Jump to content

Talk:Bo Hi Pak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On his Blessing ceremony

[edit]

Bo Hi Pak was not among the first three couples. See the references below:

http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/topics/traditn/3-blessing.htm http://www.tparents.org/UNews/unws0001/1st_blessings_60-67.htm

Actually, he was among the 36 couples:

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Books/Messiah/Messiah-91.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidKosa (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right hand man

[edit]

Non-members like to call him Rev. Moon's "right hand man" but actually Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak is in that position.

Col. Pak handled external relations (and Korean-English interpretation), establishing such organizations as the Little Angels and CAUSA.

Rev. Kwak handled more important "internal" affairs, such as the World Mission Department. For example, when Neil Salonen was U.S. church president, his "central figure" was Rev. Kwak (rather than reporting directly to Rev. Moon). I personally saw him come running up a hill when Rev. Kwak called him from a distance by his first name, suddenly leaving a group of church members he was addressing. --Uncle Ed 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pak also adopted Sammy Pak; the illegitimate child of Mr. Moon during his marriage to Hak Ja Nan; and raised him as his own child, ostensibly to hide this fact from other members of the Unification Church and the public at large. Christopher Witt Diamant. Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Financial help from church or its founder

[edit]

Cut:

Rev. Moon declined to help him, without stating a reason.

1. This needs a source. Is this speculation from church opponents / critics? Or did he actually ask for help and get turned down?

2. In his statement after release from prison, he credits Rev. Moon with getting his sentence reduced. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Jin Nim says in her letter to members: "Everyone is waiting for my father to act and save my father-in-law from prison. " I don't have any reason to think Dr. Pak himself asked Rev. Moon for help. I think the statement that "Rev. Moon declined to help him." was fair. Now it seems that he has helped. Steve Dufour 03:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Until the 1990s"

[edit]

I removed this from the first two sentences. It amounts to original research. I was in Korea in 2002 and he was clearly an important church leader then, appearing in public beside Rev. Moon. He also might come back to active leadership again. Steve Dufour 17:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's comment removed

[edit]

I took out:

InJin Moon went on to explain her motivation for writing the letter in response to criticism of Sun Myung Moon's "inaction" from "the world" and from church members:

And left the quote to stand on its own. In my opinion what she was really doing was pleading with her father to help Dr. Pak, not explaining her motivation or responding to criticism of him. BTW I understand that he did help. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as just the opposite, after reading and re-reading her statement several times over the years.
In my view, she realized that her father's hands were tied.
(If we disagree about this, can we be neutral on the point?)
By the way, there is another controversy about Rev. Moon and the people close to him, on which I may be in the minority amoung church members. I think that Rev. Moon was providentially required to 'neglect' his wife (wives?) and children to a certain extent. This was because he was required by the providence of restoration to pay much more attention to the church, the nation and the world - even if his own family fell apart. Thus he left for northern Korea without properly saying goodbye (circa 1946). And thus he watched silently as Hyo Jin Moon imploded during the heyday of Manhattan Center.
I will try to dig up the obscure, half-remembered references for these claims. Until then, please bear with me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Right hand man" revisited

[edit]

[-moved here from talk page of Exucmember-]<grin>You've still got it wrong: Bo Hi Pak was never a right hand man to Rev. Moon. He was a high-ranking military officer in the South Korean army and became an interpreter and aide to Moon because (1) he could speak English well and (2) he really loved American culture. But he was not nearly as important a spiritual leader of members as Rev. Chung Hwan Kwak, who was placed in charge of world missions and is still a top leader.

You got to get ahold of Sontag's book, where Pak laughingly describes himself as Moon's "left hand man". There's a reason Kwak is a Reverend, and Pak was always "Colonel" (until recently "Doctor"). I trust a professor writing a sympathetic book more than the media, when it comes to labels. --Uncle Ed (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was more than an interpreter and aide:
  • 1973 Principal, the Little Angels Arts School, Seoul, Korea.
  • 1974 Principal evangelist and director general of the Sun Myung Moon Christian Crusade.
  • 1976-1988 Chairman, Sun-Hwa Educational Foundation, Seoul, Korea.
  • 1976-1990 President and publisher, the News World daily newspaper in New York City (later renamed New York City Tribune).
  • 1977-1991 President, Unification Church International.
  • 1977-Present Member of the Board, Unification Church International.
  • 1978-1995 President, World Media Association.
  • 1980-1992 President and Publisher. Noticias Del Muudo, New York Spanish-language daily newspaper.
  • 1982-1992 President, the Washington Times Corporation. (The Washington Times daily newspaper and Insight weekly magazine, and World & I monthly academic journal
  • 1982-1997 Chairman of the Board, the Washington Times Corporation.
  • 1983-1997 Chairman, Association for the Unity of Latin America.
  • 1986-Present President, Universal Ballet Foundation, corporate sponsors of the Kirov Academy of Ballet in Washington, D.C.
  • 1987-1997 President, Summit Council for World Peace.
  • 1990-Present Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Panda Motors Corporation in the United States, Hong Kong, and China.
  • 1991-1994 President and publisher, Seyge Ilbo daily newspaper, Seoul, Korea.
Bo Hi Pak was clearly the top leader in politics and media areas for many years. Yes, this was more "external." But "right-hand man" is a neutral, and rather accurate, characterization. Literally hundreds of media reports called him this. Calling Chung Hwan Kwak the "number two man" now is also neutral, and accurate. When I was a somewhat highly placed Unificationist, we were encouraged to consider vocabulary that may not have been familiar to us within our own enclave, to transcend the "wall" of our own organization. In order to talk about Unificationist positions and projects with others outside Unificationism, it's sometimes necessary to consider terms one normally doesn't use in order to communicate more clearly, rather than sticking to in-house jargon. I really, honestly, don't see any problem with "right-hand man" or "number two man". I'd encourage you to be more open-minded about terms that are, in fact, communicative, and used widely. Btw, "You've still got it wrong" is something you might say to an outsider who doesn't know a lot about Unificationism, but I don't think it's appropriate for me. There are times when I can see that you don't understand something about theology or Korean culture that I do because of my own particular background, but (most of the time) I'll just try to argue the point rather than claiming authority. I think it's quite clear the Bo Hi Pak was trying to be a bit self-effacing when he said "left-hand man" (a slightly less honored position than right-hand man). -Exucmember (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing these organizations. They seem to me to come under the heading of PR, media, and education. Which ones are political?

Note that opponents of the church have used as their number one talking point the twin ideas that (1) the church is not really a church at all but a "cult" (i.e., a spurious religion) and that (2) it is mainly a political organization and should be treated as such.

This point of view should be described (not adopted), and should be balanced against the viewpoint of the church, its supporters, and others - are there any neutral or objective sources? - who say that the church (1) really is a church and (2) is not mainly political.

I would like Wikipedia articles to describe the UC's political involvement the same way it describes that of the Roman Catholic Church. Even at the peak of its power in medieval Europe (on into the renaissance) it was always regarded by modern historians as being a church - albeit a politically powerful one.

I hope we can give the same respectful treatment to the Unification Church, but I admit that as an adherent I might be biased and unaware of this bias. Maybe it's really a cult and I've been fooling myself for 31 years . . . --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Currently this section only has one sentence that it is not a quote or the introduction of a quote. In such a context even two quotes is "too many", even before we look at the length/quantity of the quotes (which is clearly excessive).

Further, the longest quote is WP:SELFPUB, in violation of the restriction against using self-pub material about third parties. It is also WP:UNDUE (due to lack of prominence of both author and publication). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author is President of the Unification Church of America. -Exucmember (talk) 07:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) She wasn't the pres at the time. (ii) The position is so earth-shatteringly important that two previous holders of that office recently had their article merged -- in fact I've yet to see any evidence that the position confers any power/influence/authority/responsibility/etc/etc at all. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher was the ad hoc organization "Save Dr. Bo Hi Pak," which holds the copyright. -Exucmember (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
=self-published. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bo Hi Pak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bo_Hi_Pak&oldid=1204501646"