I realize that I am on a little shaky ground, insofar as I have not made it my habit to study the DP with much seriousness for the last twenty years. I'm sure there are some areas of my understanding that may be a little cloudy. I have no doubt that there is some "explanation" for many of the questions I raise. I recognize the limitations that words and semantics places on any theological/philosophical discussion. But I also think a new perspective, one that is free to look at the most basic assumptions and premises, one that isn't so easily swayed by the explanations, might be helpful in examining the truth of the DP.

In some way, I am hesitant to bring up the subject of the doctrine. In a way I really don't care if people want to believe what they do, as long as they leave me alone in the process. It seems that the stronger the belief is held, the less likely that will be, however. There is no shortage of people in this world who would, in one way or the other, impose their beliefs and morality on me. For this reason, I think it is unreasonable that religious minded people always holler "You can't say that!" if you challenge their doctrines. However, the UC makes great claims, and the whole point of this exercise is to examine these claims, and determine if they merit our support.

Also, I think it is fair to point out again that the doctrine and culture of the UC, whether by design or not, does seem tailor made for controlling peoples behavior. The constant drumming in of our unworthiness and sinfulness, our hopeless condition without the messiah, our ancestors dependence on our fulfilling our mission, our four fallen natures, our four kinds of sin, restoration through Cain/Abel relationships, the doctrine of indemnity, are all powerful tools for obtaining compliance. Once a member "accepted" these teachings at a workshop, it was possible to get just about anything from them.

There was an often repeated notion in the group, one which I remember hearing in the 70's, and which I heard again recently, that people who leave the group "can't deny the DP - they just can't handle the lifestyle". Since the DP is seen as the new revealed truth of God for the new age, it can't be considered anything but irrefutable. And since a new truth for the age is beyond challenge, it must be the failings of the members who left, not the doctrine itself, which is at fault. Robert Lifton, in his book "Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism" refers to the doctrine of such groups as being a "sacred science", a set of ideas, creeds, principles, dogmas, etc., that has status elevated far above your everyday beliefs, a capital T "Truth" beyond scrutiny and question. This perfectly describes how the DP is regarded by many in the UC. Doubting the doctrine was seen as a sign of faithlessness and Satanic invasion. I remember once, while fund raising, a certain doctrinal problem came to me. My response, as a good, loyal member, was to put my head down, run faster and harder to do my mission, and push this doubt out of my head by the force of my will. CRUSH SATAN!! How many members have had such an experience? I dare say most.

While it may be true that people are primarily motivated by emotion rather than intellect, and unhappiness in the group over lifestyle might be a catalyst for leaving, it is simply not true that the DP is irrefutable truth. I think that a great many members never really scrutinize the teaching critically while a member. Sure, we paid lip service to asking questions (always to an "Abel figure", of course) but often dealt with them superficially, if at all. Most often we were simply providing some convenient rationalization or a pat answer, some way to dismiss the doubt. In the last months of my membership, when some issue in particular was bothering me, and I brought up the subject to "Dr." Bergman in the dining hall. He brushed me off with some dismissal, got up to leave as if in a big hurry, and commented that my problem was that I didn't think enough about my question. I got the distinct impression that he didn't want to talk about it, and tried to make me feel inadequate for my questioning.

To be sure, some members have spent a lot of time delving into the doctrine, and it's biblical support. For some, the doctrine seems to be the primary attraction to the UC. They seem to find it to has a world view that satisfies. If one is religiously inclined, and the DP is a more satisfactory doctrine than others, I guess some would conclude that the DP brings them "closer to God." Did we see the DP as a "higher truth" simply because other religious "truths" were obviously so much baloney? I also wonder how many of us studied it deeply after we had first accepted it as truth, and how many really scrutinized it before becoming members in the group. I would suggest that often the "study" of the DP is very selective, tending to see what fits and ignore what doesn't. When members say "the DP is confirmed in my life experiences" are they are simply viewing the world through the filter of strongly held beliefs? For myself, I decided to start from the very beginning and look at the assumptions that underpin any religious faith based on revealed truth. I see the innate human tendency toward "magical thinking" , the strong will to believe in the religious answers, and the great capacity for self delusion. For me, finding out what is true requires first understanding how such tendencies can lead us to wrong conclusions.

Knowing how differently people approach their view of the world, I recognize a certain futility of making a big laundry list of doctrinal flaws, or getting into a theological debate. I remember how frustrating it was trying to "witness" to a Jehova's witness or a Hare Krishna or a "born again" - no matter how clearly we laid out the new revealed truth of God, nothing seemed to sink in. "Why couldn't these people understand?! How stubbornly they cling to their misconceptions and mistaken beliefs!! They seem like unthinking robots just parroting bible quotes and chanting. How fortunate I am that God has shown me the REAL truth!!" So I don't want to get too bogged down in dogma, but I do have a few observations to share. I think it is possible to challenge the DP on many levels, including biblical/historical, theological, secular/common sense, and internal contradictions.

I am personally not too upset by the fact that SMM may have borrowed or synthesized the teaching from others in the early days. I do think it would be terribly dishonest for him to claim to be the origin of specific key parts if in fact he heard them from someone else first. (Come to think of it, there did seem to be a pattern in the UC of not giving credit to the authors and writers of songs, comedy skits, etc. when credit was due!)

In all fairness, I should give the DP credit where it is due. As I mentioned in my talk, there are some parts of it that are reasonable, as far as religious doctrines go. Rejecting the notions of eternal damnation, physical resurrection, the messiah's coming on the clouds - these are more palatable teachings than found in some traditional Christian churches. And the DP brings a depth to the story of the life of Jesus that is powerful and compelling indeed, if you believe that Jesus is a messianic figure. I am reminded of my response to "Conversations with God", in that I think the author makes a better case when he is challenging the old concepts than when he is proposing new ones!

However, it does little help to replace old broken paradigms with new broken ones, so I want to say a few things about the teaching. I posted the following thoughts on the "fall" on a member/ex-member news list in 1999. It would be a good place to start. Other thoughts follow.

The central tenet to everything the UC (and traditional Christian belief, to be sure) rests on is the notion that mankind "fell" from grace in the "Garden of Eden". This fall accounts for all the troubles, suffering, and strife in the world, and our separation from God. The UC would not exist in any recognizable form today if there were no "fall". It's a concept that is not to hard to sell to a potential recruit - it seems to have widespread acceptance, we've all heard of "the fall of man", and after all, it is in the Bible. To a young and idealistic person who dreams of a better world, it seems self evident that something "went wrong". But does this idea really stand up to scrutiny? I would like to challenge this doctrine from several viewpoints: the weaknesses of the arguments supporting it in general and the UC version in particular, secular alternatives to a fall, and alternative biblical interpretations of the story in Genesis.

I think it is fair to point out that any one wishing to convince me of this doctrine's validity has to resort first hand to some very shaky premises - that we must necessarily grant some special authority to the bible, that God "spoke" to people in that time in a way He/She doesn't today, and that any ones interpretation of this book is more trustworthy than an others. Biblical "literalism" (i.e., believing there really were two people Adam and Eve, that they actually were the first ancestors of all humankind on Earth today, that they did something to "fall from grace", and cause all of the worlds problems, etc) is not an intellectually rigorous approach. Any "argument from authority" - "well, we all know the bible is the inspired word of God," etc. is very weak indeed, not unreasonable to reject outright. An honest appraisal of what biblical literalists are doing is this: giving a literal interpretation to uncertain translations of an ancient religious text of unknown provenance, to mythical and allegorical stories. This approach to any other facet of life in the modern age would elicit raised eyebrows and sidelong glances.

There are many problems with the story itself, UC or traditional Christian. The first objection is the old question "Where did Cain's wife come from?" Any attempt to provide some explanation for this dilemma will necessarily raise more questions than answers. Other problems in the DP version: 1) God had the Archangel Lucifer "help" in the upbringing of Adam and Eve. This seems an absurd proposition - why would God need help? If I remember right, the DP tries to address this by saying God only relates directly to things in perfection, and couldn't directly raise Adam and Eve. Yet Lucifer was not perfect, still in the growth stage, but could apparently relate directly with God. He knew God's will. 2) why was Lucifer a sexual being? Are angels busy "up there" creating there own angel families? Why would they if they were created to be "servants to assist in the creation of the universe"? 3) What was the "motivation and process of the fall" for all the other angels who apparently fell along with Lucifer? According to the DP there were very specific reasons relating to Lucifer's position and mission, which aren't relevant to any other angels. 4)The DP says Lucifer was a being of love, and not yet grown to perfection himself. It also says the power of love is stronger than the power of the principle, but not stronger than the power of the principle plus the commandment. If God did not give Lucifer the commandment, and Lucifer was a being of love, wouldn't Lucifer necessarily have "fallen"? 5) And if Lucifer HAD fulfilled his responsibility to Adam and Eve without falling, wouldn't he be part creator of Adam and Eve? The DP says God alone should be creator. 6) In an effort to show that the fruit was not a literal one, the DP asks "would a God of Love test man so mercilessly by a means that could cause his death?" and "how could God - make a fruit so tempting that his children would risk falling in order to eat it? How could he have placed such a harmful fruit where his children could reach it so easily?" These are good questions, but the same reasoning can be used against the very concept of a fall, or that the fall was sexual in nature. 7) Isaiah 14:12 is quoted to support the DP version of the fall, yet if read in context, points to hubris and abuse of power as being the nature of the fall. 8) There are other places in Genesis that seem to contradict the DP version, as in Genesis 2:24 alluding to Adam and Eve having sex, "becoming one flesh" before the fall, in Gen 9:1 God granting the three blessings to Noah, which according to DP are unobtainable due to the fall, and Genesis 3:22 indicating that eating from the the tree of life would make one live forever, not become perfect. (Now, I'm sure that many UC's have considered some or all of these problems, and can come up with some "explanation" which satisfies them, at least superficially. I decided ultimately that instead of trying to maintain elaborate defenses of the faith, I should start from the beginning and examine everything.)

In support of the concept of a fall, people often refer to the "weakness of the flesh" syndrome, that this conflict between what our "spirit" wants and what our "flesh" wants is a manifestation of the fall. I think it is fair to point out that religious teachers can't on the one hand continually drum into us the notion that pleasure is sinful, and then point to guilt over our pleasure as a proof of our sinfulness. I don't accept that "the flesh is weak". People with well adjusted sense of guilt and responsibility don't flog themselves over natural, biological, hormonally driven urges. And conflicting desires and motivations does not require any fall . Humans are just barely out of the cave, in a geological context, not very far along on this journey to the higher realms. It is not at all surprising that we have primordial urges and instincts which sometimes come into conflict with what our civilized, compassionate, loving self desires. Animals just behave on instinct, without choice, and don't ponder too greatly the consequences of their behavior. One can presume they don't have a lot of guilt in their lives. As sentient beings who do make choices and do consider the consequences, we will always have some internal wrangling going on, just by virtue of being sentient, while not omnipotent. No "fall" is required.

The really interesting thing is that support for this interpretation can be found in the Genesis story itself. If we look at the essence of what happened, and don't get distracted by symbols of trees and serpents, we can see it in a new light. What exactly was it that caused this expulsion from the Garden - what specifically changed in Adam and Eve to cause this, what was different in them that they couldn't stay? Specifically, it was that their "eyes were opened", and they knew "good and evil", they "became wise, like God." All of this, of course, is just another way of saying becoming aware, becoming conscious, becoming human. It's easy to live in a perfect world when you don't see what's going on. When you become truly aware, it's much harder to believe that your world is paradise. (If you think this notion far fetched, and proposing something new and radical, consider that this was a central theme in both "The Truman Show" and "Pleasantville")

This interpretation works on two levels - that of individual humans in the process of growing up, and that of humanity as a whole in the process of evolving into sentience. A child lives in a fantasy world, not too connected to reality, and runs around naked without embarrassment. When they get older and start seeing things with adult eyes, it is often an unpleasant awakening. As a species, it was natural that when we developed the brain power to think about our situation, to ponder the future, we realized that tomorrow we might get stomped on by a woolly mammoth, and the garden suddenly didn't seem so idyllic.

As I was thinking about this, it struck me how similar the Genesis story is - God not wanting people to be like God, - to the Greek and Roman mythologies where angry, jealous gods were ready strike down any mortals arrogant enough to aspire to godliness themselves. (I think the story of Icarus is one example.) In Gen. 3:22 God even says "man has become like us, knowing..." speaking in plural. Was he speaking as a "trinity", to angels, or to other gods? Knowing how often the myths and symbols of one culture are picked up on, retold, modified or embellished, it is not hard to believe that the author(s) of Genesis were simply retelling ancient mythologies. Another story in the book of Genesis that supports this interpretation is found in Gen. 11:6-7 regarding the "tower of Babel". "Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do, and nothing they will propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Here God also refers to "us". Who is he talking to? And how does this story fit in with the notion of the fall? How is it possible that "nothing .. will now be impossible for them" if they have fallen and are barred from reaching the "tree of life"? Why would God want to confuse men's communication? What possible reason could there be for this scenario in light of the DP? It seems totally inconsistent with "God's struggle to restore man after the fall". It seems totally consistent with "the biblical stories are ancient myths retold to explain the world".

So, are we to look at the story in Genesis as a secret code revealing paradise lost and angelic misdeeds, or as simply some incredibly insightful ADAM's (ancient dead Abrahamite mystic) attempt, using myth and symbolism, to answer some of the basic questions of life - why isn't the world perfect? Why don't we live forever? Why do women suffer in childbirth? Why must we toil and sweat and work the Earth, and why do weeds and thorns plague our efforts? What are rainbows? Why are we afraid of snakes?

For myself, I don't think there is any compelling reason to get too wrapped up in this fable, any more than I do any other of the myths and creation stories that exist. They were the product of peoples who's understanding of the world was so antiquated, so limited, that their world view can't possibly be a reliable guide today. For them the world was flat, the center of the universe, around which the sun and stars revolved. "Heaven" and the Gods were up in the clouds, fire and the bad place was down below. When people acted strangely, they must be possessed by "demons". Now we know about planets, stars and space. We know about volcanoes and geology. We know about Turrets syndrome, epilepsy, neuro-physiology and are getting a grasp on the intricacies of the human brain. We are about to enter the new millennium. Our paradigms and world views should be appropriate for the time.

But where would the DP be without the bible? The "fall of man", the "principles of restoration", and providential history, originate almost exclusively in biblical passages. This can not compel a reasonably skeptical person to believe. (And please excuse me if SMM's unverifiable accomplishments in the "spirit world" are also seen as less than convincing.) If the bible isn't divinely inspired, where does that leave the DP? But if we do grant some special divine status to the bible, it becomes equally problematic for the UC. As most members should know with a little bit of reading and study, there are many things in the bible that contradict the DP, many problems with the historical time line, so much biblical history that is completely irrelevant to the DP, etc. The UC likes to say that the DP is the key to unlocking the mysteries of the bible. I think it is more accurate that the UC has relied on the authority and "credibility" of the bible as a way to prove the DP, while it picks out some passages that seem to support it the DP, and ignores what is irrelevant or contradicts it. But as a friend of mine in high school said, and has been born out time and again, "You can get the bible to say whatever you want it to say."

A few points regarding what the DP teaches - I think there is a problem with the DP doctrines regarding the fall, sin, and restoration, etc. (besides, of course, the fact that the fall is a myth, and never really happened) The DP makes the distinction between the physical fall, and the spiritual fall, and the corresponding restoration on the spiritual level (Jesus) and physical level (LSA, DP page 216, 218). It teaches that in the physical fall between Adam and Eve, the evil elements Eve received from Lucifer were transmitted to Adam, like some STD, and these were then handed down to all human descendants. It refers to humans as being of "Satanic lineage" . Yet the word lineage is not appropriate here, as lineage refers to ancestry. And the elements passed on to Adam and all humans were fear and wisdom, not physical elements, and not in any sense something to be passed on like some defective gene. (the notion that wisdom and intellectualism is somehow suspect, less than Godly, is not unique to the UC. One need not be too cynical to think of another reason such a thing would be suggested.)

It teaches that Jesus was only able to bring salvation on the spiritual level, and followers would gain paradise in the spirit world. (even that seemed a point of contention the deeper one got into the culture of the group. I specifically remember hearing that when asked the question "What exactly did Jesus accomplish?" SMM responded with an emphatic "Nothing!") The LSA would complete the job, restoring individuals on the physical level, and open up heaven in the spirit world as well as build the KoH on Earth. We always had some notion about "grafting" to the messiah, cutting off from our "satanic lineage" and establishing the new "blood lineage", etc. using words that imply something happening on the physical level. At the time of the blessing (specifically the wine ceremony) we would experience this transformation.

I have to ask - just what is supposed to happen at the physical restoration? Just what happens in a persons body? Has anyone really proposed that this physical restoration actually changed something inside a persons blood, or cells, or DNA? This seems an absurd proposition, and I seriously doubt this is official teaching. If there is nothing essentially physical happening at the time of "physical restoration", aren't we then talking about something that is fundamentally spiritual in nature? If we are, how much sense does it make to talk about physical restoration? And if there is really no such thing, where does that leave the LSA? Do members really perceive there is anything fundamentally different in themselves before and after this restoration, with regards to their inclination to sin and their fallen natures? Or is the belief in being part of some "special lineage" just another one of those unverifiable, unprovable claims that is held simply by the will to believe?

Regarding history: If the historical parallels were as good as they claim, as true as the members believe, it would be revolutionary. There would certainly be a Nobel prize in there for someone. Don't you think that historians and academia would have recognized and picked up on it? Where besides a UC "workshop" or UC sponsored conference or seminar are such thoughts seriously proposed? What do you think would happen to the time lines if they were scrutinized by experts? Ingo Michel, Allen Tate Wood, and others, have all spent considerable time pointing out contradictions and problems with the parallels of history. And lets not forget how subject to interpretation any history really is. As has been pointed out, a clever person could take any period of time, find something about it which seems to correspond to another period of time, find some "significant" dates which put boundaries on those time periods, and label them "parallel" in the providential sense. The human mind has a strong inclination to see similarities and patterns. How much can we rely on those conclusions without subjecting them to scrutiny?

For example - it has been proposed by UC members that the double headed eagle flag of Kaiser's Germany, the swastika of Hitler's Germany, and the hammer and sickle of Communist USSR all are historically symbolic - the double headed eagle represents Adam's two masters and Cain and Abel, the swastika a twisted cross, and the hammer and sickle tools of the mastery over creation. But imagine these symbols were mixed up, and Kaisers Germany had a hammer and sickle, Hitler's Germany had a double headed eagle, and the USSR had a swastika. We could then just as easily say the hammer and sickle were implements Adam and Eve needed to build an ideal world, the double headed eagle represented the dual line of prophecy concerning Jesus, and the swastika was a twisted four position foundation. (Actually, I like that symbolic match better!) I think we must be very careful how much credibility we put into patterns and symbolism.

Another example of selective historical interpretation is what the DP does to WW ll. The DP has taken WW II and basically ignored the pivotal and central role of the USSR so it fits into the neat Cain/Abel scenario. (I know, there is some explanation for this, but really, only if you want to believe it.) It also says that the allied power's total military obliteration of the axis powers by force is somehow analogous to Cain humbling himself before Abel. (huh?) And after the Korean war, if the Korean ministers had united with SMM the world would have been restored in seven years. (What kind of delusion is that?) If the DP can take a recent and well documented event as WW ll, and so completely distort it to fit it's doctrine, don't you think it can see any historical event in any way it wants? (Now, you might argue that the DP time lines are "history from God's point of view" - all I can say is, "Well, how much does that mean? If you want to believe it, that is your faith. But stop teaching it to unsuspecting recruits as this amazing record, statistically accurate to within 1 or 2 %. Recognize that it is only your faith that establishes the pattern, not the pattern confirming your faith.")

It seems that the doctrine is applied in a rather inconsistent way regarding the central figures and their providential roles. The DP claims that "reconciliation of Cain and Abel as the foundation for restoring True Parents has been God's consistent formula throughout history..." Eve was to have taken responsibility for the fall on herself, reverse the actions of the fall, regain lost children through Cain and Abel unity, and then restore True Parents. (TP and the Completed Testament Age, page 2 and 3) Yet this pattern is not seen in any of the stories of the providential figures Noah, Abraham, Jesus, or SMM.

In Abraham's case, his son Isaac's wife Rebecca is in the Eve position. In Jesus' case, his mother Mary is in the Eve position. With SMM, HJH is Eve. In Abraham and Jesus' case, Eve could not possibly have been the bride of the Adam figure to fulfill "True Parents". In Adam and Abraham's story, Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, are brothers. In Jesus case, he is Adam figure, and Abel figure to his half brother John the Baptist. In SMM's case, there seems to be no parrallel. No individuals are in the Cain and Abel positions, and the Eve role is secondary, almost an afterthought to the accomplishments of Adam. If you were to argue that this is because the dispensation is on a worldwide level, and those roles were fulfilled by countries, not individuals, I would ask where is the historical Eve country helping Cain and Abel unite? The UC refers to Japan as the Eve country, yet Japan was part of the Cain camp during WW ll. And where were the parallels to that in Jesus time? Moses smiting the Egyptians is said to be the parallel, yet that happened 400 years before Jesus came. In any event, in all other situations except SMM's, there were individuals filling the Cain Abel roles.

More questions regarding the restoration providence and historical parallels - I think there is a lot of logical confusion in the whole premise. First, there is the principle that things grow and progress through three orderly stages of formation, growth, and perfection. In the "Division of the Ages in the Course of the Providence of Restoration" (DP page 232-233) we are told about the "Old testament Age in the Formation stage, New Testament Age in the Growth stage, and Completed Testament Age in the Perfection Stage" Well, teaching that these ages are a demonstration of the principle of the three stages precludes that Jesus could have accomplished what the DP says he could have. How many members don't remember asking the question "If Jesus were the growth stage messiah, how could he have reached perfection?" It doesn't fit. (It also conveniently labels the age of Adam to Abraham as the "foundation of the Word" in order to arrive at the three stages scenario, when in fact there are four actual time periods according to this DP outline).

Another example of such confusion is the statement that there must be a "necessary 2000 year period to restore through indemnity the lost 2000 year back to the heavenly side; this is the 2000 year period from Jesus to the present day.(DP page 232) and statements that in the time of Charlemagne, "the foundation to receive the messiah of the Second Advent would have been realized then". (DP page 412-413) It can't be both ways.

Even more problematic is the basic contradiction between history showing a clear pattern of repetition over three providential ages according to the principle, and history depending on the the success or failure, the actions of individuals and groups acting with free will. First of all, there is the question of free will, and just how far the hosts of heaven and hell can go in directly manipulating human behavior and the course of history. The DP posits that the entire sweep of providential history is the record of God's work to restore fallen man. This means necessarily that the course of history and specific human behavior is directly controlled by the spiritual realm. For there to be parallels, certain things had to happen at very specific times, or "as the providence is prolonged, the providence to restore that foundation must repeat itself " (DP page 405) When a certain providence is up, and some historical change needs to take place, the spirits move over the population to make some things happen at very specific times. When the 400 years of persecution of Christians in Rome was up (which, by the way, was really only 250 years of sporadic persecution), not only did specific leaders have to make specific changes, but the population had to go along. This certainly pushes to the limit any concept of free will. The scenario of the god's manipulating human history like pieces of some worldwide chess game sounds more like ancient mythologies than a new truth for a new age.

But let's allow, for the sake of argument, that this is indeed how it works, that the unseen realm can in fact make things unfold this way. We are still faced with another problem, one of an irreconcilable internal contradiction. Even if the spirits can manipulate history, by the principle, God cannot interfere with man's free will in the fulfillment of his portion of responsibility. God couldn't make Adam and Eve not fall, couldn't make Cain unite with Abel, couldn't make the Jewish people accept Jesus, etc. During the providential ages, man had to fulfill a certain portion of responsibility, had to establish the foundation of faith and foundation of substance to recieve the messiah, as well as symbolic and substantial purification of the messiah's blood lineage. Whether or not these responsibilities were fulfilled would determine the historic course. God can't control mans actions to make him fulfill his responsibility, yet at every step of the providence, history just seems to have unfolded in exactly the same pattern! Is it by chance that the pattern of success and failure is the same? Just how likely is it that in the three providential ages, the central figures or nations each fulfilled or failed their responsibilities in exactly the same pattern? If at each stage of history, people could either fail or fulfill their responsibility, there would inevitably be a divergence in the patterns at some point, based on simple probability.

The exact, "plus or minus two percent" parrallels of history are seen as proof positive of God's effort to bring about the ideal on Earth, and the DP the key to unraveling this amazing truth (both of which point to SMM as the LSA). Yet how the historical course unfolds is dependent on man's actions, his fulfilling his responsibilities. It can't be both ways. The DP is trying to juxtapose two fundamentally contradictory concepts - that history shows God's plan in a clear repetition of parallel patterns, and that how this history unfolds is also dependent on mankind, with free will, fulfilling certain responsibilities.

Two examples demonstrate this dilemma: a question I heard at a lecture, and the two Korean ministers failing to unite with SMM. Once in a lecture given by Aiden Barry, a band member asked, regarding some providential figure's actions, "What if Abraham failed to offer Isaac, (or maybe it was Jacob failed to subjugate Esau - in any event, one of those key providential turning points where the central figure got it right, and the providence continued on its way) There was a long, awkward pause, and Aidan said "That's a question of someone who doesn't have any faith!" and everyone laughed, as another serious challenge was conveniently deflected. But it was a good question, and exposes the basic flaw in the teaching. Another example is that the DP says the entire worldwide indemnity was paid for the coming of the messiah after the Korean war, the foundations were ready, but then two ministers failed to unite, and the whole providence got delayed. How can two men upset an entire world history like that? And if two guys can so completely throw a wrench in the works, how can history have unfolded in the perfect pattern the DP claims is there? Humans acting with free will, failing or fulfilling, vs. parallels unfolding in exact repetition according to the principle. It doesn't make sense. There may be something I haven't considered, but this seems a fatal flaw in the belief system.

An example of a theological problem I have with the DP is the issue of indemnity, regarding both how it is misused, and it's incompatibility with the notion of forgiveness, something central to basic Christianity. (Don't think that I am advancing a fundamentalist Christian agenda- it's just that since the UC claims to be the fruition, the culmination of Christianity, I think it is fair to point out what I see as a basic incompatibility.) The DP starts out with the seemingly reasonable concept of indemnity as "restoring something to it's original position or status" - if you mangle your car fender, you must take it to a body shop to have it repaired, restored. No one would argue with the concept of "cause and effect", or dispute that taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions is a good starting point in ordering a just and fair society. But we must be very careful as to how we extend these notions to the unseen realm, to matters of the spirit, and be aware of how murky the waters become if we attempt to do so. Fixing car fenders takes time and effort, something we can see and know. But the human heart can change in an instant, and remains very much a mystery. Who knows the workings of the higher realms, who can say what are the cosmic machinations of this "indemnity". It is the height of folly to say "this event was indemnity for such and such", or "If you do that, you will pay indemnity". How quickly this doctrine devolves into a throwback, confused paradigm of punishment, fear and superstition.

For example, the DP cites "an eye for an eye" as an example of equal indemnity. How does taking out an others eye restore the first eye to it's original position? In the UC, paying indemnity becomes synonymous with pain, suffering, sacrifice and personal denial. All the providential histories where people had to pay indemnity to restore some time period (as in wandering in the desert) were examples of simple suffering and hardship. What does some ones suffering really have to do with "restoring" anything? The DP has simply cloaked the old concept of punishment in a new name and dogma. I think it is not being too skeptical to suggest that the real reason for the concept of indemnity is to create fear and expectations of punishment, suffering and sacrifice, for continually paying off a cosmic balance book with never ending red ink in the indemnity debit column. It is very useful concept for getting a bunch of followers to do what you want them to do, but it is a lousy blueprint for providing any real solution to the intractable problems that humans face.

The only real power and promise of Christianity, as far as I'm concerned, is that it advances the notion of forgiveness - that with a change of heart and real repentance, our mistakes are absolved, our transgression are forgiven, we are given a clean slate to start over with. That we must let go of notions of revenge and retribution. Certainly, any concept of God we wish to imagine should exemplify these highest goals, ideals and love, and certainly a concept of forgiveness is the only place to begin if we are ever to attain a peaceful, harmonious world.

Lastly, I would simply like to ask the question- Do you really understand the DP? Have you ever been struck by something in it that seemed to make no sense at all, but shied away from delving too deeply into the problem? You have devoted your life to this cause, have held this teaching up as the great new truth. Could you really defend this truth to a series of questions posed by a panel of non-believers, to your satisfaction, as well as theirs? Haven't you ever read something in the DP, like for example, "The providential age of restoration is the age to restore through indemnity, as the image time-identity, the providential age for the foundation of restoration, which is the age of symbolic time identity" (DP page 392) and said to yourself "What in the heck is THAT supposed to mean?"? I understand it is "a work in progress", that newer editions have come out since I was in the group, and the problem with translation. But at some point you have to wonder if it really is saying something, or is simply so much jargon strung together - "foundation of faith and foundation of substance", "symbolic, image, and substantial time identity", "the providential period of horizontal restoration through indemnity carried out vertically". I think it is fair to claim that many in the group didn't try to comprehend it all, but ignored their confusion and just believed out of faith.

I am reminded of a quote by Carl Sagan in "The Dragons of Eden" , regarding mystical/religious belief systems like scientology, astrology, new age, crystals, etc. , and it seems an appropriate for the DP and how it is regarded as well - "It may be that there are a few kernels of truth in these doctrines, but their widespread acceptance betokens a lack of intellectual rigor, an absence of skepticism, a need to replace experiments by desires. These are, by and large, limbic and right hemisphere doctrines, dream protocols, natural...and human responses to the complexity of the environment we inhabit. But they are also mystical and occult doctrines, devised in such a way that they are not subject to disproof, and characteristically impervious to rational discussion. In contrast, the aperture to a bright future lies almost certainly through the full functioning of the neocortex...reason...a courageous working through the world as it really is."