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

Re: ECK Higher Initiations Are a Mixed Bag o...

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