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

Re: Are we Eckankar debunkers too easy on Darwin Gross?

Expand Messages
  • jonathanjohns96
    Prometheus and all, I dug into the archives here at EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous and found a post by Prometheus on Nov 27, 2008 regarding something along these
    Message 1 of 10 , Feb 14, 2009
      Prometheus and all,
      I dug into the archives here at EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous and found
      a post by Prometheus on Nov 27, 2008 regarding something along these
      lines.

      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous/message/4148

      *********************************************** [beginning of quote]
      Hi Liska,
      Klemp isn't too tenderhearted or
      compassionate when it comes to Darwin!
      Not mentioning DG's death was unforgiving.

      It's incredible that long-time ECKists
      are emulating Klemp's unloving behaviour
      toward a (former?) ECK Master who is said
      to have "fallen" from Grace. But where's
      the proof that Darwin ever fell from Grace?
      We don't know what SUGMAD thinks about
      every detail of existence or about everyone
      and neither does Klemp! IT can Change!

      However, we can all see the proof that
      Klemp, and those chelas who emulate HK's
      nasty KAL-like attitude, has fallen from Grace!

      No honest and enlightened ECK Master would
      ignore the fact that Darwin was the 972nd LEM/
      Mahanta and that his death should have been
      mentioned along with some kind words spoken
      on his behalf.

      Where's that "Loving Heart" that ECKists like
      to think they possess? It's Not there and never
      can be there until they (and Klemp) let go of
      their hurt and hatred for Darwin! DG's Not there
      to kick around anymore so why can't ECKists
      and Klemp forgive him and take the higher road?
      Really, look at all of those ECK Initiations Gross
      handed out compared to Klemp! More "spiritual"
      growth via initiations took place in Darwin's Ten
      Years than in Klemp's 27!

      It would have been True, Necessary, and Kind
      for Klemp to have said something nice about
      Darwin Gross, but Klemp didn't because he is
      Not a "Master" of anything except deceit! HK's
      a hypocrite and so are the ECKists who follow
      and hang onto his negative attitudes toward Sri
      Darwin Gross.
      *********************************************** [end of quote]

      So, Prometheus, I felt the same way about Darwin's death and how it
      was completely ignored in Eckankar. I thought that it was pretty
      calloused of Klemp to not even mention it.

      However, I did get an email from someone telling me about it, plus,
      it was mentioned at the local Eck center. I was very grateful for the
      email. So I guess there are a few Eckists that are occasionally brave
      enough to go against the tide.

      Also, the follow-up post questions why you are being so easy on
      Darwin. So I guess this has come up before.

      Jonathan


      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
      <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
      >
      > I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing
      > Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold
      Klemp.
      >
      > But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of
      that
      > is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although
      Ford
      > Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's
      version
      > of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations
      > within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the
      > LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry
      for
      > Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I
      do.
      >
      > Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of
      Paul
      > Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that
      David
      > Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the
      LEM,
      > but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's
      point of
      > view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any
      of
      > Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also
      believe
      > that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I
      can
      > understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as
      being
      > some kind of crackpot.
      >
      > So am I being too soft on Darwin?
      >
      > P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction.
      If I
      > was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the
      > other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the
      > wrong.
      >
    • etznab@aol.com
      Who was that guy that supposedly retired and went back to Texas? Is there any truth to that? Liz? I think this comes out of David Lane s work: [17] David
      Message 2 of 10 , Feb 14, 2009
        Who was that guy that supposedly retired and went
        back to Texas? Is there any truth to that? Liz?

        I think this comes out of David Lane's work:

        [17] David Stewart, personal telephone interview with
        the author in 1977. I should add that David Stewart was
        under severe pressure not to talk with me or see me. I
        remember vividly when Brother Joseph Connell,
        President of Moreau High School, and myself went to
        Eckankar's international headquarters for a friendly chat
        with David Stewart. Mr. Stewart was very shaken and
        fearful when we met him at the headquarters; apparently
        he was frightened of losing his job and being the subject
        of harassment. I never saw David Stewart again. Weeks
        after talking with me, David Stewart "resigned" from his
        position and went back to Texas."

        According to my records: "David Stewart ... served as
        both Editor of the Eck World News and consulting Editor
        for Illuminated Way Press. He personally worked on the
        editing of Letters to Gail, enabling him to see the original,
        untampered manuscript."

        I wonder if he saw Rebazar Tarzs' name? on the first
        page of the first letter?

        If anybody knows more about this David Stewart, and
        what happened to him, I'd like to know more. I believe
        he worked for Eckankar during Darwin's time.

        Etznab

        -----Original Message-----
        From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
        To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, 14
        Feb 2009 5:55 pm
        Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Are we Eckankar debunkers too
        easy on Darwin Gross



        I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing

        Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp.



        But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of that

        is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although Ford

        Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's version

        of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations

        within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the

        LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry for

        Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I do.



        Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of Paul

        Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that David

        Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the LEM,

        but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's point of

        view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any of

        Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also believe

        that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I can

        understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as being

        some kind of crackpot.



        So am I being too soft on Darwin?
        =0
        D


        P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction. If I

        was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the

        other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the

        wrong.
      • etznab@aol.com
        Check out the first sentence and first paragraph to the March 2008 Mystic World. (Darwin Gross died on March 8th, 2008, I believe). Did anybody see the
        Message 3 of 10 , Feb 14, 2009
          Check out the first sentence and first paragraph
          to the March 2008 Mystic World. (Darwin Gross
          died on March 8th, 2008, I believe).

          Did anybody see the slightest hint of the word
          "death" in that article? I did!

          What seems curious about that issue (to me) is
          if it was written and sent out prior to Darwin's death.

          Maybe he was sick for a while and not expected
          to live. I don't know. In fact, I'm not even sure about
          the cause of death. He was 80, I believe. Maybe it
          was something related to old age. Anybody know?

          Etznab

          -----Original Message-----
          From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 7:39 pm
          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Are we Eckankar debunkers too
          easy on Darwin Gross?



          Prometheus and all,

          I dug into the archives here at EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous and found

          a post by Prometheus on Nov 27, 2008 regarding something along these

          lines.



          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous/message/4148



          *********************************************** [beginning of quote]

          Hi Liska,

          Klemp isn't too tenderhearted or

          compassionate when it comes to Darwin!

          Not mentioning DG's death was unforgiving.



          It's incredible that long-time ECKists

          are emulating Klemp's unloving behaviour

          toward a (former?) ECK Master who is said

          to have "fallen" from Gra
          ce. But where's

          the proof that Darwin ever fell from Grace?

          We don't know what SUGMAD thinks about

          every detail of existence or about everyone

          and neither does Klemp! IT can Change!



          However, we can all see the proof that

          Klemp, and those chelas who emulate HK's

          nasty KAL-like attitude, has fallen from Grace!



          No honest and enlightened ECK Master would

          ignore the fact that Darwin was the 972nd LEM/

          Mahanta and that his death should have been

          mentioned along with some kind words spoken

          on his behalf.



          Where's that "Loving Heart" that ECKists like

          to think they possess? It's Not there and never

          can be there until they (and Klemp) let go of

          their hurt and hatred for Darwin! DG's Not there

          to kick around anymore so why can't ECKists

          and Klemp forgive him and take the higher road?

          Really, look at all of those ECK Initiations Gross

          handed out compared to Klemp! More "spiritual"

          growth via initiations took place in Darwin's Ten

          Years than in Klemp's 27!



          It would have been True, Necessary, and Kind

          for Klemp to have said something nice about

          Darwin Gross, but Klemp didn't because he is

          Not a "Master" of anything except deceit! HK's

          a hypocrite and so are the ECKists who follow

          and hang onto his negative attitudes toward Sri

          Darwin Gross.

          ******************************************
          ***** [end of quote]



          So, Prometheus, I felt the same way about Darwin's death and how it

          was completely ignored in Eckankar. I thought that it was pretty

          calloused of Klemp to not even mention it.



          However, I did get an email from someone telling me about it, plus,

          it was mentioned at the local Eck center. I was very grateful for the

          email. So I guess there are a few Eckists that are occasionally brave

          enough to go against the tide.



          Also, the follow-up post questions why you are being so easy on

          Darwin. So I guess this has come up before.



          Jonathan



          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"

          <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:

          >

          > I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing

          > Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold

          Klemp.

          >

          > But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of

          that

          > is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although

          Ford

          > Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's

          version

          > of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations

          > within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the

          > LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry

          for

          > Darwin about this? I have to
          admit that at least to some degree, I

          do.

          >

          > Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of

          Paul

          > Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that

          David

          > Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the

          LEM,

          > but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's

          point of

          > view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any

          of

          > Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also

          believe

          > that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I

          can

          > understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as

          being

          > some kind of crackpot.

          >

          > So am I being too soft on Darwin?

          >

          > P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction.

          If I

          > was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on
          the

          > other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in
          the

          > wrong.

          >
        • prometheus_973
          Hello Jonathan and All, I was talking to an EK H.I. recently and he said, BTW did you know Darwin had died? I said, yes it was in March, and isn t it strange
          Message 4 of 10 , Feb 14, 2009
            Hello Jonathan and All,
            I was talking to an EK H.I. recently and he said,
            "BTW did you know Darwin had died?" I said, yes
            it was in March, and isn't it strange that Harold
            hasn't mentioned it. He said, "Well, Darwin did
            do some pretty bad things." I said, Well he did
            give Harold a lot of initiations including the 12th.
            He said, "Yes, he (DG) probably gave Harold his
            Fifth too." I said, and the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,
            10th, 11th, and 12th! So, why couldn't he tell
            the membership about Darwin's translation and
            say something nice about him?

            I could tell my friend was feeling uncomfortable
            and needed to change the subject. Still, I wondered
            why ECKists just shut down and tune out when they
            hear things that are uncomfortable. Why aren't their
            hides tougher? They simply can't handle the truth!
            And, even good old Klemp has mentioned that he,
            himself, is not perfect. Why can't old Harry Klemp
            say the same thing about Darwin? Was DG the perfect
            M/LEM for ECKists? Well, he did hand out a lot of
            initiations and he was fun to be around! What's that
            worth in coin? But, Klemp doesn't even want to mention
            Darwin because then he would be expected to say
            something. And Klemp can't say anything nice because
            he holds onto grudges and can't forgive people.

            Yes, it is "True" that Darwin tried some slight of hand
            with some money, and Yes, it is True he handed Klemp
            the Rod and the LEM position, and Yes, it's True that he
            died in March 2008. Almost One Year Ago!

            Is it "Necessary" to mention that the former 972nd LEM
            translated? Yes! Of course!

            Is it "Kind" to mention that Dawin translated and would
            it be Kind to say some nice things about him? Yes!

            Klemp is intolerant, unloving and lacks both compassion
            and detachment. The fact that he can't forgive Darwin
            is proof that HK can't be an EK Master!

            Darwin's biggest crime was that he was too detached
            when it came to spending money. Klemp and the EK
            Board are much less detached (more attached) to money
            and how it's spent! Other than that Darwin followed
            Twitchell's lead (con) completely. Plus, Darwin wouldn't
            have any of Twitchell's works edited. He was a purest!
            Klemp, on the other hand, edits and reedits Twitchell's
            and his own materials over and over.

            Here's an example where Gross followed the same
            line of thought as Twitchell:

            "MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS

            1. Homosexuality: Personality traits and sexual habits
            are not related to spiritual unfoldment and are not
            regulated by the ECK teachings in any manner. THIS
            SITUATION WILL DROP AWAY AS ONE UNFOLDS SPIRITUALLY."
            [A Profile of ECKankar, 1979, pg. 20]

            Does Klemp also believe that Homosexuality will
            "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?" I think
            I read that he does!

            However, if "personality traits and sexual habits
            Are Not Related To Spiritual Unfoldment" why do
            they "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?"


            Here's another quote from the same booklet:

            "Inter-marriage: ... However, Sri Darwin Gross, the
            present spiritual leader of ECKankar, as well as, Sri
            Paul Twitchell, has stated that ONE SHOULD NOT
            MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN RACE." [pg. 21]

            I guess we tend to disregard Darwin's influence
            because Klemp does as well! So, why not focus
            upon the two "Masters" that EKists read and listen
            to the most. Thus, Twitchell wrote the EK Dogma
            listed in the Shariyats (The Holy Books of ECKankar)
            and Klemp regurgitates it and repackages it with
            a current spin since he is the present living con-man.

            Prometheus


            jonathan wrote:

            I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing
            Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp.

            But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of that
            is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although Ford
            Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's version
            of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations
            within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the
            LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry for
            Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I do.

            Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of Paul
            Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that David
            Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the LEM,
            but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's point of
            view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any of
            Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also believe
            that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I can
            understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as being
            some kind of crackpot.

            So am I being too soft on Darwin?

            P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction. If I
            was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the
            other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the
            wrong.
          • jonathanjohns96
            Prometheus, Darwin s death was an opportunity for Harold to say something. It would have introduced some healing into Eckankar. But my reading of it is like
            Message 5 of 10 , Feb 15, 2009
              Prometheus,

              Darwin's death was an opportunity for Harold to say something. It
              would have introduced some healing into Eckankar. But my reading of
              it is like yours: HK is still too upset over Darwin's actions and
              still hasn't gotten over it. Then again, maybe it's the same old
              Eckankar rule "Don't talk about things. They will go away on their
              own."

              I liked your comment about Darwin when you said "Well, he did hand
              out a lot of initiations and he was fun to be around!" I think what I
              am seeing is that Darwin took himself a lot less seriously than PT
              and HK. Ever notice that? He was more human and could relate to the
              average person better than Paul or Harold. I think that is an
              admirable quality about Darwin and explains why a lot of people in
              Eckankar are more forgiving of him. I was actually thinking about
              posting some reminiscing about Darwin here. I couldn't even imagine
              myself doing that with HK. Paul, maybe.

              You made a lot more interesting points. When I read your paragraph
              about homosexuality I quickly realized (perhaps for the first time)
              exactly what you proceeded to point out. If homosexuality is
              unrelated to spirituality, then why would it need to drop away as one
              progresses spiritually? People come into this world as a homosexual
              because soul wants the experience. It's that simple. Why hasn't
              Eckankar figured that out in the 44 years of its existance?

              Jonathan


              --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "prometheus_973"
              <prometheus_973@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello Jonathan and All,
              > I was talking to an EK H.I. recently and he said,
              > "BTW did you know Darwin had died?" I said, yes
              > it was in March, and isn't it strange that Harold
              > hasn't mentioned it. He said, "Well, Darwin did
              > do some pretty bad things." I said, Well he did
              > give Harold a lot of initiations including the 12th.
              > He said, "Yes, he (DG) probably gave Harold his
              > Fifth too." I said, and the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,
              > 10th, 11th, and 12th! So, why couldn't he tell
              > the membership about Darwin's translation and
              > say something nice about him?
              >
              > I could tell my friend was feeling uncomfortable
              > and needed to change the subject. Still, I wondered
              > why ECKists just shut down and tune out when they
              > hear things that are uncomfortable. Why aren't their
              > hides tougher? They simply can't handle the truth!
              > And, even good old Klemp has mentioned that he,
              > himself, is not perfect. Why can't old Harry Klemp
              > say the same thing about Darwin? Was DG the perfect
              > M/LEM for ECKists? Well, he did hand out a lot of
              > initiations and he was fun to be around! What's that
              > worth in coin? But, Klemp doesn't even want to mention
              > Darwin because then he would be expected to say
              > something. And Klemp can't say anything nice because
              > he holds onto grudges and can't forgive people.
              >
              > Yes, it is "True" that Darwin tried some slight of hand
              > with some money, and Yes, it is True he handed Klemp
              > the Rod and the LEM position, and Yes, it's True that he
              > died in March 2008. Almost One Year Ago!
              >
              > Is it "Necessary" to mention that the former 972nd LEM
              > translated? Yes! Of course!
              >
              > Is it "Kind" to mention that Dawin translated and would
              > it be Kind to say some nice things about him? Yes!
              >
              > Klemp is intolerant, unloving and lacks both compassion
              > and detachment. The fact that he can't forgive Darwin
              > is proof that HK can't be an EK Master!
              >
              > Darwin's biggest crime was that he was too detached
              > when it came to spending money. Klemp and the EK
              > Board are much less detached (more attached) to money
              > and how it's spent! Other than that Darwin followed
              > Twitchell's lead (con) completely. Plus, Darwin wouldn't
              > have any of Twitchell's works edited. He was a purest!
              > Klemp, on the other hand, edits and reedits Twitchell's
              > and his own materials over and over.
              >
              > Here's an example where Gross followed the same
              > line of thought as Twitchell:
              >
              > "MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS
              >
              > 1. Homosexuality: Personality traits and sexual habits
              > are not related to spiritual unfoldment and are not
              > regulated by the ECK teachings in any manner. THIS
              > SITUATION WILL DROP AWAY AS ONE UNFOLDS SPIRITUALLY."
              > [A Profile of ECKankar, 1979, pg. 20]
              >
              > Does Klemp also believe that Homosexuality will
              > "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?" I think
              > I read that he does!
              >
              > However, if "personality traits and sexual habits
              > Are Not Related To Spiritual Unfoldment" why do
              > they "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?"
              >
              >
              > Here's another quote from the same booklet:
              >
              > "Inter-marriage: ... However, Sri Darwin Gross, the
              > present spiritual leader of ECKankar, as well as, Sri
              > Paul Twitchell, has stated that ONE SHOULD NOT
              > MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN RACE." [pg. 21]
              >
              > I guess we tend to disregard Darwin's influence
              > because Klemp does as well! So, why not focus
              > upon the two "Masters" that EKists read and listen
              > to the most. Thus, Twitchell wrote the EK Dogma
              > listed in the Shariyats (The Holy Books of ECKankar)
              > and Klemp regurgitates it and repackages it with
              > a current spin since he is the present living con-man.
              >
              > Prometheus
              >
              >
              > jonathan wrote:
              >
              > I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing
              > Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold
              Klemp.
              >
              > But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of
              that
              > is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although
              Ford
              > Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's
              version
              > of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations
              > within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the
              > LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry
              for
              > Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I
              do.
              >
              > Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of
              Paul
              > Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that
              David
              > Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the
              LEM,
              > but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's
              point of
              > view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any
              of
              > Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also
              believe
              > that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I
              can
              > understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off David Lane as
              being
              > some kind of crackpot.
              >
              > So am I being too soft on Darwin?
              >
              > P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction.
              If I
              > was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the
              > other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the
              > wrong.
              >
            • etznab@aol.com
              Say what??? ONE SHOULD NOT MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN RACE. I never saw the Eck Masters say that before! That was news to me. It sounds similar to an
              Message 6 of 10 , Feb 15, 2009
                Say what???

                "ONE SHOULD NOT MARRY OUTSIDE
                OF THEIR OWN RACE."

                I never saw the Eck Masters say that before!
                That was news to me.

                It sounds similar to an orthodox Jewish attitude.

                Hmm... Maybe Paul was referring to whites and
                blacks. I don't know. As for Darwin, I'm not certain
                what he meant by that either. Doesn't sound right,
                to me.

                Etznab

                -----Original Message-----
                From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@...>
                To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:58 am
                Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Shouldn't EKists Expect HK to
                Mention Darwin's Death?



                Hello Jonathan and All,

                I was talking to an EK H.I. recently and he said,

                "BTW did you know Darwin had died?" I said, yes

                it was in March, and isn't it strange that Harold

                hasn't mentioned it. He said, "Well, Darwin did

                do some pretty bad things." I said, Well he did

                give Harold a lot of initiations including the 12th.

                He said, "Yes, he (DG) probably gave Harold his

                Fifth too." I said, and the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,

                10th, 11th, and 12th! So, why couldn't he tell

                the membership about Darwin's translation and

                say something nice about him?



                I could tell my friend was feeling uncomfortable

                and needed to change the subject. Still, I wondered

                why ECKists just shut down and tune out when they

                hear things that are
                uncomfortable. Why aren't their

                hides tougher? They simply can't handle the truth!

                And, even good old Klemp has mentioned that he,

                himself, is not perfect. Why can't old Harry Klemp

                say the same thing about Darwin? Was DG the perfect

                M/LEM for ECKists? Well, he did hand out a lot of

                initiations and he was fun to be around! What's that

                worth in coin? But, Klemp doesn't even want to mention

                Darwin because then he would be expected to say

                something. And Klemp can't say anything nice because

                he holds onto grudges and can't forgive people.



                Yes, it is "True" that Darwin tried some slight of hand

                with some money, and Yes, it is True he handed Klemp

                the Rod and the LEM position, and Yes, it's True that he

                died in March 2008. Almost One Year Ago!



                Is it "Necessary" to mention that the former 972nd LEM

                translated? Yes! Of course!



                Is it "Kind" to mention that Dawin translated and would

                it be Kind to say some nice things about him? Yes!



                Klemp is intolerant, unloving and lacks both compassion

                and detachment. The fact that he can't forgive Darwin

                is proof that HK can't be an EK Master!



                Darwin's biggest crime was that he was too detached

                when it came to spending money. Klemp and the EK

                Board are much less detached (more attached) to money

                and how it's spent! Other than that Darwin follow
                ed

                Twitchell's lead (con) completely. Plus, Darwin wouldn't

                have any of Twitchell's works edited. He was a purest!

                Klemp, on the other hand, edits and reedits Twitchell's

                and his own materials over and over.



                Here's an example where Gross followed the same

                line of thought as Twitchell:



                "MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS



                1. Homosexuality: Personality traits and sexual habits

                are not related to spiritual unfoldment and are not

                regulated by the ECK teachings in any manner. THIS

                SITUATION WILL DROP AWAY AS ONE UNFOLDS SPIRITUALLY."

                [A Profile of ECKankar, 1979, pg. 20]



                Does Klemp also believe that Homosexuality will

                "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?" I think

                I read that he does!



                However, if "personality traits and sexual habits

                Are Not Related To Spiritual Unfoldment" why do

                they "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?"



                Here's another quote from the same booklet:



                "Inter-marriage: ... However, Sri Darwin Gross, the

                present spiritual leader of ECKankar, as well as, Sri

                Paul Twitchell, has stated that ONE SHOULD NOT

                MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN RACE." [pg. 21]



                I guess we tend to disregard Darwin's influence

                because Klemp does as well! So, why not focus

                upon the two "Masters" that EKists read and listen

                to the most. Thus, Twitchell wrote the EK Dogma

                listed in the Sha
                riyats (The Holy Books of ECKankar)

                and Klemp regurgitates it and repackages it with

                a current spin since he is the present living con-man.



                Prometheus





                jonathan wrote:



                I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing

                Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp.



                But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of that

                is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although Ford

                Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's version

                of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations

                within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the

                LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry for

                Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I do.



                Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of Paul

                Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that David

                Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the LEM,

                but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's point of

                view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any of

                Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also believe

                that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I can

                understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off=2
                0David Lane as being

                some kind of crackpot.



                So am I being too soft on Darwin?



                P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction. If I

                was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the

                other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the

                wrong.
              • etznab@aol.com
                For people like myself who didn t join up untill the latter 80s, Eckankar doesn t really give you a lot of history about Darwin Gross. I mean, the years even
                Message 7 of 10 , Feb 15, 2009
                  For people like myself who didn't join up untill
                  the latter 80s, Eckankar doesn't really give you
                  a lot of history about Darwin Gross. I mean, the
                  years even before the schism and scandals.

                  To be frank, in some places one could easily
                  feel like the name was taboo to mention even
                  outloud.

                  That was ten years, or so, between Paul and
                  Harold. Eckankar Inc. survived, in part, due to
                  Darwin Gross. If the "Mahanta" vs. "Living Eck
                  Master" thing became such a big issue, maybe
                  people should have researched the history of
                  these things and come to a resolution that way
                  instead of fighting "my myth" vs. "your myth".
                  This latter senario can (probably will) go on so
                  long as people have imaginations. It should of
                  been a time to go back over history and what
                  Paul Twitchell wrote with a fine-tooth comb.

                  Secretly I imagine people did go back and
                  investigate history, but I suspect things were
                  "settled" largely in private & behind the scenes.
                  One reason why so much history is either miss-
                  ing and / or not talked about.

                  Etznab

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                  To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 5:38 am
                  Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: Shouldn't EKists Expect HK to
                  Mention Darwin's Death?



                  Prometheus,



                  Darwin's death was an opportunity for Harold to say something. It

                  would have introduced some
                  healing into Eckankar. But my reading of

                  it is like yours: HK is still too upset over Darwin's actions and

                  still hasn't gotten over it. Then again, maybe it's the same old

                  Eckankar rule "Don't talk about things. They will go away on their

                  own."



                  I liked your comment about Darwin when you said "Well, he did hand

                  out a lot of initiations and he was fun to be around!" I think what I

                  am seeing is that Darwin took himself a lot less seriously than PT

                  and HK. Ever notice that? He was more human and could relate to the

                  average person better than Paul or Harold. I think that is an

                  admirable quality about Darwin and explains why a lot of people in

                  Eckankar are more forgiving of him. I was actually thinking about

                  posting some reminiscing about Darwin here. I couldn't even imagine

                  myself doing that with HK. Paul, maybe.



                  You made a lot more interesting points. When I read your paragraph

                  about homosexuality I quickly realized (perhaps for the first time)

                  exactly what you proceeded to point out. If homosexuality is

                  unrelated to spirituality, then why would it need to drop away as one

                  progresses spiritually? People come into this world as a homosexual

                  because soul wants the experience. It's that simple. Why hasn't

                  Eckankar figured that out in the 44 years of its existance?



                  Jonathan



                  --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.c
                  om, "prometheus_973"

                  <prometheus_973@...> wrote:

                  >

                  > Hello Jonathan and All,

                  > I was talking to an EK H.I. recently and he said,

                  > "BTW did you know Darwin had died?" I said, yes

                  > it was in March, and isn't it strange that Harold

                  > hasn't mentioned it. He said, "Well, Darwin did

                  > do some pretty bad things." I said, Well he did

                  > give Harold a lot of initiations including the 12th.

                  > He said, "Yes, he (DG) probably gave Harold his

                  > Fifth too." I said, and the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,

                  > 10th, 11th, and 12th! So, why couldn't he tell

                  > the membership about Darwin's translation and

                  > say something nice about him?

                  >

                  > I could tell my friend was feeling uncomfortable

                  > and needed to change the subject. Still, I wondered

                  > why ECKists just shut down and tune out when they

                  > hear things that are uncomfortable. Why aren't their

                  > hides tougher? They simply can't handle the truth!

                  > And, even good old Klemp has mentioned that he,

                  > himself, is not perfect. Why can't old Harry Klemp

                  > say the same thing about Darwin? Was DG the perfect

                  > M/LEM for ECKists? Well, he did hand out a lot of

                  > initiations and he was fun to be around! What's that

                  > worth in coin? But, Klemp doesn't even want to mention

                  > Darwin because then he would be expec
                  ted to say

                  > something. And Klemp can't say anything nice because

                  > he holds onto grudges and can't forgive people.

                  >

                  > Yes, it is "True" that Darwin tried some slight of hand

                  > with some money, and Yes, it is True he handed Klemp

                  > the Rod and the LEM position, and Yes, it's True that he

                  > died in March 2008. Almost One Year Ago!

                  >

                  > Is it "Necessary" to mention that the former 972nd LEM

                  > translated? Yes! Of course!

                  >

                  > Is it "Kind" to mention that Dawin translated and would

                  > it be Kind to say some nice things about him? Yes!

                  >

                  > Klemp is intolerant, unloving and lacks both compassion

                  > and detachment. The fact that he can't forgive Darwin

                  > is proof that HK can't be an EK Master!

                  >

                  > Darwin's biggest crime was that he was too detached

                  > when it came to spending money. Klemp and the EK

                  > Board are much less detached (more attached) to money

                  > and how it's spent! Other than that Darwin followed

                  > Twitchell's lead (con) completely. Plus, Darwin wouldn't

                  > have any of Twitchell's works edited. He was a purest!

                  > Klemp, on the other hand, edits and reedits Twitchell's

                  > and his own materials over and over.

                  >

                  > Here's an example where Gross followed the same

                  > line of thought as Twitchell:

                  >

                  =0
                  A> "MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS

                  >

                  > 1. Homosexuality: Personality traits and sexual habits

                  > are not related to spiritual unfoldment and are not

                  > regulated by the ECK teachings in any manner. THIS

                  > SITUATION WILL DROP AWAY AS ONE UNFOLDS SPIRITUALLY."

                  > [A Profile of ECKankar, 1979, pg. 20]

                  >

                  > Does Klemp also believe that Homosexuality will

                  > "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?" I think

                  > I read that he does!

                  >

                  > However, if "personality traits and sexual habits

                  > Are Not Related To Spiritual Unfoldment" why do

                  > they "drop away as one unfolds spiritually?"

                  >

                  >

                  > Here's another quote from the same booklet:

                  >

                  > "Inter-marriage: ... However, Sri Darwin Gross, the

                  > present spiritual leader of ECKankar, as well as, Sri

                  > Paul Twitchell, has stated that ONE SHOULD NOT

                  > MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN RACE." [pg. 21]

                  >

                  > I guess we tend to disregard Darwin's influence

                  > because Klemp does as well! So, why not focus

                  > upon the two "Masters" that EKists read and listen

                  > to the most. Thus, Twitchell wrote the EK Dogma

                  > listed in the Shariyats (The Holy Books of ECKankar)

                  > and Klemp regurgitates it and repackages it with

                  > a current spin since he is the present living con-man.

                  >

                  > Prometheus

                  0A>

                  >

                  > jonathan wrote:

                  >

                  > I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing

                  > Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold

                  Klemp.

                  >

                  > But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of

                  that

                  > is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although

                  Ford

                  > Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's

                  version

                  > of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations

                  > within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the

                  > LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry

                  for

                  > Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I

                  do.

                  >

                  > Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of

                  Paul

                  > Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that

                  David

                  > Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the

                  LEM,

                  > but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's

                  point of

                  > view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any

                  of

                  > Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also

                  believe

                  > that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I

                  can

                  > understand why Darwin just automatically
                  wrote off David Lane as

                  being

                  > some kind of crackpot.

                  >

                  > So am I being too soft on Darwin?

                  >

                  > P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction.

                  If I

                  > was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the

                  > other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the

                  > wrong.

                  >
                • Jonathan Johns
                  All, I guarantee it. Paul Twitchell said that people shouldn t marry outside their race. I joined Eckankar in 1979 and I read 80% of the books book Paul
                  Message 8 of 10 , Feb 15, 2009
                    All,
                    I guarantee it. Paul Twitchell said that people shouldn't marry outside their race. I joined Eckankar in 1979 and I read 80% of the books book Paul Twitchell wrote. I also listened to a large number of his tapes.
                    Jonathan

                    --- On Mon, 2/16/09, etznab@... <etznab@...> wrote:
                    From: etznab@... <etznab@...>
                    Subject: Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Shouldn't EKists Expect HK to Mention Darwin's Death?
                    To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 3:39 AM


                    Say what???

                    "ONE SHOULD NOT MARRY OUTSIDE
                    OF THEIR OWN RACE."

                    I never saw the Eck Masters say that before!
                    That was news to me.

                    It sounds similar to an orthodox Jewish attitude.

                    Hmm.... Maybe Paul was referring to whites and
                    blacks. I don't know. As for Darwin, I'm not certain
                    what he meant by that either. Doesn't sound right,
                    to me.

                    Etznab

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: prometheus_973 <prometheus_973@ yahoo.com>
                    To: EckankarSurvivorsAn onymous@yahoogro ups.com
                    Sent: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 12:58 am
                    Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsA nonymous] Shouldn't EKists Expect HK to
                    Mention Darwin's Death?

                    Hello Jonathan and All,

                    I was talking to an EK H.I. recently and he said,

                    "BTW did you know Darwin had died?" I said, yes

                    it was in March, and isn't it strange that Harold

                    hasn't mentioned it. He said, "Well, Darwin did

                    do some pretty bad things." I said, Well he did

                    give Harold a lot of initiations including the 12th.

                    He said, "Yes, he (DG) probably gave Harold his

                    Fifth too." I said, and the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,

                    10th, 11th, and 12th! So, why couldn't he tell

                    the membership about Darwin's translation and

                    say something nice about him?

                    I could tell my friend was feeling uncomfortable

                    and needed to change the subject.. Still, I wondered

                    why ECKists just shut down and tune out when they

                    hear things that are
                    uncomfortable. Why aren't their

                    hides tougher? They simply can't handle the truth!

                    And, even good old Klemp has mentioned that he,

                    himself, is not perfect. Why can't old Harry Klemp

                    say the same thing about Darwin? Was DG the perfect

                    M/LEM for ECKists? Well, he did hand out a lot of

                    initiations and he was fun to be around! What's that

                    worth in coin? But, Klemp doesn't even want to mention

                    Darwin because then he would be expected to say

                    something. And Klemp can't say anything nice because

                    he holds onto grudges and can't forgive people.

                    Yes, it is "True" that Darwin tried some slight of hand

                    with some money, and Yes, it is True he handed Klemp

                    the Rod and the LEM position, and Yes, it's True that he

                    died in March 2008. Almost One Year Ago!

                    Is it "Necessary" to mention that the former 972nd LEM

                    translated? Yes! Of course!

                    Is it "Kind" to mention that Dawin translated and would

                    it be Kind to say some nice things about him? Yes!

                    Klemp is intolerant, unloving and lacks both compassion

                    and detachment. The fact that he can't forgive Darwin

                    is proof that HK can't be an EK Master!

                    Darwin's biggest crime was that he was too detached

                    when it came to spending money. Klemp and the EK

                    Board are much less detached (more attached) to money

                    and how it's spent! Other than that Darwin follow
                    ed

                    Twitchell's lead (con) completely. Plus, Darwin wouldn't

                    have any of Twitchell's works edited. He was a purest!

                    Klemp, on the other hand, edits and reedits Twitchell's

                    and his own materials over and over.

                    Here's an example where Gross followed the same

                    line of thought as Twitchell:

                    "MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL SITUATIONS

                    1. Homosexuality: Personality traits and sexual habits

                    are not related to spiritual unfoldment and are not

                    regulated by the ECK teachings in any manner. THIS

                    SITUATION WILL DROP AWAY AS ONE UNFOLDS SPIRITUALLY. "

                    [A Profile of ECKankar, 1979, pg. 20]

                    Does Klemp also believe that Homosexuality will

                    "drop away as one unfolds spiritually? " I think

                    I read that he does!

                    However, if "personality traits and sexual habits

                    Are Not Related To Spiritual Unfoldment" why do

                    they "drop away as one unfolds spiritually? "

                    Here's another quote from the same booklet:

                    "Inter-marriage: ... However, Sri Darwin Gross, the

                    present spiritual leader of ECKankar, as well as, Sri

                    Paul Twitchell, has stated that ONE SHOULD NOT

                    MARRY OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN RACE." [pg. 21]

                    I guess we tend to disregard Darwin's influence

                    because Klemp does as well! So, why not focus

                    upon the two "Masters" that EKists read and listen

                    to the most. Thus, Twitchell wrote the EK Dogma

                    listed in the Sha
                    riyats (The Holy Books of ECKankar)

                    and Klemp regurgitates it and repackages it with

                    a current spin since he is the present living con-man.

                    Prometheus

                    jonathan wrote:

                    I've done a lot of reading of material written by people exposing

                    Eckankar. They seem to really go after Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp.

                    But they seem to go easy on Darwin Gross. I think a major part of that

                    is because Darwin was unceremoniously kicked out by HK, although Ford

                    Johnson in his book "Confessions" seem to corroborate Harold's version

                    of events that Darwin was guilty of some pretty serious violations

                    within Eckankar regarding money and abuse of his power as the

                    LEM/leader of Eckankar. That's one topic. Do we somehow feel sorry for

                    Darwin about this? I have to admit that at least to some degree, I do.

                    Another topic is whether Darwin should have taken allegations of Paul

                    Twitchell's plagiarism more seriously. My understanding is that David

                    Lanes original research was sent to Eckankar when Darwin was the LEM,

                    but before Klemp was on the scene. Looking at it from Darwin's point of

                    view I can see why it was almost impossible for him to believe any of

                    Lane's findings. Darwin knew Paul Twitchell personally. I also believe

                    that Darwin had extensive inner experiences with Eck masters. So I can

                    understand why Darwin just automatically wrote off=2
                    0David Lane as being

                    some kind of crackpot.

                    So am I being too soft on Darwin?

                    P.S. Evidently, Eckankar did sue David Lane by Darwin's direction. If I

                    was going to sue someone, I would certainly do some research on the

                    other person's allegations before I concluded that they were in the

                    wrong.


                  • prometheus_973
                    Hello Etznab and All, Darwin s name is actually taboo! It s not that it just feels like it is! RESAs don t like hearing about their chelas talking about
                    Message 9 of 10 , Feb 15, 2009
                      Hello Etznab and All,
                      Darwin's name is actually taboo!
                      It's not that it just "feels" like
                      it is! RESAs don't like hearing about
                      "their" chelas talking about Darwin.

                      I knew of one person who didn't get
                      a pink slip because another H.I. told
                      the RESA that the guy had been talking
                      about Darwin. The RESA said, "I can't
                      believe it, they're still talking about
                      him!"

                      I was thinking again why ECKists
                      can't seem to discuss Darwin or
                      listen to others opinions. I then
                      realized that it was due to their
                      arrogance. They are just too proud
                      and all puffed up from those higher
                      initiations. They assume they are
                      greater and more knowledgeable than
                      all others... they're more special.
                      Yet, they are afraid to cross certain
                      lines and to think, let alone say, or
                      discuss certain topics. They never
                      know who's listening do they!

                      Prometheus


                      etznab wrote:

                      [snip]
                      To be frank, in some places one could easily
                      feel like the name was taboo to mention even
                      outloud.

                      Jonathan wrote:

                      [snip]
                      Darwin's death was an opportunity for Harold to say
                      something. It would have introduced some healing into
                      Eckankar. But my reading of it is like yours: HK is still
                      too upset over Darwin's actions and still hasn't gotten
                      over it. Then again, maybe it's the same old Eckankar
                      rule "Don't talk about things. They will go away on their
                      own."
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.