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

6137Re: Where I Stand

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Feb 19, 2012
      Hello Etznab and All,
      Klemp had the corporate
      by-laws for Eckankar
      rewritten after Darwin
      was booted. Therefore,
      the President of Eckankar
      was no longer the head
      of the org and of the
      church.

      Darwin screwed up by
      not stating on stage or
      in print that he, as the
      Mahanta, was still the
      head of Eckankar and
      that Harold, as LEM, was
      overseeing other areas.
      Upon acceptance Harold
      would not have had the
      legal ground to present
      a challenge. In Darwin's
      day the ECK Board, 8th
      initiates, still had a real
      voice and vote. The by-laws
      were written as such.
      And, IMO, the Board (8ths)
      would never have sided
      with a new 12th initiate
      LEM over the 14th initiate
      Mahanta.

      BTW- When Twitchell
      first defined the LEM
      he made no mention
      of the Mahanta. It wasn't
      until 1969 that he created
      the Mahanta title and
      rewrites began. Just
      look at the definition
      for LEM in, even, HK's
      first Lexicon. There's
      no mention of the
      "Mahanta" in the body
      of the definition. At
      the bottom it states:
      (see Mahanta).

      And, Klemp did his own
      revisions by stating that
      even though the LEM is
      synonymous with being
      the Mahanta... that the
      LEM is "in training" until
      he can become a "Full"
      14th Mahanta. Why did
      Klemp feel this additional
      clarification as necessary?
      It's because Darwin was
      the LEM/Mahanta! Therefore
      Klemp had to make it seem
      that he was either on the
      same Initiation Level or
      Higher than Gross. After
      all, how could a new 12th
      LEM have the Hierarchal
      authority to unseat a "Full"
      14th (or higher) Mahanta
      otherwise? He wouldn't
      and there lies the rub!
      Klemp's ekplanation
      is called "tying up loose
      ends."


      Anyway, HK now has
      "sole" authority to hire
      and fire and to make
      all decisions. Peter Skelsky,
      the President of Eckankar,
      works for Klemp and
      runs the business side
      of Eckankar.

      The ECK Board members,
      also, sit at Klemp's pleasure
      and serve as a sounding
      board for him. He merely
      considers their opinions
      but is under no obligation
      to follow anything they
      might suggest or vote
      upon. They simply keep
      him up-to-date and
      informed on various
      issues and assignments.

      As Above, So Below.

      The chartered Satsang
      Societies are set up
      in the same manner
      as the ECK Board at
      the ESC and follow
      hierarchal procedure.
      Generally, however,
      the President of the
      Satsang Society doesn't
      have nearly as much
      authority or oversight
      duties as does their
      counterpart, at the ESC,
      Peter Skelsky. Then,
      again, some RESAs
      aren't very "hands on"
      and tend to designate
      more responsibility to
      others.

      The RESAs, basically,
      have been given sole
      church authority over
      those Eckists within
      their regional areas.
      They hire, fire, promote
      and oversee the local
      operations and mission
      of the Satsang Society
      based upon field-tested
      Guidelines supplied to
      them by the ESC. Of course,
      ECK-ankar is a hierarchy
      and even RESAs answer
      to higher ups at the ESC
      assigned (by HK or his
      emissaries) to oversee
      them. Harold is the "sole"
      piece of crap in charge
      of this minor New Age
      religious con and cult.

      Prometheus


      etznab@... wrote:

      Try researching the definition for corporation sole.

      A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole")
      incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") man or woman. [....]

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

      My impression "according to Darwin Gross" is that Harold turned
      Eckankar into a corporation sole. Someone would have to follow up on
      this and check for verification. If corporation sole is what Eckankar
      is, then I don't know if members need be allowed to vote, or if a board
      can in any way trump the single individual in charge.

      Can a non-profit be a corporation sole? One would have to determine
      that first. I think they can, but are not sure.

      Member is another word one needs to follow up on and how it is defined.
      One could argue that not all people as part of a non-profit are members
      with legal voting rights.

      Whether members can vote is probably a mute point, IMO. I don't think
      the org. / corp. is set up that way. Not according to what I have read.
    • Show all 15 messages in this topic