Talk:Black Heung Jin Nim

??
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?

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)

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." 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)

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)

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 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)

Hong as a source

 * 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)

Fefferman as a source
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)

Where he went after being dismissed

 * 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)

Ed Poor's edits on this article
Ed, your edits on this article have been obstructionist, revisionist, and repeatedly seeking to promote a fringe view that I sincerely think was not held at the time of these events by anyone except possibly you personally. I'm very disappointed with the quality of the edits you've made to this article over the course of its existence, and unless a person is naturally predisposed to assume good faith (as I am), the might think that your narrow, POV goal is to hide or obscure the facts and published opinions on this subject which are embarrassing or uncomfortable for the church. I'm not going to go so far as to say I don't think you should edit this article at all, but I think you need to reassess your stance and your approach. -Exucmember (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to promote the view that Cleophas was too violent, I will agree with you. If, however, you want to endorse the side of anti-Church critics that (1) the violence was endorsed by the top leadership and (2) thereby imply that the church is pro-violence de jure or de facto than you are engaging in WP:OR as well as violated NPOV.


 * But I won't revert any of your changes. So have it your way. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You claim that you won't revert any of my changes, and immediately proceed to do so in the next few minutes.


 * Ed, I don't know what to think. You're either not being honest with me and whoever else reads this or you're not being honest with yourself. I know you want to defend the church, but unless in addition to calling Nansook Hong a liar you're redefining top leadership to exclude national leaders, your statement is false - unless you're calling Damian Anderson a liar also:




 * Of course I would never assume that you would make all the pronouncements you have without even reading what Damian had to say (cited in the article). You have indicated that you haven't read Nansook's book, which is really hard to understand.


 * But I have not endorsed the anti-church POV as you describe it. The way you put it, however, perhaps current member and strong Unificationism booster Damian Anderson has? -Exucmember (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Exucmember's edits on this article
You've taken the POV that "Black Heung Jin Nim" is the central topic. But I feel that the returning resurrection of Heung Jin Moon is of equal or greater importance. The Cleophas episode is merely the best publicized and "juicy" aspect.

A lot of our disagreement (your and mine) over this hinges on the offer I made on your talk page - to which I saw no answer - to discuss the role of violence and other ethics problems re: the Unification movement. Church critics see Cleophas and the beatings and so forth as evidence for their argument that there's "something wrong with them thar Moonies ... See, even Rev. Moon let some dopey weirdo run amuck just for laughs". If you're promoting that POV, it's okay, as long as you don't suppress the opposite POV.

And it's not just my own idea. I talked to the church's PR department and asked them what the official take on HJN's embodiment was. It hardly differs from my personal opinion. So stop trying to marginalize the church POV by saying it's just one member.

The fact is, you disagree with me. So what? Let's follow NPOV and allow all significant voices to be heard.

The church says HJN survived after the car crash. He "lives" in the spiritual world. That accords with church dogma - and, by the way with the teachings of many if not most other Christian churchs.

The church says HJN communicated in spirit with numerous people after his death, through automatic writing, revelation, and even a spiritual manifestation; Andrea Higashibaba said he was "sitting" in the car next to her in spirit.

The embodiment was widely misunderstood by church members, typically by insisting that Cleophas's spirit was not involved or was unconscious. However, that was never announced anywhere in print by the church leadership that I've seen. Ed Poor was not the only one to doubt the "continuous channel" aspect which you have invented. Why don't you ask around about the attitude of HJN's widow, Julia Hoon Sook Moon?

Lastly, you have failed to report the duality of sources. Church sources, like Anderson and Fefferman, felt that the beatings were wrong but did not imply that Father had endorsed them. Arch-church critic (and ex-member) Nansook Hong hardly writes a page of her book without slam-dunking the church and its founder. (Have you read the first 2 pages? Sheesh!)

It's a clearcut case of church boosters vs. church critics, and therefore you ought to see that NPOV applies. It's not a case of mainstream (Moon's kooky for letting the violence go on) vs. fringe (Moon didn't endorse any violence). It's church critics vs. church supporters.

You know that when two sides disagree about weighty matters of ideology and values their accounts of the same events are going to be different. I hope you won't mind allowing both sides to have their voice, instead of only the said you agree with. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Black Heung Jin Nim" is the central topic: Hello - that's the name of the article, as of course it should be. That was the influential event that even got the attention of outsiders, far more than all the other revelations combined. You don't like the topic because it's embarrassing; I understand that. It seems clear that you'd like to kill the topic on Wikipedia by hook or crook one way or another. That's probably not going to happen, but I told you a long time ago that I thought some balance could be achieved with the negative aspects of the Black Heung Jin Nim by bringing in some more of the gentle revelation and channeling experiences previous to BHJN. This is perfectly legitimate as background. Get a source for Andrea Higashibaba or others. Weren't some of them written up in the Unification News? It was a big deal in 1987.


 * I'm not trying to promote a pro-church or anti-church POV. I would like the facts to be presented, even if imperfectly by the limited coverage in reliable sources.


 * The "fringe" view that I said (in our conversations about this in the past - last year?) you may be alone in holding was not about the ontological nature of the HJN embodiment, but your assertion that Sun Myung Moon didn't approve Black Heung Jin Nim as his son's embodiment and didn't authorize the Black Heung Jin Nim to tour the world and have long meetings that the members were expected to attend.


 * I never once heard the misunderstanding about the embodiment that you did, and so I don't know how widespread it was, but as you say if we have no source, I'm not sure what we can do. Besides, I don't see the relevance. Non-members are much more likely to misunderstand the official position, so it might be worth adding whatever (concise) explanation of doctrine would clarify this, if you feel what's there isn't enough.


 * It's not a clearcut case of church boosters vs. church critics. Let the sources speak. Bring in more sources. Just don't quote them in a way that contradicts the spirit of what they say. -Exucmember (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverts
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)


 * 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)

Controversy over the relationship between Cleophas and Heung Jin Moon
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)

Move from Black Heung Jin Nim
Black Heung Jin Nim. This page was moved from this title with no consensus, and with an unsourced assertion. It should remain at the more commonly used title. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you will show me a rule saying that no page can be moved without prior consensus, I will undo my own move. Or, since I hate edit wars, simply do a 2RR. But I'd rather you stayed and discussed why you feel the old title is better. Please give one or more specific reasons. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please present sources for your change. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand "sources for your change". Is it "Return" you object to? I thought of using "Resurrection" as in Resurrection of Jesus ("the return to bodily life of Jesus after his death") but church members regard this as different: an example of returning resurrection, as when Elijah "returned" via the appearance of John the Baptist.
 * "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come." (Matt. 11:14)


 * The whole thing is moot, because we're probably going to end up merging this article into Heung Jin Moon. The "Black Heung Jin Nim" episode (or "return") is one of the two most famous thing about Heung Jin Nim, the other being the closely related set of claims by church members to have seen or heard him in spirit or to have experienced automatic writing. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please present sources here to backup your move, that relate to this article. Cirt (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK (I have been a UC member since 1974) no one ever uses the expression "Black Heung Jin Moon." Steve Dufour (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP sensitive material
I removed this from the article:

Hong continues: "Sun Myung Moon simply announced that Heung Jin's spirit had left the Zimbabwean's body and ascended into Heaven. The Zimbabwean was not quite so ready to get off the gravy train. At last sighting, he had established a breakaway cult in Africa with himself in the role of Messiah."

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)

Restoration of a quality article about an important chapter in the Unification Church
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)
 * 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)

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

Duplicate information
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)


 * 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)
 * I reproposed it. We will see what happens. Borock (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)