Talk:Black Heung Jin Nim

message: 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)
thread_title: Force and authority

message: 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)
thread_title:  needs a rewrite 

message: * The Reverend Kwak returned to East Garden professing certainty that the possession [sic] was real.
Anyone familiar with Unification Church doctrine and terminology would avoid the word "possession" as we take pains to distinguish three concepts: demonic possession, reincarnation, and returning resurrection. Evil people (or angels) "possess" earthly people, always to their mutual detriment. Reincarnation is the false doctrine that when people die, they are "given" new bodies. Returning resurrection is the connection in spirit between a dead person (i.e, their spirit man or spirit self and the spiritual mind of a living earthly person; R.R.'s benefit or detriment depends on the living person making "good conditions", such as repentance or (grin) joining the church. 
Outsiders may be unaware of the controversy within the church about how much of what Cleophas did and said actually came from Heung Jin Nim. His refusal to accept assignment to a central figure (reported to me verbally by church sources) is a telltale sign of possession. It's likely that Cleophas was channeling more than one spirit; not always or only HJN. The violence is also a sign of demonic possession - not of channelling HJN. I have been unable to verify rumors of Rev. Moon taking beatings as some sort of great joke. 
Our church teaches that a "spiritually open" person can channel both good and bad spirits. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hong as a source

message: Dan Fefferman, a longtime church official, wrote:
:To me, the evidence clearly supports the view that Mr. Sudo currently teaches at Chung Pyung, namely that the serious violence was NOT done by Heung Jin. And of course, Father was NOT aware of how serious the violence was or he never would have allowed it. 
Whether he is more credible than ex-member Hong I leave up to the editorial consensus of Wikipedia contributors, but his view certainly deserves inclusion if hers does. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fefferman as a source

message: : and sent him back to Africa; he did not accept this, made even more grandiose claims, and caused a schism within the Zimbabwean church.
Assuming Father (or Rev. Kwak) indeed sent Cleophas packing, where did he go next? Did he refuse to return to Africa? (Note: Zimbabwe is in Africa; it's the former Rhodesia.)  Or did he return to Africa (after an initial refusal perhaps)? It's hard to create a schism from abroad.
My friend in Harlem who was a member of the Zimbabwean church during (what you call) the "schism" has much to say about this. May I cite him as a source? Or does he have to have tparents.org quote him first, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where he went after being dismissed

message: Exucmember:
In this revert you removed a large number of legitimate templates & tags, as well as correction of some quite ugly and MOS-non-compliant quote formatting. I attempted to revert it individually, but was unable to do so without also reverting this later edit. I have just restored the material from this later edit. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I did not mean to revert all those edits - it must have been done accidentally as I had several tabs open and apparently inadvertently edited a previous version instead of the current one. I had, in fact, noticed that you had made a number of constructive edits in bringing the article into conformity with the MOS. -Exucmember (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: I have heard and read various opinions about whether:
* Cleophas was a continuous channel for Heung Jin Nim
* Rev. Moon officially approved Cleophas as a continuous channel
Let's avoid making it seem like there are no disputes about this. The disputes are interesting, if only because church opponents draw conclusions from certain assumptions.
It seems that Shadow of the Moons implies that high church official like Sun Myung Moon and 3rd son Hyun Jin Moon were endorsing violence which patently contradicts the church's message of peace and love. We contributors should be careful not to endorse this view, but rather to describe it in terms of A said B about C.
There are others who dispute the continuity of Cleophas as a channel, or who have questions about what sort of endorsement Sun Myung Moon gave of Cleophas as a channel, or of the intensity of the "beatings". These should not be censored or downplayed. If there is a dispute, we should describe it fairly. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy over the relationship between Cleophas and Heung Jin Moon

message: I removed this from the article:
Hong continues:
This seems to just be stuff that she has heard from other people. I don't think that is really suitable for information on a living person on WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP sensitive material

message: I've just done a LOT of work in a single edit to restore most of the best material that has been in this article, including sourced material from a book published by Little, Brown & Co., and from a Washington Post article in which Staff Writer Michael Isikoff writes that this phenomenon (universally referred to in the literature as the "Black Heung Jin" or the "Black Heung Jin Nim") was "what some Unification Church members believe is the most momentous spiritual event in its 34-year history".
I would ask that people not revert what I've done, but work on the article from this point. 
This phenomenon involving the African member was reported in mainstream media and discussed in published books. It does not seem at all appropriate to bring up a merge proposal less than a year after this was discussed and rejected. Once again I would call for Ed Poor to keep his promise not to remove material from this article. For a moment at least, he seemed to acknowledge that it was not a good idea. One should not remove material just because it does not agree with one's WP:FRINGE views.
In most publications his name is not even mentioned, but for those which do, there is agreement on the last name: "Kundioni". The spelling of his first name seems to be controversial, so I have left it out for the time being.
:As I mentioned before, I have never heard the expression "Black Heung Jin Moon." At least rename the artice to "Black Heung Jin Nim."  This at least has been used a bit (by Asian church leaders by what I have heard personally) and seems to have been picked up by "reliable sources." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not able to make the move so I am putting in a request for it. Borock (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of  a quality article about an important chapter in the Unification Church

message: :Black Heung Jin Moon → Black Heung Jin Nim — This is the name used by sources. —Borock (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: by Anthony Appleyard. Jafeluv (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: There is a section in Heung Jin Moon which pretty much gives the same material as this one.  Would anything be lost if the this article was merged there? Borock (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd previously proposed such a merger at Talk:Heung Jin Moon. It did not get a friendly reception. Good luck (and you have my support if you re-propose it formally). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reproposed it. We will see what happens. Borock (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate information