sure that any edition of the several books titled "Divine Principle" is really notable in the world. All were published by the church itself and had a very limited readership. (I'm a UC member BTW.) -Steve Dufour (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Support merge with major pruning of this article, in to a section in the Unification Church article. There's no need - and indeed every reason not to need - an exposition of Unification theology on Wikipedia. Now, imagine if the Epistle to the Romans, Institutes of the Christian Religion, or Summa Theologiae was treated in such a way? (Late edit: I didn't know it had a limited readership: I read it, and I'm a Catholic cleric.) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 13:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's cool that you read it, however it did not make the NYT best seller list. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nor has ever the Summa Theologiae, or, for that matter, insofar as I know, any translation of the Bible, ever done so - that does not make them non-notable, indeed, the Summa being, likely, the most important single work of Western philosophy and theology, and the Bible the most important Western book of all time (not that I intend to argue against myself in my support for merging). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 03:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support merge Right now much of the information is in both places. Also people who are looking for information on UC beliefs might not know about the expression "Divine Principle." Anyway the expression has been used by other groups as well. When you think about it most people would agree that God is concerned with principles. Even atheists might agree. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the UC's beliefs are one of the main things that make it unique (and controversial), so they should be well-explained in the main article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Support It makes sense to me too. Of course trim the duplicated material. Borock (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like people agree. Will do merge as discussed. Borock (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Unmerging

A discussion has been started at Talk:Holy_Spirit_Association_for_the_Unification_of_World_Christianity about splitting this article from Unification Church. Interested editors might wish to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)