Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4398HK "Sole" LEM/CEO But What About the Coworkers?

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Feb 7, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Etznab,
      You make some good points. Is this why there're
      No "Coworkers with the LEM?" Twitch had the
      "Coworker with God" description, and Klemp
      added the "Coworker with the Mahanta" description,
      but shouldn't physical plane ECKists be "Coworkers"
      with their Physical Plane LEM? Apparently Klemp
      doesn't want to muddy the legal waters as to who's
      in charge. This is, also, why Klemp needed to rid
      himself of Darwin because DG was the 14th Plane
      Mahanta and spiritually out-ranked him. Besides,
      don't all of the ECK Masters work "under" the
      current Mahanta. Viola'! Another reason for HK and
      his EK Board to drum up additional charges, show
      their intolerance, lack of compassion, and kick
      Darwin to the curb! Klemp (the narcissist) needed
      to be the "sole" Top Dog!

      Prometheus


      "D.R.D." wrote:

      [snip]
      According to some trivia by Darwin
      Gross that I read, the Eckankar corpor-
      ation articles were amended in the 1980s
      (after his ouster). There was this term
      called a "corporation sole".

      ".... (Minnesota was the third corporation
      to be denied trustee voting control. It was
      formed as a corporation sole, unlike Nevada
      and California, both of which were governed
      by majority vote of trustees, prior to being
      amended by Klemp.)"

      http://www.darwingrosstruthfile.homestead.com/DGTFitem3.html

      Here is a link for "corporation sole"

      p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_sole

      The first paragraph reads:

      "In English Law, a corporation sole is a
      legal entity consisting of a single ('sole')
      incorporated office, occupied by a single
      ('sole') man or woman. This allows a corp-
      oration (usually a religious corporation)
      to pass vertically in time from one office
      holder to the next successor-in-office,
      giving the position legal continuity with
      each subsequent office holder having iden-
      tical powers to his predecessor."

      Whatever the correct legal definition
      for the name "Eckankar", the status today,
      (especially if a "corporation sole") maybe
      this entity is not controlled by every one
      of the countless members, but is controlled
      more by one, or a few, persons.

      I don't know how fair to hold non-voting
      members responsible for the actions and the
      official decisions made by those who are in
      charge and who "own" the purse strings. This
      "Eckankar" may not be the same as everybody
      else's "Eckankar" if you consider "Eckankar"
      to be ONE's own personal path & relationship
      evolving with higher awareness, "God", etc.

      Although the Sanskrit "EK" or "One" may
      be a root of the word "Eckankar", I doubt
      that "One" can become the "sole" privilege
      of a corporate, religious, or organization
      entity to the exclusion of any other "soul"
      and the person truly working with "God".

      In other words, "coworker with "God" may
      not equate to coworker with an organization
      headed by one, or a few persons. IMO.

      I'd like to know how the idea of "one"
      managed to escape a modern-day definition
      of Eckankar. Who is the authority on the
      etymology of this word if it is true that
      Nanak was aware of and coined the similar,
      earlier version? ("EK ONKAR")

      It's probably just me, but if one is
      going to define a word meaning "co-worker
      with God" then one should be able to show
      how, exactly, that is indicated with the
      word "Eckankar". Especially if really this
      is such an ancient concept. People chose
      their words carefully when naming things
      in the past, IMO, and names were not so
      arbitrary as to amount to symbols picked
      at random and tagged with whatever meaning
      a person saw fit. The older the word, the
      greater the chance that every single letter
      had significant meaning, I would suspect.
      As is the case basically today, people are
      generally ignorant about the history and
      the etymology of words. They haven't so
      much a clue how the words came about and
      why particular symbols were used. The bad
      news about this is that it encourages the
      invention of one meaning after another. I
      believe that even "Eckankar" has been de-
      fined with a number of different words &
      carried a number of different meanings. I
      believe this proves my point that sometimes
      people don't even know what really they are
      talking about, but simply parroting words
      and accepting the meanings given to them
      by others. Soon as a speaker changes the
      word and / or meaning, the parrot begins
      to echo the same.

      Etznab
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic