My recent video, “Thoughts on Sanctuary Church,” elicited affirmative responses as well as detailed criticism and ad hominem comments. I’m grateful for it all and want to summarize “Thoughts” and the main criticisms, and respond to the latter.
I began with the logic of Sanctuary’s story, which Dr. Richard Panzer, Sanctuary’s president, affirmed as accurate: True Parents are doing fine; True Parents appoint Hyung Jin Nim’s couple to be their heir; True Father dies and True Mother goes off track; centering on True Father, Hyung Jin Nim’s couple restores True Parents.
I pointed out the error in this logic: If True Mother went off track, then True Parents weren’t really doing fine; if True Parents weren’t really doing fine, the appointment of Hyung Jin Nim’s couple is not valid, which means he’s not the heir of anything.
I understand why some don’t agree with the first point. By “doing fine” I meant the perfection of their marital love as True Parents, from which the Divine Principle says we cannot fall, because to believe otherwise would deny the omnipotence of God, the perfectibility of goodness itself, and the perfection of God (Exposition of the Divine Principle, p. 42). Simply put, true love is eternal, so if True Mother has gone off track, then her love was temporary, and she and True Father did not have true love. This means they weren’t True Parents. True Parents is not people as much as it is a relationship.
I then worked backward from the Sanctuary premise that the appointment is valid. If so, then True Parents were fine; if True Parents were fine, then True Mother was fine; if True Mother was fine, then she would not go off track; if True Mother is not off track, then she is True Parents; if True Mother is True Parents, then Hyung Jin Nim has to attend her; if Hyung Jin Nim is not attending her, then he is off track.