July 1998

 
CHKwak980719.gif
 
Hyun980719.gif
 
HyunKook980719.gif
 
SM980611.gif
 
SM980719.gif
 
TP980719-bow.gif
 
TP980719-dance.gif
 
TP980719-sing.gif

United We Stand

by Paul Carlson

This month we’re going to tackle a weighty subject, perhaps the most serious I have ever written about. As I have sometimes done in the past, rather than sugar-coating matters I will deliberately sketch a "worst case" picture. Our subject, uncomfortable though it may be, is best not shuffled off. It has already been discussed in the mainstream press.

Last year, just before RFK Blessing, the Washington Post ran a series of "negative" articles, a purported exposé of the Unification Church. Among other things, they alleged that we have "no clear succession" for the "nearly eighty year old Rev. Moon."

This sort of trashing is not new. For several decades the press (and society at large) have been declaring the end of Rev. Moon, and the decline and impending fall of his movement. Rather than ignoring them, it occurred to me that we might address the subject directly. You see, this time the Post actually brought up some legitimate points.

A successful future is never guaranteed to new religions. God inspires every genuine Faith, but human beings have to manage them. Their continued unity, and even survival itself, cannot be assured. No matter how pure and wise the founder, others must eventually take over the reigns. The Buddha wondered aloud if even one of his followers really "got it."

Over the millennia, prophets have founded countless religions, whether offshoots or entirely new faiths. In historical terms, only a fraction of them lasted very long. All experienced major transformations, for good or ill-usually both.

Lessons

Let’s examine several of these religions, seeking lessons from their early histories. I’d like to offer a special thanks to Dale Milne for his assistance in preparing this article, with his diligent research and invaluable historical insights. The Rev. Joel Bjorling also contributed. I have discovered numerous situations parallel to our own, at least a certain level.

Muslim and Christian history both show how difficult it is for a growing religion to remain united. Within a few generations the Muslim faith split into Sunni and Shia factions, lead by the religious elders and the direct descendants of the Prophet, respectively. This pattern was to be followed by others.

Christianity divided even within the lifetime of Jesus’ apostles. The Copts of Egypt, Uniats of Syria, Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox Church all have their ancient traditions and lines of apostolic succession. All suffered through schisms, "false" leaders and other difficulties.

In modern history, many new religions are tied closely with the American tradition of enthusiastic revival. During the 1830s an evangelist named William Miller started a millennial movement that gave birth to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and others. He created a huge ruckus with his predicted "End of the World," and soon enough, with his revised and updated prediction.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses make bold claims of unity. I have a friend who was born and raised a Witness; she even belonged to their elite (and literally numbered) 144,000 chosen ones. When she began a conversion to Unificationism, they "laid a heavy guilt trip" on her. Their elders told her that not one of that chosen band had ever-in all the years since their founding-broken with the faith. I will leave it to the reader to judge the veracity of this claim.

Mormons

The Mormons can teach us many lessons. These involve prophets, leadership, holy temples and more.

For starters, their history illustrates one of the biggest dangers of recognizing a "living prophet." I have a list of more than 100 Mormon groups, and each and every one of them claims to be lead by "the genuine prophet," true heir to founder Joseph Smith Jr. Many of these groups are small; some are no more than extended families. Interestingly, about nine groups, each with a charismatic leader, broke off from the Mormons before Smith was martyred.

We Unificationists have seen several groups (perhaps two or three per continent) break off. All have been oddballs, tiny and not particularly appealing. Many of these rebels suffered from "Chapter Two" (i.e., sexual) problems.

After Smith died, the Mormon leadership divided. Their elders, headed by the formidable Brigham Young, lead the faithful to a new home in the deserts of Utah. These elders founded, and their twelve successors still lead, the Latter Day Saints church.

The decision to move was far from unanimous. Smith had proclaimed Independence, Missouri as the "chosen place," and some of the elders wished to settle there, despite ongoing persecution. They convinced Smith’s oldest son, Joseph Smith III, to become their new prophet. Together they founded the Reorganized church.

Today the RLDS church is the second largest Mormon group, and it is still lead by a Smith. Because of this, in the eyes of many the RLDS church has a special legitimacy. (For well over a century they have been sending missionaries to Utah!)

We Unificationists might well ascertain a parallel situation here. I am reluctant to bring it up at all, but I’d rather not leave it to the Post. Please consider whether there could exist a similar potential within our own growing, three-generation family leadership.

Another Mormon offshoot, while quite small, is noteworthy. It’s called the Temple Lot church, and they own the plot of land (in Independence) upon which Joseph Smith Jr. planned to build his "ultimate" temple. The place to which Jesus Himself was supposed return and live, and rule the Earth therefrom. The larger Mormon groups cannot build this temple without the Temple Lot’s permission. They’re too poor to build it themselves-and much too stubborn to cooperate.

One new religion that rivals Unificationism in public notoriety is the Hare Krishnas. Several years ago they built a large, ornate "American temple" in West Virginia. Since then the Krishna movement has divided, and that temple is now occupied by an independent leader with a style and theology all his own.

Simply note that we Unificationists have at least two contending sites for our own planned, major temple.

Baha’is

The Baha'i Faith proudly proclaims their record of "unbroken unity," but the reality is a bit messier. During the 1800s, founder Baha'u'llah endured extreme persecution, organizing a new religion within Muslim society. His great-grandson Shoghi Effendi was their last individual leader, or Guardian. Upon his death, an American Baha'i scholar named Charles Remey hoped to take over as Guardian. The situation was in flux, as some of the founder’s descendants had been branded "covenant breakers," and Shoghi Effendi had left no will.

Remey was rejected in favor of a new council, and he departed, taking many followers with him. There are now two dissident groups, with slightly different beliefs, both referred to as Orthodox Baha'is. All three groups like to pretend that the others don’t even exist.

Once again, we see the leadership "baton" juggled between direct descendants, eminent leaders and assembled councils.

America’s prophets had several precursors, the best known being Joanna Southcott of England. All her life she considered herself a loyal member of the Church of England, and her unusual teachings even won over a number of their ministers.

Southcott believed she would be "the mother of the new messiah." In 1814, after a false pregnancy, she sickened and died, but left behind a loyal worldwide following. Since then, in a haphazard but widely recognized succession, other prophets have taken up her cause. The eighth of these, upon realizing her position, named herself Octavia.

The stories of these prophets are unusual, to say the least. One of Southcott’s tracts was found by a skeptic, who sent it along to a friend, as an amusement. Instead, that friend was deeply inspired, and became a powerful convert!

Today several groups of Southcottians remain, scattered around the globe. Perhaps the largest is in Australia, where they’ve weathered serious leadership scandals. Another group, visited by Dale Milne, is rather poignant: a few elderly ladies "keeping the faith" in a large, old house.

Not all new religions were inspired by God. There have been "prophets" who openly flaunted their licentiousness.

In Europe during the 1100s a man named Tanchelm proclaimed himself the "new messiah," and gathered a devoted following. He began humbly, but soon amassed a treasure horde and lived like a debauched Roman Emperor. Five years later he was assassinated. No one imagines that his movement would have outlasted him.

During the 1500s the German city of Muntzer was seized twice by fanatical, messianic leaders. The second of these, Jan Matthys, was besieged by the very residents he’d expelled. Within a year, he and all his followers were dead.

Survival

The Principle explains how prophets can receive "mixed messages" from the spirit world. Authentic, God-guided religions will survive and grow. The story of the Jews, from earliest times until today, is deeply inspiring. Lesser-known faiths like the Parsees have also survived millennia of adversity.

The Catholics weathered a series of failed Crusades, "anti-Popes" and such, and today they are as successful as ever. (Note that their "doctrine of clerical celibacy" was a relatively late invention, and that its time may well be ending.)

We Unificationists, as documented in several recent books, have already been through many phases. I myself can recall several of these.

The "physical Kingdom" did not arrive (as widely rumored, but not officially proclaimed) in 1981, much less at various earlier dates. However, the Providence has, in many gradual and worldwide steps, evolved far beyond the expectations of virtually all our members.

At the Chung Pyung Lake workshop, three "internal" Unificationist revivals are described. Our old friend the Post detailed the second of these, even if in their usual stilted fashion. The world has yet to realize what sort of miracles are taking place at Chung Pyung, under Daemonim’s ministrations.

We can conclude that new religions always reflect their founder’s character and deeds, not to mention the truthfulness of his (or her) teachings. Their fruits are shown in the history of their movements. We can be thankful to have the truest and most loving leadership of any new religion in history. 

The Origin of Human Conflict and Suffering

Divine Principle Study
Volume Two - Part Seven

The question may be asked: How could God’s plan go wrong like this? he created the universe. He must be almighty. Lucifer, Adam and Eve were all His creatures. They must have existed in accordance with his plan. How could things turn out so badly?

In the view of Divine Principle, God created in such a way that His universe may be compared to a train running on a track. The train represents God’s creation and the track is comparable to His law. As a train is guided by the track, so God’s creation develops automatically within the context of His law. But if the train is struck by another power greater than the holding power of the track-for example, a landslide or an intersecting truck-the train will be derailed.

Similarly, if some power in the universe greater than law struck Adam and Eve, then they could be knocked off their original course. Such a power-greater than all the law and principle of God-is the power of love.

Love, Not Law

As was explained in the Principle of Creation, God created to experience the give and take of love. his ideal is not a world of law or regulation, but a world of love. Therefore, God made the power of love greater than every other power. Love is the supreme force in the universe. God made the power of love so absolute that even His principle does not preclude expressing love in a way which violates His will. Adam, Eve and Lucifer fell because of the power of love.

Literature and history alike pay tribute to the omnipotent reign of love over the human heart. Freud and other psychoanalysts point out that in this fallen world the erotic impulse by itself is strong enough to disregard all the moral conventions which society and conscience ascribe to the will of God. Shakespeare has immortalized how love drove Romeo and Juliet to suicide, how Hamlet’s uncle was driven by passion to kill his brother in order to marry his sister-in-law, and how Lear became literally insane because he made a mistake about how much his daughters loved him. In our time, King Edward VIII abdicated the British throne for the sake of love.

Love of God, Love of Man

Since God created love supreme, once man attains maturity and becomes united with God in love, nothing can break this relationship. In perfection, no corruption is possible because a person is one with the love of God. However, before man reaches perfection, his desire may be misdirected. For this reason, according to Divine Principle, man and woman should experience a full union of love with each other only after their love for God has crystallized. To achieve this, God knew Adam and Eve needed protection and special guidance. For this purpose, He gave them the commandment: "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat" (Gen 2:16-17).

The sexual interpretation of the Fall has signal merit precisely because it points the finger at the one sin which is rooted in the biological structure of man. In one sense and apart from details of his theories, Freud correctly traced the human tragedy to the sexual drive.

As long as our ancestors had faithfully kept the commandment, they would not have become over involved with the archangel. Under these circumstances, the love powerful enough to cause Adam and Eve’s deviation would not have come into existence. However, since they did not keep the commandment and instead formed a close reciprocal relationship with Lucifer, an immoral love developed and caused them to deviate from the track of God’s principle.

How long would God have required Adam and Eve to keep the commandment not to eat of the "fruit"? If Adam and Eve had perfected themselves, they would have entered the direct dominion of God’s love. Then, with God’s blessing, they would have free to develop their love with each other as husband and wife. If they had done so, there would have been no possibility of their love being broken. Having perfected themselves individually, they would have been capable of developing a mature love with each other. Accordingly, obedience to God’s commandment was necessary only as long as Adam and Eve were still growing toward perfection.

Free Will and the Fall

In the Principle of Creation, it was shown that God gave free will to man to allow us to participate in His creation, thus becoming a co-creator with Him. Therefore, God’s giving a free will to man was necessary and good, as traditional Judeo-Christian theology has asserted. Free will is the greatest gift God gave man.

If man were simply forced to serve God, there would be no beauty or life in man, and no joy or glory for God. It is most beautiful and precious when man serves God voluntarily and loves Him wholeheartedly, in free will. The flower turns its face to the sun because there is no alternative open to it; man’s free will gives his existence a special dimension. From this, man is supreme in all creation, validating his lordship.

Some believe that Adam and Eve fell because they had free will. Of course, their free will made it possible for them to fall. If they had fallen because of their free will, however, there would always be the danger of falling, even after they had become perfect. Insecurity would exist even in the Kingdom of God, where man is to have complete freedom. Such insecurity would then exist forever, and the promised attainment of perfection would be impossible.

Next Month - Part Eight
The Loss of Freedom

The Missionary

by Sandra Lowen

Mrs. Hyun Sil Kang was a religious lady who met Father in Pusan. She attended a Presbyterian seminary that was very strict with its students. They were taught to follow the Bible exactly. They did not buy or sell anything on Sundays. They did not drink wine or eat rich foods.

One day, Mrs. Kang heard of a young man who was teaching "strange things" in the mountains of Pusan. She thought to herself, "The Bible speaks of many people who will try to trick others into losing their faith in the last days. Well, these are the last days. Could this be the big deceiver, the Anti-Christ, himself?"

Mrs. Kang couldn’t get the idea of this young man out of her mind. She thought Satan must be deceiving him. She also thought of his eternal soul. "He is a child of God, too," she thought. "Someone should try to help him."

Every day, Mrs. Kang prayed three or four hours and read at least 30 pages of the Bible. Every day, she visited at least three homes to talk to the people about God. Perhaps she should save the soul of this young man on the mountain. She did not know how she would find him, but she had faith that God would lead her somehow.

On May 10, 1952, she got the inspiration to go out. As she walked around, she saw a middle-aged woman near a stream. This woman greeted her and asked, "Do you work somewhere?"

Mrs. Kang answered, "I am a missionary."

"I would like to invite you to come ‘home’ with me."

She wasn’t quite sure why she did it, but Mrs. Kang agreed to go. The woman by the stream was none other than Grandmother Oak, and she led Mrs. Kang straight to Father’s little shack on the hill.

When Mrs. Kang saw the shabby hut where Father lived, she could not believe her eyes. It was so terrible that she wondered how anyone could live there without developing a resentful spirit. They went inside and sat down, and soon Father came in. Mrs. Oak introduced Mrs. Kang to a rather ragged young man, and she left them together.

Father took one look at her and said, "God has been giving you so much love for the last seven years."

Mrs. Kang was shocked. It was seven years ago that she had promised her life to God. How could he know that?

Then he said, "Today is a most special day, and you are very fortunate to be here." She could not know it then, but Father had just finished writing the original Divine Principle.

Father began teaching her about the "Last Days of the World" and the "Second Advent of the Messiah." He explained that the Messiah would not come on the clouds as she had been taught; but he would come as a physical man to their own Korea.

As Father spoke, Mrs. Kang thought to herself, "Well, that would certainly be nice, but the things he says are impossible."

Father told her that in 1950 Jesus had appeared in the skies of North Korea, and during the Korean War an airline pilot saw Jesus very clearly in the sky. The South Korean newspapers even printed articles about it.

Mrs. Kang was disturbed by Father’s words, but she was even more disturbed by his shouting. He spoke with great force, even though the room was very small and she was the only person there. She leaned away from him, and still his booming voice annoyed her. When she looked into his face, she saw that his eyes shone brilliantly, and she wondered if something was wrong with him. Or maybe something was wrong with her! Oh, dear! Mrs. Kang didn’t like having such scary thoughts. She thought, "I’ve got to get away from here!"

She stood up to go, but Father asked her to stay for dinner. She said no, but he insisted. Now Mrs. Kang felt even more frightened. Korean standards for conduct between men and women were very strict. She should not even be in the house alone with him, and now they were to have dinner together! But she did not know how to say no, and hoped that at least the meal would be good.

It was terrible! No rice at all; just barley, the cheap kind that the government gave out to refugees; sour kim-chee, and bean curd. Father asked her to pray. How could she pray over such an awful meal? Besides, she was exhausted. So Father prayed.

That prayer changed Mrs. Kang’s life. Never had she heard of such love for God or such dedication to His work. Mrs. Kang realized the difference between her own selfish prayers and his simple offer of his life to God.

Mrs. Kang asked if she could come back, and Father answered with a smile that she would be welcome 24 hours a day. In a few days, she returned, and Father explained more things to her.

One day she was responsible to lead the service at her seminary. She told Father she had to leave early to prepare for it. However, he kept talking for so long that she barely made it back in time. She was sure that she would do a horrible job of presenting her program, because she had no time to prepare. Instead, it went splendidly, and everyone told her how inspiring her talk had been. Later, when she told Father about it, he said that since she had had no time to pray, he had prayed for her.

Still, it was not easy for Mrs. Kang to follow Father. She had so many doubts. But whenever she doubted him, she would feel separation from God, and sometimes she even felt pains in her chest and head. Then she would repent, and the pains would disappear.

One day, however, Mrs. Kang felt she could not go on. She went tell Father she had to leave him. He met her outside the shack and said to her, "You came to tell me you’re leaving. But I beg of you, don’t leave! I need you so desperately."

Mrs. Kang felt afraid. This man knew everything about her; she didn’t even have private thoughts!

He continued, "No one would choose to go such a difficult way, not even I. But it’s the way God is calling me. I can’t help it. If anyone else were given this mission, I would help that person. Won’t you help me?" Mrs. Kang’s heart was softened. But many things still bothered her. For instance, why was Father so shabby? Why did he live in this ugly hut, disgraceful even for a refugee? Why couldn’t he make money?

"Pray about it," he told her, reading her thoughts. "I tell you, someday, even western people will listen to The Divine Principle."

She went home and asked God what to do. The answer came clearly, "This man’s situation is just like Jesus 2,000 years ago. Jesus’ disciples helped him. Now, you should help this man." She had to obey.

Soon afterwards, Mrs. Kang witnessed to a another missionary she had known. This lady had a dream. She saw three balls of light, then three Rose of Sharon flowers (the Korean national flower), then Jesus’ face. Then she saw a mountain, a small refugee hut, and a young man coming to meet her.

Mrs. Kang told her that her dream meant that light comes from Korea, and that Jesus would appear in Korea. She then took the lady to meet Father. When the woman saw the hut, she realized that it was the same one she saw in her vision, and that Father was the young man.

Then, Father told the lady that the vision was not really for her, but for Mrs. Kang, to help her stop doubting so much.

That lady joined the church, and she later teased Mrs. Kang, "I am actually your spiritual mother, not your spiritual daughter, because it was my vision that saved you."

"Maybe so! Maybe so!" Mrs. Kang would laugh. She just knew she was glad she could serve Father; she was glad she was saved from doubt; and she was glad to be a woman who could help the Messiah while he was beginning his work on earth.

The Kingdom of God in Reality

uViews June 1998

On the evening of June 13, 1998, after the completion of the Blessing '98 ceremony at Madison Square Garden, Reverend and Mrs. Moon prepared a banquet. The guests were treated to the finest cuisine of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel; it was filet mignon. They cheered the Moon couple and presented them awards. Then Reverend Moon ascended to the podium to give his closing remarks. He began by saying, "No matter how much we want the Kingdom of God, if God doesn't want it, it will not come. But if God wants it, then it will appear even if we don't want it."

I was fascinated by that statement, and noted it down, but it was not for a few days that I looked at my notes and reflected upon it. "Why," I asked myself, "would we not want the Kingdom of God?" The answer came to me immediately: "People will not want the Kingdom of God because it is a time of judgment."

I began to reflect upon Jesus' teachings about the kingdom of God. Contrary to the Lady Clairol Jesus of recent vintage, the parables lead me to the conclusion that Jesus had an extremely harsh side to his character. For instance, "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants" (Mt 18:23). Or, "Master…I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed" (Mt 25:24). Or, "…at the end of the age…The Son of Man will send out his angels and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil" (Mt 13:40b-41); "This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous . . ." (Mt 13:49); or the clincher: "As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man" (Mt 24:37-39).

Pretty harsh material, that; not the stuff of "gentle Jesus, meek and mild." It is striking to me how Jesus foresees miserable ends for those who reject God's kingdom. One can feel his vitriol against those of his own era who were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage while ignoring, castigating, undermining or making light of Jesus. And so he pronounced harshly upon those who reject the kingdom.

Now, if you are like me, you probably take Jesus' words to apply to "someone else." Hearing his words, we immediately bring to mind some incorrigibly wicked souls who have sold themselves to the devil. ignorant, loutish, gluttonous, adulterous, corrupt scoundrels, this greasy species would not recognize an act of kindness if it were put in front of them, much less who would give a whit about the kingdom of God. We feature crowds of jubilant believers shouting and cheering on everyone to come into the kingdom, and these criminals responding, "Get lost; we are too happy cheating, killing, fornicating and carousing."

But what do we do with Jesus' sayings that it is the low-lifes who will enter the kingdom first, and the religious leaders last? What if, in other words, the kingdom's coming is not transparent? In fact, what if it is very difficult to recognize, or, at least, what if it is difficult to recognize until it is too late? In fact, Jesus' sayings presuppose that the coming of the kingdom will not be obvious at first glance. The gist of the Noah account is that by the time the people in general recognized their plight, the door was already closed. Then it dawned upon them (one suspects) that it was not criminality which blinded them, but rather their going about the business of living, which blinded them to the value of what Noah had been doing. To them it was respectability; to God it was arrogance, complacency, apathy and blindness.

So Jesus' sayings that "as the lightning flashes," which indicate that all will know, could refer to a point in time after one's fate is already sealed. Thus the appropriateness of his repeated references to the "gnashing of teeth." People who gnash their teeth are those who had the kingdom within their grasp, and let it slip through their hands for what, in retrospect, was no good reason. To be sure, Jesus makes of it a rule that the kingdom will come exactly when we do not expect it. "If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him" (Mt 25:43-44).

An Obscure Kingdom

Now, one might say that in this respect, the New Testament is not very helpful. All we are told under the heading of how to recognize the kingdom is that the kingdom will not be easy to recognize. Hey, I mean, is that highly effective leadership? Does it satisfy inquiring minds? Well, if nothing else, it gives one pause. It tells us that this kingdom is not a matter of human virtue and intelligence. It puts us on our guard, continuously on the edge of our seats. It calls all our life's activities into question. It casts doubt on their true worth.

But we can regard this from a more constructive perspective. Jesus' words in the New Testament inform us that during the period of time in which there is a real moral value to our recognizing the kingdom, it will be an "obscure kingdom." This is to say, then, that there will be a good deal of evidence against the kingdom being authentic. It may not appear that special; it may contain obvious flaws. It may be susceptible of criticism. People will examine it, but not see it; they will listen, but not hear what is being said. And Jesus describes, in the parable of the sower, what will distract us from seeing, from hearing: the cares of the world, lack of understanding, the troubles or persecution belief engenders, the deceitfulness of wealth.

This implies also that there will be numerous alternatives to the kingdom which appear more attractive, reasonable, as having greater potential for success, as being more benign, more mystical, more magical, and so forth. That is, whatever one envisions the kingdom being, these sought-after qualities will manifest with more power in places that are not the kingdom than in the place that is the kingdom. If you are into great music, you will find greater music outside the kingdom than in. If you are into profound knowledge, you will find greater knowledge outside the kingdom than in. If you are into wealth, you will find it more readily outside the kingdom than in. If you are interested in just living a stable, coherent life, you will find it more available outside the kingdom than in. In other words, the kingdom will appear in the place which seems, from every human vantage point, the last place one would expect it. Thus Jesus said, "The master…will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of" (Mt 24:50), and cited the Psalms, "The stone the builder rejected has become the capstone" (Mt 21:42), and told the legitimate religious leaders of his day that "the tax collectors, and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you" (Mt 21:31).

How Does God Work?

What can we point to as positive signs of the kingdom? We know what not to look for, but what do we look for? The Bible teaches that God is very consistent. At times of His decisive intervention, He always, always, always, works on the periphery. He never, never, never, works through the mainstream religion. Will God change now? Well, the onus of the argument would certainly fall on those who argue God would change and begin to work His revolutionary change within the world's institutions--even those He created. After all, God created the priesthood of Israel, didn't He?

Second, he does His primary work through flesh and blood. Sure, He occasionally makes the sun stop in the sky, or sends a devastating flood, or sends plagues, or divides the sea, or leads the people by fire and cloud, or rents the cloth between the holy place and most holy place in two, or raises the dead. These miracles appear, nonetheless, in close association with the work of a chosen individual, a frail human being, a man on the periphery. And there are two points worth noting about God's miraculous interventions.

One, they appear after the door is closed. They transpire after the people had their chance through flesh and blood and, with or without full awareness of what they were doing, made their decision. In other words, the miracles were aspects of the judgment. The flood is the archetypal example Jesus used, as referenced above. The many miracles associated with Moses are of the same type. Pharaoh had the opportunity to accept God's message through Moses, flesh and blood. The Pharaoh rejected the words and then came the judgment in the form of miracles. The people had the opportunity to accept God's reality in Jesus, flesh and blood. They rejected and then came the miracle of the torn curtain and the resurrection.

Two, they appear in order to bolster the legitimacy of the flesh and blood representative of God before disbelievers. Jesus stated this explicitly: "…even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father" (Jn 10:38). It was the same with Moses. In Exodus 3, God tells Moses what to tell the people and He assures Moses that Israel will listen (Ex 3:18). Then God tells Moses to speak to the Egyptians, but that they will not listen unless God backs the words up with signs. Moses is continually skeptical about the effectiveness of his words alone, and finally God assures him that He will provide plenty of miracles (Ex 4:1-9). The Exodus narrates a continual pattern of rejecting God's words in Moses and then miraculous signs or punishments as a result.

What was Jesus' attitude about this second type of intervention? Judging from Mk 8:11-12, it was none too favorable. He "sighed deeply" at the Pharisees asking him for a sign from heaven, and said that "no sign will be given to [this generation]." In Matthew 16:4, he states that "no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Now, the book of Jonah records the miracle of three days in the belly of the whale, and Jesus does refer to this in Matthew 12:40. But he immediately explains that the basis upon which men will be judged has to do not with the three days, but rather with their response to Jesus' preaching: "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here" (Mt 12:41). He clearly was talking about the people's repentance averting the wrath of God. Jesus said that the people of his day would be judged by those repentant people of Nineveh who recognized the work of God.

Thus, the judgment had nothing to do with miracles, but with flesh and blood. The people as a whole could not, or would not, recognize Jesus as greater than Jonah, as wiser than Solomon. The kingdom was obscure. There were many superior alternatives available: the Roman Empire, the Temple religion, John the Baptist. Few placed their bets with Jesus. He didn't seem to have much to offer by way of security, legitimacy, a place at the table. The troubling thing is that Jesus said that it would be the same at the second coming.

What Does God Oppose?

Another means to recognize the kingdom of God is to identify that against which the kingdom stands. It is only logical that the kingdom will oppose the same things today that it opposed consistently in the past. In the Old Testament, Israel stood against definable enemies of God, called false gods or idols. From hindsight, they appear easy to discern. They were represented by actual physical statues and actual religious institutions which worshipped these statues. Well, we might say, we don't have Dagon and Asherah and Baal to worry about anymore. Those neo-pagan groups cropping up these days are inconsequential; the worship of earth deities does not threaten Christian culture today. Right. Well, let's save that discussion for another day. But consider the nature of these false religions in comparison to the currents of today's mainstream Christian culture.

One, they were really into nature. That is, the authority of the false gods derived from their power over nature. Their main purpose was to insure that nature would be kind to us, that the rains would come, that the river would not flood, that the storms would not sweep us away, that the earth would be fruitful. To worship the false gods was to worship the gods of the environment.

Two, they were really into sex. They related human copulation with the fertility of the soil. And so their shrines were the home of prostitutes, male and female. Their worship included sexual intercourse with temple prostitutes. Third, they didn't have much truck for children. There was ritual sacrifice of children to the gods.

Now, put those elements together. A religion that celebrates free sex, condones child sacrifice and considers the highest value to be a fruitful environment. Dress it up. Put it into sophisticated English. Substitute scientists for magicians, rights activists for priests. What you have is our contemporary secular culture. Today's secular culture has many features that God fought against in the Old Testament: it is man worshipping his own creation, his own image, his own knowledge, his own pleasure.

The system of faith and morals taught in our government schools is environmentalism. Through human knowledge and technique, we are told, we will be able to calm the seas, clear the air, have good harvests and, for the elite who can get there in their Range Rovers, enjoy spotted owls flying in their natural habitat. Of course, the residue of Christianity has embedded in our language the notion that all things are created by God; that the beauty and wisdom of nature is the image of the Creator. But it never occurs to the environmentalist that the will of the living God today may have anything to do with the sustenance of the creation. The residue of Christianity is a deism in which we tip our hats to the God of long ago who created His masterwork and withdrew from engagement with it.

And then there is sex. The Canaanites have nothing over our Christian society in this department. Free sex pervades our media, entering our homes, offices, the streets, our literature, our poetry, our theaters, our commerce (advertising), our self-concept as a people. While we do not explicitly link free sex with environmental balance, both advocacies derive from the rejection of the law and providence of God. Environmentalism gives no truck to the notion that a sovereign God controls the climate. Free sex consumers give no truck to the notion that a sovereign God created the institution of monogamous marriage of man and woman as the only true expression of human sexuality.

Here is an amazing exposition of the foolishness of the wisdom of the world. Secularism, in its environmentalist mode, teaches that all things are created with a precise purpose and role to play as part of an entire eco-system. If anything in the eco-system is prevented from fulfilling its purpose, the entire system is damaged. On the other hand, secularism cannot conceive that this ecological theory might apply to human sexuality; that there may be an "ecology of sex." Secularism posits no inherent order or purpose to human sexuality. It is up to each person to decide how to use their sexual organ. That the sexual organ is part of nature just as much as a spotted owl or micro-organism, tends to go unrecognized. That there is a right use, and wrong use, of this natural resource, flies in the face of the culture of self, and, if it goes come up in conversation, is relegated to, as our president's spokesperson McCurry put it, backward and irrational ideas put forth to legitimate political power by denizens of the far right.

Is God Against Sex and the Environment?

Are we to draw the conclusion, then, that God stands against sex and wise use of environmental resources? Not at all. Our conclusion is simply that sex and the environment are the current equivalents of the false gods of biblical times. [Here by "environmentalism" I mean the viewpoint that technical knowledge in the hands of the state can save us.] God stands against these things when we elevate them to prominence above His; when we worship them.

Did somebody say worship? Hey, the secularist cries out, we liberated post- Christians aren't into worship! But worship is as worship does. When a company declares proudly, on each package of its product, that it donates 10% of its profits to earth-friendly causes, that is worship. That is its tithe. Can you imagine a company declaring on its packages, "We donate 10% of our profits to the Catholic Church." "We donate 10% of our profits to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." "We donate 10% of our profits to pro-life organizations." Such companies would be pilloried as religious fanatics, brainwashed, right-wing and assuredly unconstitutional. But who among us does not feel a little better when we buy a Paul Newman salad dressing, or Stonybrook Farms yogurt, knowing that this company is tithing to environmental agencies?

Worship is as worship does. The primary recreational activity of American teenagers is attending movies. In the movies they see the idols of the silver screen, right? We may think we are being ironic by this expression, but consider the truth of the phrase. They are bigger than life, more beautiful than life, more righteous, more powerful, able to dismantle alien spaceships with laptop computers, able to generate unbelievable revenues for their producers. Would that American teenagers would offer they funds they spend on movie tickets to more worthy causes. Could the offering made to the gods of the Titanic feed several struggling populations for several weeks? I know that this is simplistic, but consider how the movie offering is spent. Grand mansions for gods and goddesses, in which they may carry out their fertility practices and join the mighty struggle for animal rights, or for even more worthwhile causes, such as the Clinton campaign for adequate missile technology on mainland China.

One sweetener of the wrong path is free sex. Today's tragedy is that so much of mainstream religion is trading on free sex for its authority. The churches are pockmarked with homosexuals. In some they are hidden. In some they are tolerated but quiet. In some they are vociferously demanded to be heard. In some they are being heard and are challenging fundamental doctrines. In some they are victorious.

A friend of mine, Diario Ferraboli, has been pursuing ecumenical work with Catholics, and in that context a priest invited him to his quarters for discussion. The priest's room had several couches, one of which was a love seat. The priest asked Diario to sit in the love seat, and sat down beside him. No one else was in the room. The priest asked Diario about the family values he espoused. Diario explained that a true family is made up of man, woman and children. The priest stated that he agreed, with the proviso that the parental roles could be assumed by two men, one in the position of husband and one in the position of wife. Diario concluded that this man was not going to get far with true family values or the Blessing. The artificial, low-fat sweetener of Satan's path is free sex.

You might say, wait a minute; free sex is everywhere. Precisely the point.

God of course is not against sex and the environment. He created sex and the environment. He would not be against something He created. What He is against, as any good parent, is the misuse of sex and the environment. Who planned the wise use of sex and the environment? God did, not us. And God will tell us, by one means or another, when we are turning off course. One way is by sending His messenger with His word. If that is of no avail, He will get a little more obvious.

Where Were You June 13?

Let us draw this into reality now. It may be small by worldly standards; it may be on the periphery. That it is so comes as no surprise, in light of the Bible. In the mainstream, we have the mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani. In the mainstream, we have the Dalai Lama. On the periphery, we have the Reverend and Mrs. Sun Myung Moon. The day is June 13, 1998. Reverend and Mrs. Moon are at Madison Square Garden. They are conducting a marriage blessing ceremony for a few thousand followers, and blessing the rededication of marriage by some 120 million couples of all religions around the world. They are standing up for traditional values. They are crying out that to save this world, we all should begin by rededicating ourselves to faithful, God-centered marriage and family life, teach sexual purity to youth, and support others in these ideals, beyond race, nation and religion. That, believe it or not, is on the periphery.

The mayor of New York City was invited. His office replied that his schedule is very busy and he could not attend. Where did the mayor's schedule have him on June 13? It had him joining a gay pride parade in Brooklyn.

The Dalai Lama was invited. His office replied that he had a very important affair that day. He was presiding over a fund-raiser for his nation, Tibet. It was in the form of a two-day rock concert. Interestingly, it took place at the site of Reverend Moon's last blessing festival, RFK Stadium, Washington, DC.

Now, these are nice people, the gay pride crowd. The best people on earth, if measured by wealth, beauty and influence. And who can be against the cause of Tibet, especially when it is aligned so closely with the Buddhist faith, and everyone knows that Buddhism is the golden road to unlimited devotion, and that it is well worth it to unite religion and state when the state is Tibet and the religion is Buddhism. We cannot, surely , unite Christianity and the United States; that would be horrible. But uniting Tibet and Buddhism, how benign! It's lost horizon all over again.

In any case, these are nice people. But their activities caused them to miss the Blessing. A religious leader chose an event on behalf of his nation instead of one on behalf of the world. A political leader chose an event on behalf of homosexuality instead of one on behalf of godly marriage. So they didn't come inside Madison Square Garden.

Oh, and there were others outside the Garden. There were the "anti-moon demonstrators"--somewhere between 2 and 20 strong. They were not "for" anything. They were against the marriage blessing. They said Reverend and Mrs. Moon are power-hungry brainwashers. They gathered outside the Garden to get their fair share of television coverage.

In and Out

Are they following false gods of free sex and nature worship? Let us consider the difference between the Moon group activities and those who are placing their priority upon sexual freedom, science or national religion. These agendas are good if, and only if, subjected to the authority of the True God and His kingdom. We cannot claim to recognize, much less represent, the True God and His kingdom based upon our merit. We just seek for as clear an idea as possible of the difference between right and wrong, between good and evil.

Goodness is to live for others; evil is to live for the self. As Jesus put it, those who seek to gain their life will die, and those who seek to lose their life for the sake of the kingdom will live. To live for oneself is to follow the way of Satan; to live for others, for the kingdom, is to follow the way of God. So, can I decide whether I will be on God's side or Satan's side?

Let us assume that I can decide my own ethical standard. Some would disagree, but let us take the liberal position here. But even being generous, no liberal can claim that we decide our origin. No one can decide his place or time of birth, his color of skin or cultural context. Part and parcel of this is that we cannot decide the quality of our parents' love, the love which is our origin. No human being at any time in history could make that determination. And yet nothing has a greater control over our individual nature and destiny. Now, if this is true then we can posit a regression to original parents, called in the Bible Adam and Eve. The Bible, and in some way, each religion, asserts that the origin of the human race was plagued by problems. In the Bible, the first man and woman were cast out of the primeval paradise of Eden. It wasn't the man who was cast out, with the woman staying behind. It wasn't the woman cast out, with the man remaining in grace. They left together. They found themselves in a state alienated from God, and it was there that they began their family. Their love was not godly. Thus, the quality of the love imbued into their children at birth was flawed. The kids had no say in it. And so it was from there henceforth to this day. Our ethical practice cannot affect this.

So the New Testament begins by taking up the issue of Jesus' birth. It informs us of the lineage leading up to his birth, that through it his birth was entirely distinct from that of any other human being. His lineage is delineated, and the "virgin birth" asserted. Virgin birth signifies that the selfish love of fallen man and woman had nothing to do with Jesus parentage. The spiritual source was God, and there was no pollution of Satan based upon original sin.

The second point of Matthew's gospel is Jesus' teachings, called the Sermon on the Mount. This is a recitation of blessings, meant to make of us pure brides and bridegrooms, worthy of the kingdom. Just as God greeted His children with blessings (Gen 1:28), so too Jesus greets us with blessings (Mt 5). Follow the way of blessing and we can become brides and bridegrooms, ready for marriage.

The third point is that Jesus himself is a bridegroom. Thus all men, as bridegrooms, should be like Jesus. The church is the bride, and all women thus should emulate the church (Eph 5:22-33). There we have the New Testament models for man and woman, bridegroom and bride, Christ and the true church--the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

We realize the significance of these things when we move to Revelation. Bridegroom and bride are meant to marry; the words themselves point to a consummation in marriage. When is the marriage? At the second coming. Now we are defining some positive signs, aren't we? We see that the second coming involves the marriage of Christ, the bridegroom, and the church, the bride. This signifies the consummation of our relationship with Jesus, as brides with our bridegroom. And here is where Reverend Moon has something unique to say: this perfect marriage of Christ and the church in the end time is to manifest in each and every marriage on this earth. This signifies a fresh start for all marriages. This is the Blessing. However you may want to evaluate it, the fact is that he testifies that Jesus called him to do it. This is not to place credit or blame; merely to clarify the spiritual lineage of his work, as everyone inherits from the past.

Now if this is credible, then we could consider Madison Square Garden on June 13 as a place of salvation, like the ark. Those who heard the call came inside. The weather was fine as we entered. The doors closed, courtesy the Madison Square Garden staff. Outside were the gay pride activists, the anti- moon demonstrators, the rock concert for free Tibet. When the doors closed, when Blessing started, the rains came. Torrential rains washed out the gay pride parade. The rains washed out the anti-moon protesters. Lightning struck RFK Stadium, seriously injuring eleven people. That event was called off. Inside the Garden, no one was in the least bit aware of the raging weather outside. And when we emerged, when the doors opened, the rain had stopped. We walked out onto literal dry ground. The air smelled fresh; something was washed.

Now, was this God's judgment? It is not for man to say. But it is for man to make observations. Consider August 25, 1992, the date of the first "stadium blessing." It took place at the Main Olympic Stadium in Seoul, Korea. For weeks, rival South Korean churches had been praying for the event to be rained out. It rained all night, and when we boarded the buses at 7 a.m., the sky was clearing and big puddles spotted the parking lot. That day it rained throughout the peninsula. But in the vicinity of the Stadium, it was bright sunshine.

It is tough to challenge monsoon season, mid-August, but Reverend Moon , made the same challenge in 1995. It was the worst flooding in a century on the peninsula. The skies were swollen with rain all day the 25th. But when Reverend and Mrs. Moon entered the stadium, the rain stopped. It did not rain for one hour. When they departed, the rains recommenced.

Move up to 1997, on November 29 at RFK Stadium in Washington, DC. The Farmer's Almanac predicted wet and cold weather. All week it was wet and cold. The day itself was cold and overcast. But it did not rain, not a drop. And when Reverend and Mrs. Moon raised their hands to pray, the sun broke through the clouds, and the sun shined upon them for their seven minute prayer, and when they lowered their hands to end the prayer, the sun disappeared and was not to be seen the rest of the day. It's enough to make one a believer.

Need a sign of God be supernatural? Clearly not. Noah's rainbow was just that, a rainbow. But it came at a special place and time, and was seen by someone who could interpret it. As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the Son of Man. The true path will be obscure, until the rains come. And when the kingdom is clear to all, it will be for the sake of judging what we did during the time of its struggle for survival. And appear it will, even if we don't want it.

Second Generation in Alaska

by Eugene Harnett-Kodiak, AK

If you have or know of Second Generation teens and above, this may be for you. We have put together a week-long excursion in Alaska, which includes canoeing, hiking, and fishing. It follows two weeks of consecutive Second Generation Œ98 summer camps, respectively in California and Washington. This one in Alaska, starting July 14, will be a singular lifetime experience.

To witness eagles flying, salmon jumping, and moose roaming will be your daily fare on this adventure. To feel the shimmering sunlight at 11:00 p.m. glowing from the slow Arctic sunset, while pairs of loons cry and mallards dance on the lake, and to see swans take flight, running like feathered stallions their webbed feet over the water, this will be priceless.

A brochure will be sent upon request. You can find a quick version of it on the web at

http://www.goodhome.com/yfwp/julyweek.htm

For more information, contact me at:

harnett@alaska.net

Reward And Punishment In The Family??!!

by Cecilia Cullen-NYC

When we speak of blessed families, what comes to our mind?

When God created Adam and Eve, He gave them the Three Blessings. Knowing that Adam and Eve were at the growth stage, God gave them the commandment of ‘not eating the fruit’. This shows that Adam and Eve had a responsibility to fulfill before receiving the Blessings.

We are taught that man, due to fall, became ignorant of God and of His heart. But what really happened at the fall that caused this ignorance?

"The basic motivation that thus caused the original nature of the fall lay in the jealousy the archangel felt toward Adam." (p.90, Divine Principle, 1977)

The Divine Principle teaches us to seek to overcome both the internal and external ignorance of man and offer him internal and external knowledge. That knowledge is our shield and armor to eliminate the contradiction within ourselves being receptive to both good and evil.

In plain simple term, blessed family means three things combined: knowledge, responsibility and blessing.

The Heavenly Law and Us

There is a saying that obedience to Heavenly Laws will ‘make’ us and keep us on our way to reach our goal of heavenly peace and happiness. Opposite to that, disobey the Heavenly Laws and they will ‘break’ us. Therefore, ‘punishment’ comes as a result of disobedience. It is not something to be given or imposed upon. It is more of a consequence, an end result, rather than being given.

Take the case of True Father when he was in Hung Nam Prison. There was a man who was robbing others of their share of food. Everyone knowing about it thought that True Father would ‘punish’ him. Contrary to their thinking, True Father gave the thief more and more food until his heart gave in to guilt feelings.

Analyzing the strategy, True Father did not ‘punish’ him. On the other hand, the thief received his own share of the law-the feeling of guilt for stealing the food.

In the Old Testament Era, people received the ‘fair’ treatment with ‘eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth’. Why? It is because the foundation to receive the Messiah was still being set up. Perhaps we may call that time the ‘dark ages’. Even during Jesus’ time, the concept of an eye for an eye was dramatically changed by Jesus with the introduction of the "Golden Rule". At this time that the Messiah is declared the True Parent of Mankind and the Completed Testament Era has been established, the Golden Rule was expounded. Today, it is the True Love concept that we follow. True Father speaks about True Love, True Parents and True Children.

True Love, True Parents?

What is True Love? In the speech "True Family and True Universe Centering on True Love", True Father mentioned that the center of all loves is God’s True Love. This True Love exists in the family when the family becomes one body, that is, parents and children become one, husband and wife become one, and brothers and sisters become one. Therefore, the unity of the whole family centering on God is God’s True Love expressed.

Then, what is the ideal family or a united family centering on God’s True Love? It is a family where true parents teach children of filial piety to sacrifice their family by following the way of a loyal citizen in service to the nation, and to sacrifice the nation to fulfill the way of saints in service to the world. And then, parents teach their children to sacrifice the world in service to Heaven and Earth, and to sacrifice Heaven and Earth to come to God.

But who are true parents? Those who live more for the sake of their children are true parents.

But how do we live for the sake of our children? If a child is behaving badly, teach him/her through True Love. Remember, True Father gave as much food as he can to the thief in prison. He practically showed love and not punishment. The thief was ‘drowned’ with the love of True Father that his conscience started bothering him and ended up in him voluntarily confessing his wrong action. We may notice the constancy of the use of True Love by our model parent, True Father.

Reward for good actions of our children? We were created to enjoy the love of God and return the same to Him. Therefore, our ultimate goal, in this fallen world, is to return to the bosom of God, our Eternal Parent and enjoy His Love. Is that a reward or the main goal as we get out of our fallen condition?

Heavenly Kingdom is where we belong. That is not a reward for doing good, rather, it is our ultimate goal, our destiny. We live to achieve this goal. So, how do we teach children through True Love?

Children of Filial Piety

Now, let us look at what is happening in actual life among blessed families. In analyzing the punishment and reward system, what kind of children are we raising up? The role of parents is such a tremendous job that we need to go deeper to understand True Parents’ heart. It is not simply a matter of punishment and reward. It is True Parents’ heart that matters.

Remember that the basic motivation that caused the original nature of the fall was jealousy. Therefore, will I let my son seek for ‘fairness’ or will I teach him ‘sacrifice’ and True Love? Will I let my son impose ‘justice’ or will I teach him to ‘become a child of filial piety’.

In the fallen world, parents teach and practice ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’. But, what is just and fair might not be the case with our Eternal Parent. Remember the killing of an Egyptian by Moses? For the Israelites, Moses’ action was murder. For God, it was ‘just’ and needed for the restoration process.

Another example is the Biblical story about the Parable of the Vineyard Worker. He came late in the day, and yet, he was given same wage as those who started earlier. For Jesus, this example is a heavenly decision. But one might say, this is not ‘fair’ and ‘just’, as did the people in Jesus’ time.

Raising children is more than what meets the eye. Deduce from the previous discourse, we have to always put into practice, or at least, strive to put into practice the teachings of our True Parents. Besides, who are our model parents? Only our True Parents and Heavenly Father! Let us pause for a moment. How does True Father ‘scolds’ us? How does he ‘enjoy’ any work one has done?

True Parents as Role Model

We say we are one big family. True Parents sacrificed his own family (Abel-type) to embrace his Cain-type children-us! This is an example of filial piety. But how do we return True Parents’ love to our Abely-type brothers and sisters? We should embrace them! Our care, our devotion, must be there no matter what. Is not this what True Parents are doing to us in the first place? We are considered filthy before God’s eyes due to the fall. But True Parents show filial piety by caring for us even before his very own physical family. True Parents love all of us very much, no doubt!

If we know how to take care of our Abel-type brothers and sisters (True Parents’ children), then we know how to teach our own children the same thing, too. Should it not be that way?

Following True Parents example, can we not show filial piety constantly? Can we not tell our elder sons and daughters to learn how to give more to the younger siblings?

Can we not teach our younger children to respect their elder brothers and sisters and listen to what they are telling them? Can children not bow their heads before each other’s presence in full respect and sincerety? Can we not enjoy each other’s presence without bickering and fighting? Can a mother ask a son to run for an errand quickly without any incentive given? Can the family be one in love and real harmony? Can we not teach our children the word ‘true sacrifice’ so we can leave them with a piece of cake without thinking of any kind of trouble to ensue? Can one serve the other sincerely and vice versa without expecting anything in return? Can the elder take care of the younger and the younger love the elder?

Therefore, can we make a clear distinction (in appearance, speech, character, wisdom and knowledge) between a Blessed Child and a child of this fallen world, in how he/she lives? Can we take this kind of challenge as a Blessed Family? Can we truly say, "Father, here is my son, your son, in living and in truth?

When we speak of blessed family, what comes to our mind? Filial Piety!!!

New Tiempos Del Mundo Website

by Bret A. Moss-Nicaragua

I am very pleased to announce that under the vision of our True Parents, the leadership of Mr. Joo, and the direction of Larry Moffitt, a new Hemisphere Webpage for Tiempos del Mundo is now operating on the World Wide Web.

This site features, in Spanish, the best of the weekly news and information from the international edition of Tiempos del Mundo which is published in 13 Latin American countries and the United States. Hemisphere news sections published on the tdm.com include, Hemisphere, World, Economy, Opinion, The Family, Sports, Art and Culture, and Computation.

Additionally, there are sites for each country where Tiempos del Mundo is published where you can view the national front page, order subscriptions, and soon, be able to read top national news.

The site address is:

http://www.tdm.com

Members with Unificationist related websites may feel free to add tdm.com as a link to their site.