Talk:Hyun Jin Moon

Early comments

I've been in the church nearly 30 years and have closely followed the "successorship issue". No mention has been made publicly, or even with church circles, of any successor to Rev. Moon other than his wife, Hak Ja Han Moon. This may come as a surprise to those who regard the UC as anti-feminist, but you can google it for yourself or contact UC headquarters in Washington, D.C. and ask for yourself. --Uncle Ed 03:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Scholar Jeffrey K. Hadden wrote;

• Few founding leaders have planned their succession more actively than Rev Moon
• Hak Ja Han, Rev Moon's wife, is the successor designate.
• The process of her succession began on Jan 1, 1993 with the declaration that the Age of Restoration is completed [1]

Massimo Introvigne's speculation is just that. He draws his own conclusion, from the fact that Hyun Jin Nim was given some responsibilites that "denotes him as the successor" [2] but as a church member myself with his "ear to the ground" I doubt this. --Uncle Ed 03:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. A couple of other points. Rev. Moon does not need anyone to succeed him as the Messiah; the job is already finished. If people are talking about succeeding him as the leader of the church I think they mostly have an exaggerated idea of the importance of that position; frankly we do not always do the things that Rev. Moon tells us to do -- how much less for some future leader. Steve Dufour 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Rev. Moon's mission finished? As the Messiah? He would have to have attained immortality; which comes with the crown of glory; the one Lord Jesus had when he commanded 12 legions of angels; and took off and then went and died

and then picked up again: resumimg the position of Jehovah of Hosts. The flawed masterpiece Rev. Moon wrote as "Divine Principle" in no way even approaches the exposition of the Revelation of St. John the Divine; which John came to me and revealed to me is the Ark of the Testament; the Revelation of Jesus Christ being the Book of Life of the Lamb "within" the Ark; which Rev. Moon never even ascertained; that Rev. Moon still has the potential to reach the position as the faithful and wise servant when the Lord returns and finds watching: and gives him "all" then: he will inherit immortality: but I seriously doubt it; even having failed to reach the Seal of the Living God; just as John the Baptist failed to do: and for the same reason: since both John and Rev. Moon believe that Zacharias was actually Jesus's "earthly" father; proving that Rev Moon and John the Baptist are "one and the same"; even to the fact that "of men born of women there has not arisen a greater prophet than Sun Myung Moon/John the Baptist: yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." That would be the messenger of the restoration of that one child who comes in the Name of Christ Jesus: who Lord Jesus annointed as his heir: putting his name upon the Children of Israel in the process. The same unconscious accusation John had against his own father and Mary is what kept him from being a unblemished sacrifice who was to have been given to die in place of the Messiah which was John's original mission; Rev. Moon being more vocal in his belief of Zacharias and thus "conscious" as I heard from some past members who heard him say these very things; but it is also present in the book "Unification Theology" is slightly muted form; dying John would have been the one who raised would begin the resurrection itself: but this did not happen either: because John denied he was Elijah: just as Rev. Moon has denied he is Elijah. ( Who would have doubted John's testimony after Lord Jesus wouild have raised him from the dead???: Elijah at that point turning the heart of the children to the fathers and that heart of the fathers to the children: but this didn't happen:) although no one ever asked him if he was Elijah: except me through Jonathan Gullery: no answer. Rev. Moon never even realized that the Key of David is the Cross of Christ; the Divine Principle itself. Come to the www.newunificationchurch.com website if you want the further particulars of Rev. Moon's unfinished portion of responsibility. As to Rev. Moon's successor: see what happened to Shebna after Eliakim showed up: the fate of the "faithful and wise servant" in the position of that "evil servant"; it isn't pretty. Unicorn144 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. You could always start a new article on the subject of Rev. Moon's successor since this seems to be such an interesting topic to some people. Steve Dufour 17:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Name of this page

Ed, you piped (with comment) "Julia Pak" (a name she has been using for decades, though, as far as I know not her legal name) to "Hoon Sook Pak" on the Heung Jin Moon page, and this was a few minutes after you moved this page from "Hyun Jin Moon" to "Preston Moon," a name he has only been using very recently, and one not used in the church bulletin at a large service two weeks ago (January 28, 2007) that I happened to see by odd chance. Perhaps we should stick to legal names unless they are legally changed. Of course, as I've mentioned previously, there should be exceptions for "Mark Twain" situations like "Dae Mo Nim" where she was far more well-known as a channeled person after her death. Based on the fact that Hyun Jin Moon is clearly know primarily to members as such (his notabiblity deriving from his leadership role in the church), I think it's clear that the page has to be moved back. I don't think you want to have some gleeful journalist making ridiculous conspiritorial claims along the lines of saying that the use of "front groups" (changing the names of organizations to make them less familiar and distance them from criticism) has now extended to the names of Rev. Moon's children! -Exucmember 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SanViejo offers: Hyun Jin Moon has not used "Preston" in over a year, although it still pops up occasionally, used by others. I am not sure why he decided to drop the adopted western name and revert to his given name. I have always thought it to be a quaint 19th century moniker but I doubt that's why he stopped using it. In any event I deleted it from the page in the interest of keeping the citation current. Sanviejo (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC}

Hyun Jin succession

User:SanViejo wrote on my talk page:

Hyo Jin's problems and the death of Heung Jin are not disputed. What is not ready for prime time is the assumption that these alone are the reasons for Hyun Jin apparently being placed in the position of lead successor. Or even that these are the main reasons. For example, he has a Harvard MBA, a track record leading people and businesses, etc. It could come down to aptitude and qualifications, but in fact, nobody can say for sure. -- SanViejo 18:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

First, there was no such assumption in the article. It merely lays out some of the background conditions. You are welcome to add others. The background conditions are undeniable, perfectly obvious to anyone who knows both the Unification Church and Korean culture. Perhaps you're not as familiar with the latter as you should be.

Second, do not delete sourced material. If you have a contrary opinion, find sourced material that contradicts the source material already in the article. -Exucmember 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

SanViejo, you have not responded to anything I've said above, but have instead twice deleted large sections of well-sourced material from the article. This borders on vandalism, which is highly frowned upon on Wikipedia.

You know the statements in the article to be true, so why are you trying to hide them? I'm afraid you won't be able to treat Wikipedia readers in the same way many Unification Church leaders treat UC members, by keeping unflattering or unpleasant facts out of sight and out of mind.

You are welcome to add sourced material that argues for or suggests a different picture, but what you may not do is try to hide uncomfortable facts by deleting sourced material. -Exucmember 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SanViejo replies: Exucmember, I have explicitly responded to your comments in great detail. Some discussion points have been left on your talk page, some on other talk pages. I'm still trying to master that one, but you can easily find the discussions. Again, what I am looking for is balance in the article, with responsibility for that resting with the original information provider. This is Media Ethics 101. SanViejo 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Here are the specific comments above to which you have still not responded at all:

[1] I wrote: "First, there was no such assumption in the article. It merely lays out some of the background conditions. You are welcome to add others."

[2] I wrote: "The background conditions are undeniable, perfectly obvious to anyone who knows both the Unification Church and Korean culture."

If you disagree, you may add sourced information that creates a different impression. You can provide "balance" by adding additional, well-sourced material. BUT YOU MAY NOT DELETE WELL-SOURCED MATERIAL BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE CONCLUSIONS THE READER MAY DRAW FROM THEM.

You are right that you are still mastering Wikipedia procedures. Your statement that you are not going to bother finding sourced material to counter what's in the article because "journalistic ethics and justice require that balance be part of the original story" to rationalize blanking of well-sourced material about Hyun Jin Moon that you would like to hide from the general public shows both an ignorance of the way articles evolve on Wikipedia and how differences of opinion are resolved. You are not entitled to delete sourced material because it disagrees with your convoluted notion of journalistic ethics. The responsibility for balance does not rest with the "original information provider." It is your responsibility to find well-sourced material (if you can) that may bring some "balance" (from your point of view) to the article. -Exucmember 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hyun Jin Moon's documented violence - repeatedly deleted

So it seems that an anonymous IP user came along to make his first ever edit less than an hour after I restored the sourced material deleted repeatedly by SanViejo, a relatively new user whose only edits are on Hyun Jin Moon. What an amazing coincidence!

User:SanViejo replies: The implication being that SanViejo came in and anonymously deleted a section. Not true. Despite the proximity of time and tons of circumstantial evidence, I did not make the anonymous deletion. Not certain who did, although I could probably nail it in two or three guesses. While you and I disagree on many things, all my edits are signed. And always will be Sanviejo (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Below are the two sections of sourced material that is being repeatedly deleted, including 6 of the 7 references. The first section presents the background that every honest, thoughtful Unification Church member knows is very relevant. The second section deals with Hyun Jin Moon's documented commision of and condoning of violence. I can understand why some church members would want to hide it, but others might see it as a very good opportunity for addressing the issue and seeing reforms and clarification of church leaders' use of, and condoning of, violence:

The failure of erasing the original sin as seen in Rev. Moon's children

As we know it was Rev. Moon's insistence that his followers drink the Blessed Wine in the marriage ceremonies which was to erase the original sin from their blood; unfortunately since this is not the way to remove the blood taint which comes from the lineage of the devil it is apparent that the sociopathic violence of Rev. Moon's children and their behavior in other areas is a good indication that Rev. Moon was unable to erase the root of sin; there being only one way to do so; which perhaps might make a good article for wikipedia using the book "Divine Principle" itself and showing how it really MUST be done; which involves the Revelation of Jesus Christ; a book which Rev. Moon steadfastly has ignored; even though it is the Book of Life of the Lamb; which he claims to be. The fact that he never explained what is his "own book" is a dazzlingly clear example that our "lamb" Mr. Moon never came into contact with the information he was to have revealed starting with the 4 position foundation illustrated by the 4 Seraphim in chapter 4 of the Revelation: thus doing it "by the book" so to speak. A very sad state of affairs. Unicorn144 13:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) (in the introductory section:)

After Sun Myung Moon and Hak Ja Han Moon's oldest son Hyo Jin Moon manifested long-term problems with substance abuse, infidelity, and violence, and after Heung Jin Moon (the second oldest son) died in 1984, Hyun Jin Moon - the next oldest living son - became widely expected to become Rev. Moon's next-generation successor. He has already assumed a number of top leadership positions.

...

(and the "Criticism" section was blanked wholesale:)

Criticism

Violence

Hyun Jin Moon has been criticized for committing and condoning violence. Long time church leader Dan Fefferman points out:

I realize that the use of violence by the African Heung Jin has been condoned even lately by Church leaders. (Rev. Moon's living son Hyun Jin, for example, stated that: "When Heung Jin Nim came in the black brother's body, you thought 'that can't be Heung Jin Nim.' And some of you were upset about him beating you... If I got hit by Heung Jin Nim, I would say 'great.' Physical pain will go away. But the failures you have in life could stay with you for eternity.") "Tough Love," it is said, sometimes requires strong discipline. The fact remains, however, that if the principle of institutionalized violence - even in the name of True Love - is left unchallenged, we are leaving a very dangerous precedent for future generations.

Comment

If "Rev. Moon is the Messiah." is a fringe view, then "Rev. Moon was the Messiah but failed in his mission." is a fringe view of a fringe view. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Succession issue (again)

Let's put it this way:

Despite rumors and speculation that Father Moon might appoint his son Hyun Jin as his successor [use MI link here], it was rather Hyung Jin who was actually appointed. ref "Hyung Jin is the international president of the Family Federation for World Peace and has been designated by his father as the person who will carry on his religious work." [3]

I've seen rumor after rumor about this or that son being the successor, but don't we all agree that nothing matters other than what the church founder himself says? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ed, as you have been told dozens of times -- "nothing matters other than what…" reliable third party sources say. If you want a wiki where "nothing matters other than what the church founder himself says", then go and create Unificapedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In which guideline page does that idea appear? Please give me a link and/or a quote, or I must assume the idea is only your own opinion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It was admittedly a slight exaggeration -- for effect, and to fit in with your original wording. The intent can be found in the following:

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

— WP:V

Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

— WP:NOR

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

— WP:NPOV

…noting the following:

• WP:SECONDARY sources are almost always third party.
• Published third-party sources are generally more prominent than affiliated sources (and are more often regarded as reliable).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted content on violence, April 2010

I am guilty of recently deleting the "Criticism" portion in the Hyun Jin Moon article. I know that it will keep coming back up no matter how many times its deletion is attempted. Be that as it may, I would like the person in charge, or the monitoring person, to take into consideration that it is misleading to quote Dan Fefferman's 1992 article regarding Hyun Jin Moon's view on "tough love" or "violence." As the Wikipedia article on Hyun Jin Moon states, he was born in 1969. He was 23 years old in 1992 when the referenced journal was published. And he was probably even younger when he made the statements about "love" that Dan Fefferman refers to. It is doubtful that Hyun Jin Moon was laying down his full view of love or that he was setting any serious precedent for the Unification Movement or future generations with those comments. Simplewords16 (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Really one person's opinion about another person is against the spirit of WP:BLP policies. I have also tried to remove this statement from the article (including mentions on the BLP notice board), and backed off when I was not able to find WPers who were willing to treat Rev. Moon's family members as "living persons." Steve Dufour (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the repeatedly deleted sourced material. It is in no way a "personal attack." The quoted statement speaks for itself; the author's characterizing it as "condoning violence" cannot possibly be controversial - it is obvious from the quotation. This is issue is even more important and relevant after recent events - Hyun Jin Moon's repeatedly violent behavior toward church leaders in Brazil, covered by media reports. -Exucmember (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am in total agreement that Hyun Jin Nim should be criticized. But why not use the news media reports you mentioned as sources, rather than quote someone's opinion from a semi-self-published source? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Article updates needed

This article needs to be updated. There has been quite of bit of substantial press coverage in the past few months. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I plan to work on this and other articles on the Moon family when I get around to it. Borock (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Borock are you still looking at working on this article? I've added some information, but struggling to find more about his career that doesn't look like puffery. Any additional help would be appreciated. Verdict78 (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyun Jin Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006084247/http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/10/113_165505.html to http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2014/10/113_165505.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyun Jin Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140919094751/http://www.globalpeace.org/about/hyun-jin-moon to http://www.globalpeace.org/about/hyun-jin-moon

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

His organizations or organization?

There are two articles Global Peace Foundation, and Family Peace Association. From what they say these seem to be the same organization. If so it seems to me that the articles should be merged. SnailsSpace (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Both organizations are mentioned in this article. There doesn't seem to be a problem. BookeWorme (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)