SCRUTINIZING THE PROCLAIMED MESSIAHS' INFALLIBILITY

Has “noon time without shade” finally arrived to light up the Moons’ “Principled words”? Or should we indefinitely keep studying the UM teachings solely through the ever-changing lenses which are regularly provided by the Moons in order to carefully prevent the unveiling of their teaching 's inner contradictions?

 Can we openly question the "messianic cosmic proclamations” in the light of observable recent history? Can we serenely confront their lack of accuracy with objective facts? Will Unificationists continue to ideologically validate Rev Moon's words without considering what non-Unificationists  perceive as mere fabricated legends?

When the “perfect truth” needs to be constantly re-interpreted it means that the message is far from being crystal clear and really meaningful.

Clear water does not need to be filtered anymore, unlike the numerous speeches from Rev Moon who said so many things and their opposite, amids a great number of other non-sensical statements.

Dr Tyler Hendricks reported in 2017 on Applied Unificationism:” Through database searches of Rev. Moon’s speeches, Unificationist scholar Dr. Jin Choon Kim found numerous examples of divergent statements. On some topics, Father Moon’s words are 100% consistent. On others the divergence is 95% to 5%, 80% to 20%, and as much as 50%-50%.”

No wonder that anyone, according to his/her own mood, can then find the meaning that best suits him/her . This also explains why there exist at least 3 different “Unification theologies” within the Moon family. Those who “know” the perfect truth have then to constantly comment ”Father meant…”, “It was not Father’s intention to…”, and of course the magical  “if…, if…, if…”. So within each of the three “Unificationist movements” (!), apologist theologians really have to greatly twist their neurons to make sense out of all this messy heap of contradictory information.

Furthermore if we now consider the real divergence between the Divine Principle textbook and the Moon family’s speeches, is not the challenge even greater?

Curiosity can lead to precious discoveries. But it requires the freedom to look at things and evaluate them from different angles.

As Benjamin Franklin said it: “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom - and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech”

How great it is to have both!

A question remains: How long can the UM prevail once Unificationists will finally dare to exercize their freedom of thought and their freedom of speech without any peer pressure?