Confessions of a Divine Principle Editor

By Dan Fefferman

I had the privilege of working on both the 1973 edition of Divine Principle and consulting on the 1996 new translation, known as Exposition of the Divine Principle (EDP). Here, I offer some recollections and confessions, with a view toward giving our community some information for our reflection.

Prior to 1973, most of us in the USA used Dr. Young Oon Kim’s “Red Book” titled Divine Principle and Its Applicationor the blue study guide that complemented it. A smaller number used Sang Ik Choi’s Principles of Education. As part of his late 1971 push to unify the groups that had formed around the various Korean missionaries, Rev. Sun Myung Moon ordered the translation into English of the official Korean version of Divine Principle, Wolli Kangron. This task was given to Mrs. Won Pok Choi. She later told me she had to finish this work in great haste, over a period of 40 days, at the Soo Taek Rhee training center.

Sometime in 1972, Mrs. Choi’s text arrived in Washington, DC. Each chapter was given to a different editor, living in various centers, and we did not have a style sheet to guide us. Editors were relatively inexperienced and used various standards of punctuation and capitalization. In addition, there were lots of new terms.

Dr. Kim’s book was relatively short and did not use terms like “foundation of substance,” “foundation to receive the messiah,” or even “internal character and external form.” So in some chapters of Mrs. Choi’s translation, “foundation of substance” was rendered as “substantial foundation” or even “foundation of heart.” I myself changed “time-identity” to “time-indemnity” until I realized my error.

Editors agonized over whether Moses led the course of “restoration of Canaan” or “restoration into Canaan.” We also wondered how strict we should be about retaining “therefore,” instead of “thus” or “so.” Adding to the angst of the editors was the fact we had been instructed to stick closely to Mrs. Choi’s translation rather than risking a change in meaning. This meant avoiding changes in sentence structure and length.

In early 1973, Louise Berry (Strait) was given the painstaking task of bringing together the highly inconsistent work of the various editors. As the deadline threatened, I was brought in to finish the task, come hell or high water. Coordinating a staff of about a half a dozen, I decided it would be impossible to unify the disparate editorial standards in time and settled for achieving consistency within chapters instead. That is why, if you read a first edition of the “Black Book,” you may notice that “National Course of Restoration” is capitalized in one chapter but not in another, or that “world-wide” is hyphenated here, but not there, for example.

I recall long hours burning the midnight oil in the basement of Varnum House. As we were finally about to go to press, Father arrived for a brief stay at Upshur House, a short walk away. Hearing there were problems with editing, he demanded that it be absolutely flawless. However, we were already at the “blueline” (proof) stage, meaning that photographic negatives had already been produced in preparation for burning lithographic printing plates. Very few changes are normally allowed at this point, because each change needs to separately photographed and carefully “stripped in” by the printers.

So, we had to pull several “all-nighters,” trying our best to weed out any errors we could catch. We found hundreds of them, and if you look carefully at a first edition, you may be able to discern where some of them are (a word or phrase that has been stripped in may appear slightly lighter or bolder than the surrounding type). The most embarrassing flaw for me personally was one that nearly crept into the chapter on Moses’ course.  It stated that after Moses led them through the Red Sea, “God drowned all the pursing Israelites,” rather than the pursuing Egyptians. Louise recalls a printer’s proof in which the title page read “DEVINE PINCIPLE”!

What, no Korean?

It was during these final stages of the editorial process that Father called me to Upshur House and gave me a remarkable instruction. I had been at Varnum House, working on the bluelines, when Dr. Kim called me on the phone and told me to come right away to Upshur and bring the bluelines of the final chapter. I hurried over to find her and Father Moon in the front sitting room. I spread the blueline on the coffee table, and Dr. Kim found the section Father wanted to discuss. She pointed to three or four paragraphs. Father then drew lines through them and said to me, “These paragraphs, take out!” This was the section that explains that Korean must be the language of the unified world.

We finally went to press, and the Black Book appeared in early summer 1973. It was far from flawless. It was also very hard for the reader to get through. And so, even before the first edition was distributed, we began working on a second.

Second edition

Here, a note of clarification is in order. There were only two editions of Mrs. Choi’s translation, both published in 1973. The first edition was printed only once, a thick black book of 643 pages. There were many printings of the second edition, some brown, some black; some hardcover, some paperback. However, for some reason, each new printing of the second edition was called a new “edition” on its title page. The only differences between these printings had to do with the size of the type, color of the cover (black or brown), kind of paper used, and whether the book was paperback or hardcover. They should have been called “printings,” not “editions.” (I own a “second edition” black hardcover version published in 1973, which is indeed a second edition. But I also own a “fifth edition” brown paperback version of this book published in 1977. In reality, this “fifth edition” is the fourth printing of the second edition! Readers who own any “edition” of Mrs. Choi’s translation other than the 643-page first edition can presume it is the second edition. As far as I know, second editions are always 536 pages long.)

The second edition was compiled by a three-person editing team consisting of Ron O’Keefe, Felice Walton (Hart) and myself, during the summer of 1973.  We worked at Belvedere, in an office on the second floor of Carriage House, above the room where Father used to speak to trainees.  I still have the first edition I used in this process, complete with editing marks. After we finished our work on Part I of this edition, Ron continued on his own to complete Part II.

For this edition, our instructions were less strict than with the first edition. We were allowed to rework sentences and change idiomatic expressions. Although most readers still find this version of DP to be “tough sledding,” it is certainly an easier read than the first edition.

The second edition team was fortunate to have both Mrs. Choi and Rev. Young Whi Kim available for occasional consultation that summer. Mrs. Choi was often at Belvedere with True Father, and Rev. Kim, who had just published his own DP lecture manual, was leading the 100-day Belvedere training session. Ever humble, Mrs. Choi apologized more than once for her “poor translation,” which was completed in such haste.

Neither Mrs. Choi nor Rev. Kim was slavishly devoted to the Korean text. If the team found what we thought was an error, they were open to discussing it and occasionally authorized changes. They also agreed that the section which Father had omitted from the first edition, regarding Korean as the future world language, should also be omitted from the second edition.

Another change, directed by Rev. Kim, had to do with description of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: Did it symbolize immature Eve or perfect Eve? The first edition stated this tree symbolizes “Eve in perfection.” However, Rev. Kim reported he had discussed this issue with Father Moon, and that Father had authorized him to teach instead that it symbolized simply “Eve” or “woman,” implying that the goodness or evil of her character had not yet been determined. Thus, the second edition contains the following:

“…When we find in the Garden of Eden a tree symbolizing [first ed.: perfect] manhood, we know there must be another tree symbolizing [first ed.: perfect] womanhood. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was described as standing with the Tree of Life (Gen. 2:9), was thus the symbol of Eve.”

The second edition not only omits the adjective “perfect” to describe Eve here, but substantially rewrites the last sentence, which, in the first edition reads as follows:

“The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which was described as standing with the Tree of Life (Genesis 2:9), was the symbol of ‘womanhood having fulfilled the ideal of creation,’ the symbol of Eve in perfection.”

Between 1973 and 1996, the second edition Black Book was the standard English DP text, but most new members were introduced to the Principle through lectures. At least two manuals were created by Rev. Young Whi Kim for this purpose. There was also a six-volume Divine Principle Home Study Course published by HSA headquarters. Later, Father Moon instructed that a series of two-hour, four-hour and eight-hour lectures be created, with accompanying texts.

The author with three different editions of the Divine Principle book.

Outline of the Principle, Level 4 became the more-or-less standard text used in the USA during the early-to-mid 1980s. Published in 1980, this book was written by Rev. C.H. Kwak, based on Wolli Kangron, “to help readers understand The Principle and to be used as a lecture outline.” The title “Level 4” seems to be based on its relation to the two-hour, four-hour and eight-hour lecture booklets.

An expanded “Level 5” version was nearing completion in 1986, with substantial input from Western Unificationist scholars. I worked on it part-time for one quarter while a student at UTS.  The project was scrapped when Father Moon declared that Wolli Kangron must remain the standard. He then ordered a new translation of that text, which was published in 1996. I was disappointed by this decision, because I believe the DP, being “a textbook teaching the truth” rather than the Truth itself, needs many new expressions.

Exposition of the Principle

My work on the 1996 translation, Exposition of the Divine Principle, was relatively minor. I gave feedback on a draft of the text and recall a couple of formal discussions with the editors in New York. There is no doubt in my mind that the 1996 translation represents an improvement over Mrs. Choi’s earlier version, and I suspect she agreed.

I have not done a systematic comparison of the two translations, but a few things stand out. First, EDP represents not only a new translation but also includes several substantive changes. One notable change is the use of new biblical proof-texts to replace some of the old ones, which were considered weak by readers with experience in biblical studies.

For example, in the original Wolli Kangron, the following quote from St. Paul is used to support the idea that Jesus did not come to die: “… for if they [the rulers of the age] had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.” But, in context, Paul is actually arguing in favor of the predestination of the Cross, which he considered to be God’s plan from the beginning.

To compare: the 1973 second edition of DP says,

“…we can see that Jesus’ crucifixion was the result of the ignorance and disbelief of the Jewish people and was not God’s predestination to fulfill the whole purpose of Jesus’ coming as the Messiah. I Corinthians 2:8 says, ‘None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.’  This should be sufficient proof.”

But the 1996 EDP says,

“we can deduce that Jesus’ death on the cross was the unfortunate outcome of the ignorance and disbelief of the people of his day; it was not necessary for the complete fulfillment of his mission as the Messiah. This is well illustrated by Jesus’ last words on the cross: ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’” (Luke 23:34)

The above comparison of the 1973 and 1996 versions also points up another important contribution of the new version. It softened DP’s approach to the question of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion. Thus, where the 1973 version speaks of the “ignorance and disbelief of the Jewish people,” the 1996 version speaks of “the ignorance and disbelief of the people of his day.” Several other examples of this softening can be found elsewhere in the 1996 text.

Regarding the two previously mentioned substantive changes Father Moon had authorized, both of them were rejected by the EDP editing team. Thus, Exposition of the Divine Principle includes the paragraphs affirming that Korean will be the language of the unified world. And, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil — which for 23 years had symbolized immature Eve — once again “represents the ideal woman, perfected Eve.”

No doubt there are many additional differences between EDP and the earlier translation which are worth investigating, and I’m sure readers will comment on some they have noticed.

It should be noted Divine Principle is not currently one of the three core scriptures in the era of Cheon Il Guk; moreover, True Mother Moon intriguingly stated in March that “In the future, the Divine Principle will need many updates. What I mean is that theories from the Completed Testament Age do not suffice.” Perhaps she is alluding to the possibility of a major 21st century revision of the original Korean edition of DP.

I consider myself very fortunate to have worked on the editing of several English editions of DP, as well as on various publications of Rev. Moon’s words. This experience has given me first-hand insight into the experience of both ancient and modern scribes dealing with sacred scripture. I hope to discuss with colleagues and readers the various issues and problems we face in approaching this process.♦

Dan Fefferman (UTS Class of 1986) is a member of the UTS Board of Trustees and President of the International Coalition for Religious Freedom. He is also the composer of several well-known Unificationist holy songs.

34 thoughts on “Confessions of a Divine Principle Editor

Add yours

  1. Excellent, Dan! Now I can understand why, during “official DP” study time, half of my MFT team would be “nodding” in agreement with numerous passages! The first “black book” of which I am a proud owner and peruser, was indeed “a slog” which I attempted, and ultimately succeeded many times. Good insights.

    Also, my Japanese wife, who speaks and reads and writes excellent English, was often engaged in translation of TF’s recent speeches from Japanese notes to English and vice versa. I often assisted her when she was flummoxed more than once or twice by incomprehensible and/or incoherent passages (perhaps the note taker was also “nodding” in agreement?) and trying to “make reasonable sense” of it all. So I was introduced to the fragility of the “absolute truth of God” and the perils of…interpretation. A good experience. It probably has made me less prone to “outrage” by the current detractors of TM by the adherents of the SC movement regarding her “changing of TF words”. “Deadlines and commitments, what to leave in, what to leave out”? Bob Seeger – “Against the Wind”.

    1. A very minor correction, I believe: The three sets of DP tapes that I recall were 2, 4, and 6 hour versions. Not 8. I diagrammed each version for people to read as they listened to the talks. Still have them and occasionally use them today.

  2. Dan,

    Thank you so much for writing this. It is a valuable article, both for its reporting of history and its insights into the confluence of the divine and human, the eternal and temporal, in the writing of the Word.

    One question: I’ve had the recollection of picking up the first edition of Divine Principle while living in the Regent Street Center in Oakland shortly after I joined, late January 1973. Yet you say it was not published until early that summer. Are you sure of that date? If so, my memory will stand corrected.

    1. I’m going to have to trust my memory over yours on this Tyler. I have a DP first edition signed by TF in early summer 1973. Inside the cover there is a picture of TF handing me the book at Belvedere. I included a copy when I submitted this article but it was not included, maybe because it was kind of fuzzy. I have to conclude that either the book you saw was not a first edition Black Book, or you have the date wrong.

    2. Tyler and Dan, wow. What a testimony. I was privileged to be in the first 100 day training session under President Kim, while he taught the trainees and worked on the two-volume DP Lecture Outline and Study Guide. On the final day of the training, Father signed and distributed a copy of the DP first edition before we were sent out as OWC Mobile Unit commanders. It was my expression that he distributed them to us on the day of release. And my recollection is it was May or June of 1973. If I could dig the volume out, I bet he even signed and dated it.

      1. I have it handy, Bob. Father dated it July 1, 1973, almost 45 years ago to the day! And you are right that this is the day of their release. I sent Mark Barry a copy of a picture of me receiving mine from TF with the trainees that very day, but he didn’t include it in the main article… I guess it was too fuzzy (but it now appears below). After TF finished, Felice, Ron and I went back upstairs to continue editing, while y’all went on with the training. I was in that training for several weeks myself, but got sent out in an early wave to Idaho, before coming back to edit the second edition. It was a busy year. I was assigned as Illinois OWC Commander for a couple of months before going back to DC to head up the Watergate activities and VOC.

  3. God’s revelation is constantly changing. Divine Principle black book is just the foundation for other guidance to follow. There is so much more to find out about God, our Creator, and Parent. Unless we are firmly cemented in understanding what has been given, we cannot understand how God is working in today’s world through the Family Federation and outside world leaders. True Parents’ word and teaching are new — thus we don’t need the old religious teachings any longer. Satan’s control over this world is old, so why do we continue to listen to his history, teaching, and current information to lead us? Yet, we do. We don’t see the lion sleeping with the lamb. We resort to old habits and old ways. God didn’t provide the best people to support Jesus. Well, the same can be said of those followers of True Parents. God brings those inspired when ready. But those inspired don’t stay all the time. And even those that stay stop growing, and fall back to old ways. True Mother, the female aspect of God, has been silent far too long. As the Chosen Daughter of God, let us never forget her position and authority. Mere mortals can’t interpret what they don’t know. That’s the reason God continually sends us messages, but for only those with ears to hear and eyes to see.

  4. Wow, Dan – such amazing experiences you’ve had with the DP!

    The experience with Father and “These paragraphs, take out!” is precious! As for your latter comment about the DP not being in the “3 Core Scriptures,” it is in the 8 Core Textbooks that True Father proclaimed toward the end of his life. I hope some day someone (you perhaps) will have the opportunity to ask True Mother a question about the primacy of DP and sacred texts.

  5. Thank you very much, Dan, for this historic account of the production of the Divine Principle. This is a valuable piece of information about something that many sold as “A Revelation from God.” But we know that there are many intermediaries used to actually write down and record “revelations.” The more transparency there is about the process, the better people are able to make judgments about texts. Biblical scholars would find such accounts of construction of biblical texts a treasure trove of information, that would help lay to rest various speculations and theories.

    I have always been skeptical about claims of inerrancy and literalism, and I believe one of the most serious problems today is that many Muslims do not realize that the Koran was constructed from various revelations from Mohammed that were memorized orally by followers in a heavily illiterate society and collected, written down, and organized thematically after his death. Religious leaders and institutions use these claims of inerrancy to prop up their own power over others, preventing the maturation of followers, and turning an institution designed for growth into an institution of oppression.

    It took Christianity a long time to accept Biblical Criticism as not being sacrilegious. And, it is healthy for Unificationists to understand this process and use their own reason and hearts to draw conclusions.

    Whenever collections of True Father’s or True Mother’s words are organized, I like to know who the editors are, what their educational background is, who instructed them or paid them to do the editing, etc. If excerpts are taken from speeches and reassembled independent of the original context, some of the spiritual intent of the utterances can be lost. A video presentation of True Father speaking to a group and knowledge of the reason, occasion, of the meeting generates a much more accurate understanding than finding a sentence from that speech cut and reassembled into a topical treatment of Father’s words.

    Unification Theological Seminary, in its early years — which these still are — should be able to do this type of constructive analysis of texts in order to get closer to the truth as “being,” rather than truth in literal correspondence to “facts” described by words.

    1. Gordon,

      We really do need to start a tradition of constructive analysis. I’d like to see editors identified, both so that they get credit for their work and so they can be held accountable for it. I once wrote a press release for the Ocean Challenge program, sent to dozens of media outlets, referring to “the Unification Church and its flounder, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.” I kid you not! No doubt God has forgiven me for that, if only because he got a good laugh out of it. But there are also serious issues at stake, and we need to be as transparent as possible so that future generations can understand better the way in which our literary tradition developed.

      1. Thank you, Dan, for sharing your “confessions”. Please share more. I very much agree with your comment above that editors should be identified and held accountable. Too often publications often do not make reference to the editors or translators and thus one cannot address the editor if some obvious error appears. Developing constructive analysis would also help us to get to the bottom of some thorny issues that result from mistranslation and misinterpretation. Translators and linguists are often not adept in theology and neither are theologians skilled in linguistics. History has shown us that too often one letter or word can throw the providence in a completely different direction – often with serious consequences.

  6. Dear Mr. Fefferman,

    Thank you for contributing this article. I am interested in this quote from your article:

    “Regarding the two previously mentioned substantive changes Father Moon had authorized, both of them were rejected by the EDP editing team. Thus, Exposition of the Divine Principle includes the paragraphs affirming that Korean will be the language of the unified world.”

    Is there any reason why True Father wanted to remove those four paragraphs regarding the Korean language becoming the language of the unified world? Furthermore, why did the editing team reject this instruction?

    I’d appreciate if you could provide some insight on this.

    1. Paulo… Father didn’t think Westerners were ready for this teaching back in 1973. He also told us not to say he was the Messiah. There are many examples of teachings that he used to keep secret from certain audiences. Tamar’s course and Zechariah’s relationship with Mary, for example.

      1. As I’ve previously noted on this site:

        A more detailed explanation of the creation event was kept secret for many years. Dr. Young Oon Kim used to question Father and he would not answer. Then, one day he did answer her. He explained that Adam and Eve were born in a “special creation womb.” As Dr. Kim shared with her 1982 Contemporary Theology class at a dinner with the women students, Father explained that Adam and Eve were born “like twins, as two peas in a pod…both were the pillars of the Godhead…each was the substantial body of God…each was equidistant from the Godhead…each of equal value.”

        For years after, Father probably did not speak publicly about this detail until September 2007 at East Garden; I heard him there. He spoke again describing the womb of God and this same explanation about Adam and Eve that he had shared personally with Dr. Young Oon Kim. Even the historian from Korea who taught OSDP for several years in America did not include this knowledge.

  7. Thank you, Dan, for this informative article. I own and have read both the 1973 version and the 1996 Exposition many times. It is kind of sad that we have to always rush things to make deadlines instead of taking the time to do it right, but I guess that was the nature of the providence while Father was alive. Thanks also for all your great songs.

  8. I really appreciate this article from Dan Fefferman. It is a topic dear to my heart. In January 1982, I began working under Dr. Bo Hi Pak as the transcriptionist and editor of Father’s public speeches, mostly at Belvedere and the World Mission Center (New Yorker). I inherited this mission from Margaret Herbers and from Elena Barros. Before Margaret, there had been a lot of poorly edited (and vetted) speeches published, and they became powerful fodder for the “anti-cult” groups. Many of you remember the famous phrase, “I am your brain,” which was attributed to one of TF’s speeches in the ’70s and used, along with others, to scare the heck out of American parents and get more deprogramming customers.

    Just to support the points made by Dan, there were many word and phrase changes made by humble people like me, who were typing and editing and proofreading translations of the speeches. And by 1982, no speech was published without being checked by the legal team in 43rd St. This was for obvious reasons. I had this Speech Library mission until 1989 and worked with several other wordsmiths. My personal background was a B.A. in English. I did not attend UTS.

    I have been flabbergasted in recent years by accusations from the SC group about “changing the words” spoken by TF. First of all, the translators (Bo Hi Pak, Sang Kil Han, Peter Kim, etc.) did their work in real time, no way to prepare (other than prayer) for the things that might come out of Father’s mouth. There was a noticeable difference between the phrases used by Dr. Pak and Col. Han. The latter seemed to be trying to form grammatically correct English sentences, which became rather long and winding, while Dr. Pak was more succinct and less grammatically concerned. But neither one of their translations could possibly be published without lots of editing.

    1. Laura,

      I’m really glad you added this. I wanted to include the topic of speech editing in my article but there was not enough space. In his later life, Father indeed became angry on occasion that people “changed” his words, especially when they softened them. But he also knew the importance of speaking carefully in official documents. The underlying issue is a deep one, especially when editors are dealing with translations. I’m reminded of Jesus saying “no divorce” at all in several places, but whoever recorded “his” words in Mt. 19.9 added “except for unchastity.” Editors can have a big impact!

  9. Dan Fefferman is an accomplished songwriter and singer of the Completed Testament Age. He also struck out very well as a popular advocate of interfaith harmony. Now, here he comes as a DP historian, providing a heart-touching testimony to generate such mature and spiritually enriching conversation as above — to the credit of everyone involved.

    Thank you, Dan!

  10. It is an interresting story. Thank you, Mr. Fefferman, for revealing the history of DP editing. This can give us light on how revelation needs to be modeled to meet believers’ needs and how revelation has to respond to those who receive it. The truth is there between the revealer and the receiver, and understanding the truth can only be done in context spiritually, socially, politically, and culturally. Understanding the Divine Principle is no exception.

  11. This is a very important article, Dan. We became too arrogant believing that every word of the DP was absolute. It did not help us in our relationship with other faith traditions. This article helps us be humble before the truth. Hopefully we can focus on the essence of the word instead of the word alone.

  12. Not going quite so far back (except in meditation, perhaps), having worked with Dan, a bit, on the Encyclopedia, other works, etc., this is surely essential legacy exposition. The primary lesson appears to be that the concept of “the infallible word” (of God) is, at least, suspicious. Many thanks. Onward.

    P.S. “What no Korean?” …priceless!

  13. Thank you, Dan, this is very enlightening. I still have my 1973 edition, but what I learned the most from was the green “Level 4” outline of DP with all the charts. I brought several spiritual children due to this.

  14. Dan,

    Great story. I have read the whole 1973 edition and found it enlightening but thick. Val and I are reading the EDP now one page a day. It does go into a bit more detail than the 1973 edition but I think it also has some shortcomings; for example, it calls Leah Jacob’s wife on Satan’s side when Leah is the ancestor of Jesus. Figue that one out! Also, your comment about I Corinthians 2:8 is interesting. When I first joined the church I felt something was out of place when this verse was used. Specifically, what does the word “it” refer back to? If one looks at the context of the verses before this verse, the “it” is the hidden wisdom which is the topic of the whole chapter. Looking at the passage from that standpoint, it was the people’s ignorance that caused them to reject Jesus. Sound familiar? Anyway, it was good to read your confession.

    1. Tony,

      Well, Leah was in the “Cain” position, so I guess in that sense it was Satan’s side. You know who else was Jesus’ ancestor? — Jezebel! Not to mention the most evil Kings of Judah, each of whom was a descendent of David and an ancestor of Jesus. God has a very tangled web to unweave!

      I sometimes play with the idea that the Messiah could have come from Rachel’s lineage. The original plan was for Saul, not David, to become the king of the United Kingdom and establish the Temple. If so, it stands to reason that the Messiah would have come from Saul’s lineage, and Saul was a Benjaminite, a descendant of Rachel. So one could say that the messiah coming from Leah’s lineage was a secondary course.

  15. After writing this article, I remembered another version of DP that I worked on. It was published under the title The Living Code, probably in 1996. It was essentially a new edition of Young Oon Kim’s “Red Book.” I inserted several things that weren’t in the original, such as some material about providential women. The title was created by Mike Inglis, who was publications editor at the time. I never liked the title, we couldn’t call it “Divine Principle” or it would be seen as competing with the Exposition book, which had only recently been published again as the authoritative version.

    Interesting insight: Young Oon Kim’s writing in the Red Book seemed downright archaic to me. Almost sexist in its use of masculine pronouns [both for God and “man”] and its lack of information about key women in the Providence. It was also remarkably ignorant of Jewish sensitivities to the “Christ-killer” charge. No doubt Dr. Kim’s intent was to warn Christians against rejecting the new messiah, but it was still rather shocking. We’ve come a long way baby.

  16. Well done, Dan. A wealth of information. So much for the infallibility of the “word.”

  17. Amazing. Appreciation to Dan for giving us insights into the complexities of translating religious scriptures in general. It had me imagining of how difficult it may have been amongst the passionate monks & Experts during the second or third century as they battled over translations in Greek monasteries over texts coming from various sources.

    So great to know from Dan’s recollections that representatives of the first, second and third Israel were involved in defining and refining in a united effort, from edition to edition, those important scriptures we use now for teaching and personal reflection.

    When it comes to the printing aspects of it I have memories of being involved with the Church publication office putting Master’s Speeches on film, blue-lining them and producing plates together with Ken Pope and Brother Talmadge, at the end of 1976 in preparation and training for The News World production.

    1. I’m pretty sure he meant Level 5. Or it could be that by “Level 4”, he meant the whole new expression of DP that Rev. Kwak was leading. I know there was considerable debate among the staff — which was largely Western — and perhaps some of this was reported back to TF as causing controversy. I remember my own efforts to change how Level 4 dealt with Cain-type and Abel-type philosophers. I objected to John Locke being placed on the Cain side because of his epistemology, while his huge contribution to Abel-type democracy was ignored. Personally I feel that a huge opportunity was missed when TF decided to end the Level 5 project.

  18. Another addition: I wrote that we received the text of the first Black Book in 1972. It might have been 1971. Also I wrote that TF ordered the translation as part of his push to unify the various missionary groups in the USA. That may be true, but I think now that he ordered it earlier than 1971. Mrs. Choi may have been working on it in late 1970… which fits with the idea that we received in in ’71 rather than ’72. Also, Peter N. is probably correct in his recollection of TF’s statement about Level 4; TF did stop Level 5 project around the same time however.

  19. A verse I’ve always found helpful in proving that Jesus’ death on the cross was not the original will of God is what Saint Stephen said as he was about to be stoned to death. It a powerful quote, but I can see why some Jewish Unificationists would see it as “insensitive.”

    It’s in Acts 7:51-53: “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One [Jesus], whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

    Stephen was himself a Jew, and it is understandable that he was angry over the fact that he was about to be murdered by the same leaders who organized the people to demand Jesus’ murder.

Leave a Reply to Robert Sullivan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Built with

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: