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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Twitchell Info on ECKANKAR.org Shows Dec...

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/31/06 8:44:20 PM Central Standard Time, ... Prometheus, Illustrating recorded history is one thing. Giving personal comm- entary and
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/31/06 8:44:20 PM Central Standard Time, prometheus_973@... writes:


      > [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!]



         Prometheus,

         Illustrating recorded history is one thing. Giving personal comm-
      entary and opinions about it is another. In many respects when a
      person comments and gives opinions they are correct, even to the
      point of exposing historical errors.

         When I started timelines about history I was well aware of this, but
      at the same time I chose NOT to give much of my personal comments
      and/or opinions because the truth is that I wanted people to have the
      freedom to decide for themselves.

         Yes, Prometheus, I have been wrong in the past and will probably
      be wrong in the future when giving my own comments and opinions
      about history. Even just recently I was wrong when stating that the
      October/November/December issue of the Mystic World amounted
      to three different issues when instead it was only one.

         Long ago I stated what were my two main issues with the recorded
      history of Eckankar. I believe that I mentioned on T.S. that the number
      one issue was the identity of Rebazar Tarzs. I'm not sure, but I think
      the second issue had to do with Paul Twitchell being poisoned and
      whether it was voluntary or unvoluntary.

         In some respects I have recently surrendered trying to get at the
      historical (rather the actual) truth on such matters because I am not
      responsible for the written history of Eckankar Inc.

         If Paul Twitchell had indeed traveled to India in 1935, yes one would
      think that this would be mentioned about Paul Twitchell in Who's Who.
      That Harold would have mentioned it too, in regard to the most he had
      done (the most Paul had done by 1935).

         In a sense I have looked at a bigger picture with regard to recorded
      history about Eckankar and the Eck Masters. I could surely give some
      comments and/or opinions that would make me a lot of friends and non-
      friends on both sides of the fence with a number of issues. But I have to
      say to myself: Why me? Why should I take the position of clarifying the
      outer teachings and history when there are those who are the more re-
      sponsible and more in a position to do so? Because even when I did go
      and illustrate (without commentary or opinion) what did exist, what was
      recorded according to members and non-members alike, I found that
      both sides, instead of attacking the illustrated material, that they could
      and did attack me! It was like I had become the responsible party simply
      for illustrating Eckankar "Trivia" on a timeline. Even with a revised version
      and disclaimer it was as if this was not my responsibility. I was reminded
      that it was Harold' Klemp's responsibility instead.

         So there is no more Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline page online that is
      sponsored by me. That doesn't mean I haven't preserved it for my own
      future reference. In fact I still add to it.

         In the future I am sure that more books will come out. Both from
      members and non-members of Eckankar. Heck, I even heard (but
      can't vouch for the credibility of it) that Gail herself was writing a
      book. I'm sure you've heard this too. Is it true? Where is Tuza Hu?
      Why don't they grace us with their presence here on E.S.A.? Is it
      because those who have information about history are the most
      well-liked people on Earth? Especially if they have information that
      runs contrary to the established order?

         Tuza Hu says that Brad Steiger had a lot to do with the writing
      of some Eckankar books. Or did somebody just say T.H. said it?
      Either way, it was Brad Steiger who wrote In My Soul I Am Free,
      or at least had something to do with it. He seemed to suggest that
      Paul Twitchell had been to Paris France, which wasn't true. So
      what else has Brad given us that was/is not actually true?

         Honestly, I would love to see Tuza Hu come out and prove that
      Brad Steiger had anything to do with writing the Shariyat's One
      and Two. What else does rumour have it that he also wrote? Was
      it the Spiritual Notebook with a timeline of Eck Masters in it? It
      sounds preposterous what some have claimed that this Tuza
      Hu has said. To me it does because if that were true it would most
      definitely put another name and face on the picture of recorded
      history. If it's true, I say let people know it. Let people know who
      wrote the books about Eckankar history.

         I believe it was Patti Simpson who was the Eck Publications Director
      from about the time when Darwin Gross became spiritual leader of the
      Eckankar organization. Ironically, it seems that she was also dismissed
      from some position at about the same time that Darwin was dismissed
      from his. She was replaced as secretary of Eckankar by Joan Cross,
      who later became Harold's wife?

         Some of the reasons for mentioning Patti is that she was close to Paul
      at one time. She wrote at least two books about him. And she was the
      Publications Director after Paul was no longer living, but when a number
      of his books were getting published. How can we know for certain about
      any edits or revisions made to books under the Paul Twitchell name that
      Paul would not have necessarily made himself? I don't think we can. And
      it is possible that Gail (and even Darwin) might have done some editing.
      Is Harold or Eckankar Inc. responsible for this?

         Well, where is Patti? Where is Gail? Where is Darwin? Do they still
      belong to the organization? If not, I wonder why not. Has Darwin written
      a book about Eckankar since he left? Has Gail? Has Patti? Why not?
      And what about Brad Steiger? Has he written any more books?

         The truth about history as I can give it is only speculation and heresay.
      Quoting others and what they wrote is perhaos the closest that I can
      come to the actual truth when it involves events that I did not directly
      witness. But most of the books and the writings that people argue about
      were put out by people who knew the author in some way. A good number
      of which I imagine are still living. What do they have to say about issues
      of recorded history.

         You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we didn't
      even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I say let
      the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
      something to what we already know.

      Etznab
    • ewickings
      ... even write. Things that we didn t edit, revise, or even publish. I say let the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        >   You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we didn't
        even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I say let
        the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
        something to what we already know.

        Etznab
         
        Eckankar has placed a gag order on these individuals, that is why Gail's book, or anyone else with the real knowledge will not be allowed to speak up until they are dead!
         
        Liz

        FREE Emoticons for your email - By IncrediMail! Click Here!
      • ewickings
        ... sponsored by me. That doesn t mean I haven t preserved it for my own future reference. In fact I still add to it. Etznab And this is really too bad! Did
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
           
           
          >   So there is no more Eckankar "Trivia" Timeline page online that is
          sponsored by me. That doesn't mean I haven't preserved it for my own
          future reference. In fact I still add to it.

             Etznab
           
           
          And this is really too bad!  Did it get too difficult, you can't appease everyone, so maybe it is better to just let it rest?  Yes I see you will still add to it privately for your own benefit.  So who got to you?  Doug, Rich....   Eckankar?   Actually Etznab, your timeline does a service to eckists and non eckists.  But I suspect that most eckists would rather Richard just stop!  ;-)
           
          Another thought, maybe you are just brain tired and need a break from all of this BS?  Life does have a lot to offer if we are willing to venture out and explore it.   I hope 2007 is a good year for new adventures and moving forward.....   It's all about moving forward!  ;-)
           
          Liz
          FREE emoticons for your email! click Here!
        • etznab@aol.com
          Gee Liz. Thanks for the input. I think (how do you type a frown?) Etznab
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Gee Liz. Thanks for the input. I think (how do you type a frown?)

            Etznab
          • etznab@aol.com
            Liz, I like the free emoticons attached to your message. They reminded me about a favorite cartoon with a sheepdog and a coyote. It is so ironic. The two go at
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Liz,

                 I like the free emoticons attached to your message. They reminded me
              about a favorite cartoon with a sheepdog and a coyote. It is so ironic. The
              two go at it all day long as if it were their jobs to do (and it was), but at the
              end of the day they clock out at the tree without animosity.

                 It was not one of my favorite cartoons, but it did leave an impression.

                 I might need to get some emoticons myself. It's too bad Yahoo won't
              let us post html code that would allow for graphic smile faces, etc. The
              word <smile> just doesn't do the same for me as an actual image.

                 Hey, if you had to be a cartoon character (don't have to answer) which
              one would you be? I know which one I might be. That little dog that kept
              showing up no matter how many people tried to get rid of him. What was
              his name? The one who spoke with a drawl?

              Etznab


               
            • ewickings
              Don t take it personal, it was meant more for those eckists keeping track here on ESA. :-) I actually love what you do Etznab, and that is the
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Don't take it personal, it was meant more for those eckists keeping track here on ESA.  :-)
                 
                <frown>  <wink> 
                 
                I actually love what you do Etznab, and that is the honest truth! 
                 
                Hugs, and happy new year.
                Liz    :-/    
                 
                -------Original Message-------
                 
                Date: 1/1/2007 12:00:49 PM
                Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Twitchell Info on ECKANKAR.org Shows Dec...
                 
                Gee Liz. Thanks for the input. I think (how do you type a frown?)

                Etznab
                 
                FREE emoticons for your email! click Here!
              • ewickings
                I use Incredimail the free version, but will most likely switch to the premium in a day or so.... Removes the advertising. Favorite cartoon character that I
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  I use Incredimail the free version, but will most likely switch to the premium in a day or so....  Removes the advertising. 
                   
                  Favorite cartoon character that I relate to is the Roadrunner...  Bleep bleep  ;-)  
                   
                  Liz  <smile, wink>
                  FREE emoticons for your email! click Here!
                • prometheus_973
                  Hi Etznab, The topic was the PT info provided on ECKANKAR.org of Twit being 27 in 1935 and the Timeline of him lying to get into Who s Who in Kentucky and
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi Etznab,
                    The topic was the PT info provided on ECKANKAR.org
                    of Twit being 27 in 1935 and the "Timeline" of him lying
                    to get into Who's Who in Kentucky and supposedly being
                    in India to meet Sudar at this same time and later Rebazar.

                    Let's not lose track of the topic being discussed and
                    replied to, or the emphasis on this TIMELINE.

                    Timelines seem to be as important to you as the Truth
                    is to me.

                    In the future perhaps this statement by you here (below)
                    can be applied as the Answer to every Question that you
                    might have involving Timelines. Whether the DG info or
                    anything else comes up again your below response should
                    apply and, therefore, make any response by others a moot
                    point. What's the point if everything is "speculation?"

                    Since you are unwilling to take that next step to towards
                    Truth and state or admit that this PT info (Timeline) or
                    "facts" don't make sense when it is glaring back at you-
                    then there is no need to continue any discussion on
                    "Timelines." Just refer to your statement below and save
                    your breath - I know that I will!

                    Let's face it - the Timeline-Truth of this Twitchell
                    information is just more proof, for me, that I made the
                    right decision to leave ECKANKAR by recognizing the
                    deception. It's like putting a 3,000 piece puzzle together
                    in order to finally see the big picture. However, at some
                    point (different for each of us) we all begin to recognize
                    and see the big picture of the puzzle-just not all of the
                    details. Some Souls, however, don't have the patience,
                    time, etc. to put together such puzzles, or see the need
                    or point. They are happier with the 300 piece puzzles.
                    The puzzle pictures can be of various topics and sizes,
                    however, the key is in which ones interest us as individuals
                    and what do the pictures mean for each one of us?

                    Anyway, please don't take my words on future Timeline
                    discussions as being too harsh. I just don't see the point
                    since, it seems, there can never be a resolution or agree-
                    ment that you as a current ECKist could admit. As long as
                    you remain loyal to your religion you must also defend it
                    or avoid criticizing it. Although, when I was a Catholic
                    many of us and our Priests criticized the Mother Church.
                    If followers remain silent the corruption increases!


                    Prometheus





                    etznab wrote:
                    >
                    > Prometheus,
                    >
                    > Yeah, I've read through those parts before. The point in my last
                    > response is that I am not in the position to do anything about what
                    > the organization writes up as history. You know there are other
                    > points besides the ones listed that also qualify as conflicting info-
                    > mation.
                    >
                    > I myself can't change what is given on eckankar.org with regard to
                    > history. Neither do I have access to or know all of what they know. So
                    > the best I can do is speculate about the reasons behind some of what
                    > has been illustrated as history.
                    >
                    > Etznab
                    >
                  • etznab@aol.com
                    In a message dated 1/1/07 3:21:31 PM Central Standard Time, ... Prometheus, Thought I already responded to you on that question at least once. I admitted that
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 1/1/07 3:21:31 PM Central Standard Time, prometheus_973@... writes:


                      Since you are unwilling to take that next step to towards
                      Truth and state or admit that this PT info (Timeline) or
                      "facts" don't make sense when it is glaring back at you-
                      then there is no need to continue any discussion on
                      "Timelines." Just refer to your statement below and save
                      your breath - I know that I will!


                         Prometheus,

                         Thought I already responded to you on that question at
                      least once. I admitted that it was conflicting information:

                      Yeah, I've read through those parts before. The point in my last
                      > response is that I am not in the position to do anything about what
                      > the organization writes up as history. You know there are other
                      > points besides the ones listed that also qualify as conflicting info-
                      > mation.


                         Here I have underlined it. When I said "other points besides
                      the ones listed" I was referring to the topic that you mentioned.
                      Not only that, but I indicated that IMO there were other points
                      of conflicting information besides. It wasn't a sidestep to the
                      topic, but I understand my admission may not have been the
                      words you were looking for.

                         I see the topic and it does look conflicting. You want me to
                      admit that it's a bold-faced lie (historically speaking) that part
                      you refer to that is given on the main website?

                         You're right, I'm not going to admit that because I didn't write
                      that history about Paul. However, this much was "admitted" by
                      me on the form of a timeline with alot of other "admissions" as
                      well that were even more conflicting.

                         One example is the use of pseudonyms to replace the identity
                      of certain individuals. I myself know how disturbing that use of a
                      pseudonym can be. Believe me.

                         So, I guess I'm not clear on why you think I was avoiding the
                      topic unless the way I answered it was not direct enough. But
                      no, I'm not going to take responsibility for conflicting information,
                      misleading, or even false information with regard to recorded
                      history. An exception would be typos that may exist in the comp-
                      ilations of history that I have worked on. I'm sure there are more
                      than a few.

                         Etznab

                      P.S. In my last post about the Swami, I wasn't taking a stand for
                      or against Eckankar. At least I tried not to comment.






                    • prometheus_973
                      Hi Etznab, Thanks! This response gives a better explanation and is more as to what I was looking for. I appreciate it. Prometheus
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 1, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Etznab,
                        Thanks! This response gives a better explanation and is
                        more as to what I was looking for. I appreciate it.

                        Prometheus


                        etznab wrote:
                        >
                        > In a message dated 1/1/07 3:21:31 PM Central Standard Time,
                        > prometheus_973@... writes:
                        >
                        >
                        > > Since you are unwilling to take that next step to towards
                        > > Truth and state or admit that this PT info (Timeline) or
                        > > "facts" don't make sense when it is glaring back at you-
                        > > then there is no need to continue any discussion on
                        > > "Timelines." Just refer to your statement below and save
                        > > your breath - I know that I will!
                        > >
                        >
                        > Prometheus,
                        >
                        > Thought I already responded to you on that question at
                        > least once. I admitted that it was conflicting information:
                        >
                        > Yeah, I've read through those parts before. The point in my last
                        > > response is that I am not in the position to do anything about what
                        > > the organization writes up as history. You know there are other
                        > > points besides the ones listed that also qualify as conflicting info-
                        > > mation.
                        >
                        > Here I have underlined it. When I said "other points besides
                        > the ones listed" I was referring to the topic that you mentioned.
                        > Not only that, but I indicated that IMO there were other points
                        > of conflicting information besides. It wasn't a sidestep to the
                        > topic, but I understand my admission may not have been the
                        > words you were looking for.
                        >
                        > I see the topic and it does look conflicting. You want me to
                        > admit that it's a bold-faced lie (historically speaking) that part
                        > you refer to that is given on the main website?
                        >
                        > You're right, I'm not going to admit that because I didn't write
                        > that history about Paul. However, this much was "admitted" by
                        > me on the form of a timeline with alot of other "admissions" as
                        > well that were even more conflicting.
                        >
                        > One example is the use of pseudonyms to replace the identity
                        > of certain individuals. I myself know how disturbing that use of a
                        > pseudonym can be. Believe me.
                        >
                        > So, I guess I'm not clear on why you think I was avoiding the
                        > topic unless the way I answered it was not direct enough. But
                        > no, I'm not going to take responsibility for conflicting information,
                        > misleading, or even false information with regard to recorded
                        > history. An exception would be typos that may exist in the comp-
                        > ilations of history that I have worked on. I'm sure there are more
                        > than a few.
                        >
                        > Etznab
                        >
                        > P.S. In my last post about the Swami, I wasn't taking a stand for
                        > or against Eckankar. At least I tried not to comment.
                        >
                      • ctecvie
                        ... *** In my view, it is HK or whoever runs Eckankar Inc., or the Inc. itself. It was published under Eckankar, or wasn t it? So who else s responsibility
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                          --- snipped ---->
                          > Some of the reasons for mentioning Patti is that she was close
                          >to Paul
                          > at one time. She wrote at least two books about him. And she was the
                          > Publications Director after Paul was no longer living, but when a
                          >number
                          > of his books were getting published. How can we know for certain
                          >about
                          > any edits or revisions made to books under the Paul Twitchell name
                          >that
                          > Paul would not have necessarily made himself? I don't think we can.
                          >And
                          > it is possible that Gail (and even Darwin) might have done some
                          >editing.
                          > Is Harold or Eckankar Inc. responsible for this?

                          *** In my view, it is HK or whoever runs Eckankar Inc., or the Inc.
                          itself. It was published under Eckankar, or wasn't it? So who else's
                          responsibility should it be?
                          >
                          > Well, where is Patti? Where is Gail? Where is Darwin? Do they
                          >still
                          > belong to the organization?

                          *** Darwin is the leader of A. T. O. M. It's their choice to come out
                          with their records of their eckankar time or not. So, why ask those
                          questions? They won't bring either of them forward.

                          > If not, I wonder why not. Has Darwin written
                          > a book about Eckankar since he left?

                          *** My husband joined eckankar under Gross's regiment. DG was a
                          musician - my husband said that he had written one book "Your right
                          to know", and that it was terrible to read. So, he just isn't an
                          author. Why then should he write a book?

                          > Has Gail? Has Patti? Why not?
                          *** Why should they?

                          > You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we
                          >didn't
                          > even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I
                          >say let
                          > the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might
                          >even add
                          > something to what we already know.

                          *** If they want to come out, that is. And this is their choice, they
                          can't be forced. A good part of history always remains speculation,
                          and written records don't change that at all. And it seems to me that
                          you started to ask (good) questions Etznab. So why complain about
                          speculation now?

                          Ingrid
                        • ewickings
                          Actually I should have said, Eckankar paid for a gag order.... Money can buy anything, (it will silence) if the price is right. ... even write. Things that we
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Actually I should have said, Eckankar paid for a gag order....  Money can buy anything, (it will silence) if the price is right.
                             
                             
                            ------------------------------------------------
                             
                            >   You see, we are arguing and speculating about things that we didn't
                            even write. Things that we didn't edit, revise, or even publish. I say let
                            the people who did it come out and tell their stories. It might even add
                            something to what we already know.
                            Etznab
                             
                             
                            >Eckankar has placed a gag order on these individuals, that is why Gail's book, or anyone else with the real knowledge will not be allowed to speak up until they are dead!
                             
                            Liz

                             
                          • etznab@aol.com
                            In a message dated 1/2/07 7:28:34 AM Central Standard Time, ctecvie@yahoo.com ... OK. I can see your point. And your right. It is their choice. Etznab
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 2, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 1/2/07 7:28:34 AM Central Standard Time, ctecvie@... writes:


                              *** If they want to come out, that is. And this is their choice, they
                              can't be forced. A good part of history always remains speculation,
                              and written records don't change that at all. And it seems to me that
                              you started to ask (good) questions Etznab. So why complain about
                              speculation now?

                                 OK. I can see your point. And your right. It is their choice.

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