Talk:Black Heung Jin Nim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Contents

[edit] old talk page

[edit]  ??

I know quite a bit about this and am in close contact from a Zimbabwean church member who witnessed some of the abuses wrought by Cleophas and his followers. --Uncle Ed 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The degree to which HJN actually channeled any authentic messages through Cleophas is disputed, even within the church. Many members other than Cleophas claimed to receive messages, via automatic writing, and published these.

In one notable case, the state leader of Tennesse, Andrea Higashibabi, encountered Heung Jin Nim in spirit. He "sat" in the passenger seat of her car as she drove throughout the South, visiting ministers, and helped her "liberate" the spirit of Martin Luther King. This is documented in articles in Today's World magazine, and also told to me personally. Andrea is a very nice person (not violent at all), and I don't think she made this up. But Wikipedia rules require this to be regarded "neutrally". Steve, how should we write about this? --Uncle Ed 16:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the earlier, more democratic chanelling deserves its own article. A whole book was put together based on it. This article is about the Black Heung Jin Nim and contains only the following sentence about the earlier phenomenon (which seems a roughly appropriate amount given its function in the article): "Members reportedly started receiving messages from Heung Jin Moon, 'channeling' his spirit by speaking his words to those on earth." -Exucmember 18:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for collaborating in a harmonious and genial fashion, even though we disagree on certain aspects. I try not to get into "fights" about the church at Wikipedia.

The issue of "violence" (on the part of leaders, or condoned by them) has never been fully analyzed or described in print. It might even mean something different to American, Japanese and Korean members (or visitors or ex-members).

Jesus was violent (at least clearing the temple) and condoned disciples' carrying of swords ("two is enough") but also said "Turn the other cheek" and "Resist not evil".

Rev. Moon is essentially non-violent, teaching members to suffer mistreatment (as if "due", see Indemnity). But he also said that if people "came at us with machine guns" he'd counter-attack. His approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict is non-military, almost completely non-political. And he tried to bribe (win the heart?) of Kim Il-Sung by setting up a car factory in North Korea.

I'm going to assume that Tim F's account of being roughed up by Hyun Jin Moon is correct, but I wonder what he sent in his "letter" to Jun Sook Nim. Some lists of "questions" are presented as innocent attempts to satisy curiosity or get background; but sometimes they appear as thinly disguised accusations. You know, "Why did you do X?" (1) seeking to recieve info vs. (2) giving a scolding. (I would be wary if suddenly summoned to a leader's office, especially one who hadn't mixed much with my social circle. And if he "got in my face" I would leave then; if I hadn't already left before. Not that this excuses a bad temper or arrogance on a leader's part.

Anyway, the only point of this long comment is the insight it can generate as to the best way to keep writing this article. The biggest point of dispute is over:

  • how much of Cleophas' activities were (1) known to Rev. Moon or Rev. Kwak and (2) authorized by either of them?
  • is the doctrine of reincarnation consistent with UC teachings or (as I suggest antithetical and even repugnant)?
    • But without an article on returning resurrection how would anyone know why I'm casting doubt on reincarnation here? (I admit this sounds pretty weak at this point :-)
  • what does it say about the church, that Hyun Jin Moon, the channeler for Heung Jin Moon, and Hyo Jin Moon are all credibly charged with assaulting and beating members and/or family? (How does it reflect on Rev. Moon being or not being "the Messiah"?)

I've spent almost 30 years in the church. I've resisted the dogma that 'thinking isn't good' because Rev. Moon once said, "I'm a very scientific man and I don't want any blind faith." Okay, enough rambling, where can we go from here? --Uncle Ed 11:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I took out the only reference to reincarnation as applied to Cleophas. It was sloppy writing on my part and never should have been added. I was trying to characterize it in terms other than merely "channel" because Mrs. Moon used strong language herself to predict "a kind of physical resurrection" (which all of the True Family endorsed when Cleophas came along). What else in the article do you think is POV? Please be specific.
I try to be objective. I'm not interested in the sarcastic, condescending critique of outsiders who don't realize there may be an element of prejudice in their comments, and I'm not interested in the unintentional "spin" of members who genuinely (but sometimes naively) try too hard to cast everything in the best possible light even when it means ignoring inconvenient facts. For example, you brought up the example that Hyo Jin Moon, Hyun Jin Moon, and the (approved) channeler for Heung Jin Moon are all credibly charged with assaulting and beating members and/or family. Those facts don't reflect well on Rev. Moon or the church, but that is not a reason to supress them or claim unreasonable things like Rev. Moon and Rev. Kwak didn't know what was going on for a full year while Cleophas travelled to the major centers throughout the world where all members, including major leaders, were required to attend (only the True Family was exempt). Did you read Damian's testimony? He witnessed first-hand the involuntary brutal beatings, as well as the complicity of church leaders. He concluded that it was a dark time in UC history that he hopes isn't repeated. He showed his intellectual honesty in facing the facts.
Please tell me what else you think is POV in the article (or just edit it yourself). I agree that this dark chapter could be "balanced out" if there were an article on the earlier democratic channeling. An article on returning resurrection would be good also, not only in clarifying its application to Cleophas, but because it is an inherently insightful view which in a sense "unites" (organically combines) the views of East and West. It sounds like you also might be interested in writing an article on the larger context of violence in the Unification Church. -Exucmember 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It has been one month since the disputed/factual accuracy tag was placed on the article. I corrected Ed Poor's objection immediately, and there has been no other specific objection, so I am deleting the tag. -Exucmember 17:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

MORE railroading by Uncle Ed (moonie Ed Poor) Check out Sun Myung Moon's biography page for MORE "Uncle" ED Poor moonie railroading.. --->How much railroading is too much, how obvious can the railroading get?


[edit] Force and authority

I disagree with your comment above:

...Cleophas travelled to the major centers throughout the world where all members, including major leaders, were required to attend

I was a member at the time, and although I heard about the channeling and so forth, I was never told by a church leader to attend any meetings. Rather, it was rank and file members who urged such attendance upon me.

I refused, since the account they gave of the incarnation disagreed with church doctrine. It is impossible (according to church theology) for a spirit to possess a body. That is a teaching of "low" religions like Hinduism or Voodoo. I'm sorry that I have not finished writing Wikipedia's Returning Resurrection article, but maybe the controversy of Heung Jin Nim's part-time partial channel Cleophas will be the motivating factor.

A departed spirit cannot do anything in human society directly. Neither can angels, including fallen angels like Lucifer. What we call Satan or evil spirits can act in human society only by entering into a "give and take relationship" with an earthly person. Same for (good) angels and saints.

The "spirit man" of the dead person (or angel) connects with the spirit man of the earthly person and attempts to influence him. Good influence is called "inspiration" and evil influence, which is much more common, is called "temptation".

Some mediums have been known to go into a trance when channeling, such as Edgar Cayce. There are also books like Unknown But Known and Thirty Years among the Dead. Interestingly, the "Sun Myung Moon Sittings" chapter was deleted from Unknown But Known after Rev. Moon became unpopular in the U.S.; only old editions of the book have this, but you can read it online.

According to church doctrine, we can gain help from the spiritual world by attracting good spirits - chiefly by prayer, repentance and good deeds. They come to us, giving inspiration, revelation, healing, etc. But they leave us if we engage in evil. This is what happened in Cleophas's case.

When he departed from the will of God (with such things as detaining people by force and beating them), surely Heung Jin Nim did not stay with him. Everyone who knew HJN on the earth described him as a humble boy. I see no reason why he would start beating people up, least of all his (then future) father-in-law Bo Hi Pak. It simply doesn't make sense.

Only the argument (made by church critics and rarely by church members) that violence is condoned by church doctrine or policy could explain it. But this is contridicted by the thousands of pages of Rev. Moon's sermos I have read, as well as the answers I've gotten from personally questioning senior church officials.

In conclusion, I request not that the "insider view" be enshrined as "fact" but I humbly ask only that the matter be regarded as a "dispute" between the pro-violenc and anti-violence POVs. As a church insider, I am on the anti-violence side. That is, I believe (along with New York Regional Director Bruce Grodner) that "you can't make people change" and that we should not force anyone to do anything. Theologically, this makes sense because God "lets" people do whatever they want instead of smiting them! The other POV should also be mentioned (but not asserted as "fact"). --Uncle Ed 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Authorized tour channeling Heung Jin Nim

Ed, you said Sun Myung Moon "let it happen." That's essentially the same as saying it was authorized. Are you implying SMM thought Cleophas was a fake and let it happen anyway? I'm sure there were some skeptics all along, and in growing numbers as Cleophas's behavior became more and more strange. But you seem to be arguing that he had to have been a fake from the beginning for theological reasons. Sorry, but that was simply not the position of the Unification Church. The official position represented at the meetings with him was that he was channeling Heung Jin Nim. This was clearly the view expressed by the majority of members at the time also. You might want to ask yourself whether your personal theology on this matter is heretical. Members debated (almost entirely afterward) at what point Heung Jin Nim's spirit left Cleophas. But it is simply not accurate to imply that the official position of the church, or the majority view among the members, was anything other than accepting that the words Cleophas was speaking were coming from the spirit of Heung Jin Nim. And it is simply not credible to imply that Sun Myung Moon did not authorize the tour. -Exucmember 05:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Without fighting you on this, I'd like to explore the concept of "letting it happen" with an example. A spiritualist came to give a speech at U.S. Church HQ in the 1990 or 1991. Zin Moon Kim, the "national advisor" (higher than church president) told me that the spiritualist could speak "if the purpose of the visit was for us church members to witness to him" (i.e., persuade him to become a member). Moreover, married ("blessed") members were specifically not to ask him for marriage counseling.
The church sisters who organized the speech arranged chose not to cooperate with this purpose but rather looked on the spiritualist as someone to help and advise them, listened avidly to his views on the spirit world and asked his advice on their marital problems. No one tried to witness to him.
I let Kim know all of this, but he never lifted a finger to stop them, merely repeating that the spiritualist could speak if it was to witness to him.
I regard this as an example of how mild a leader can be in the face of church members' rebelling against direction. He could have banned the spiritualist from speaking, a direction I urged him to take! I stood ready to enforce the order if given. But he let them disobey him.
This doesn't mean that Kim approved of the spiritualist in any way; it certainly was not an endorsement, even though he didn't stop the members from exalting him.
I could give countless examples of (1) mild remonstrance from high church leaders that we'd all better do something or refrain from doing it, but (2) letting us do what we want anyway. By no means does this 'letting' signify approval. The church simply isn't very forceful in terms of disciplining its members. As then-Pastor Bruce Grodner (now Regional Director) often said, "You can't make people be good." This echoes the old saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
I feel this has repurcussions on the whole brainwashing / theocracy thing. The church doesn't trick or browbeat people into joining; that's not policy, anyway. And there's no plan to make people stay in or obey rules. All is voluntary.
Getting back to the main point here, how much True Father knew about Cleophas being an imperfect channel for HJN is an open issue. Some say he "authorized" it 100% and "endorsed" it as a continuous channel and embodiment. Others (me, principally ;-) say he didn't object but never came out and said "Cleophas is channelling Heung Jin Nim."
The only clear statement he made was at the end of three years, when he said the revelations (and presumably the channeling) was over. My conclusion is that Cleophas (if he had been a true channel) would have thrived and prospered afterwards, but since he went back to Zimbabwe and caused all sorts of trouble he must have "made a base with Satan" during the so-called channeling period. Good trees don't bear bad fruit.
And one more thing: "Mr Moon, who was born in what is now North Korea, has close ties with the communist regime despite being a fervent anti-Marxist." [1] This is another example. Rev. Moon absolutely condemns Communism and all but 'cursed' Kim Il-Sung at one point. However, he is also doing his best to woo North Korea. This is an example of "hate the sin, love the sinner". Like Jesus not "condemning" the woman caught in adultery while simulteneously insisting that she "sin no more". It's nuanced, my friend. --Uncle Ed 20:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think a good way to balance the information about the "Black Heung Jin Nim" episode (which admittedly wasn't the UC's finest hour) is what I said 3 months ago: "Perhaps the earlier, more democratic chanelling deserves its own article."

As far as the question of whether what the "Black Heung Jin Nim" was doing was possible in Unification theology - You mentioned that you refused to go because what he claimed to be doing was not possible (against church teachings). In that regard you were part of an insignificantly small minority at that time. It seems highly unlikely that Rev. Moon would have given consent for him to hold all those meetings around the world if what he was doing was not possible in the context of church teachings. -Exucmember 00:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. I meant that I refused because the explanation of "Cleophas is not there, only Heung Jin Nim" seemed theologically suspect. Then when I heard about handcuffs and locked doors, I felt my earlier suspicions were vindicated.
At no time did I ever find any indication that Rev. Moon had "authorized" these activities. As I said before, I heard that Moon had advised (commanded?) Cleophas to obey Rev. Kwak, specifically on the matter of good food and sufficient sleep. I heard nothing about Kwak's further involvement in the matter.
My impression at the time was that the "Black Heung Jin Nim movement" was entirely a grassroots affair, tolerated but never endorsed by senior leadership. The presence of a Dennis Orme hardly constitutes official endorsement. And quotes from a ghost-written book by an ex-member reporting that "Father chuckled" when he heard of a beating is just not good enough for me. (The same book said Mother wasted all her time watching Korean soap operas and shopping.)
I don't doubt that some authentic channeling may have occurred, but as the end result was that Cleophas went crazy and started committing crimes and mortal sins I can't accept the assertion by non-members that this was a church project. The man was a loose cannon, from beginning to end. --Uncle Ed 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] needs a rewrite

hello. this article needs to be rewritten to reflect who this person is outside of his role within whatever religions and churches to which he is significant. the claims made by people as to his channeling the deceased son of Mr. Moon should not be treated as if they are true. sources need to be cited that are verifiable and unbiased. --Danreitz 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You've missed the point. The phenomenon of the "Black Heung Jin Nim" was an important chapter in the history of the Unification Church. The medium himself is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. See immediately below. (This comment added later.) -Exucmember (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not a biography of Cleophas

I've clarified in the article that "Black Heung Jin Nim" was a title during a defined period of time (the time during which members believed Cleophas was the continuous channel for Heung Jin Moon). The article is not a biography of the life of Cleophas. -Exucmember 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a very good title for the channeling Cleophas did (or which members claim he did). Either way, some other title would be better. I suggest merging this into the Heung Jin Moon article with a heading like "Reports of channeling" or "Channeling through a Zimbabwean church member". --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
"Black Heung Jin Nim" is the phrase that was used to describe this medium by 100% of the membership at that time. It is the right title. It was a very significant chapter in Unification Church history. I'm sorry you don't like that, but wishing it hadn't happened is not a good reason for strained, convoluted solutions on Wikipedia. -Exucmember (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Cleopas Kundioni is the name of the "black Heung Jin Nim". Perhaps we should transform this article into a biography about him. Along with this, we need a comprehensive article on all claims of channeling, automatic writing and visions of Heung Jin Moon.
I propose to WP:Move Black Heung Jin Nim to Cleopas Kundioni. I have no objection to a "breakout article" (see Wikipedia:Summary style) to handle any overlap between Cleopas and Moon. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed Poor wrote on my Talk page:

  • I'd like to rework and probably rename the Black Heung Jin Nim article. Much of it can go into bio of Cleopas Kundioni, the Zimbabwean man who reportedly embodied the deceased Heung Jin Moon in the mid 1980s.

Ed, do not move the article. To be frank, your bias here is astounding. You have repeatedly misrepresented the Unification Church position at the time, have made wild assumptions and ridiculous assertions about what Rev. Moon did at the time, and your view on this matter is that of an extremely tiny minority, even within the Unification Church, very possibly a minority of one. No one called the medium by his personal name at the time. Everyone called him "Black Heung Jin Nim." The article is about that phenomenon. It is not about the medium. Btw, Unification Church members can't seem to agree on the spelling of his name (probably because no one even uttered his name during the time of his channeling), and you have invented a third (or fourth?) spelling.

Your approach to this article has been revisionist, and frankly, way out of line. Your relation to this article approaches your relation to the articles for which you were sanctioned. I strongly suggest you just leave this article alone, or at least refrain from editing it directly. -Exucmember (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that there is a dispute here over the facts. Possibly the topic is so complex that it needs an analogy to clarify it. I will work on the articles about Dae Mo Nim being channeled by Mrs. Hyo Nam Kim first. Cheers! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)