“There Is A Fake God the Mother So That Proves There Is A Real God the Mother”?

Despite the contradictions between what Ahn Sahng-Hong wrote in his book “Problems With New Jerusalem, The Bride and Women’s Veils” and the World Mission Society Church of God‘s belief that “god the mother” exists, members have argued that since Um Soo In was the “fake” mother god, a real one must exist.  A presumed member even cited this analogy:

“Again, this book actually proves that there is a Heavenly Mother.  Can there be a fake Louis Vuitton bag without a real Louis Vuitton bag? No? Then if a false Mother or Bride appears, it is because there must be a real one.”

In order for this analogy to be applicable, Ahn Sahng-Hong would have to have written that Um Soo In was a “false god the mother”.  Let’s take a look at what Ahn Sahng-Hong actually wrote in his book Problems With New Jerusalem regarding this issue.

In Chapter 7 of Problems With New Jerusalem, Ahn Sahng-Hong writes:

“UhmSooIn is babbling about how she is the new Jerusalem that came down out of heaven. UhmSooIn is using the following verse to claim that she is the mother from heaven:” [quotes Galatians 4:22-26].  “UhmSooIn thinks that Hagar is the actual earthly Jerusalem and Sarah as the actual heavenly Jerusalem.”

A presumed member of the WMSCOG argues that, “the Holy City Jerusalem is a symbol being used to represent our Heavenly Mother.

Ahn Sahng-Hong goes on to disagree with Um Soo-In and the WMSCOG:

“‘These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants as the prophecy of the Old Covenant and New Covenant where Hagar represents physical Israelites because of Mosaic law received on Mount Sinai and earthly Jerusalem and Sarah represents the New Covenant established by Jesus Christ in the upper room of Mark’s house and spiritual Israelites, namely, Jerusalem from above.”  

Ahn Sahng-Hong further disagrees with Um Soo-In:

“However, UhmSooIn claims she is the Jerusalem from above that came down to earth. If the verses from Galatians 4:22-24 speak of a prophesy where Sarah is the Jerusalem from above and that Jerusalem is UhmSooIn then UhmSooIn must be married to her son. Because Isaac is Sarah’s son and Isaac is also said to be Christ. (Galatians 3:16)  UhmSooIn became the mother of Christ as well as the bride (wife) of Christ.  UhmSooIn referred me as the blind Isaac and herself as the Jerusalem from above or Sarah and is saying to live with Isaac or her son after all so where will you find this kind of extremely disgraceful thing?”

Ahn Sahng-Hong completely opposed the idea that Sarah represented the Jerusalem from above, but that is exactly what the WMSCOG believes.  Ahn Sahng-Hong also completely opposed the idea that a woman could be the Jerusalem from above, because according to his interpretation of Galatians 3:16, that would mean that whoever that woman was, she would be the mother and the bride of Christ.  Ahn Sahng-Hong described this notion as “extremely disgraceful“.

How is this different from the WMSCOG’s interpretation of Zhang Gil-Jah being the New Jerusalem and the the bride?  It is not different at all.  In fact, at the end of Chapter 7 Ahn Sahng-Hong goes as far as to say that Um Soo-In was a “false prophet” with “weird delusions”.  My guess is that Ahn Sahng-Hong would have similar things to say about Um Soo-In’s copycat Zhang Gil-Jah.

In summary, the only thing that this book proves is that Ahn Sahng-Hong opposed both Um Soo-In’s and the WMSCOG’s conclusion that there is a “god the mother”, regardless of which Korean woman claims to be her


  • WMSCOG is an organization opposed to truth which it wanted the false to be the truth. It’s foundation is all falsehood and though their false god and false christ opposes the idea of a mother god, it’s of no use because the man is dead and in no way can defend himself. At this point in time, this not so important because already the false doctrine of worshipping a dead man and his living concubine should already be sufficient to prove that WMSCOG is the church of SATAN.

  • I was just thinking about the thought process here. There’s a fake mother god so there must be a real mother god. What??? Going with that kind of thought process, there’s a fake Jackalope so there must be real Jackalope. There’s a fake Fiji mermaid so there must be a real Fiji mermaid. Obviously there are flaws to this kind of thinking and only someone trying to manipulate others would try to use this school of thought as some kind of proof.

  • This is some seriously flawed thinking. There’s a fake god the mother so there must be a real god the mother? With this kind of logic you have to believe that if there’s a fake jackalope then there must be a real jackalope, if there’s a fake Fiji mermaid then there must be a real Fiji mermaid, if there’s a fake Santa Clause then there must be a real Santa Clause. Is there anyone that really wants to follow this train of thought down this dirt road?

  • but in reality the idea of “mother god” already is a flaw so either which leads to a dirt road. must find another way. a dirty road is real dangerous.

  • Oh Oh, there’s a Mother God I better start making plans.