UC Marriage Survey
Dan Fefferman
on a topic we were discussing here a few weeks ago... the success rate of UC
marriages. He has taken a random sample of people listed on the 1982 Blessing
roster and is trying to contact as many as possible. He's also interested in
getting reports from anyone who knows whether these people are still together
and/or still in the chruch. I recommended to Mike that he reach out to the
ex-member community through ARU to get as much balance as possible, since some
ex-members do not maintain contact with even marginal church members.
So...
Below is the current list of names that Mike has been unable to contact or
receive reports about so far. If you have knowledge about them, please respond
the Mike Inglis at
min...@HSANAHQ.ORG
I'd particularly like to encourage Craig to spread the news of this survey
through his network. Let's see if we can turn up some reliable numbers.
Dan Fefferman
_______________________
Name Spouse children last known state
Helen Ament No 0 MD
Wilbur Bowden Takako 0 NM
Cristopher Bruce Debra ? Australia
Richard Carl Helen 2 UT
Fred L. Dehen Connie ? OR
Richard M. Eide Maria 3 IL
Robert Ferguson Sachiko 2 S. CA
Donald Gill Ki Sook 0 ?
Ignacio Goni Debra 0 GA
Roy A. D. Hewitt Nancy 3 N. CA
Arthur Humbert No 0 AZ
Christine Jacobson Lee 1 WA
Craig Jameson Kiyoko 1 CO
Lamont Lamphier Marie 2 MT
Katherine Pugnoli Sergio 2 AZ
Caren Saman Keman 0 AL
Anthony Snodgrass Kumiko 1 OK
Charles Stoddard Sharon 0 ?
Ginuina Torres Victor 2 NJ
Anthony Vozza Olivia 1 NJ
Mary Wakayama Susumu 0 NY
Hisashi Haribe Hitomi 0 ?
Mieko Hayama Michinari 1 OH
Katsuko Hoffman Raymond 0 ?
Masamitsu Jinbo Carol 0 ?
Mitsiko Myung Haeng Ho 0 ?
Junko Nakamura Tetsuya 0 ?
Tetsuro Ohtsu Machiko 0 ?
Keiko Ohtsuki Fumihiko 2 CA
Toshiki Ozawa Masako 0 CA
Miari Peham Josef 2 Austria
Masako Tsukamoto Takashi 2 NJ
Survivor of SMM
Danny
Next time I won't leave. Renounce the
tower. This is your last warning. And
Have a great day! ---R.F. :^)
Dan Fefferman
>Will it be a typical UC count or will it have a bit of honesty in it?
Mike's a pretty scupulous guy. He says he took a random sample of names from
the blessing roster, and now he's making an effort to determine the stats.
He posted the list on GVI and Damian's list. I told him GVI wasn't going far
enough into the ex-member network and suggested posting it here. He liked the
idea.
Assuming Mike's honesty, I think the main problem is whether the information
people give him is accurate. Also, how will he count the people for whom he has
no info. In my opinion, there is a high probably that the no info people
(except maybe the foreigners) are no longer UC members.
Dan
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Dan Fefferman" <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000302235114...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> Mike Inglis, who works with the UC's national headquarters,
Strike one.
> is doing a survey
Strike two.
> on a topic we were discussing here a few weeks ago... the success rate of
UC
> marriages.
Strike three.
> He has taken a random sample of people listed on the 1982 Blessing
> roster and is trying to contact as many as possible. He's also interested
in
> getting reports from anyone who knows whether these people are still
together
> and/or still in the chruch. I recommended to Mike that he reach out to the
> ex-member community through ARU to get as much balance as possible, since
some
> ex-members do not maintain contact with even marginal church members.
Of course he will mostly (or only) contact current members, which will
automatically bias the results.
> I'd particularly like to encourage Craig to spread the news of this survey
> through his network. Let's see if we can turn up some reliable numbers.
Why don't you post this query on the "REUNIONS" message-board? Alot of
people, both current and
ex-members check back there on a regular basis. I can't possibly imagine an
honest accounting in the UC
of anything involving marriage-success rates. Especially now, when beside
businesses, all you have to offer people is "for-sale" marriages. Your
church would never offer disparaging results publicly. You would be better
off doing your own private survey, which still could not be very accurate
without accounting for
X-Members.
Dan Fefferman
>people, both current and
>ex-members check back there on a regular basis.
As far as I know, Mike Inglis published the list to Damian's list (Unification
Evangelism) and GVI. I published it here with his permission. So interms of
internet, we've got one UC list, and two lists/groups that have both members
and ex-members.Of course, Mike also must have given the list to people he
knows, most of whom are members. On the other hand, he's operating on the
assumption that those whom he fails to hear about or from should probably be
considered no longer members. Whetehr they are together as a couple or not is
more problematic.
Ball's in your court, Craig. go ahead and post it wherever you want in the ex
member and anticult community. Have them contact Mike directly with their
reports. Or not... Then you can complain more when the results are published,
which is what you are going to do anyway.
I can't possibly imagine an
>honest accounting in the UC
>of anything involving marriage-success rates
See what I mean?
Dan
thikazabrik
actually bothered to read this with a non-tainted perspective, then he would
have read that Dan was exactly asking him to make this more widely broadcast to
be able to get in contact with some people who might be completely out of touch
with any part of the Unification Church (some of whom, it might surprise Craig,
would still consider themselves as members), iow, trying to get in touch with
ex-members to find the true state of the Blessing, at least for the 8000
blessed in 1982.
Craig Maxim wrote:
> -
> "Dan Fefferman" <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000302235114...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
>
> > Mike Inglis, who works with the UC's national headquarters,
>
> Strike one.
>
> > is doing a survey
>
> Strike two.
>
> > on a topic we were discussing here a few weeks ago... the success rate of
> UC
> > marriages.
>
> Strike three.
>
> > He has taken a random sample of people listed on the 1982 Blessing
> > roster and is trying to contact as many as possible. He's also interested
> in
> > getting reports from anyone who knows whether these people are still
> together
> > and/or still in the chruch. I recommended to Mike that he reach out to the
> > ex-member community through ARU to get as much balance as possible, since
> some
> > ex-members do not maintain contact with even marginal church members.
>
> Of course he will mostly (or only) contact current members, which will
> automatically bias the results.
The reality is that he has already contacted the vast majority of people from
his random sampling. There are only a few left. He has done the statistical
power calculations to know that from this sampling he will be able to make
estimates that are within +/- 5%.
>
>
> > I'd particularly like to encourage Craig to spread the news of this survey
> > through his network. Let's see if we can turn up some reliable numbers.
>
> Why don't you post this query on the "REUNIONS" message-board?
Dan could do that, but he actually asked you for your help. Is that all you
have to offer, do it yourself on a part of your website that hardly anyone
visits or posts to?
> Alot of
> people, both current and
> ex-members check back there on a regular basis. I can't possibly imagine an
I saw your recent post; many of the entries you posted as new were present
several months ago, in your last post about your reunions board.
>
> honest accounting in the UC
> of anything involving marriage-success rates. Especially now, when beside
> businesses, all you have to offer people is "for-sale" marriages. Your
> church would never offer disparaging results publicly. You would be better
> off doing your own private survey, which still could not be very accurate
> without accounting for
> X-Members.
Which of course was the whole point in coming to you.
Last list I saw actually left less than 15% unaccounted for, by my estimate.
So, that of course just leaves a space in the survey for "unaccounted for"
while still giving a reasonable basis for knowledge.
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dan Fefferman" <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000307155658...@ng-fb1.aol.com...
Craig writes:
> >Why don't you post this query on the "REUNIONS" message-board? Alot of
> >people, both current and
> >ex-members check back there on a regular basis.
Fearful Dan responds:
> Ball's in your court, Craig. go ahead and post it wherever you want in the
ex
> member and anticult community.
The "REUNIONS" page is an open forum. I have had several current members
write me thank-you's because it helped them find old-friends. What stops you
from posting there, if you are really seeking a balanced response?
BTW: Did you contact Gordon Ross? (Third time I have asked you, with no
response from you.)
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"thikazabrik" <bri...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:38C57634...@flash.net...
> As usual, Craig puts his abusive, tainted perspective on everything. If he
had
> actually bothered to read this with a non-tainted perspective, then he
would
> have read that Dan was exactly asking him to make this more widely
broadcast to
> be able to get in contact ....
Of course I know what Dan asked me (this is getting boring with you) and
that is why I explained
that there is already a way of reaching members and ex-members with specific
requests, and he can easily do it himself, which is the "REUNIONS" page. Of
course, he doesn't want anyone to see his name on that page, so he tried to
duck it with: "Ball's in your court, Craig."
Well, I don't have any balls.... (let me rephrase that :-)..... This was
not "my" game in the first place.
It is Dan's claim that "he" wants to help with more "accurate" info for a
fellow Moonie's (from HQ no less)
little survey. I am not interested in spending a great deal of time and work
on something that will be
hopelessly skewed.
The fact that this is a HQ project, means it is likely tainted already,
because they "want" a certain result
to occur for PR value, and if it doesn't occur they would heavenly-deceive
it along. But even without the
"godly" numbers fudging, it would of course be skewed, because the person
from HQ will have a list of members and their phone numbers, etc. If someone
leaves the cult, then new info (phone, etc..) would not then be provided to
the UC. In other words, only members would be easily and readily available,
not X's. And the X's would probably want nothing to do with a
Moonie-sponsored survey anyway. How will a true number be reached? It won't.
And while posting on REUNIONS would possibly contribute, it would only be
slight, because there would have to be people from that particular blessing
who would happen to read that page, and then have a desire to participate.
All that means no possibility of accurate numbers.
Aside from that, who knows the criteria? I bet that someone who is
"re-blessed" would be counted as still married, since Moonies keep their
original blessing date (accept Moon himself, of course) because the blessing
is supposed to be eternal (which obviously it isn't, or Moon would have kept
his first blessing date)
> The reality is that he has already contacted the vast majority of people
from
> his random sampling. There are only a few left. He has done the
statistical
> power calculations to know that from this sampling he will be able to make
> estimates that are within +/- 5%.
Wrong. He's pulling from a list of Moonies, which means the control-group is
Moonies, not Moonies and
X-Moonies.
> > Why don't you post this query on the "REUNIONS" message-board?
> Dan could do that,
Apparently he can't.
> but he actually asked you for your help.
I did help. I directed him where to go and simply and easily post a query,
which his trembling little
fingers can't seem to manage to accomplish.
> Is that all you
> have to offer,
What more is needed? If "I" <--- see that word? If "I" was the one that
asked you if you had any information, or could help with finding out about
one of Moon's companies and you directed me to a URL where that information
could be found, or where someone's email address was that could help me,
should I blame you for helping me?
> do it yourself on a part of your website that hardly anyone
> visits or posts to?
Many people visit it, and I am personally very pleased with the number of
posters there. After all, it is not the first thing people look for on my
site, and even when they find it, it takes people some recovery before they
can go public with requests. Many may not have requests, they are still
working their way through issues. Others email me and say "Gosh, I haven't
thought about my time in the Moonies for 10 years." or "I had no idea there
was so many buried feelings in me until I read the X-Members
testimonials..."
A large part of my efforts in making www.xmoonies.com a type of community,
in a sense, is that I already know there are thousands of people like that.
People who have no idea who to talk to, in order to process this bizarre
past. What can the average neighbor do when you want to explain about
central-figures? Or when you need someone to understand how whenever you see
the name Moon in the paper, it still makes you nervous?
ARU is a good place to go through some ideas, but many people have no clue
what a "newsgroup" is or where to find one, or that many are devoted to
various religions. But everyone learns pretty quickly what a Search Engine
is. In fact, I get amazed at how many people that have been on the web for a
year or more, still type a URL they know by heart into a Search Engine,
rather than using "File" "Open" or typing it into the Address bar and
hitting "Go" or "Enter".
In other words, they are likely to use a Directory like Yahoo to find
something, and they are likely to find my site among the first results. Then
they peruse my site, and often email something like "I had no idea a site
like this existed!" They are excited because it is like a release. Something
they held in for years, finally set free.
> I saw your recent post; many of the entries you posted as new were present
> several months ago, in your last post about your reunions board.
I didn't post them all as "new". I simply post the list that is currently
there, because it may be that in the last month or whenever, that someone
new has come to ARU. I think most newsgroup readers set the date of seeing
old messages at a certain limitation unless it is changed.
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"K. Gordon Neufeld" <gordon_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8a4bb3$kr5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In the past, Unification Church leaders have tried to conceal the true
> rate of failure of Unification blessed marriages by using various
> tactics, such as:
>
> 1. Only counting as "valid" the success rate of those marriages that
> made it past the 3-Day Ceremony;
>
> 2. Not mentioning that many of the supposedly "successful" marriages
> were between partners of whom one or both had previously been involved
> in an unsuccessful Unification marriage;
>
> 3. More recently, by counting in marriages that have been declared
> valid by the recently relaxed rules of the Blessing, in which
> long-married couples who are even slipped a "mickey" of Holy Wine are
> now considered "Blessed."
Exactly. And there is a 4th tactic:
4. Not including members who leave the cult, in the statistics.
Let's say that a member is on his third blessing. If he was interviewed, he
would have a current
"successful" marriage. That's 1 "success". But if his two ex-wives were
around, it would be 2 failures
to 1 "success" in his case. It's certainly not an accident that they leave
out those who leave the cult. And as you mentioned, there are some that were
divorced, but stayed in the cult. What about those that "fell" with another
cult member and stayed and later got blessed to the member they "fell" with?
In my 40-Day there was a guy who fell with a Japanese "sister". Both were
previously blessed with other members. That's two failed marriages....unless
Moon re-blesses them to new people, then what? Is it really two successes
again? In fact, they did get blessed together with the ones they fell with
when rules were relaxed.
K. Gordon Neufeld
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@email.com> wrote:
> Of course he will mostly (or only) contact current members, which will
> automatically bias the results.
_____________________________________________
Craig, I contacted Mike and told him the story of my (failed) marriage.
However he seemed to think it was not useful data because I was not
among the names he had allegedly "randomly" selected to do the survey
with.
Now, I think it is possible that he did randomly select the names, but I
thought the survey was focussed on the 1982 mass wedding (the one I was
in). That wedding consisted of a mere 2,075 couples, which is a small
affair by Moon's current standards. Why can't they attempt to survey
the entire 2,075? It seems to me that that is not too large an
undertaking for them. Then you'd get a truly accurate statistical
picture. I wouldn't put it past Mike to deliberately cut the list of
names down so that it will give the artificial appearance of fairness
without actually being fair. To do this, he would merely have to
include *some* negative data, but not enough to demonstrate the true
failure and sham of Unification false marriages.
In the past, Unification Church leaders have tried to conceal the true
rate of failure of Unification blessed marriages by using various
tactics, such as:
1. Only counting as "valid" the success rate of those marriages that
made it past the 3-Day Ceremony;
2. Not mentioning that many of the supposedly "successful" marriages
were between partners of whom one or both had previously been involved
in an unsuccessful Unification marriage;
3. More recently, by counting in marriages that have been declared
valid by the recently relaxed rules of the Blessing, in which
long-married couples who are even slipped a "mickey" of Holy Wine are
now considered "Blessed."
You have every reason to be skeptical.
Sincerely, Gordon
--
_____________________________________________
"Can we say that the anus of a holy man is a
holy anus?" - Sun Myung Moon at Belvedere,
May 1, 1998, as translated by Peter Kim.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
K. Gordon Neufeld
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@email.com> wrote:
> Exactly. And there is a 4th tactic:
>
> 4. Not including members who leave the cult, in the statistics.
______________________________________________
It occurs to me that when I spoke of people whose "Blessing" never made
it to the 3-Day Ceremony, I was including those whose marriage failed
because one or both parties left the church.
Now I see that if the Unification HQ is only going to count now
*current* members in its survey, and automatically excludes those who
left since the 1982 Blessing, then it is impossible for them to get
accurate statistics. The survey then would be skewed from the start:
i.e, find out how many *current* members have successful marriages.
That would then give a statistically favorable result for the church,
because failure of so-called "Blessed" marriages is one of the main
reasons for members leaving. Yet if we truly want to know how many
Unification Church marriages are successful, then we have to include
those who once were members but have since left. It's part of the data.
If they are excluding this data a priori, then there cannot be a
meaningful result. And if they did come up with a favorable result for
the church, they would then take it as proof that Moon "really knows how
to match people up well" even though in fact, if you count all the
people who left because their marriages were miserable, the exact
opposite conclusion would be correct.
Dan Fefferman
>The "REUNIONS" page is an open forum. I have had several current members
>write me thank-you's because it helped them find old-friends. What stops you
>from posting there, if you are really seeking a balanced response?
I posted the thing here a week ago or more, I think, with an invitatiion to you
and other ex mebmers to post it whereve you like. That's as far as I'm going to
take it. Like I say, the ball's in your court. Has been for a week. You can
spend time accusing me of being afraid, or you can try to reach out to your
buddies in the ex member community, or you can do nothing for now and bitch
about the stats when they come out. You choose.
>BTW: Did you contact Gordon Ross? (Third time I have asked you, with no
>response from you.)
I must be missing your posts then, because I don't recall your asking. What's
up?
I was in communication with Gordon two years ago, but have lost touch.
Dan Fefferman
Dan Fefferman
>Now I see that if the Unification HQ is only going to count now
>*current* members in its survey
Where do you see this Gordon?
> and automatically excludes those who
>left since the 1982 Blessing, then it is impossible for them to get
>accurate statistics.
I agree with the conclusion but not the premise. Since Blessed marriage is a
central--virtually essential--facet of Unification Church membership, obviously
the rate of divorce will be extremely low where both members of the couple are
still church members. But I don't understand whay makes you believe ex members
won't be counted. Indeed, it's my understanding the Mike Inglis intends to
report both how many people in the sample left the church AND how many people
in the sample are still together with their mate. I suppose he may also report
on the success rate of marriages where both members remain members, but not to
the exclusion of cases where one or both of the members left.
Dan Fefferman
K. Gordon Neufeld
In that case, I was jumping to conclusions based on what I thought
Craig was saying about the survey. I withdraw my objections, pending
seeing the results or the survey, of course.
Dan Fefferman
>I withdraw my objections, pending
>seeing the results or the survey, of course.
Fair enough. Me too.
Dan
No.6
recourse but to attend the RFK blessing to fill a seat, "or else". The
week before this gay little jaunt, the local UC pastor came to me and
asked me if my wife & I would mind wearing our Blessing clothes, gown &
all, at RFK, and sit down in tbe arena where the ceremony was conducted.
I managed to avoid vomiting ling enough to ask exactly why (as if I
didn't know) we would do such an odd thing. He mumbled some gobbledy-guk
about "showing True Parents our re-dedication of our marriage vows, with
other blessed couples", etc.
Of course, not only did I go alone in street clothes, I was out
hob-nobbing with the DC natives after making a show of being in my
seating area about 5 min. to warm the cockles of my CF's heart. My wife,
poor soul, just couldn't seem to get the day off from the kids.
I'm quite sure we would have been included as a "new couple" in any
forthcoming survey of the RFK affair, plus made good news photos, etc.
So how many other such subtle scams were pulled in any given blessing,
and how many re-treads are counted in any UC marriage "success" survey?
Dan Fefferman
>I was still employed by the UC at the time, and to keep my job had no
>recourse but to attend the RFK blessing to fill a seat, "or else".
Still employed by the UC in--when was it--1997? Interesting. I'd be interested
to know more about your odyssey, No 6. You sound as if you were pretty disguted
by the whole thing by this time.
Two questions I have for you about this report.
1) the "or else" quote... is that your read of the situation, or did you
employe'rs representative actually use the words in quotes? was any direct
statement made to you to the effect that if youdid not attend, you would lose
your employment?
2) did you actually sit on the field, or in the stands?
Dan Fefferman
No.6
"disunity " were by then demonstrated & well known. My (western)
supervisor, put out by it himself, confirmed the situation verbally to
dispell any doubts. The Jap CF was too smart a cookie to put it in
writing - he'd been burned before by the nit-picking legalities you're
trying to introduce (another hallmark of Moon-to-the-last-ditch
apologists).
I sat in a Metro transit bus on my way to do some sight-seeing until the
whole farce blew over. Then I sat on the Moon bus home.
Dan Fefferman
>It was definitely an "or else" situation. The consequences for
>"disunity " were by then demonstrated & well known. My (western)
>supervisor, put out by it himself, confirmed the situation verbally to
>dispell any doubts. The Jap CF was too smart a cookie to put it in
>writing - he'd been burned before by the nit-picking legalities you're
>trying to introduce (another hallmark of Moon-to-the-last-ditch
>apologists).
Okay thanks. Personally, I'd be put out by such a policy too. As it stands
though, since you identify neither yourself nor the persons who allegedly
issued the ultimatum, I have no way to do anything about it. I can only say
that I'm not aware of any such policy, except through your anonymous
accusation. Unlike you, I was not on any UC-related payroll at the time.
>I sat in a Metro transit bus on my way to do some sight-seeing until the
>whole farce blew over. Then I sat on the Moon bus home.
I was inside, sitting in the stands. There were a bunch of newlyweds on the
field, in full bridal costumes. Many of the people in the stands wore business
attire with the women in white or pastel suits. I don't remember what the
official figures were for the number of newlyweds participating.
Dan Fefferman
K. Gordon Neufeld
feff...@aol.com (Dan Fefferman) wrote:
> I was inside, sitting in the stands. There were a bunch of newlyweds
on the
> field, in full bridal costumes. Many of the people in the stands wore
business
> attire with the women in white or pastel suits. I don't remember what
the
> official figures were for the number of newlyweds participating.
>
> Dan Fefferman
My bet is that many of those "newly-weds" were only pretending to be
newly-weds, and further, the true numbers of such newly-weds would
inevitably be exaggerated by the church, and that in any case the church
was trying to create the public impression that everyone who
participated was in some vague sense a "newly-wed." Like other cults,
the Unification Church often uses words in a doubled or ambiguous sense.
In this case, members would argue that since some people there were
renewing their wedding vows in a Unification Church context, then that
mean that in a sense they were "spiritual" newly-weds. Loyal members
would then proceed to confuse these "spiritual" newly-weds with actual
newly-weds, both in their minds and in their public announcements.
No.6
However, my annonymity is irrelevant, as the regulars in this forum
accept my experience and knowledge of the inside UC as valid.
I don't for a moment believe you could affect these situations in the
aggregate, and seriously doubt you would want to.
Also moot is your not being "aware" of these "policies". The most
rudimentary course in sociology addresses the differences, frequently
vast, between the "inner" goals and practices of control-based
organizations from their "stated" or documented ones, and the fact that
the former are by far the most potent, and most relevant to defining the
actual workings and philosophy of the organization.
Being on a UC payroll at this time is, for anyone with a sense of
morality, justice, and righteousness, hell. I know some who still are.
Dan Fefferman wrote:
>
> Java
>
> >It was definitely an "or else" situation. The consequences for
> >"disunity " were by then demonstrated & well known. My (western)
> >supervisor, put out by it himself, confirmed the situation verbally to
> >dispell any doubts. The Jap CF was too smart a cookie to put it in
> >writing - he'd been burned before by the nit-picking legalities you're
> >trying to introduce (another hallmark of Moon-to-the-last-ditch
> >apologists).
>
> Okay thanks. Personally, I'd be put out by such a policy too. As it stands
> though, since you identify neither yourself nor the persons who allegedly
> issued the ultimatum, I have no way to do anything about it. I can only say
> that I'm not aware of any such policy, except through your anonymous
> accusation. Unlike you, I was not on any UC-related payroll at the time.
>
> >I sat in a Metro transit bus on my way to do some sight-seeing until the
> >whole farce blew over. Then I sat on the Moon bus home.
>
thikazabrik
doesn't really know what he is talking about. In the first sentence alone
he made three suppositions that became the basis for all the rest of his
hogwash, all three without any supporting evidence of any kind.
"K. Gordon Neufeld" wrote:
> In article <20000313123318...@ng-ci1.aol.com>,
> feff...@aol.com (Dan Fefferman) wrote:
> > I was inside, sitting in the stands. There were a bunch of newlyweds
> on the
> > field, in full bridal costumes. Many of the people in the stands wore
> business
> > attire with the women in white or pastel suits. I don't remember what
> the
> > official figures were for the number of newlyweds participating.
> >
> > Dan Fefferman
No.6
brought about a dozen genuine guests to RFK because he still believed in
the ideals of the blessing. After Nan-Sook's book he promptly broke all
ties with UC, and "un-witnessed" to his little flock.
I know af a UC couple laboring under the same "or else" situation as
myself who drove down, showed their smiling faces to their Jap CF,
hob-nobbed with other members of "Moon's Mobile Audience" about an hour,
then went out for dinner & headed home.
While there I saw a lot of old compadres too, any public UC event is
sort of like a vast VFW convention - plenty of familiar faces, in
ever-decreasing numbers.
This is just my own observation: what's it suggest statistically overall
about the "public" to be seen at any UC event? Or about the supposed
"inroads" being made in the community as a result? I suppose the
crowning folly came years ago when a member was spotted at a
UC-sponsored gathering at the UN over some issue, holding a Hebrew
placard upside down. He was unaware of this until relieved of his post
by several authentic Jews. He freely admitted he was not a Jew,and had
been handed the placard as he exited the Moon bus.
Dan Fefferman
>My bet is that many of those "newly-weds" were only pretending to be
>newly-weds
I don't think so Gordon. There were only a few thousand of them, and most were
Japanese--and in their early 20s. That part looked pretty legit to me.
> and further, the true numbers of such newly-weds would
>inevitably be exaggerated by the church,
that's more plausible, but again, the numbers of newly weds was not huge. (more
dubious were the numbers of overall blessing participants, which keeps
multiplying so exponentially that I can't even keep track anymore.)
>and that in any case the church
>was trying to create the public impression that everyone who
>participated was in some vague sense a "newly-wed."
Wrong again, I'm afraid. They were trying to create the impression that the
people in wedding dresses on the field were newly weds, and the people in
business attire or causual dress in the stands were renewing their vows. Which
was generally true.
> Like other cults,
>the Unification Church often uses words in a doubled or ambiguous sense.
>In this case, members would argue that since some people there were
>renewing their wedding vows in a Unification Church context, then that
>mean that in a sense they were "spiritual" newly-weds. Loyal members
>would then proceed to confuse these "spiritual" newly-weds with actual
>newly-weds, both in their minds and in their public announcements
You've got quite an imagination Gordon. I'm sure you'll put it to good use in
your novel.
Dan Fefferman
Dan Fefferman
> my annonymity is irrelevant, as the regulars in this forum
>accept my experience and knowledge of the inside UC as valid.
I personally accept as it as sincerely offered, anonymous anecdotal evidence.
In other words, I believe you are not making it up. However, it's impossible to
get the other side of the story, since you offer no names inlcuding your own. I
mean, it's a step up from Rick Mason, but only a step.
>I don't for a moment believe you could affect these situations in the
>aggregate, and seriously doubt you would want to.
Still, if I had the name of the "Jap CF" as you put it, I might be able to talk
to him or to his superior. I did this when I learned that the Japanese
fundraising leader in my region was phsyically abusing the sisters on his team,
for example. I don't claim sole credit for stopping the abuse, but it WAS
stopped.
>Also moot is your not being "aware" of these "policies".
Moot or not, it's impossible to confirm an allegation that is made against
anyonymous persons by another anonymous person. Like I say, I don't believe you
just made it up, but I'd like to get the other side of the story, that's all.
>Being on a UC payroll at this time is, for anyone with a sense of
>morality, justice, and righteousness, hell. I know some who still are.
Oh I'm back on the movement payroll now myself. BUt I wasn't THEN in 97, when
you say you still were, and all this was happening. I wouldn't call it hell
exactly though. Maybe purgatory.
Dan Fefferman
Craig Maxim
-
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
"Dan Fefferman" <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000314152111...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> Wrong again, I'm afraid. They were trying to create the impression that
the
> people in wedding dresses on the field were newly weds, and the people in
> business attire or causual dress in the stands were renewing their vows.
Which
> was generally true.
Many of the "brides" were Asian women in their 50's and 60's. I really doubt
they were "newly-weds".
You know the truth. Many members were "encouraged" to dress in their wedding
attire and though they just said it was renewing the vows, the UC brass
knows it is to make it appear there were more newly-weds than there really
were. What I bet though, is that this little trick is not new. How many
previous blessings were like that? Are there some really faithful members
that have been "blessed" maybe 2,3 or more times now? Playing the part for
the false father year after year?
Dan Fefferman
>Many of the "brides" were Asian women in their 50's and 60's.
Not true from my observation. (speaking of the newlyweds on the field.) on what
evidence are you basing this claim?
> I really doubt
>they were "newly-weds".
>You know the truth. Many members were "encouraged" to dress in their wedding
>attire and though they just said it was renewing the vows, the UC brass
>knows it is to make it appear there were more newly-weds than there really
>were.
My recollection is that the UC did not claim the people in the stands were
newlyweds. People can see for themselves how the UNEWS reported the event at
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/publications/unews/unws9712/Bl
essing-RFK.htm
A picture of people in stands is found at
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/publications/unews/unws9712/cr
owd.jpg
Few veils in evidence, except a small section of overflow brides who did not
fit onto the field.
>What I bet though, is that this little trick is not new. How many
>previous blessings were like that?
I personally think that the numbers were exaggerated in some of them. However,
I do not think that married couples masqueraded as newlyweds.
> Are there some really faithful members
>that have been "blessed" maybe 2,3 or more times now? Playing the part for
>the false father year after year?
Is Craig Maxim actually still on the UC payroll, being paid to make UC critics
in general appear irresponsible?
Dan Fefferman
No.6
"well-if-I-know-who-the-miscreants-are-I'll-just-mosey-over-&-give'em-a
stern-talking-to,-&-straighten-'em-out" line won't work anymore. For
eons, as you continually suggest here, members believed in the face of
every abuse; "well, this is actually against decency, brotherhood, & the
DP, & I'm sure Father wouldn't condone this, but he can only handle the
big picture, so it's up to us to handle this ourselves." Only just try
to "handle" it correctively speaking & see what happens 90% of the time.
Even if there is some short-term appearance of "justice" being rendered
it erodes ever so quickly & quietly from the moment the office door is
closed.
Members aren't buying this anymore - otherwise they'd wouldn't be
showing up in trickles at Jardim for no more than a token (expenses
unpaid) visit to laugh at Moon's cuteness, cry at his frustrations, take
a few pics of the alligators, then hop a plane home again, rather than
take up residence as ordered, at what is now the "center of the
Providence" and Father's current "direction & desire" and new "ideal
community".