Claim. SMM defines a ‘true person’ as one who has perfect love, and identifies that figure as the True Parents — paralleling God’s own essence as ‘the representative true person’ who can love everything large and small.
Elaboration. The argument proceeds by chained definition: history seeks an original leader → that leader must transcend fallen individuals, families, tribes, peoples and nations → such a leader is a true person → a true person is one with perfect love → the only one who can love perfectly is the True Parents (Section 1. The Position of the True Parents The world has passed through many eras: the eras of imperialism, emperors and kingdoms. After they passed came the children’s era of democracy and the servants’ era of communism. Because these eras were not governed by the law of love, we can conclude they were prod- ucts of a false world. The original world was to come into being as the extension of an original heart. Then, there must be an original person. But where is that original person? It should be understood that the term “person,” here includes).
The ladder is then extended upward: God Himself is ‘the representative true person,’ defined functionally as ‘one who can love everyone’ — the one whose embrace draws in all beings regardless of size. By this definitional logic, True Parents and God share the same essential predicate (capacity for total love), which sets up the analogical structure where humans become ‘little True Parents’ (Section 4) by inheriting this capacity.
The move also historicizes prior political eras (imperialism, kingdoms, democracy, communism) as ‘products of a false world’ because they were not governed by the law of love. This is a substantive theological claim — that political-historical periodization should be read through love-governance rather than through economic mode or political form. Worth a thread once a counter atomic engages the eras typology.
See also. true-parents, purpose-of-creation