The 2nd Button Short

The new faith of the Only Begotten Daughter (OBD) centers on Mother’s claim that, “the founder (True Father) was born with Original Sin,” and that on the contrary since “Hak Ja Han was born without the Original Sin, she took away the original sin of the founder” (Dec 30, 2016). “The process of changing the lineage occurred while I was in my mother’s womb. This is something you have to believe.” (HJH, July 1, 2014).

Because of his "sinful birth," Sun Myung Moon became the Only Begotten Son (OBS) by two events. Father’s course is that, according to the Chambumoron, he was born as it were ‘unbegotten’, is then ‘rebegotten’ through his experience with Jesus in 1935, achieving OBS status in 1960 by marrying Mother.

In contrast, Hak Ja Han teaches that she is the OBD by birth, like Jesus was the OBS by birth. This is why ‘God was born 2,000 years ago,’ (as reported by Demian Dunkley, as discussed in part one of this essay).  Hak Ja Han said very recently, “True Mother, the Only Begotten Daughter of Heavenly Parent, Holy Mother Han is the Heavenly Mother who had been hidden for 6,000 years”. (Mar 18, 2025) Clearly this is all very confused as if there is only “One”, how can both Jesus and Father be that “One”? This is why Divine Principle, and prior to Father’s passing, Unificationists rarely, if ever, used Only Begotten terminology.

There is a feeling in Demian Dunkley’s lectures that, due to his "sinful birth," Father is inferior to the OBD, Hak Ja Han, and the OBS, Jesus, whose mission he ‘inherits’. Presumably, Demian suggests, Father is lesser for not having “the same faculty, ability,” they both possess from being born “Only Begotten.”

But, Unificationists believe, or used to, that whereas Jesus died with faithless disciples, unable to reveal all the truths he knew, Father could live, and revealed much greater truths. On the foundation of faithful disciples, he could become the victorious True Parent, and then bless a very grateful Jesus. There was NEVER a sense of Father being inferior to Jesus, regardless of personal beliefs about whether he was born with or without Original Sin, which was not of great importance to many of us.

In the experience of Won Pil Kim’s aunt, In-Ju Kim, one of the first disciples, Jesus and Father were one. She explained “In her prayer she had a vision. Jesus appeared, walked into the room and bowed his head and began to pray: "This daughter of yours has to go a very long and difficult way. Let her complete this journey without going astray." The voice was Moon's. As Jesus finished praying and said "Amen," she looked up but it was no longer Jesus. The face had changed to Moon's.” (Sun Myung Moon, The Early Years, Michael Breen)

How are the Han Mother’s claims to be verified? You can read the articles about Original Sin and being Only Begotten in the Journal of Unification Studies (JUS), but it’s a matter of faith. The claims can only be confirmed by God. That a sinless, 17-year-old Hak Ja Han removed Sun Myung Moon’s Original Sin is not, I think, what any Unificationist understood or believed prior to her revealing it and is thus a most radical change.

Hak Ja Han as the Providential “Central Pillar”

Due to her "self-proclaimed sinless birth," Mother has stressed that she has known God as her father and the truth from birth and thus Sun Myung Moon was never her teacher. This central thesis of the Chambumoron, that Mother was born sinless, and Father was born sinful, is the reason the 7 Lectures repeat several times that, “In Heavenly Parent’s heart, Mother held the position of the central pillar for the providence from her birth to the Holy Wedding,” and “From the Holy Wedding until … Foundation Day, TM, the OBD, maintained her position internally as the central pillar of the providence”, and “over the past 53 wilderness years (1960-2013, another new concept), while TM, the OBD …has been standing fully as the central pillar for the providence.” Thus, Hak Ja Han claims she is the central figure of the providence and implicitly, it is never stated out loud, the one who solves the problem of Original Sin for us as she did for Father. The following slide from the 7 lectures tells us the purpose of Christianity and what Father should have done before 1960 according to the Chambumoron:

After Father’s passing, Mother proclaims that, having always considered herself the ‘central pillar,’ she can now make pronouncements based on her understanding of the truth she claims to have known since birth, despite having a curious relationship with Father’s words. Let us try to unbutton an example.

She said/He said! (Button does not seem to fit)? John the Baptist’s Sister

What do we do if True Parents seem to disagree? Can they be wrong? May we disagree with Mother’s new assertions and not be accused of heresy, or of forming a splinter-group? To me one clear example of this from the Chambumoron is Mother saying that the Only Begotten Daughter was not born at the time of Jesus, despite Father talking about John the Baptist’s sister as Jesus’ intended or potential bride.

Now, we all understand that we don’t know if John had a sister or not, and we will only find out, as the song says, and ‘understand it better bye and bye.’ Why do we even discuss if John had a sister, and then if she was supposed to be Jesus’ bride or not? This is because Father talked about her several times, especially in the early/mid-1990s.

True Father on John’s Sister: One of Father’s strongest statements about this topic was to UTS students at Barrytown, (March 2, 1993):

"Do you think Jesus Christ explained to Mary what his mission was, that he should get married? Yes, he did, at least three times. Who should have been Jesus Christ's bride? Why John the Baptist's sister. At the time of the fall, Adam's sister, Eve, was taken by Satan. Cain's sister, John the Baptist's sister, should have been taken by Jesus Christ. This would have been restoration of the fall. If this had happened, then Mary and Elizabeth would have been united. This was supposed to be the foundation for Jesus Christ. But Mary couldn't understand. She couldn't take action. Why? Because Jesus and John the Baptist's sister had the same father but different mothers. Of course, John the Baptist would have been totally against it. But if three women Mary, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist's younger sister had worked together, then Jesus could have received a bride. No matter how much John the Baptist was against this marriage, these three women could have made it happen. Why? They all knew who Jesus Christ's father was. Is this true? How does Father know this? Father is in the position to teach Jesus Christ. Father met Jesus in the spiritual world. Father questioned Jesus Christ and made him reveal this truth. You can go to the spiritual world and find out for yourself. Father is revealing this now, because this is the only way to complete Jesus' course.”

You can find many more times when Father spoke about how Jesus should have married John’s sister in speeches given both to a wider public, such as at a Washington Times celebration, and to church members as at the April 19, 1996 Leaders’ Conference:

“As Jesus grew up he was requesting to marry the younger sister from Elizabeth's family. Can you imagine that? It was virtually impossible, because if it had become known to the general public then the families of Zachariah and Jesus would have been destroyed. When Jesus was desirous of such a marriage, Zachariah, Elizabeth and John the Baptist all knew who Jesus was and whom he wanted for his wife. In the mind of John the Baptist Jesus was his step-brother, born from his father's concubine. Therefore, for John it was unthinkable that his younger sister would marry Jesus, so John the Baptist refused and denied Jesus.”

Is this case closed, no further discussion needed, as “Father met Jesus in the spiritual world. Father questioned Jesus Christ and made him reveal this truth. You can go to the spiritual world and find out for yourself”? Apparently not for the Only Begotten Daughter!

Hak Ja Han on John’s Sister

Clearly influenced by Father’s words, though he was not her teacher, Mother has mentioned many times that “Mary and Zechariah's family were meant to take responsibility for bringing the Only Begotten Daughter to be born. Yet they could not accomplish this. As a result, on account of Mary, Jesus had no choice but to go to the cross.” (Jardim July 24, 2024) Later that year Mother said clearly that the OBD was not born.  “After 4,000 years the Only Begotten Son was born, yet even Mary and Zechariah’s family did not recognize him … However while the male OBS was born, the female Only Begotten Daughter was not.” (Sept 9, 2024)

Of course, how can she say anything else, since a vital part of her ‘revelations’ is that she is the original, or first OBD, as Jesus was the original, first OBS? Had an OBD been born, died young, or ‘not emerged’ as some Chambumoron theologians seem to say happened, it would totally invalidate this claim.

Demian claims Mother is 100% consistent. Yet ‘In True Mother, An Anthology’ we can read: “Hence, although he recovered the title of God's only begotten son, he was not able to meet God's only begotten daughter. She had been prepared, but Jesus could not meet her without a tribal level foundation. Beginning from Jesus' family, links connecting the individual to the family and the tribe had to be established, so that the lineage of humankind eventually could be changed.” (164-256, 1987.05.17) If Mother knew this was untrue, why did she read it? Why does she contradict herself?

What is the problem with Hak Ja Han’s current theology? She stated that “According to the Principle of Creation, if the Only Begotten Son is born, then the Only Begotten Daughter must also be born.” (Sept 11, 2024) Then why was the OBD not born, if the foundation for the birth of the OBS was sufficient? It should have been like the birth of Adam and Eve. It begs the question, was Jesus predestined to fail according to the Chambumoron? Was God waiting for him to begin his ministry, create the foundation for him to complete the 2nd Blessing before God could trust that the OBD could be born? So then Jesus would have been in his 50s before having true children, given that he started his ministry at 30 years of age, and would have needed some time period, 3/7/12 years, to make the necessary foundation to experience the ‘Marriage Supper of the Lamb’. Remember that this was happening at a time when life expectancy was much shorter than today.

According to the Chambumoron, could John’s sister have been Jesus’ bride?

(Button just does not fit)

Added to this question is, was it just the failure of Mary and Zechariah’s families? Would John the Baptist’s sister, if born, have been the Only Begotten Daughter, or as Father indicated, Jesus’ bride, as he rarely used OBD terminology? For Father this would not have been a problem as he told us that,

“Jesus, born from Mary’s womb, converted the lineage of the satanic world. Though he came in the position of having a converted lineage, the bride who was to become his object partner did not go through this process of conversion of lineage. It is complicated.” (Vol. 140, 86.2.9)  

Until the Chambumoron nobody questioned this teaching that Jesus’ bride would be born of a purified, but still sinful, lineage.  

Chambumoron teaches that Jesus marrying John’s sister is a problem. Although John’s sister shared a father and one set of grandparents with Jesus, she was still ‘fallen.’ This would contradict Mother’s assertion that the Only Begotten Daughter must be born sinless.

To remove the problem, it is being taught that, as Mother is saying, John did not have a sister. Thus in the Las Vegas seminars, “John the Baptist’s sister was not born” (K. Kambashi slide, he lectures in 3 languages!). This is supported by a paper, written by a couple of the theologians tasked with developing the Chambumoron in Korea, which concludes John did not have a sister.

I have not read it, as it is in Korean, but I understand they cite, among other points: Elizabeth’s advanced age, that restoration should not occur through an incestuous relationship and that there is no biblical record. These are all perfectly valid, but in response one might argue that Abraham's Sarah gave birth at a much greater age and as Elizabeth just gave birth, why not again? Would Jesus marrying John’s sister not accomplish the restoration of the Adam/Eve/ archangel paradigm? What of the Tamar story? Finally, as discussed in part one of this essay, OBD theologians should be careful about mentioning the issue of lack of biblical support!

They found a quotation where Father says “if John had a sister.” What did they do with his words to the UTS students and church leaders cited above? Why are they so definitive, when, it could be said, we just don’t know? This is because they are probably unclear if John’s sister could have been the OBD, and in trying to prove their predetermined narrative that Mother is the first OBD, it’s easier to just eliminate her, regardless of Father’s words that there was a woman that Jesus should have married.

Demian takes the question, according to the Chambumoron, to its logical conclusion, when he says, “Jesus did not come to restore a woman from the fallen realm … he needed a wife, not a half-wife, not a restored wife, but a true wife.” I assume by half-wife he meant a wife who was his, Jesus’, half-sister. Later he says, “That did not mean Jesus was supposed to find some woman from John’s family, or somewhere, and raise her or restore her”.

Are we to assume that a woman would have been born from a completely different, purified blood lineage? Again, there was no prophetic or biblical preparation for this birth and Father, to my knowledge, never mentioned this possibility. Mother has also not mentioned how Mary and Zechariah, responsible for “bringing the only begotten Daughter to be born,” were supposed to find this child, if born outside of their family/clan. But maybe this is a topic she has not yet ‘really unpacked’? I would say the same for the Chambumoron. Its definitive conclusion is, in fact, pure conjecture and seems to directly contradict Father’s words.

What is the problem in just dismissing Father’s words concerning John’s sister?

What is the very foundation of our faith, the birth experience of the Unification movement? Surely it is Father’s encounter with Jesus in 1935. We believe his words about that experience, as we do when, in his search for the truth, he says,

“I was not trusting them (Jesus and the disciples)... I was analyzing their revelation of truth. Through this period of analysis, I came to know the situation and the heart of Jesus more deeply than anyone else.”

We believe that he communicated directly with God:

“Time after time I came up against dark obstacles. Whenever that happened, I remembered God's voice when He told me, "I am alive." You would not know that His voice remains in the marrow of my bones to this day.”

Father says Jesus told him about John’s sister. Does anyone doubt his words when he was going through his course with Mrs Pak, ‘Wife of Jehovah’?

"I had to go through a 40-day ordeal in the spirit world. All the spirit people there sided with Grandma Pak against me. Even Jesus came to me and pleaded with me, saying, "Grandma is Jehovah's wife. She is a daughter whom God cherishes very much. Please serve her well."

Why do we believe Father? Because of his revolutionary understanding of Jesus’ life, that he did not come to die, but to marry, the Divine Principle’s explanation of the Creation, Fall and Restoration that flowed from the 1935 experience. All these make sense to us.

So, what of Hak Ja Han’s conclusion that Father is wrong about John’s sister? This can only be based purely on her authoritative statement that she was born sinless and that Father was sinful, otherwise it is just her opinion.

Has Mother ever spoken in detail of her spiritual relationship and communication with Jesus, as Father did? Where are her deep experiences and conversations with the one to whom she implies she is the real equivalent?

Would she, or any of us, have even mentioned John’s sister, had Father not spoken of her? Then, why would any follower of True Parents just accept her words about John’s sister and reject Father’s, without having a very nuanced, careful discussion? To brush aside arguments, such as mine, Demian just states that “we did not know who Mother was (i.e. not fallen, no Original Sin), just as we don’t know the essence of Jesus who was not to take a woman from the fallen world and raise her.” Thus, the Chambumoron accepts that Father was correct in that he grasped Jesus should marry, but rejects his understanding that “the bride who was to become his (Jesus’) object partner did not go through this process of conversion of lineage.”

All of this, we are expected to believe, Hak Ja Han understood from birth, since, as she says, she learned absolutely nothing from Father.

Which Principles, the Creation or Restoration should we use to understand Jesus’ mission? (Tricky button)

It is critical to understand why we have this conflict between Mother’s and Father’s words about the OBD/Jesus’ wife. The answer is that Mother is basing her OBS/OBD theology upon the Principles of Creation, while Father understood Jesus’ mission based on the Principles of Restoration. I have been told that the Korean CBMR text does not discuss the Fall, or the Principles of Restoration, in any depth. In Demian’s lectures he moves straight from Jesus to 1543, thus eliminating any other possible, providential, historical conclusion than the birth of Hak Ja Han as the OBD during that 2,000 year period.

Followers need to decide if they agree with Mother’s statement that, “According to the Principle of Creation, if the OBS is born, then the OBD must also be born,” just like Adam and Eve. To this assertion, let me repeat my question, if that is so, why was the Only Begotten Daughter not born around the time Jesus was?  

But it is really only in the course of biblical salvation history that the OB terminology was used and then just for Jesus, until Father introduced the OBD idea. Jesus’ sinless birth is the result of 4,000 biblical years of restoration through indemnity. Shouldn’t we continue to agree with Father, as we did when he was alive and view Jesus’ life as part of:

“The providence of restoration (which) refers to God’s work to restore humans to our original, unfallen state … This is possible only when we are born anew through the Messiah, the True Parent ….” (DP p. 175)

We have led our lives based on those Principles of Restoration through indemnity, which are focused on establishing the foundations of faith and substance (unity and love) to receive the (male) Messiah, new Adam. The new Eve is only mentioned in the Divine Principle when discussing the Trinity, in reference to the Holy Spirit, only as a substantial woman in Father’s speeches.

We have always understood that, after the Fall, the Restoration of the first Blessing comes before thoughts of establishing the 2nd Blessing/TPs. Father clearly understood that the Messiah’s bride could have a sinful birth as that was not the primary goal of restoration, which was the birth of a new Adam.  The Principles of Creation do not apply during the course of restoration, so are Mother and the CMBR making a fundamental mistake in applying them to Jesus’ life which was to restore the failure of Adam, who was responsible for Eve?

Did Mother protest when, together with Father, she blessed Jesus to Ms. Chung on January 3, 1971? Has she mentioned in a speech that this was another of Father’s ‘mistakes,’ to bless Jesus, the OBS, to a woman of a fallen lineage instead of to one born free of Original Sin? Since we know that Mother did not protest, but instead participated in blessing Jesus to Ms. Chung, is this not an example of inconsistency on her part?  

The last question which must be asked, according to the logic of the CBMR, is:

If Mother, as the Only Begotten Daughter at the ‘marriage of the lamb’, could forgive Father’s Original Sin, why could Jesus, as the Only Begotten Son, not do the same at his ‘marriage of the lamb’, exactly as Father taught us he wanted to do?  Why must Jesus marry an Only Begotten Daughter, born without Original Sin, but for Hak Ja Han, this is not the case?  

A final thought is that I listened to Father saying how God shouted out 3 times to Adam, prior to the Fall, “Look after your sister!” Because Divine Principle understands Adam as having the primary responsibility for the Fall, this is why the goal of restoration history is always directed towards the birth of a second or third Adam.

So, what of the fundamental veracity of Mother’s claim about Father’s sinful birth? Towards the end of his life on Aug 5, 2010, he said, “So what you should know is whether the Master is related to the origin of sin or not? Had he been related to sin he could not have become the Saviour. You must know this. He is not of the lineage of the fallen world ….”

Did we not all believe Father was the saviour until Mother told us differently? How could so many minds be changed so quickly and easily to now believe that he was not our saviour, that he was wrong to say, ‘He is not of the lineage of the fallen world’? According to the CBMR, Father understood neither his own, nor his wife’s true nature. Therefore, according to the CBMR, we all followed a lie for most of our lives.