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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: ECK Higher Initiations Are a Mixed Bag o...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.