I am hesitant to pass any personal judgments on SMM's love and heart, but I think it is fair to make a few observations. It is obvious he is a complex person. I find it quite possible that he does indeed shed tears for the world. (But then, really, so do many people.) I also find it quite possible that he is capable of petty vindictiveness, has a huge ego and feels insatiable thirst for power. I saw him strike a girl on the head in a fit of anger. Craig Maxim tells of an incident where he spit in the face of a member. Nan Sook Hong described what can only be described as abusive, violent behavior towards his kids. He seems obsessively preoccupied with the issue of his status in the spirit world, the determination of who is higher in the eyes of God. Can these images be reconciled with those of the pure hearted messiah? For me, not without a lot of the rationalizations that I became tired of making. Many see Moon's primary objective as building a personal empire centering around him and his family, and the members' primary purpose is to serve the needs of that empire. What is the entire, unadulterated, small "t" truth? Is he the master of love? Is he a charlatan? Is he simply a very deluded individual ? Is it some complex combination of all of the above?

    It is hard to imagine him doing what he has done if he does not believe in himself. His actions seem consistent with his convictions, on many levels. It is also easy to see him as an insincere manipulator. There were recent postings on ARU about his joking that prices charged at "ancestral liberation" ceremonies were thievery, and Korean higher ups mocking the willingness of members to fund raise money that was making them (the Koreans) rich. It might be that an either/or judgment is simplistic. It may be that humans are capable of such intricacies that both are true, at the same time. Who can guess at the complexities of the human mind? Being the judge of human souls is not my job. But when someone makes fantastic claims, and asks me to make great contributions to his cause, I have the right to be a little careful, if not skeptical. Even if we grant for a moment that SMM's heart is an unfathomable well of purity and love, is that reason enough to follow? Anyone who has read anything by Paramahansa Yogananda ("Autobiography of a Yogi" ) will be struck by his complete lack of pretense, ill will, hubris, etc. While I wouldn't challenge his heart and motivation, I would be a fool to take at face value what he writes. Does purity of heart guarantee correctness of thought or clarity of vision? There are plenty of people in the world who have followed mistaken messiahs to no avail, if not a bad end. Where does our personal responsibility to think and decide what is true and right begin?

    The fact is, we can't REALLY know someone we spend our whole life with. Our parents, our children, our spouses - how well do we really know any of them? How knowable is that very deepest , innermost part of any of us? Who can say that there is someone who completely understands them? So how can we really know SMM, no matter how high up we get in the group? We have to admit that there is no way to honestly claim to "know father's heart" through personal experience. But what can we look at, if not him? What would be a fair guidepost to measure his love? What fruits can we see that testify to the nature of the heart of SMM?

    It is often said that those who achieve the truly saintly, enlightened state of mystical union with God feel the oneness of all humanity and an all encompassing love towards people. Wouldn't someone who is so united with God's heart, so attuned to the highest love, show magnanimity and good will, charity and respect to people? Yet it seems that SMM has operated with a complete and utter disregard for the feelings and desires of others. He has used people without shame, and left a trail of disillusionment and broken lives a mile wide. He sanctioned the psychopathic tirades of Clophas, and did nothing as good members, even his loyal right-hand man Col. Pak, got the s**t beat out of them. He was known for his own tirades, and seemed to rule by intimidation and fear. This doesn't testify strongly to his great heart.

    What about his personal sacrifices? Can that convince one of his love? No matter what you think of how hard he has worked, (and on whose word is that taken?) you have to admit he has enjoyed a rather lavish, worldly lifestyle going way back to at least the mid 60's, as the leader of the movement in Korea. The arguments that "he doesn't own anything" are meaningless. Ownership confers control, and he certainly has that over any of the movement's assets. The desire for power is a common drive, for some the only reward worth pursuing. (I've read separate speculations that the "fall" was hubris and the lust for power, and that power struggles are biologically rooted in the ubiquitous dominance hierarchies of primate society, and the corresponding guarantee of access to females - both ideas may be ripe with significance in regards to the SMM) We have to admit that there have been plenty of "perks" for the new messiah. I know, I know, his first church was a mud hut, and he was tortured in the prison camps, etc. etc. That may all be true (and it may also be highly embellished. Can you take any leaders word for it, regarding the early history?) but a lot of people went through hell in the 40's and 50's.

    What about his personal family? It seems that those pictures of one big happy family were only an image, and his family redefines what it means to be "dysfunctional". There is no indication there of any "higher standard of love".

    What about the organizations he founds and heads, and how the movement has treated people, both insiders and outsiders? As an organization, the group's love was completely conditional. It was only interested in what it could get from people. It demanded everything a person could possibly give and then made them feel guilty for not giving more. Any love it showed evaporated when someone was no longer considered an asset. How many members got sent home when they developed physical problems that required medical care? While on a "horizontal" level we often had good comradeship, on a vertical level the group interactions were often heavy handed, insensitive, judgmental, manipulative. They seemed more often power plays in a cold hierarchy than reflections of a loving community. (sure, some central figures were OK, but no thanks to the group for that) Who is responsible for the style of leadership in the group? You don't think the attitudes of the leaders reflected what was happening at the highest level? If that image of the loving messiah one with the heart of God were reality, you would expect that love would be reflected in the organization and actions of the movement. What member really believes deep down that the organization cares for them? Besides a few token showcase projects, what was ever done that wasn't for the acquisition of money, power, members or influence? As to the people "on the outside", we had little time for their considerations, and often completely disregarded them. (and to this day the group suffers from the backlash)

    How about the heart of sacrifice, service and devotion of the individual members? Is that a testimony to SMM's heart? There are no doubt many very good people in the group. But again, I think the credit for that goes more to the real parents of the members than to any "True" parents. (And some would argue that the higher up you go in the organization, the more heartless you must become.) There seems to be very little about the movement that testifies to Moon's "higher standard of love". If we are to "know by these fruits", then we must entertain the possibility that our adoration of SMM may be misplaced.