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

Re: Twitchell Info on ECKANKAR.org Shows Deception

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Hi Etznab, Basically, these quotes on PT, by Klemp, are the only ones I m referring to when I ask for an opinion based on the Timeline Klemp gives in this
    Message 1 of 27 , Dec 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Etznab,
      Basically, these quotes on PT, by Klemp, are the only
      ones I'm referring to when I ask for an opinion based
      on the "Timeline" Klemp gives in this Twitchell info.

      My conclusions are simply based upon the obvious and
      in the connecting of the dots by using the facts provided
      by Klemp and Company. It's really just an exercise of
      using simple logic, common sense, and opening one's
      awareness and eyes. It's elementary my dear Etznab.

      'There are none so blind as those who cannot see.'

      Prometheus

      *********************************************************
      >
      > Here's more conflicting information that is currently
      > being shared on ECKANKAR.org.
      >
      > "BEHIND the SCENES WITH PAUL TWITCHELL"
      >
      > From: "HIS OWN DRUMBEATER" by Harold Klemp
      >
      > "At 27 years of age, the most Paul had ever done
      > was to teach physical education. But by the time
      > he wrote it all up, exaggerating and twisting the
      > facts, he worked up a nice little paragraph about
      > all of the grand achievements of one Paul Twitchell.
      > He made it sound quite impressive. You can see why,
      > after hours of reading so many dull entries, the editor
      > of Who's Who in Kentucky thought Paul sounded pretty
      > interesting. WITHOUT BOTHERING TO CHECK OUT THE
      > DATES OR DETAILS, HE PROBABLY SAID, OH, WHY NOT
      > --AND PAUL GETS INTO WHO'S WHO IN KENTUCKY
      > RIGHT ALONG WITH THE MOST DISTINGUISHED LEADERS
      > IN THE STATE."
      >
      > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
      >
      > So, Paul was 27 YEARS OLD when he was doing all of this
      > lying and had not done anything, except, teach phys. ed.
      >
      > Also, Klemp in the Shariyat Books 1&2 on the copyright
      > page gives Paul's YEAR of BIRTH as 1908.
      >
      >
      > *THEREFORE, 1935 IS WHEN PAUL WAS 27 YEARS OLD!
      >
      >
      > This next quote comes from "LOOKING AT THE PAST FOR
      > SPIRITUAL LESSONS" by Harold Klemp.
      >
      > "Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of
      > the Himalayas near Darjeeling. BEFORE THAT ON HIS FIRST
      > TRIP TO INDIA IN 1935, HE MET SUDAR SINGH."
      >
      > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html
      >
      > Ironic isn't it? That KLEMP and his ECK LEADERS
      > have made the same mistake that the editor of the
      > 1935 edition of Who's Who in Kentucky did:
      >
      > "Without bothering to check out the dates or details,
      > he probably said, Oh, why not..."
      >
      > [SINCE PAUL'S FIRST TRIP TO INDIA IN 1935 HAS BEEN
      > PROVEN TO BE FALSE-THIS MEANS THAT THERE WAS
      > NO "SECOND" TRIP TO MEET REBAZAR!]
      >
      > This is the conflicting information that ECKists
      > should be more concerned with because it shows
      > that the very foundation of ECKANKAR was created
      > by a proven liar!
      >
      >
      > It is, also, obvious that Twitchell lied about REBAZAR
      > as he had about SUDAR SINGH (970th LEM).
      >
      >
      > Prometheus
      >
    • tomleafeater
      I thought it might be a good idea to clarify some things I wrote, just in case there are people reading here who might be still in eckankar, and still unclear
      Message 2 of 27 , Jan 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        I thought it might be a good idea to clarify some things I wrote,
        just in case there are people reading here who might be still in
        eckankar, and still unclear about the lineage between Darwin
        and Harold.

        Eckankar has distanced itself from its history that involves
        Darwin, since the feud that occured is embarrassing to
        eckankar. "Highest Spiritual Paths" don't like to reveal their dirty
        laundry, lest they appear to not be so high, after all.

        But, the fact is, Darwin and Harold are really quite joined at the
        hip, as it were. Here's the big picture:

        Twitchell has no evidence that he was appointed by his
        predecessor, since there is really absolutely no credible,
        verifiable evidence of the existence of a predecessor. So, what
        we have is, due to lack of real evidence, a self appointed master.

        As to Darwin, he lacks a predecessor as well, since he was
        appointed by a non-eck master (Gail).

        The only person in this entire sordid mess who actually has a
        real link to a predecessor is Harold. Unfortunately, Harold bit the
        hand that fed him by claiming that his predecessor who
        appointed him is lacking in spiritual realization. Odd, that. Kind of
        puts a dent in Harold's pedigree.

        After all, if the person who appointed him was so seriously
        flawed that he had to be, not just reprimanded, but kicked out of
        eckankar entirely, then what does that say about Darwin's
        choices and actions preceding his removal? After all, he chose
        Harold. Was that choice, coming as it was from a flawed,
        undeveloped master, a further reflection of Darwin's flawed
        state?

        Wouldn't Harold thus have inherited a rather tainted title? Harold
        really painted himself into a corner with that fateful action of
        discrediting his only link to the line of masters.

        What we have is a master (Darwin) who has been accused of
        dishonesty, theft, and even black magic by his own appointed
        student.

        So, if Darwin was so flawed and dishonest, what does that say
        about the wisdom in his appointment by Gail? How could Gail
        have appointed such a liar and a thief? And while we're on this
        particular point, where was Paul's renowned (kidding here)
        abilities of prescience to see a couple of weeks into the future,
        much less centuries, to predict his own death in order to get his
        affairs (pun intended) in order, which would have included
        naming a successor before he died?

        When this history is simply looked at for what it is, we see a
        string of bad choices and bad judgement by all involved. How
        could such masters of the universe be so error prone? And
        where were the masters of the varaigi during these years of
        errors? Couldn't they have used the eons of amassed wisdom
        and forsight to have intervened in these situations a wee bit?

        What's that expression? The apple doesn't fall far from the tree?

        The history of eckankar tells the story, right there before our
        noses, in plain view.

        Kent






        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
        "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
        > etznab@ wrote:
        > >
        > > In a message dated 12/29/06 7:35:33 PM Central Standard
        > Time,
        > > ewickings@ writes:
        > >
        > >
        > > > What information do you find that is conflicting? List the
        > conflicting
        > > info you question, and maybe someone can clarify further!
        > >
        > >
        > > Not to be a nuisance or anything, but here it goes - for the
        > third
        > > time now!
        > >
        > > "... Darwin received his fifth initiation at the Fourth World Wide
        > > Seminar .... This fact was published in the
        October/November/
        > > December 1970 issue of The Mystic World, in an article
        about
        > > the seminar. And the next issue of The Mystic World lists
        > Darwin
        > > as the ECK Representative for the states of Oregon and
        Idaho,
        > > and states again that he was a fifth initiate."
        > >
        > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Four.htm
        > >
        > > O.K? Count them - four Mystic World issues! This is not
        > hersay
        > > or he said/she said. These are publications from before Paul
        > died.
        > > How do you expect an objective observer to discount this?
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > I am recalling, the more I read here about this, that there may
        be,
        > indeed, an issue naming DG as a representative. This rings a
        > bell, but I'd have to check to be sure. I have the Mystic Worlds
        > starting from 1971, as well as the old Eck World News copies
        > from those times, but they're in a storage room, buried away.
        You
        > now have me curious about this, though honestly, it hardly
        > matters to me one way or another. There are enough stange
        > oddities surrounding the appointment of Gross that whether he
        > was a second, a fourth, a fifth, or what have you, it isn't really
        that
        > important in the long run, despite anything Doug might say.
        >
        > I remember seeing Gross at a youth conference in the
        Southern
        > California area in early 1971. He sang a song as an
        introduction
        > to Paul's entrance to the room. He seemed to have quite a bit
        of
        > status at the time, introduced as Gross was by Patti Simson at
        > the event. He really stood out.
        >
        > It seems there were two issues, not four, that Doug claims had
        > info about Darwin. One would think Doug wouldn't possibly lie
        or
        > make up stories that can be eventually checked in published
        > journals, but I have learned, when it comes to Doug, Rich and
        > other eckankar apologists to ALWAYS check for myself, since I
        > have often been surprised upon actually attempting to verify
        > statements, that Doug, et al, can be strangely in error, even
        when
        > they quote publications. It is truly strange.
        >
        > Still, it seems the only way to be sure would be to find copies of
        > the publications.
        >
        >
        > > Doug refutes the claims that Darwin got his fifth in 1971.
        And
        > > apparently this fifth initiation in 1971 was according to Bluth:
        > >
        > >
        > > Nichols and Albrecht retell the controversy:
        > >
        > > According to Bluth, Gross was flown to Las Vegas...
        > > from Portland, Oregon, where Gross was immediately
        > > granted a fifth initiation and briefed extensively for days
        > > so that he could pass the scrutiny of the experts. [....]
        > >
        > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Four.htm
        > >
        > > O.K., so four Mystic World issues prior to Paul's
        > > translation mention Darwin alreadly having had the
        > > fifth initiation in October 1970. But, others claim it
        > > happened in 1971 after Paul died. O.K.?
        > >
        >
        >
        > Again, it is only alleged until the copies can be verified. Truly,
        with
        > Doug one can't assume that even something as verifiable as
        > printed matter is accurately portrayed. It isn't that he
        consciously
        > lies (though who really knows?), only that his mental filters will
        > distort his recollections. He is so pro-eckankar, it makes him
        > capable of stating things in highly distorted form. I don't think
        he
        > is conscious of doing this. So, though he may be correct in this
        > instance, the only way to be sure is to see the copies. Again,
        he
        > may be correct, since he is referring to actual printed material,
        > but who knows?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > *********
        > >
        > > "What information do you find that is conflicting? List the
        > > conflicting info you question, and maybe someone can
        > > clarify further!"
        > >
        > > *********
        > >
        > > O.K. I just did. I spelled it out for you. Either Darwin got
        > > the fifth initiation in 1970 or 1971. The 1970 date has four
        > > publications to back it up. The 1971 date has what? Bluth?
        > > Bluth has been known to change his story before.
        > >
        >
        >
        > Having encountered Bluth as an eckist, I personally wouldn't
        > consider either Bluth or Doug to be absolutely reliable. Copies
        of
        > the printed material are necessary to settle this.
        >
        >
        > > For historical purposes I would go with the Mystic World
        > > publications on this one. Otherwise how do you account for
        > > them mentioning Darwin as a fifth initiate a year before the
        > > others claim that it happened?
        > >
        > > At any rate, I don't feel like arguing this one any further
        > > unless somebody can refute these Mystic World issues
        > > and what they said with regard to Darwin receiving the 5th.
        > >
        >
        >
        > If I have time, I''l someday (not soon) look up what I can in my
        old
        > stuff in storage. You have me curious.
        >
        >
        > > I'll say this much, however. From 1968 to 1970 is only
        > > about two years. Darwin must have received the 5th, like,
        > > really soon after the 2nd. Unless he skipped the 2nd and
        > > went right to the 5th.
        > >
        >
        >
        > In those days, people flew through the initiations. People
        > commonly would get initations every year, until they were
        > "slowed down" a couple of years later. Samorez, a fellow who
        > posts once in a while on a.r.e. went from the second to the fifth,
        > skipping everything in between. I remember the story, since he
        > lived in my local area. He knew Twitchell and Gail and thus
        > received a favor.
        >
        > This is why I see all this as having little importance. It might
        > mean something to Doug to establish a time line, but that only
        > matters if you think a year or two makes a difference in going
        > from being a Hutterite to an Eck Master in one big flash.
        Whether
        > Darwin was a fifth before or after the appointment, it is still
        > ridiculous to think all these people were finding enlightment
        > beyond that of Jesus and Buddha in a few short years,
        > regardless of whether it was 2 years or 3, simply because they
        > received an initiation. See what I mean?
        >
        > Arguing over the details makes people forget the big picture.
        > That is what Doug is good at doing. He gets everyone focused
        > on these trivial details, as if he's found a flaw in the case
        against
        > Paul, then talks it up as if it actually means something
        > momentous.
        >
        > The facts are bad enough, without this debate.
        >
        > Gross, who was a Hutterite as I recall, joins eckankar, and 2 or
        > three years later he's the master of the universe. Go figure. Its
        > only a coincidence that he was in a relationship with Paul's
        wife,
        > and that she happened to appoint him after paul's death. This
        is
        > ridiculous! Doug wants people to forget all that, and argue over
        > things such as whether Darwin got his fifth two years after
        > joining eckankar, or three. Kind of puts things into perspective,
        > huh?
        >
        >
        > > On another note. I have a copy of Patti Simpson's book
        > > Hello Friend. Apparently she started writing it in the Spring
        > > of 1980 (see the Introduction). The original copyright date
        > > is 1981. Twice in that book Patti refers to Harold Klemp as
        > > "Mahanta, Living ECK Master" (p. 11 & p. 155 in the 1985
        > > third printing version at least).
        > >
        > > Also, in Soul Travelers of the far Country, Harold Klemp
        > > next to never refers to Darwin Gross as the Mahanta, but
        > > as the Living Eck Master instead. The copyright date for
        > > that book is 1987. However, according to Doug Marman
        > > in Dialogues in the Age of Criticism:
        > >
        > > "... by the end of 1973 and early 1974 Darwin was being
        > > introduced as the Mahanta, the Living ECK Master, at all
        > > the major seminars, and in the ECK publications."
        > >
        > > [See: Dialogue in the Age of Criticism, Chap. 12]
        > >
        > > People have wondered about why I ever posted an
        > > Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline in the first place. It was
        > > to illustrate and ultimately clarify matters such as
        > > these - when different versions of history appear to
        > > exist and contradict oneanother.
        >
        > Naturally, Klemp doesn't refer to Gross as the mahanta. The
        > policy in eckankar is clearly to disavow Gross in any way
        > possible. With this revisionist history, most eckists now don't
        > think Gross was ever a mahanta, judging from the
        conversations
        > I've had. They barely consider him to have been an eck master.
        >
        > The fact is, when Gross first was appointed, he was not
        > considered to be a mahanta, but rather just an Eck master who
        > worked under the mahanta (Paul). That is why he was depicted
        > in a graphic as being within paul's silhouette. The silhouette
        > was, in fact, used frequently after DG's appointment to depict
        him
        > within Paul's silhouette. I have copies of these documents in
        > storage, and I remember this vividly, having been at the time
        > extremely active in eckankar, and thus acutely aware of such
        > goings on.
        >
        > It was truly a few years later that Gross began to refer to
        himself
        > as the mahanta, and was introduced at seminars as the
        > mahanta. It is a fact that he received the blue carnation at the
        > Fifth world Wide seminar, which I can verify having been in the
        > audience.
        >
        > But the blue carnation did not mean he was the Mahanta, only
        > that he was being passed the Rod of Power, which at the time,
        > was not considered to be passing on the mahantaship,
        despite
        > the contradictions that may or may not be implied from this in
        > eckankar doctrine. I realize that there may be troubling
        > inconsistencies to some people in this regard, but this is the
        > way it happened.
        >
        > No one considered Gross to be the mahanta. I lived in the
        > Southern California area at the time, which was truly the center
        of
        > the eckankar movement, and was present during discussions
        of
        > this with Patti Simson and others, and all of them considered
        > Darwin to be an Eck Master, not a Mahanta. As a result of his
        > status, many actually left eckankar, having lost confidence in
        > Darwin. For this reason, the org was desperate to remedy the
        > situation, so it is no surprise he was later designated as the
        > Mahanta.
        >
        > I hope I haven't stirred the pot too much in this discussion.
        > (laughing....)
        >
        > Kent
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > >
        > > Etznab
        > >
        > > P.S. What others have said about the word "Etznab"
        > >
        > > "Etznab is the blade that cuts through all that is not real
        > > with precision and grace. It is the knife or scalpel of the
        > > surgeon that will open the wound and heal it."
        > >
        > > http://www.galacticalchemy.com/Etznab-April26-2004.htm
        > >
        > > I am Etznab, the hall of mirrors. In my brilliant simplicity, I
        > > merely reflect the truth back to you.
        > >
        > > The same reflection is seen by some as beauty, by others
        > > as distortion. [Etc., Etc.]
        > >
        > > http://www.clearwhitelight.org/mayan/z~Etznab%20oracle
        > > %20intrepretation.htm
        > >
        >
      • etznab@aol.com
        Kent, No offense Kent, but that last post was kinda blurry as to who wrote exactly what. Not to mention why. I saw the part about ... ********* and then
        Message 3 of 27 , Jan 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Kent,

             No offense Kent, but that last post was kinda "blurry" as to
          who wrote exactly what. Not to mention why. I saw the part about

          *********
          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
          "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
          > etznab@ wrote:
          > >
          > > In a message dated 12/29/06 7:35:33 PM Central Standard
          > Time,
          > > ewickings@ writes:
          *********
          and then nearly three-quarters of a page with quotes by three
          different people - all run together mostly. I know that Yahoo
          has a lot to be desired, but not all of the readers are going to
          know who actually wrote what unless they go back and read
          the list of previous posts.

             Why the need to repeat so much anyway? Especially when
          it was already said in previous posts? Running everything
          together like that kinda takes away from the original posts and
          who said what, don't you think?

             Is there an echo in here?

          Etznab






        • tomleafeater
          What I wrote is perfectly clear when viewed from my browser. (I went back and checked to see if an error was made). I was clarifying some points I made
          Message 4 of 27 , Jan 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            What I wrote is perfectly clear when viewed from my browser. (I
            went back and checked to see if an error was made). I was
            clarifying some points I made earlier. Maybe you couldn't read it
            in your browser. As I see it, I provided enough context for anyone
            sufficiently familiar with eckankar and with newsgroups to
            understand. I see you didn't. No problem.

            As to taking offense, after having been mercilessly and viciously
            attacked on A.R.E. on countless occasions, your criticism is
            rather tame. In fact, I prefer that people come to the point. At least
            I then know where I stand. In this case, I don't happen to agree. I
            stand by what I said. I think my comments are relevant.

            Now that I'm making another post, I'll add another comment or
            two that might irritate you to a further degree, though I hope that
            won't be the case (kidding around....as you say, no offense).

            It has occured to me that with all the attempts by Doug and
            others to establish that Darwin was properly groomed, ready,
            and qualified to become an Eck Master, such as the notion that
            he did receive the fifth before Twitchell's death, rather than after,
            it strikes me as peculiar and ironic that such attempts to
            establish his initial credibility have been so undermined by
            Klemp in his attacks of Gross.

            So, which is it? Was Gross a well qualified candidate for
            mastership, having been allegedly hand picked by Twitchell in a
            dream by Gail, or was he a liar, a thief, and practicing black
            magic, as Klemp alleged? If he was so flawed, wouldn't that
            have been revealed from the beginning in the Soul Records?
            Certainly Twitchell would have checked the soul records as
            Masters are said to do to approve any inititaion. It seems that
            between Doug and Klemp, these folks can't make up their
            minds.

            What say you, dear critic of my heart?

            Kent (making another deeply flawed and stupid post)




            --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
            etznab@... wrote:
            >
            > Kent,
            >
            > No offense Kent, but that last post was kinda "blurry" as to
            > who wrote exactly what. Not to mention why. I saw the part
            about
            >
            > *********
            > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
            > "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
            > >
            > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
            > > etznab@ wrote:
            > > >
            > > > In a message dated 12/29/06 7:35:33 PM Central Standard
            > > Time,
            > > > ewickings@ writes:
            > *********
            > and then nearly three-quarters of a page with quotes by three
            > different people - all run together mostly. I know that Yahoo
            > has a lot to be desired, but not all of the readers are going to
            > know who actually wrote what unless they go back and read
            > the list of previous posts.
            >
            > Why the need to repeat so much anyway? Especially when
            > it was already said in previous posts? Running everything
            > together like that kinda takes away from the original posts and
            > who said what, don't you think?
            >
            > Is there an echo in here?
            >
            > Etznab
            >
          • etznab@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/1/07 10:10:50 PM Central Standard Time, ... Kent, It wasn t the text or the messages that wasn t clear. Just that it changed from one
            Message 5 of 27 , Jan 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 1/1/07 10:10:50 PM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:


              What say you, dear critic of my heart?


              Kent,

                 It wasn't the text or the messages that wasn't clear. Just that it
              changed from one speaker to the next without a name preceeding
              it. I know how after things are sent they don't always look the same
              after they were composed. The context, who said what.

                 About Darwin, he had come and gone before I ever heard about
              Eckankar. And what I have seen about him, it doesn't look good.
              Anybody looking at the history I imagine they will probably not
              see it as good either. But maybe they should have stood in his
              shoes and then they would have had a better idea why.

                 I wrote about this some time ago on another B.B. I found it
              curious that Darwin started looking for somebody else to bear
              the burden of L.E.M. not long after David Lane's book came
              out. It seems he tried to stay a part of the organization but
              without bearing the responsibility for Eckankar history. He
              and Gail got divorced around the time of David's book as well.
              Was there something that Darwin found out that Gail hadn't
              told him? Or was it getting to the point where he realized that
              somebody would have to answer for the plagarism issues and
              that it would naturally have to be him?

                 It's speculation of course what I have said, but Darwin did
              keep the organization going for about ten years in spite of all
              the criticism. Why did he look for somebody else to take his
              spot? I can't say for certain.

                 Some of the answers I would give to you about your question I
              don't think would be appropriate for this B.B. and would be better
              to address on another venue or by e-mail instead. The reason
              being that I don't see a totally black sky where Eckankar or even
              Darwin are concerned. There are a number of bright points that I
              would naturally have to add in order to give the bigger picture as
              I see it. But this is an "Anti-Eckankar" B.B. and I don't think it
              would be a fair and balanced description of Eckankar for me to
              give only the most critical parts. Not Eckankar as I see it.

                 Some places I have found one is O.K. long as they only have
              "good" things to say about Eckankar. In other places one is OK
              if they only have "bad" things to say. God forbid if one should in
              an attempt to share their own unique experience naturally give
              a little of both sides together. Especially if necessary to better
              define the truth of what they found.

                 On T.S. (TruthSeeker) I found it was easier to have such
              freedom even when all of the posters didn't agree because it
              wasn't Anti-Eckankar in the same context as here at E.S.A.
              Eckists were allowed to post and share their views there.
              Good or bad. So when it comes back up, that is probably
              where I will go. Being an Eckist, and at the same time
              posting here I have to try and talk about neutral topics. And
              if I do share my religious experiences they will usually
              always lead me into trouble on this venue because it will
              put me out of the bounds of E.S.A.

                 I'm not avoiding the question, but only saying that it
              would be an unfair and biased answer if I should try and
              fit it within the theme of Anti-Eckankar only. Since when
              are there only one side to anything in this world anyway?
              good or bad? In my estimation there will always be good
              and bad, or two sides to anything and not only one. Also
              a middle. This is the paradigm on the macrocosmic and
              the microcosmic levels in this world at least. IMO.

              Etznab
            • tomleafeater
              ... Time, ... preceeding ... same ... Again, I think the context was abundantly clear. The material in the post was all just one speaker, that being myself,
              Message 6 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                etznab@... wrote:
                >
                > In a message dated 1/1/07 10:10:50 PM Central Standard
                Time,
                > tianyue@... writes:
                >
                >
                > > What say you, dear critic of my heart?
                >
                > Kent,
                >
                > It wasn't the text or the messages that wasn't clear. Just that it
                > changed from one speaker to the next without a name
                preceeding
                > it. I know how after things are sent they don't always look the
                same
                > after they were composed. The context, who said what.



                Again, I think the context was abundantly clear. The material in
                the post was all just one speaker, that being myself, unelss you
                were referring to the text I left in from previous posts on the
                thread. Sorry if that confuses you or annoys you. Different groups
                have different customs. Some people become annoyed when
                the rules are changed. We'll just have to disagree on this, okay?
                I'm not all that concerned about this issue. I think it was fine. I'm
                not interested in meeting your approval. I hope that doesn't
                sound harsh, but I think thou dost protest too much.


                >
                > About Darwin, he had come and gone before I ever heard
                about
                > Eckankar. And what I have seen about him, it doesn't look
                good.


                That is the Eckankar spin. How would you compare the eck
                masters and their little pecadillos? Lets take inventory of these
                great, magnificent beings:

                1) Paul was a rampant plagiarist, a fabricator of personal
                histories, and was allegedly having an affair. He invented a
                religion with himself as Godman, and took money from children
                who became members of his group without shame. He was
                conserrvative and disliked long haired hippies. He supported the
                war in Vietman, and didn't like people dodging the draft.

                2) Darwin was a stooge who was in the right place at the right
                time to become the next LEM. He was musical, liked jazz. He,
                like Paul, was having an affair, so they're equal in that regard.
                He hurt his back, took some pain meds (very common in our
                society), and had some difficulty with the meds, or so the story
                goes. He liked to flirt with women (as did the others). He was
                strongly pro-choice, due to his strong science background.
                Frankly, Darwin was the most progressive leader of the three.

                2) Harold also had an affair and a divorce. He has a history of
                attempting to disrobe at airports and deliberately jumping into
                waters cold enough to end one's life from hypothermia, and has
                enjoyed being the ward of the court in a mental facility, wherin he
                fought with discarnate entities. He also drank heavily when he
                was a third initiate, which led him to hallucinate large pink frogs
                (or were they green?) and he felt he was "spitting in the face of
                God," as he colorfully put it.

                So, you somehow conclude Darwin "doesn't look good"? If he's
                so bad, how do the others fare with you? How do you find it so
                easy to reach that judgement, while so easily excusing the
                others? I'd say they are a match made in heaven. Paul takes the
                prize, however, for starting the whole thing off to begin with. Poor
                Darwin and Harold are quite possibly the most pathetic figures
                in this fiasco.


                > Anybody looking at the history I imagine they will probably not
                > see it as good either. But maybe they should have stood in his
                > shoes and then they would have had a better idea why.
                >


                Ah, but who stood in the shoes of those who were duped by all
                this? The thousands who've been misled? Or maybe that does't
                matter?


                > I wrote about this some time ago on another B.B. I found it
                > curious that Darwin started looking for somebody else to bear
                > the burden of L.E.M. not long after David Lane's book came
                > out. It seems he tried to stay a part of the organization but
                > without bearing the responsibility for Eckankar history. He
                > and Gail got divorced around the time of David's book as well.
                > Was there something that Darwin found out that Gail hadn't
                > told him? Or was it getting to the point where he realized that
                > somebody would have to answer for the plagarism issues and
                > that it would naturally have to be him?
                >
                > It's speculation of course what I have said, but Darwin did
                > keep the organization going for about ten years in spite of all
                > the criticism. Why did he look for somebody else to take his
                > spot? I can't say for certain.



                My understanding is that he was pressured into naming another.
                Frankly, in my view the ability to step back in certain crucial
                moments in life is very wise. But in his case, it may not have
                been entirely by choice. In any organization, there may occur
                infighting and factions that disagree. Eckankar is not immune to
                such powerplays.




                >
                > Some of the answers I would give to you about your question
                I
                > don't think would be appropriate for this B.B. and would be
                better
                > to address on another venue or by e-mail instead. The reason
                > being that I don't see a totally black sky where Eckankar or
                even
                > Darwin are concerned. There are a number of bright points that
                I
                > would naturally have to add in order to give the bigger picture
                as
                > I see it. But this is an "Anti-Eckankar" B.B. and I don't think it
                > would be a fair and balanced description of Eckankar for me to
                > give only the most critical parts. Not Eckankar as I see it.


                From what I see, this is a forum participated in by adults who are
                capable of thinking for themselves, and I think you are likely able
                to speak your mind, which it seems you are doing capably
                enough. I've read many examples in groups like this by people
                addressing eckankar's "bright" spots. It is only that on a forum
                like this one, you may be subject to actually reading differing
                points of view without that familiar eckankar conformity. It is more
                stimulating, but also challenging. In some environments, that is
                considered to be a bad thing. In others it is not.


                >
                > Some places I have found one is O.K. long as they only have
                > "good" things to say about Eckankar. In other places one is OK
                > if they only have "bad" things to say. God forbid if one should in
                > an attempt to share their own unique experience naturally give
                > a little of both sides together. Especially if necessary to better
                > define the truth of what they found.



                I agree, but if everyone on such a site were exactly alike in their
                sentiments and opinions, there would be nothing to discuss. Is
                that what you want? If so, it would be very boring, I would think.
                But again, I've read many instances on EckankarTruth, as well
                as this forum and others, in which various sides of the issues
                have been discussed. Sure there is conflict when this happens,
                but that is natural, unless you prefer a more conformist
                environment. Outside of the cocoon of eckankar, one must be
                prepared for non-conformity. It can take getting used to for the
                person overly aculturated to eckankar.



                >
                > On T.S. (TruthSeeker) I found it was easier to have such
                > freedom even when all of the posters didn't agree because it
                > wasn't Anti-Eckankar in the same context as here at E.S.A.
                > Eckists were allowed to post and share their views there.
                > Good or bad. So when it comes back up, that is probably
                > where I will go.


                Odd that you should say this about the "truthseeker" group, since
                I've heard several comments that there is editing of the posts if
                they don't meet the approval of the moderator. One off my posts
                was edited resulting in the removal of a paragraph. So, I think TS
                is no different than any group in that respect. You may like that
                group because there are far more people with whom you find
                agreement there. It comes down to choosing the group that
                conforms closest to your opinions, which makes you naturally
                more comfortable. For those whose views are not as consistent
                with those of the TS ideology, they may not feel as free there as
                you may. I couldn't abide the place. Too stiflingly conformist; too
                much like eckankar. But then, I've been out of the organization for
                quite a while.


                > Being an Eckist, and at the same time
                > posting here I have to try and talk about neutral topics. And
                > if I do share my religious experiences they will usually
                > always lead me into trouble on this venue because it will
                > put me out of the bounds of E.S.A.
                >


                It is true that outside of eckankar and TS you may encounter
                more widely differing views. But frankly, sharing spiritual
                experiences (yes, believe it or not, I've had many, some of which
                are far, far different than the sort of thing disussed in eckankar or
                on TS) is something I'd be careful about discussing anywhere,
                especially in eckankar, in which experiences that may lead the
                follower elsewhere are not smiled upon.


                > I'm not avoiding the question, but only saying that it
                > would be an unfair and biased answer if I should try and
                > fit it within the theme of Anti-Eckankar only.


                You haven't been remaining within such a theme thus far, from
                what I've seen. But again, these sort of differences and invisible
                boundaries exist in every group. That's why people are always
                creating yet another group. They don't feel comfortable in the one
                they're in. I suggest participating in different groups to satisfy
                your different needs, which is what you're already doing, it
                seems.


                > Since when
                > are there only one side to anything in this world anyway?
                > good or bad?


                Absolutely true that there are many sides to nearly everything.
                And it is also true that they are not all necessarily equal simply to
                satisfy one's notion of a static, unchanging, forced balance. Real
                balance is usually dynamic, always changing and revolving, one
                moment over here, the next over there. I suspect your internal
                balance on these issues is one day tipping one way, another day
                tipping another. That's perfectly fine, and as it should be as your
                views on these issues evolve.


                >In my estimation there will always be good
                > and bad, or two sides to anything and not only one. Also
                > a middle. This is the paradigm on the macrocosmic and
                > the microcosmic levels in this world at least. IMO.
                >


                Yes, but again, there is no fixed, static balance. One moment it is
                day, then night, with the seasons changing, with longer days,
                then shorter days. The centerpoint will likewise shift. It is not
                fixed. To give an example far off the subject, to curtail global
                warming, as an important issue, is not much thought of as a
                centrist view, yet in my view those who care about the issue are
                very balanced and in the center on this issue, though they are
                thought to be extreme by many. It is often the majority who get to
                decide where the middle is, but that is not at all the same thing
                as balanced. Each person gets to decide what is balanced for
                him/herself. It is often different for each of us.

                Many of us who've left eckankar have gone through varying
                phases with our opinions regarding eckankar. I was at first
                ambivalent, then withdrew from eckankar but still liked the
                philosophy, then had a growing understanding of the real harm
                eckankar can do to people, then initially shocked at the treatment
                of people on A.R.E., then speaking out, all of which took years to
                occur. And my views will continue to evolve and change.

                Kent


                > Etznab
                >
              • ewickings
                Kent wrote: Eckankar has distanced itself from its history that involves Darwin, since the feud that occured is embarrassing to eckankar. Highest Spiritual
                Message 7 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Kent wrote:
                   
                  Eckankar has distanced itself from its history that involves
                  Darwin, since the feud that occured is embarrassing to
                  eckankar. "Highest Spiritual Paths" don't like to reveal their dirty
                  laundry, lest they appear to not be so high, after all.
                   
                  [ME]
                   
                  My thoughts on how Darwin conducted himself is telling... he obviously knew the whole thing was a scam, maybe not at first, but after being elevated to god man he did.
                   
                  And so, because it was a farce, why not kick back and enjoy the money, and the worship?  I have seen many scam artists enjoy the good life off of someone else's money.  Because he knew he was no god man, why not have a go at the women, the booze etc....
                   
                  Thing was, people were looking!  And it wasn't very becoming of a god man, the org knew people would leave in droves.   Money is the motivator.......  
                   
                  Liz 
                • ctecvie
                  Kent, I enjoy your posts greatly - also those on a.r.e. because you are one of the few ones to express themselves clearly. I m glad to read you on ESA, too.
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Kent,

                    I enjoy your posts greatly - also those on a.r.e. because you are one
                    of the few ones to express themselves clearly. I'm glad to read you
                    on ESA, too.

                    --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                    <tianyue@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                    > etznab@ wrote:

                    ---snipped---
                    > > I'll say this much, however. From 1968 to 1970 is only
                    > > about two years. Darwin must have received the 5th, like,
                    > > really soon after the 2nd. Unless he skipped the 2nd and
                    > > went right to the 5th.
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    > In those days, people flew through the initiations. People
                    > commonly would get initations every year, until they were
                    > "slowed down" a couple of years later. Samorez, a fellow who
                    > posts once in a while on a.r.e. went from the second to the fifth,
                    > skipping everything in between. I remember the story, since he
                    > lived in my local area. He knew Twitchell and Gail and thus
                    > received a favor.

                    *** My husband knew Bettine Clemen, the flute player, when she was
                    still in Germany and also in Austria. She told him and a few others
                    at the time that on one day, she got the fourth and the fifth
                    initiation, one after the other.
                    Ingrid
                  • prometheus_973
                    Klemp was selected by Gross because DG thought that he could control HK while he remained in charge as the Mahanta. Klemp would crank out the books, etc. that
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Klemp was selected by Gross because DG thought
                      that he could control HK while he remained in charge
                      as the Mahanta. Klemp would crank out the books,
                      etc. that would bring in revenue and keep the
                      membership both distracted and placated as DG
                      partied on!

                      Yes, Darwin discovered that Paul's religion that he
                      too bought into was all a scam and that's one reason
                      for his to rebellion through his bad behaviour. HK's
                      bad behaviour stems from his delusion (mental illness)
                      and his nasty temperment when dealing with the common
                      man.

                      I find it interesting that ECKists are always looking
                      for an "ECK" connection in things that fit-in with
                      their dogma, and refuse to see the KAL connection
                      as well. Like with HK working in a 'Sound Proof Dark
                      Room' at the ESC and then having Two meetings
                      with Gross in these rooms to discuss HK taking
                      over as the next LEM. Yet, ECKists will selectively
                      choose what they see and close their eyes to these
                      facts that Klemp mentions in Chapter 7 of "Soul
                      Travelers of the Far Country." And yet, this apprentice
                      (HK), has the nerve to call his mentor, who hands him
                      the ROD, a Black Magician! Talk about 'the pot calling
                      the kettle black!' LOL!

                      BTW- Didn't DG split from Gail after about 4 years
                      of marriage and prior to anything David Lane wrote?
                      What's the Timeline on this? Just curious! Or, is this
                      just more useless speculation. Let's face it - if anyone
                      knew that Eckankar was a scam it was Gail! She was
                      the one that encouraged Paul, supported him, and
                      helped design the scam with Paul. Gail's done quite
                      well for herself over the years hasn't she!


                      Prometheus



                      Liz wrote:
                      >
                      > Kent wrote:
                      >
                      > Eckankar has distanced itself from its history that involves
                      > Darwin, since the feud that occured is embarrassing to
                      > eckankar. "Highest Spiritual Paths" don't like to reveal their dirty
                      > laundry, lest they appear to not be so high, after all.
                      >
                      > [Liz]:
                      >
                      > My thoughts on how Darwin conducted himself is telling... he obviously knew
                      > the whole thing was a scam, maybe not at first, but after being elevated to
                      > god man he did.
                      >
                      > And so, because it was a farce, why not kick back and enjoy the money, and
                      > the worship? I have seen many scam artists enjoy the good life off of
                      > someone else's money. Because he knew he was no god man, why not have a go
                      > at the women, the booze etc....

                      > Thing was, people were looking! And it wasn't very becoming of a god man,
                      > the org knew people would leave in droves. Money is the motivator.......
                    • ewickings
                      Prometheus wrote: BTW- Didn t DG split from Gail after about 4 years of marriage and prior to anything David Lane wrote? What s the Timeline on this? Just
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                         
                         
                        Prometheus wrote:
                         
                        BTW- Didn't DG split from Gail after about 4 years
                        of marriage and prior to anything David Lane wrote?
                        What's the Timeline on this? Just curious!
                         
                         
                        *** From what I have read Darwin and Gail were officially divorced on Dec. 31st 1977, and papers were filed with the Superior Court of CA, in San Diego County, Case # D116678.   ;-)
                         
                        Lane's book, The Making of a Spiritual Movement: The untold Story of Paul Twitchell and Eckankar,  came out in 1978?  Sorry I am not sure of the month....
                         
                        Liz
                      • etznab@aol.com
                        In a message dated 1/2/07 3:17:08 AM Central Standard Time, ... Kent, Enjoyed reading your response and viewpoints. And no, it was not that I wanted to suggest
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 1/2/07 3:17:08 AM Central Standard Time, tianyue@... writes:


                          I agree, but if everyone on such a site were exactly alike in their
                          sentiments and opinions, there would be nothing to discuss. Is
                          that what you want? If so, it would be very boring, I would think.


                          Kent,

                             Enjoyed reading your response and viewpoints. And no, it was
                          not that I wanted to suggest everyone be alike. I was attempting
                          to bring into consideration the middle or third element inside of
                          any trivial equation consisting of two opposing sides.

                             I'm not portrayiing trivia in a negative way, when I see it com-
                          posed of the words tri ["three"] and via ["way"].

                             Not always, but more during the past few months it has become
                          more important to navigate history in this context. For me, that is.

                             Perhaps like a ping pong ball traveling back and forth between
                          some opposite extremes, I've come to a better awareness about
                          the central net, that without which neither side could amount to
                          any real difference. I know this is a vague point perhaps, but IMO
                          I thought it nevertheless necessary to mention.

                          Kent wrote:

                          Yes, but again, there is no fixed, static balance. One moment it is
                          day, then night, with the seasons changing, with longer days,
                          then shorter days. The centerpoint will likewise shift. It is not
                          fixed. To give an example far off the subject, to curtail global
                          warming, as an important issue, is not much thought of as a
                          centrist view, yet in my view those who care about the issue are
                          very balanced and in the center on this issue, though they are
                          thought to be extreme by many. It is often the majority who get to
                          decide where the middle is, but that is not at all the same thing
                          as balanced. Each person gets to decide what is balanced for
                          him/herself. It is often different for each of us.

                          Etznab responds:

                             Thanks for sharing that (and the other parts that I didn't
                          respond to). I like reading what others have to share,
                          especially their sincere opinions - some of which may in-
                          deed be the truth - no matter the venue.

                             E.S.A. is a different B.B. compared to others, and even IMO
                          it is NOT all bad.

                          Etznab

                        • etznab@aol.com
                          Yeah, and I ve heard that some folks got initiations even before the second and two years time had elapsed. Really, no kidding. So things were different in the
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                               Yeah, and I've heard that some folks got initiations even before the
                            second and two years time had elapsed. Really, no kidding. So things
                            were different in the early days. Nowadays a person could easily wait
                            15 or more years to go through the first four and five initiations, where
                            in the past it might have (for a few at least) taken three (or even two)
                            years. So this amounts to history I guess.
                            Etznab
                          • etznab@aol.com
                            In a message dated 1/2/07 12:58:42 PM Central Standard Time, ... IMO one would have to consider when the manuscript began. When Eckankar found out about its
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 1/2/07 12:58:42 PM Central Standard Time, prometheus_973@... writes:


                              BTW- Didn't DG split from Gail after about 4 years
                              of marriage and prior to anything David Lane wrote?
                              What's the Timeline on this? Just curious!


                                 IMO one would have to consider when the manuscript began.
                              When Eckankar found out about its contents, etc. The book had
                              other forms of "publicity" before the 1993 publication. Also the
                              SCP was active as well.

                                 The wording I used in an earlier reference was too general I admit.
                              I was looking at the history of David's book and the other writings
                              that alleged plagarism before that. Without looking at the timeline I
                              would guess the latter 70's when things started really hitting the fan.
                              I remember that even Eckankar wrote something about the charges
                              of other people and groups against Eckankar.

                                 So most of what I was referring to pertains to the latter 70's. OK,
                              I'll check the timeline:

                              - IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER -

                              (The following information represents the "view" of the author, and not
                              necessarily of Eckankar): This is a "generic" outline only and viewers
                              are hereby advised to research and/or crosscheck the information for
                              themselves. - D.R.D.

                              1972 Darwin & Gail married [October?]
                              1973 Darwin referred to as Mahanta? (1973-1974?)
                              1977 Term Paper / California State University, Northridge
                                      Letter / Alan Nichols to David Lane
                              1978 Divorce Announcement / Darwin Gross
                                      Finished Manuscript / "The Making of a Spiritual Movement"
                                      Term Paper Sent to ECKANKAR / David Lane
                                      Informally Circulated Manuscript / "The Making of a Spiritual Movement"
                              1979 Trivia / Religious Controversy [Los Angeles Times article, 05/30/79]
                                       Mystic World Publication [August]:

                                       Dear Fellow ECKists,

                                       There have been groups and individuals actively distributing
                                       misinformation about the ECKANKAR teachings. With this
                                       in mind, we wish to provide you with the following information...
                                       [....] (

                                       No Plagarism / The Far Country [According to Darwin Gross -
                                       December 27th, 1979]
                              1980  Plans to Step Aside / Darwin Gross [March 1980]
                                       8th (Inner) Initiation / Harold Klemp [June 14th, 1980]
                                       Letter Excerpt / Dr. Louis Bluth [June 19th, 1980]
                                       The Wind of Change - "Copyright 1980
                              1981  8th (Outer) Initiation / Harold Klemp - January 27th, 1981
                                       9th Initiation / Harold Klemp - July 22, 1981
                                       President of Eckankar / Darwin Gross? - October 1st, 1981
                                       Harold Klemp / The 973rd Living ECK Master - October (?), 1981

                                 These are the timeline titles mostly, with some clarifying references
                              where deemed appropriate. The full timeline was voluntarily removed
                              (by me) from the internet twice due to "peer" pressure and various
                              other (personal) reasons.

                                 OK, Prometheus. Does this answer your question? David's book I
                              believe was published in 1993 - a version of it at least. However this
                              timeline does IMO indicate what I have alluded to before about Gail
                              and Darwin splitting up and Darwin looking for another L.E.M. with-
                              in a few short years [see 1977-1980, etc.] O.K. Does this clarify
                              my (speculative, at least) point?

                              Etznab

                              P.S. Typos, Subject, and/or Timeline date corrections are welcome
                              if they need apply. The forgoing information gives an observation only.
                                      
                            • etznab@aol.com
                              In a message dated 1/2/07 2:29:08 PM Central Standard Time, ... Thanks Liz, I have that the official announcement came shortly afterwards. Example, early 1978.
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 1/2/07 2:29:08 PM Central Standard Time, ewickings@... writes:


                                *** From what I have read Darwin and Gail were officially divorced on Dec. 31st 1977, and papers were filed with the Superior Court of CA, in San Diego County, Case # D116678.   ;-)



                                   Thanks Liz, I have that the official announcement came shortly
                                afterwards. Example, early 1978. By "announcement" I mean:

                                "In early 1978, Darwin sent a personal letter to every Eck chela in the
                                world informing them that he and Gail were getting divorced.  A couple
                                of years later, Darwin got remarried, but it lasted only a few months
                                and he got the marriage annulled." [Based on: David Lane]

                                   If this is incorrect, somebody correct me.

                                Etznab

                              • prometheus_973
                                Actually, today, if one is a high profile professional an ECKist can get the 5th after 15 years. The average time it takes to get the 5th is 18 years. However,
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Actually, today, if one is a high profile professional an
                                  ECKist can get the 5th after 15 years. The average time
                                  it takes to get the 5th is 18 years. However, there are
                                  many ECKists that now have to wait even longer to get
                                  the 5th due to: The org's ridgid training requirements;
                                  by not networking with the H.I. clique; by not doing
                                  required volunteer work; by asking too many questions;
                                  or by getting on the wrong side of the RESA or to have
                                  complaints called in on you or discussed when your name
                                  comes up for initiation.

                                  BTW-I've not heard of anyone getting an initiation higher
                                  than the 2nd before the initial two year time period. I can
                                  see how that would happen after 1971.

                                  Isn't it interesting that the ECK Initiations have slowed
                                  to a crawl. If Higher Initiations supposedly represent a
                                  Higher Con. then why do they take so long with Klemp
                                  being in charge for Twenty-Four years than they did with
                                  PT in Six years or DG in Ten years? Both PT and DG
                                  together had 16 years of leadership compared to Klemp's
                                  24 years! Could it be that ECKANKAR is going through a
                                  Spiritual Regression (Devolution) with Klemp-in-charge?
                                  It would seem so! Where do all of those 7ths go? Ah, they
                                  dream of, imagine, or delude themselves of having that
                                  8th on the inner where it really counts anyway! Right!
                                  And, that's how Eckankar still works for most ECKists!

                                  Prometheus



                                  etznab wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Yeah, and I've heard that some folks got initiations even before the
                                  > second and two years time had elapsed. Really, no kidding. So things
                                  > were different in the early days. Nowadays a person could easily wait
                                  > 15 or more years to go through the first four and five initiations, where
                                  > in the past it might have (for a few at least) taken three (or even two)
                                  > years. So this amounts to history I guess.
                                  > Etznab
                                  >
                                • tomleafeater
                                  ... one ... fifth, ... Right. Eckankar needed leaders and representatives quickly to maintain growth, so the initiations were really flying during those times.
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jan 2, 2007
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "ctecvie"
                                    <ctecvie@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Kent,
                                    >
                                    > I enjoy your posts greatly - also those on a.r.e. because you are
                                    one
                                    > of the few ones to express themselves clearly. I'm glad to read you
                                    > on ESA, too.
                                    >
                                    > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                                    > <tianyue@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                                    > > etznab@ wrote:
                                    >
                                    > ---snipped---
                                    > > > I'll say this much, however. From 1968 to 1970 is only
                                    > > > about two years. Darwin must have received the 5th, like,
                                    > > > really soon after the 2nd. Unless he skipped the 2nd and
                                    > > > went right to the 5th.
                                    > > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > In those days, people flew through the initiations. People
                                    > > commonly would get initations every year, until they were
                                    > > "slowed down" a couple of years later. Samorez, a fellow who
                                    > > posts once in a while on a.r.e. went from the second to the
                                    fifth,
                                    > > skipping everything in between. I remember the story, since he
                                    > > lived in my local area. He knew Twitchell and Gail and thus
                                    > > received a favor.
                                    >
                                    > *** My husband knew Bettine Clemen, the flute player, when she was
                                    > still in Germany and also in Austria. She told him and a few others
                                    > at the time that on one day, she got the fourth and the fifth
                                    > initiation, one after the other.
                                    > Ingrid
                                    >


                                    Right. Eckankar needed leaders and representatives quickly to
                                    maintain growth, so the initiations were really flying during those
                                    times. H.I. were swaggering about like giddy, drunken sailors who had
                                    too much to drink all at once.

                                    By the way, thanks for the feedback on my posts. Sometimes I think I
                                    post just for they fun of writing. But usually when I read my own
                                    stuff, I often come close to deleting it before I post it! Then I
                                    say, what the heck, and post it anyway. Funny, that.

                                    Kent
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.