Supplemental Material

Our answers to persistent refutations from the false “Second Generation Counseling Corner” based on the Okamoto theory:


  1. 1.      Errors of Dimming the Notion of the Fall


The Okamoto group makes an excuse in the following:

 “(In regard to the original sin) the fact of the fall by Adam & Eve’s sexual relationship (by the sexual organs) is wholly recognized.  It is a fact described in the Human Fall of the DP and is mentioned many times in Reverend Moon’s teachings.”(Volume 2, Refutation-04)

But they modify the DP concept of the fall and make it vague.  The Okamoto theory claims in the following:

“According to Reverend Moon’s teachings, the concept of the fall is not limited to such a fall as the ‘one by a sexual relationship between man and woman’ (The Complete Testament Principle calls this the ‘fall of the second blessing type’) but includes a split of mind and body (the fall of the first blessing type), a murder of Abel by Cain, and the fall of an eight-member family, thus it is a wide concept.” (ibid.)

The Okamoto theory: “There are three types of the fall.” is an error.  In the last chapter of Correcting the Errors this error is refuted (p. 245-256).  Furthermore, the fall of the eight-member family is explained in Correcting the Errors (pp. 164~165).

In addition, we encourage you to re-visit the consistencies and differences between Reverend Moon’s teachings described in A Study of Reverend Moon’s Speeches in this booklet and the outlook of Henry Thiessen’s.

  1. 2.      Error of Their Broad Interpretation of the Concept of the Original Sin


The Okamoto group claims as the following:

“Mr. Mori limits the concept of the original sin to an external sinful act of making sexual relationship by the first human ancestors but as discussed in the Problems with the Salvation Theory in detail (p.112), in the original sin there are concepts not only of the sinful act by the first human ancestors but also of a more essential ‘existential grasp’, which is an internal motivation and nature, that is, a sin as a cause (‘corrupted nature’ in Christianity).” (Volume 5, Refutation-11)

The Okamoto theory criticizes us [for our belief] that we limit the concept of the fall to having a sexual relationship (illicit sexual intercourse) by the first human ancestors.  But this is the concept of the DP.  Besides, Reverend Moon says, “They (Adam and Eve) covered their lower parts, hid behind a tree, and trembled in fear.  Because they have made an illicit relationship against the Heaven’s code and established the root of false love, false life, and false lineage.  All mankind who are descendants of fallen Adam and Eve, from generation to generation, were born with the original sin.” (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom, p. 30; Correcting the Errors, p. 250)  He clearly states that the original sin is to have had an “illicit relationship.”

There are many theological problems in the theory of Okamoto’s such as the “original sin as internal ‘motivation and nature’”, which is the “theory of internal original sin.”  They hide that. This theological issue is dealt in Chapter II of this booklet.


  1. 3.      Error of Identifying the Original Sin with the Primary Characteristics of the Fallen Nature

The Okamoto group states: “As a conclusion, it is clear that by judging from the whole teachings of Reverend Moon, he uses the phrase ‘the original sin,’ implying ‘the sin as a motivation,’ which induces various sinful acts of fallen men.  That is, he considers it as self-centered love (nature), which is identical with the primary characteristics of the fallen nature. (Volume 5, Refutation-11)

They assert that in Reverend Moon’s teachings, the primary characteristics of the fallen nature (internal nature) and the original sin are used as an identical concept.  There was no reference, however, to it in Reverend Moon’s teachings.  This is their own understanding and nothing but a delusion.

The Okamoto group says, “Reverend Moon’s teachings are absolute.” On the contrary, they say, “Judging from the whole teachings.”  Thus they have their own standard for judgment and treat the interpretation (self-understanding) from that as absolute.

  1. 4.      Error of Considering the Motivation Inevitable – 1


The Okamoto group quotes the following teaching as a reason for the theory of internal original sin:

“Satan is the fallen archangel, leaving the position of a faithful servant to God and humans, challenged God, and competed with Him.  His motivation was based on egotism.  From his selfishness the origin of evil and sin arose.” (Volume 5, Refutation-11)

But this teaching cannot be the grounds.  This origin of evil and sin means that the motivation of fall is egotism and that this selfishness became the origin of good and evil.  The teaching does not mean that it [selfishness] was the original sin.  But the Okamoto theory wrongly reinterprets the original sin as selfishness.  The reason for the interpretation is that they have preceding knowledge of the theory of internal original sin (self-centeredness) in the existing theology.

Please read carefully.  The teaching indicates that what became the origin of evil and sin was (not from God) Satan’s selfishness.  In addition, the theory of internal original sin, which ascribes sin to God, is wrong.  The original sin means the fallen act (a sinful act = an illicit sexual intercourse, adultery to have an illicit relationship).  The motivation and the act are not the same.  The two are to be distinguished.  The motivation may not lead to the act, it may just stay as such.  The motivation is not inevitable.  That is to say, the fall of first human ancestors was not inevitable.

The teaching distinguishes the motivation of the fall from the act which was the result of that.  Therefore, the motivation is not the same as the original sin.  If the motivation or nature were to produce an inevitable result (the fall), it would mean that they already had the original sin (nature) before breaking the commandment, which would also mean that God endowed such a mind (evil nature) that has the inevitability to commit sin.  It would make God responsible for the sin, which would lead to the liberation of the individuals from their sins (= the apology for Satan).  Please think deeply what the 5% portion of human responsibility is.


  1. 5.      Error of Considering the Motivation Inevitable – 2


The Okamoto theory refutes as the following:.

“In spite of reading the teaching Mr. Mori quoted in the context, Reverend Moon’s statement; ‘The fall was an incident of the blood lineage which began with an illicit motivation,” tells that the motivation is included in the concept of the fall but that [the fall] began from the motivation.  Therefore, it should rather be understood that the fall is a ‘totality of internal and external acts’ with a time lapse, including the motivation.” (ibid.)

Perhaps influenced by our drastic refutation of the Okamoto theory, they state the same outlook as that of the Human Fall (the motivation and process of the fall) in the DP, namely, the totality of internal and external acts.

① Surely, the teaching states, “The fall was an incident of the blood lineage which began with an illicit motivation”.  It says that it “began,” but not that the “illicit motivation is the original sin (an incident).”  The error of the Okamoto theory is that the motivation is regarded as the original sin.  As discussed in the previous section, it is wrong to think that the motivation as inevitable and identify it with its result.  The fall includes the motivation but the motivation itself is not the original sin.

② The process of the fall explains how the act of the fall (an illicit act) with Satan’s selfish love as the motivation got connected to Satan’s lineage.  This process does not indicate the lapse of time.  The definition of the original sin as “the sin derived from the spiritual and physical fall of the first human ancestors” as it appears in the DP means that it describes the “process” of how the illicit spiritual and physical fall (the totality of internal and external acts) committed by the archangel and Eve first and then by Adam and Eve got connected to Satan’s lineage.  It does not mean a series of the “flow of heart,” excluding the “act” (the sexual relationship) as the Okamoto theory claims.

③ The inheritance of the archangel’s primary characteristics of the fallen nature is not only the flow of heart also the sexual relationship.  Will anyone get connected to Satan’s blood lineage by kissing prior to crossing the line?  What does Reverend Moon say?

④Needless to say, the DP does not exclude the motivation or internal nature.  The Human Fall touches on the archangel’s motivation and explains why the primary characteristics of the fallen nature came about in the Garden of Eden before the fall.

  1. 6.      Error of Considering the Motivation Inevitable – 3


The Okamoto group refutes as the following:

“(Mr. Mori and others) admits that the fall took place with certain time lapse by saying, ‘…the illicit act which does not lead to conception is also included in the definition of the original sin (the process).’ At first they say that the original sin is a result, but afterwards they say that ‘the process is also included in the definition of the fall.’  Their logic is not, thus, consistent obviously.” (ibid.) “That is, with the motivation as a starting point, a series of all mental and heartistic content based on illicit love up to the external, physical act of ‘crossing the line’ ought to be included in the concept of the fall.” (ibid.)

This paragraph is a dirty trick by changing the description subtly, claiming that we “said” what we have not said.

① They say, “(Mr. Mori and others) admit that the fall took place over a period of time.” but we do not.  Rather, we say that the mere lapse of time is not relevant.  The process mentioned in the DP does not mean a lapse of time but explains two fallen acts by the archangel and Eve, and Adam and Eve.

② In addition, the reference to the following: “The process is included in the definition of the fall.” subtly comes to have a different meaning if we see it within the context.  The definition of the original sin in the Human Fall as “the inherited sin derived from the spiritual and physical fall of the first human ancestors” sin by spiritual and physical fall of the first human ancestors” explains  as the “process” how they got connected to Satan’s lineage, and explains the connection.

③ The original sin is a result (an act of the fall) of love.  It is the “process” that describes concretely the act of the fall (the spiritual and physical fall), which is the result of love.  Its logic is consistent.

④ The Okamoto group asserts that the “motivation” before crossing the line, namely, based on a “series of all mental and heartistic content based on illicit love” is included in the concept of the fall.  However, as explained in the previous clause ①, the fall includes the motivation but the motivation is not the original sin because the theory of internal original sin makes God responsible for the sin.  The Okamoto group will not try to understand this point at all.


  1. 7.      Error of not Recognizing the Premise of a Father-Son Relationship   


The Okamoto group refutes as following:

“As explained on p.87 of the Problems with the Salvation Theory, the self-centered motivation itself is the result of the fall that the first human ancestors could not make a father-son relationship with God, nor the unity of mind and body (the first-blessing-type fall)” (Volume 5, Refutation-11)

What is wrong with this sentence?

①      As Reverend Moon says, the first human ancestors were born as the son and the daughter of God.  There was a father-son relationship.  It is undeniable that there was not.  They do not understand the importance of this premise.

②      As a result of the fall, the father-son relationship was lost.

③      The separation of mind and body also is due to the result of the fall.


  1. 8.      Error of Criticizing Biological Blood Lineage As Blood-Sharing 


The Okamoto group mocks our belief as “blood-sharing.”  But “blood-sharing” is a concept that criticizes [a practice] that a messianic figure has physical illicit relationships with his followers.

On the contrary, blood lineage means a relation by blood with ancestors.  If the blood relation through marriage is called blood-sharing as the Okamoto group calls it, including ordinary marriage, marriage itself will be desecrated as blood-sharing.  So, they say that marriage is not blood-sharing and make an excuse that the claim of biological lineage is considered blood-sharing.  Blood lineage is bequeathed from parent to child by uniting a sperm and an egg in love through marriage.  The claim of biological lineage does not lead to the blood-sharing.

The concept of “blood-sharing” must be made clear.  As the Woo group practices, it is an act of seeking salvation through having a physical illicit relationship with a messianic figure, which is against the Heavenly law.  The blood-sharing lies not in a theory of biological lineage but in “having illicit relationships.”


  1. 9.      Error of Making an Illegitimate Son of Mr. Woo the “Fourth Adam”


The Okamoto group claims that Reverend Moon could not fulfill his messianic mission, so after his passing he will be resurrected through second coming in an figure called the “fourth Adam” and fulfill his unaccomplished mission.

Mr. Okamoto has been collecting Reverend Moon’s teachings, attempting to have them spoken through the mouth of the “fourth Adam” after Reverend Moon’s passing.  In addition, he will try to have his members believe that the fourth Adam is the resurrected Reverend Moon by the teachings.  Presently he is trying to create a “false messianic kingdom” by abusing the teachings on the foundation of the sacrifice of the blessed families [they recruited].  The “fourth Adam” is an unidentified person.  He is a false Messiah (puppet) Mr. Okamura made up.

In addition, the blood lineage Mr. Okamoto emphasizes should be the lineage of heart. Then why must the fourth Adam be Mr. Woo’s illegitimate son who is biologically related to him?  This is logical and contradictory.


  1. 10.   Error That the Second Generation Have the Original Sin


Mr. Tatsunori Okamoto regards the Holy Wine Ceremony and marriage Blessing as just “ceremonies” to enter the third Israel and does see that they liquidate the original sin.  He claims that the second generation has the original sin as well.

However, Reverend Moon says, “The Blessing movement I have been advocating is not a mere matrimonial ceremony but a holy event to liquidate the original sin and to be engrafted to Heaven by the original true blood lineage.”(Peace Message, p. 351)

As for the “immaculacy from the original sin” of the second generation, he clearly states, ”Our children who are born thus have no original sin and they will enter the Heaven without passing through the process of salvation.” (Blessed Family and the Ideal Kingdom , The Significance and Value of the Blessing, p. 690)

However, Mr. Okamoto insists, “According to the education given so far by the UC organization, it was taught that children born to the parents of the conditional blessed families have no original sin. But isn’t it a mistake?  There is no teaching indicating that the children of conditional blessed couples are born without the original sin.” (95+13 Proposals, Article 19, p. 27)  He also says something silly: “Is it truly possible that the eradication the original sin is done by just participating in the Blessing ceremony?”(95+13 Proposals, Article 54, p. 67)


  1. 11.   What Does Connecting with God’s Lineage Mean?


Blood lineage means that there is a blood relation with ancestors.  There is a teaching: “Blood lineage is the privilege of privileges that parents can give only to children.  But due to the fall they received Satan’s false lineage and fell to be Satan’s children.” (Peace Messages, p. 39)

In addition, “God is the first Creator, Adam and Eve the second creators, and the children of Adam and Eve are in the position of the third creators.” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, True Family and Family Pledge, p. 2,566)  However, because of the fall God “could not see [Adam and Eve’s] sons and daughters who were the third creators and grand children.” (ibd., pp. 2,570 – 2,571)

From the above teaching, the following can be said: In spite that Adam and Eve were the son and the daughter of God, born of God’s lineage, they “could not be connected to God’s lineage” because they could not bear children (the third creators) connected to God’s lineage.  That is, “God could not see a son and a daughter who were third creators, and grand children.” (ibid.)

“True love goes through the shortest distance.”  God’s love and the love of Adam and Eve should have become one (connected) by consummating their first love at a right angle.  Because of that God’s lineage could not start there.  In other words, due to the fall of Adam and Eve, they could not connect their children to God’s lineage.


  1. 12.   Inappropriate Quotation of the Teaching


The Okamoto group says that the “conditional blessed families” still remain in Satan’s lineage and that they need to receive the Blessing to liquidate the original sin.  The teaching given on March 10, 2003, regarding this point was quoted from the Family, May 2003 and is introduced in their One Hundred Proposals on p.59 and p.446:

“Are you all married? (Yes.) But you were not blessed by God.  So, all is false.  It must be corrected. …”

However, this was not addressed to the blessed couples but to a crowd of some two thousand people, including ambassadors of peace and politicians who had not been blessed then.  Without such a background check, as soon as they find any teaching which they think seems to support their view, they jump to conclusions and quote it.  From this it is obvious how much their study of Reverend Moon’s teachings lacks objectivity and precision.


  1. 13.   Error of the First Seven-Year Course from 1938 to 1945 in the Okamoto Theory 

According to the Okamoto theory on their providential view, they conclude that the first seven-year course centering on Reverend Moon was from 1938 to 1945. They state as the following:

“Through a study on the teachings of Reverend Moon, we can see that it was after encountering with Jesus on the early morning of Easter at the age of sixteen that he realized his mission as the Lord of the Second Advent.  He said that before turning the age of 20 (18 years of age), he began his mission as the Savior.  …….. It is written that he fulfilled the individual perfection (the first blessing) in 18 years and after that there was the first seven-year course from 1938 to1945 during which the family and tribal level foundations were established.” (One Hundred Proposals, p. 69)

This error in the Okamoto theory’s providential view is discussed in Correcting the Errors (pp.220~229) but in Reverend Moon’s autobiography As a Peace Loving Global Citizen published in Korea this year he states that the time he finally determined to live for God’s Will was not when he  met Jesus but nine years after that.

“…after finishing studies in Japan I returned to my country. …I received answers to many of the questions that I had struggled with no matter how hard I tried. …I had the realization, ‘the relationship between God and mankind is that of a father and his children, and God is deeply saddened to see their suffering.’  In this moment, all the secrets of the universe were resolved.  Suddenly, it was as if someone had turned on a movie projector. Everything that had happened since the time humankind broke God’s commandment and walked the fallen path played out clearly before my eyes.  Hot tears flowed continuously from my eyes.  I fell to my knees and bowed my head to the floor.  For the longest time I could not get up.  Just as when my father had carried me home on his back as a child, I buried my face in God’s lap and let the tears flow.  Nine years after my encounter with Jesus, my eyes had finally been opened to the true love of Father.”