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

What if Klemp had "come clean" in 1983...

Expand Messages
  • jonathanjohns96
    What if Klemp had come clean in 1983 when he first learned about how extensive Twitchell s lies, exaggerations, and fabrications were? Eckankar would have
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      What if Klemp had "come clean" in 1983 when he first learned about how extensive Twitchell's lies, exaggerations, and fabrications were?

      Eckankar would have had to publicly admit:
      1. Paul copied a lot of his stuff from other sources. Eckankar would then have to start documenting all of the instances of that. In hindsight, if Eckankar had decided to pursue this path, they should have just paid David Lane $100,000 for doing his first batch of undergraduate research on Twitchell's plagiarism, then hire him to continue his work. Why not? He seemed to be very good at it. Plus, David did not even have access to all of Paul's stuff that Eckankar had in its possession. How many more examples of plagiarism and lies are hidden away in Eckankar's safe?
      2. That Eckankar was copied from, and modeled after Sant Mant, etc.
      3. As a result of admitting number 2 above, Eckankar would then have to admit that it is NOT the original religion from which all other religions have sprung.
      4. Eckankar would have to retract their stories about all of the people throughout history whom they claim were Eck masters.

      As you can see, by the time Eckankar does all of this, the entire religion would have "unraveled" which is the exact word Ford Johnson often used when discussing Paul's lies and the possibility of Klemp doing something about it.

      How would the membership of Eckankar have reacted? Most of the members would have reacted as if a rug had just been pulled out from underneath them because the entire justification for Eckankar is now gone. Eckankar would have lost at least half of their membership, maybe more. Meanwhile, the remaining members would have been constantly wondering "What else did Twitchell lie to us about?" That's pretty much how I felt after reading David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research on Twitchell's plagiarism.

      When I initially accepted the fact that Eckankar had lied to me for 29 years I actually had thought that Klemp would eventually do something about it. But after awhile I realized that this really was just a fantasy. I even then tried to say to myself "But there are still a lot of good things about Eckankar." But I had to eventually admit that this was just a fantasy too. Klemp was never going to do it. It was never going to happen. And then I had to completely accept the fact that David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research was correct. Paul Twitchell WAS a pathological liar. It was very difficult for me to do that. So when I left Eckankar after being a member for 29 years, it was difficult. I had to restructure my entire thinking process. Everything I had previously believed to be true had to be restructured in my brain, and maybe my heart too.

      I've been reading a lot of Ford Johnson's book lately. And I got the distinct impression that when he was still a member of Eckankar he too was wondering whether Klemp would "fix" Eckankar with regard to Twitchell's lies and fabrications. If you want to research this, just do a search for the word "unravel" in the free digital version of his book "Confessions Of A Godseeker" which is available as a free download on the Internet. "Unravel" was Ford's favorite word for what would happen to Eckankar if Harold attempted to "come clean" regarding Twitchell's fabrications.

      Klemp was never going to fix Eckankar. He never will do it. But the real reason is that it is impossible for him to do that without Eckankar basically starting over from ground zero as a religion. And I know Ford realized that, but "when he realized it" is something that I don't know. Ford, like the rest of us was "under the spell" (my choice of words). And he mentions something along these lines more than once in his book. He mentioned that that there were things about Eckankar that were "not quite right" (my words) but he never saw them for what they truly were for many many tears during his membership in Eckankar. That made it easier on me when I realized "Yes, it happened to Ford too."

      Jonathan
    • jonathanjohns96
      At the end there many tears was supposed to be many years It was a typo, but it is looking to me now more like a Freudian slip.
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 17, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        At the end there "many tears" was supposed to be "many years" It was a typo, but it is looking to me now more like a Freudian slip.


        --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > What if Klemp had "come clean" in 1983 when he first learned about how extensive Twitchell's lies, exaggerations, and fabrications were?
        >
        > Eckankar would have had to publicly admit:
        > 1. Paul copied a lot of his stuff from other sources. Eckankar would then have to start documenting all of the instances of that. In hindsight, if Eckankar had decided to pursue this path, they should have just paid David Lane $100,000 for doing his first batch of undergraduate research on Twitchell's plagiarism, then hire him to continue his work. Why not? He seemed to be very good at it. Plus, David did not even have access to all of Paul's stuff that Eckankar had in its possession. How many more examples of plagiarism and lies are hidden away in Eckankar's safe?
        > 2. That Eckankar was copied from, and modeled after Sant Mant, etc.
        > 3. As a result of admitting number 2 above, Eckankar would then have to admit that it is NOT the original religion from which all other religions have sprung.
        > 4. Eckankar would have to retract their stories about all of the people throughout history whom they claim were Eck masters.
        >
        > As you can see, by the time Eckankar does all of this, the entire religion would have "unraveled" which is the exact word Ford Johnson often used when discussing Paul's lies and the possibility of Klemp doing something about it.
        >
        > How would the membership of Eckankar have reacted? Most of the members would have reacted as if a rug had just been pulled out from underneath them because the entire justification for Eckankar is now gone. Eckankar would have lost at least half of their membership, maybe more. Meanwhile, the remaining members would have been constantly wondering "What else did Twitchell lie to us about?" That's pretty much how I felt after reading David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research on Twitchell's plagiarism.
        >
        > When I initially accepted the fact that Eckankar had lied to me for 29 years I actually had thought that Klemp would eventually do something about it. But after awhile I realized that this really was just a fantasy. I even then tried to say to myself "But there are still a lot of good things about Eckankar." But I had to eventually admit that this was just a fantasy too. Klemp was never going to do it. It was never going to happen. And then I had to completely accept the fact that David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research was correct. Paul Twitchell WAS a pathological liar. It was very difficult for me to do that. So when I left Eckankar after being a member for 29 years, it was difficult. I had to restructure my entire thinking process. Everything I had previously believed to be true had to be restructured in my brain, and maybe my heart too.
        >
        > I've been reading a lot of Ford Johnson's book lately. And I got the distinct impression that when he was still a member of Eckankar he too was wondering whether Klemp would "fix" Eckankar with regard to Twitchell's lies and fabrications. If you want to research this, just do a search for the word "unravel" in the free digital version of his book "Confessions Of A Godseeker" which is available as a free download on the Internet. "Unravel" was Ford's favorite word for what would happen to Eckankar if Harold attempted to "come clean" regarding Twitchell's fabrications.
        >
        > Klemp was never going to fix Eckankar. He never will do it. But the real reason is that it is impossible for him to do that without Eckankar basically starting over from ground zero as a religion. And I know Ford realized that, but "when he realized it" is something that I don't know. Ford, like the rest of us was "under the spell" (my choice of words). And he mentions something along these lines more than once in his book. He mentioned that that there were things about Eckankar that were "not quite right" (my words) but he never saw them for what they truly were for many many tears during his membership in Eckankar. That made it easier on me when I realized "Yes, it happened to Ford too."
        >
        > Jonathan
        >
      • prometheus_973
        Hello Jonathan and All, Good points. Yes, Klemp could, also, have handled the situation with Darwin with more compassion, tolerance, and finesse as well, but
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Jonathan and All,
          Good points. Yes, Klemp could,
          also, have handled the situation
          with Darwin with more compassion,
          tolerance, and finesse as well, but
          didn't choose to.

          And, it's obvious that Klemp holds
          onto grudges (anger) or else he
          would have mentioned Darwin's
          death and maybe said some kind
          words about our former LEM. After
          all, DG did hand HK the Rod of ECK
          Power!

          And, Darwin didn't have to resign
          and step-down at that time did he?
          So, why does Klemp have animosity
          toward, a now dead, EK Master after
          all of these years? The initial act of
          kicking Darwin out of Eckankar and
          then the omission of his death, years
          later, tells volumes about Klemp's
          character... then and now. And, this
          is more proof that Klemp's Not what
          he claims to be... enlightened and
          of a high consciousness.

          Yes, Klemp Could Not share the
          throne. Nor could he be honest
          about the real origins of Eckankar
          and of Kirpal Singh who was Paul's
          real Master and who once possessed
          PT's "The Tiger's Fang" manuscript.
          For this reason Klemp knew that
          Kirpal was PT's true Master and
          not the "Sudar" character/name
          that PT created and substituted.

          Klemp did say that Twit did a lot
          of research and took the "best"
          of many religions etc. in order to
          form Eckankar. However, why then
          was Rebazar necessary if PT took
          other teachings to create Eckankar?
          Wouldn't/shouldn't Eckankar be
          based upon a purer form of truth
          and of what Rebazar had taught
          him? Well, no! PT needed the EK
          Master lineage story involving Rebazar
          in order to be initiated. Therefore,
          with the help of a fictional character,
          that he created, Twitchell initiated
          himself.

          So, the "outer teachings" seem to
          be based upon the "best of" Sant
          Mat et al (excluding the mandatory
          Vegan diet and and the Chastity
          requirements) while the "inner
          teachings" are based upon what
          the fictitious Rebazar "shared,"
          but only to Paul alone. Therefore,
          the LEM becomes the only source
          of divine "truth."

          This is actually just a "shell game"
          where, now, HK can switch it around
          as he sees fit. It's a convient lie and
          what PT referred to as "paradoxes"
          and HK refers to as a Catch-22.

          Fortunately, for many, Klemp's
          limited consciousness and character
          flaws have limited Eckankar's growth.

          Prometheus

          jonathan wrote:
          At the end there "many tears" was supposed to be "many years" It was a typo, but
          it is looking to me now more like a Freudian slip.


          jonathan wrote:
          >
          >
          > What if Klemp had "come clean" in 1983 when he first learned about how
          extensive Twitchell's lies, exaggerations, and fabrications were?
          >
          > Eckankar would have had to publicly admit:
          > 1. Paul copied a lot of his stuff from other sources. Eckankar would then have
          to start documenting all of the instances of that. In hindsight, if Eckankar had
          decided to pursue this path, they should have just paid David Lane $100,000 for
          doing his first batch of undergraduate research on Twitchell's plagiarism, then
          hire him to continue his work. Why not? He seemed to be very good at it. Plus,
          David did not even have access to all of Paul's stuff that Eckankar had in its
          possession. How many more examples of plagiarism and lies are hidden away in
          Eckankar's safe?
          > 2. That Eckankar was copied from, and modeled after Sant Mant, etc.
          > 3. As a result of admitting number 2 above, Eckankar would then have to admit
          that it is NOT the original religion from which all other religions have sprung.
          > 4. Eckankar would have to retract their stories about all of the people
          throughout history whom they claim were Eck masters.
          >
          > As you can see, by the time Eckankar does all of this, the entire religion
          would have "unraveled" which is the exact word Ford Johnson often used when
          discussing Paul's lies and the possibility of Klemp doing something about it.
          >
          > How would the membership of Eckankar have reacted? Most of the members would
          have reacted as if a rug had just been pulled out from underneath them because
          the entire justification for Eckankar is now gone. Eckankar would have lost at
          least half of their membership, maybe more. Meanwhile, the remaining members
          would have been constantly wondering "What else did Twitchell lie to us about?"
          That's pretty much how I felt after reading David Lane's and Ford Johnson's
          research on Twitchell's plagiarism.
          >
          > When I initially accepted the fact that Eckankar had lied to me for 29 years I
          actually had thought that Klemp would eventually do something about it. But
          after awhile I realized that this really was just a fantasy. I even then tried
          to say to myself "But there are still a lot of good things about Eckankar." But
          I had to eventually admit that this was just a fantasy too. Klemp was never
          going to do it. It was never going to happen. And then I had to completely
          accept the fact that David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research was correct. Paul
          Twitchell WAS a pathological liar. It was very difficult for me to do that. So
          when I left Eckankar after being a member for 29 years, it was difficult. I had
          to restructure my entire thinking process. Everything I had previously believed
          to be true had to be restructured in my brain, and maybe my heart too.
          >
          > I've been reading a lot of Ford Johnson's book lately. And I got the distinct
          impression that when he was still a member of Eckankar he too was wondering
          whether Klemp would "fix" Eckankar with regard to Twitchell's lies and
          fabrications. If you want to research this, just do a search for the word
          "unravel" in the free digital version of his book "Confessions Of A Godseeker"
          which is available as a free download on the Internet. "Unravel" was Ford's
          favorite word for what would happen to Eckankar if Harold attempted to "come
          clean" regarding Twitchell's fabrications.
          >
          > Klemp was never going to fix Eckankar. He never will do it. But the real
          reason is that it is impossible for him to do that without Eckankar basically
          starting over from ground zero as a religion. And I know Ford realized that, but
          "when he realized it" is something that I don't know. Ford, like the rest of us
          was "under the spell" (my choice of words). And he mentions something along
          these lines more than once in his book. He mentioned that that there were things
          about Eckankar that were "not quite right" (my words) but he never saw them for
          what they truly were for many many tears during his membership in Eckankar. That
          made it easier on me when I realized "Yes, it happened to Ford too."
          >
          > Jonathan
          >
        • etznab@aol.com
          Some interesting dialogue, IMO. Two main things prevent the come clean approach. IMO. (1) The membership has to be on board with it. It has to be all or
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Some interesting dialogue, IMO.

            Two main things prevent the "come clean"
            approach. IMO.

            (1) The membership has to be on board with
            it. It has to be all or nothing, so to speak. It
            has to be not only the LEM, but the board of
            directors, the president, the HI's & long-time
            members, and the members in general.

            (2) Changing the dogma changes the story
            about the LEM considerably. Also Mahanta.

            ***************************************************

            For examples about what happens when a
            person tries to "come clean" by presenting
            the truth instead of prescriptions for pseudo
            religion, history and myth there are many of
            them in the archives and in books. Also, in
            the memory of personal experience and the
            way fundamentalists treat those who speak
            for change.

            When those who want change, who want
            the "come clean" approach are met not by
            "old-timers" with open arms, but with disdain,
            those members leave. And with them leaves
            the chances for any greater reformation of
            organized religion. Instead - for those people
            who stay in it - there is generally a "wait &
            see" attitude. A waiting for something to
            happen that is not going to happen by itself.
            And so, there is a "turtle's pace" of reform
            where there could have been (and could be)
            a tidal wave. IMO.

            Etznab

            -----Original Message-----
            From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
            To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Fri, Sep 17, 2010 9:48 pm
            Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] What if Klemp had "come clean" in
            1983...

             

            What if Klemp had "come clean" in 1983 when he first learned about how
            extensive Twitchell's lies, exaggerations, and fabrications were?

            Eckankar would have had to publicly admit:
            1. Paul copied a lot of his stuff from other sources. Eckankar would
            then have to start documenting all of the instances of that. In
            hindsight, if Eckankar had decided to pursue this path, they should
            have just paid David Lane $100,000 for doing his first batch of
            undergraduate research on Twitchell's plagiarism, then hire him to
            continue his work. Why not? He seemed to be very good at it. Plus,
            David did not even have access to all of Paul's stuff that Eckankar had
            in its possession. How many more examples of plagiarism and lies are
            hidden away in Eckankar's safe?
            2. That Eckankar was copied from, and modeled after Sant Mant, etc.
            3. As a result of admitting number 2 above, Eckankar would then have to
            admit that it is NOT the original religion from which all other
            religions have sprung.
            4. Eckankar would have to retract their stories about all of the people
            throughout history whom they claim were Eck masters.

            As you can see, by the time Eckankar does all of this, the entire
            religion would have "unraveled" which is the exact word Ford Johnson
            often used when discussing Paul's lies and the possibility of Klemp
            doing something about it.

            How would the membership of Eckankar have reacted? Most of the members
            would have reacted as if a rug had just been pulled out from underneath
            them because the entire justification for Eckankar is now gone.
            Eckankar would have lost at least half of their membership, maybe more.
            Meanwhile, the remaining members would have been constantly wondering
            "What else did Twitchell lie to us about?" That's pretty much how I
            felt after reading David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research on
            Twitchell's plagiarism.

            When I initially accepted the fact that Eckankar had lied to me for 29
            years I actually had thought that Klemp would eventually do something
            about it. But after awhile I realized that this really was just a
            fantasy. I even then tried to say to myself "But there are still a lot
            of good things about Eckankar." But I had to eventually admit that this
            was just a fantasy too. Klemp was never going to do it. It was never
            going to happen. And then I had to completely accept the fact that
            David Lane's and Ford Johnson's research was correct. Paul Twitchell
            WAS a pathological liar. It was very difficult for me to do that. So
            when I left Eckankar after being a member for 29 years, it was
            difficult. I had to restructure my entire thinking process. Everything
            I had previously believed to be true had to be restructured in my
            brain, and maybe my heart too.

            I've been reading a lot of Ford Johnson's book lately. And I got the
            distinct impression that when he was still a member of Eckankar he too
            was wondering whether Klemp would "fix" Eckankar with regard to
            Twitchell's lies and fabrications. If you want to research this, just
            do a search for the word "unravel" in the free digital version of his
            book "Confessions Of A Godseeker" which is available as a free download
            on the Internet. "Unravel" was Ford's favorite word for what would
            happen to Eckankar if Harold attempted to "come clean" regarding
            Twitchell's fabrications.

            Klemp was never going to fix Eckankar. He never will do it. But the
            real reason is that it is impossible for him to do that without
            Eckankar basically starting over from ground zero as a religion. And I
            know Ford realized that, but "when he realized it" is something that I
            don't know. Ford, like the rest of us was "under the spell" (my choice
            of words). And he mentions something along these lines more than once
            in his book. He mentioned that that there were things about Eckankar
            that were "not quite right" (my words) but he never saw them for what
            they truly were for many many tears during his membership in Eckankar.
            That made it easier on me when I realized "Yes, it happened to Ford
            too."

            Jonathan
          • jonathanjohns96
            All, I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson s book Confessions Of A Godseeker. That is where I originally read Ford s assertion that if Klemp
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              All,

              I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately accepted his conclusion.

              When I decided to write this post I started out with the supposition that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be the likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the members of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read Ford's stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his general conclusion already in my head because I accepted his conclusion the first time I read it in his book.

              Just giving credit where credit is due.

              Jonathan
            • etznab@aol.com
              I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson s book Confessions Of A Godseeker. That is where I originally read Ford s assertion that if Klemp had
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                accepted his conclusion.

                Jonathan,

                Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently believed that
                .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last paragraph.)
                Granted, not in the same form.

                http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx

                -----Original Message-----
                From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                clean" in 1983...

                 
                All,

                I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                accepted his conclusion.

                When I decided to write this post I started out with the supposition
                that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be the
                likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the members
                of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read Ford's
                stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his general
                conclusion already in my head because I accepted his conclusion the
                first time I read it in his book.

                Just giving credit where credit is due.

                Jonathan
              • jonathanjohns96
                Thanks, Etznab, That s very interesting. As stated on Ford s website, this letter that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of the
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, Etznab,

                  That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this letter that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford actually does sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his paragraph here:

                  Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                  "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's talks when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell. Obviously you did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross settled into Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his fabrications. I know how difficult it would be to remove the lies in Eckankar — extensively detailed in Confessions — and strip it of the distortions of truth that mislead soul. However, I believe that Eckankar could survive the cleaning. Not in the same form that it is today, but in a purer form that accomplishes what all paths to God should; to teach, to empower and then to set souls free to realize and experience their oneness with ALL THAT IS."

                  Jonathan


                  --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                  > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                  > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                  > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                  > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                  > accepted his conclusion.
                  >
                  > Jonathan,
                  >
                  > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently believed that
                  > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last paragraph.)
                  > Granted, not in the same form.
                  >
                  > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                  > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                  > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                  > clean" in 1983...
                  >
                  >  
                  > All,
                  >
                  > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                  > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                  > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                  > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                  > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                  > accepted his conclusion.
                  >
                  > When I decided to write this post I started out with the supposition
                  > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be the
                  > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the members
                  > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read Ford's
                  > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his general
                  > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his conclusion the
                  > first time I read it in his book.
                  >
                  > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                  >
                  > Jonathan
                  >
                • jonathanjohns96
                  All, I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the chances of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell s lies are minutely slim. But I admire Ford for at
                  Message 8 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    All,

                    I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the chances of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But I admire Ford for at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't think Klemp will ever do it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's writing about it on Ecknakar.org about Paul being a master compiler, etc may have actually opened a crack in the door. So I can almost give some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure that a lot of former Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose in writing that stuff.

                    I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a possibility of SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on what I know at the present time I would find a complete housecleaning very hard to believe. However, Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the history of Eckankar. Whose to say they can't write Paul Twitchell out of the history of Eckankar over the next 50 years? Keep his basic principles that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage out more and more.

                    Jonatahn


                    --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Thanks, Etznab,
                    >
                    > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this letter that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford actually does sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his paragraph here:
                    >
                    > Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                    > "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's talks when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell. Obviously you did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross settled into Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his fabrications. I know how difficult it would be to remove the lies in Eckankar — extensively detailed in Confessions — and strip it of the distortions of truth that mislead soul. However, I believe that Eckankar could survive the cleaning. Not in the same form that it is today, but in a purer form that accomplishes what all paths to God should; to teach, to empower and then to set souls free to realize and experience their oneness with ALL THAT IS."
                    >
                    > Jonathan
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                    > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                    > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                    > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                    > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                    > > accepted his conclusion.
                    > >
                    > > Jonathan,
                    > >
                    > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently believed that
                    > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last paragraph.)
                    > > Granted, not in the same form.
                    > >
                    > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@>
                    > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                    > > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                    > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                    > > clean" in 1983...
                    > >
                    > >  
                    > > All,
                    > >
                    > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                    > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                    > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                    > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                    > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                    > > accepted his conclusion.
                    > >
                    > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the supposition
                    > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be the
                    > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the members
                    > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read Ford's
                    > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his general
                    > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his conclusion the
                    > > first time I read it in his book.
                    > >
                    > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                    > >
                    > > Jonathan
                    > >
                    >
                  • jonathanjohns96
                    All, I wonder whether people are getting tired of all my commenting here, but this paragraph by Ford Johnson is really sending me off the deep end. It is
                    Message 9 of 14 , Sep 18, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      All,

                      I wonder whether people are getting tired of all my commenting here, but this paragraph by Ford Johnson is really sending me off the deep end. It is doing that because I have no idea why he included it in the transmittal letter.

                      Lets summarize. Ford Johnson wrote a very long book detailing all of the lies, fabrications, and curses by Paul Twitchell, all of which had been continued by Harold Klemp for the 20 years between the time Klemp took over in 1983 and 2003 when Ford sent a copy of said book to Klemp. In the book, Ford also points out many of the deficiencies of Harold Klemp himself. And then Ford sends a copy of the book to Klemp. The letter includes a paragraph nicely informing Klemp that he still can clean up Paul Twitchell's lies, fabrications, and curses. Hmmm.

                      On the surface of things, I am having a very hard time understanding why Ford would have thought that Klemp would care one bit about anything Ford said in "the paragraph." Did Ford add it just for the sake of completeness? Did he add it just so Klemp had one last reminder about the right thing to do? That's the only theory I can come up with now. Otherwise, "the paragraph" looks like a bunch of craziness to me.

                      Jonathan



                      --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > All,
                      >
                      > I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the chances of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But I admire Ford for at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't think Klemp will ever do it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's writing about it on Ecknakar.org about Paul being a master compiler, etc may have actually opened a crack in the door. So I can almost give some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure that a lot of former Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose in writing that stuff.
                      >
                      > I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a possibility of SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on what I know at the present time I would find a complete housecleaning very hard to believe. However, Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the history of Eckankar. Whose to say they can't write Paul Twitchell out of the history of Eckankar over the next 50 years? Keep his basic principles that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage out more and more.
                      >
                      > Jonatahn
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Thanks, Etznab,
                      > >
                      > > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this letter that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford actually does sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his paragraph here:
                      > >
                      > > Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                      > > "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's talks when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell. Obviously you did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross settled into Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his fabrications. I know how difficult it would be to remove the lies in Eckankar — extensively detailed in Confessions — and strip it of the distortions of truth that mislead soul. However, I believe that Eckankar could survive the cleaning. Not in the same form that it is today, but in a purer form that accomplishes what all paths to God should; to teach, to empower and then to set souls free to realize and experience their oneness with ALL THAT IS."
                      > >
                      > > Jonathan
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                      > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                      > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                      > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                      > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                      > > > accepted his conclusion.
                      > > >
                      > > > Jonathan,
                      > > >
                      > > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently believed that
                      > > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last paragraph.)
                      > > > Granted, not in the same form.
                      > > >
                      > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                      > > >
                      > > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@>
                      > > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                      > > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                      > > > clean" in 1983...
                      > > >
                      > > >  
                      > > > All,
                      > > >
                      > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                      > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                      > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                      > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                      > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                      > > > accepted his conclusion.
                      > > >
                      > > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the supposition
                      > > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be the
                      > > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the members
                      > > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read Ford's
                      > > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his general
                      > > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his conclusion the
                      > > > first time I read it in his book.
                      > > >
                      > > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                      > > >
                      > > > Jonathan
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • prometheus_973
                      Hello Jonathan and All, I m finding this line of discussion interesting. I m sort of seeing Ford s approach with Klemp as being two pronged. When Klemp took
                      Message 10 of 14 , Sep 19, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello Jonathan and All,
                        I'm finding this line of discussion interesting.
                        I'm sort of seeing Ford's approach with Klemp
                        as being two pronged.

                        When Klemp took over from Darwin in 1981
                        he did so with a Holier Than Thou attitude and
                        gave the impression that he wanted to present
                        Eckankar in its "pure" form. Thus, why wouldn't
                        Klemp want to present the "whole truth" and
                        cleanup the distortions that Twitchell created
                        (due to needing to get the EK teachings "off-
                        the-ground" so to speak). Maybe Ford was
                        under the impression, or delusion, that Klemp
                        was still this same person with the same goals?

                        Then again, it could be that Ford was baiting
                        Klemp and knew that 14th Initiate LEM/Mahanta
                        Klemp wasn't going to or was incapable of having
                        an equal/peer (one-on-one, Soul=Soul)) discussion
                        with him, a 7th Initiate and RESA, because (All
                        Knowing, All Powerful) Klemp didn't want to set
                        a prescient and have someone/anyone tell or
                        suggest to him what he should do. I wonder
                        how Joan handles that?

                        Basically, it's Klemp's way or the highway,
                        although, Klemp has said in the past that
                        he's "not perfect."

                        So, why wouldn't Klemp, who has claimed
                        he's "not perfect," Not be open to suggestions?
                        Well, Klemp discovered via booting Darwin
                        that he didn't have to listen to anyone or
                        bend to anything as well. HK's even said,
                        as well, that he's "not a good listener."
                        For Klemp, that's the whole point with
                        him being a 14th Initiate and a Mahanta!
                        He's over everyone else and is their boss.
                        What top boss wants to hear suggestions
                        from underlings? Except for one point...
                        the LEM/Mahanta is supposed to depict
                        the Five Virtues.

                        The Five Virtues were/are Klemp's Catch-
                        22 that Ford trapped him with. Klemp,
                        once again, as he had with Darwin,
                        showed a lack of compassion and tolerance.
                        And, once again, only a small group
                        of the more enlightened ECKists (who
                        had finally seen the truth about Klemp
                        in the light of day) responded. Well,
                        maybe it was a smaller group this last
                        time. When HK kicked Darwin to the
                        curb there were many ECKits that left.
                        If Klemp would have handled that
                        situation with some intelligence,
                        compassion, and love Eckankar
                        would have, today, many more
                        experienced H.I.s and members
                        in general and be much stronger.


                        Prometheus

                        jonathan wrote:
                        >
                        > All,
                        >
                        > I wonder whether people are getting tired of all my commenting here, but this
                        paragraph by Ford Johnson is really sending me off the deep end. It is doing
                        that because I have no idea why he included it in the transmittal letter.
                        >
                        > Lets summarize. Ford Johnson wrote a very long book detailing all of the lies,
                        fabrications, and curses by Paul Twitchell, all of which had been continued by
                        Harold Klemp for the 20 years between the time Klemp took over in 1983 and 2003
                        when Ford sent a copy of said book to Klemp. In the book, Ford also points out
                        many of the deficiencies of Harold Klemp himself. And then Ford sends a copy of
                        the book to Klemp. The letter includes a paragraph nicely informing Klemp that
                        he still can clean up Paul Twitchell's lies, fabrications, and curses. Hmmm.
                        >
                        > On the surface of things, I am having a very hard time understanding why Ford
                        would have thought that Klemp would care one bit about anything Ford said in
                        "the paragraph." Did Ford add it just for the sake of completeness? Did he add
                        it just so Klemp had one last reminder about the right thing to do? That's the
                        only theory I can come up with now. Otherwise, "the paragraph" looks like a
                        bunch of craziness to me.
                        >
                        > Jonathan
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        jonathan wrote:
                        > >
                        > > All,
                        > >
                        > > I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the chances of
                        Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But I admire Ford for
                        at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't think Klemp will ever do
                        it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's writing about it on Ecknakar.org
                        about Paul being a master compiler, etc may have actually opened a crack in the
                        door. So I can almost give some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure
                        that a lot of former Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose
                        in writing that stuff.
                        > >
                        > > I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a possibility of
                        SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on what I know at the present
                        time I would find a complete housecleaning very hard to believe. However,
                        Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the history of Eckankar. Whose to say they
                        can't write Paul Twitchell out of the history of Eckankar over the next 50
                        years? Keep his basic principles that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage
                        out more and more.
                        > >
                        > > Jonatahn
                        > >
                        > >
                        jonathan wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks, Etznab,
                        > > >
                        > > > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this letter that you
                        link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of the first copies of
                        his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford actually does sound optimistic about the
                        possibility of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and
                        quote his paragraph here:
                        > > >
                        Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                        "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's talks when you
                        began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell. Obviously you did not go far
                        enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross settled into Paul's mythology,
                        perpetuating and reinforcing his fabrications. I know how difficult it would be
                        to remove the lies in Eckankar — extensively detailed in Confessions — and strip
                        it of the distortions of truth that mislead soul. However, I believe that
                        Eckankar could survive the cleaning. Not in the same form that it is today, but
                        in a purer form that accomplishes what all paths to God should; to teach, to
                        empower and then to set souls free to realize and experience their oneness with
                        ALL THAT IS."
                        > > >
                        > > > Jonathan
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        etznab@ wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                        > > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                        > > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                        > > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                        > > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                        > > > > accepted his conclusion.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Jonathan,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently believed that
                        > > > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last paragraph.)
                        > > > > Granted, not in the same form.
                        > > > >
                        http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                        > > > >
                        > > > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > > > From: jonathan
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > All,
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                        > > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read Ford's
                        > > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's lies that the
                        > > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection back in
                        > > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I immediately
                        > > > > accepted his conclusion.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the supposition
                        > > > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be the
                        > > > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the members
                        > > > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read Ford's
                        > > > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his general
                        > > > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his conclusion the
                        > > > > first time I read it in his book.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                        > > > > Jonathan
                      • etznab@aol.com
                        About the master compiler point, here is something perhaps none of you have ever seen (in such detail) before. http://tinyurl.com/2ua8pjx
                        Message 11 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          About the master compiler point, here is something
                          perhaps none of you have ever seen (in such detail)
                          before.

                          http://tinyurl.com/2ua8pjx

                          http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_thread/thread/638b86992cc197c3?hl=en#

                          Look at the third post, then go to the first one with a
                          paragraph by Swami Vivekananda.

                          Ford Johnson illustrated this topic in his book but -
                          as you will see - the apparent plagiarism of Swami
                          Vivekananda extends beyond the quote in The Path
                          of the Masters, by Julian Johnson.

                          Just recently discovered the extent of this myself.

                          Etznab

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                          To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 7:09 pm
                          Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                          clean" in 1983...

                           
                          All,

                          I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the chances of
                          Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But I admire
                          Ford for at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't think
                          Klemp will ever do it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's
                          writing about it on Ecknakar.org about Paul being a master compiler,
                          etc may have actually opened a crack in the door. So I can almost give
                          some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure that a lot of former
                          Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose in writing
                          that stuff.

                          I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a possibility of
                          SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on what I know at the
                          present time I would find a complete housecleaning very hard to
                          believe. However, Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the history of
                          Eckankar. Whose to say they can't write Paul Twitchell out of the
                          history of Eckankar over the next 50 years? Keep his basic principles
                          that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage out more and more.

                          Jonatahn

                          --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
                          <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Thanks, Etznab,
                          >
                          > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this letter
                          that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of
                          the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford actually does
                          sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar cleaning up
                          Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his paragraph here:
                          >
                          > Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                          > "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's talks
                          when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell. Obviously you
                          did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross settled into
                          Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his fabrications. I know
                          how difficult it would be to remove the lies in Eckankar — extensively
                          detailed in Confessions — and strip it of the distortions of truth that
                          mislead soul. However, I believe that Eckankar could survive the
                          cleaning. Not in the same form that it is today, but in a purer form
                          that accomplishes what all paths to God should; to teach, to empower
                          and then to set souls free to realize and experience their oneness with
                          ALL THAT IS."
                          >
                          > Jonathan
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                          > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read
                          Ford's
                          > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's
                          lies that the
                          > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection
                          back in
                          > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                          immediately
                          > > accepted his conclusion.
                          > >
                          > > Jonathan,
                          > >
                          > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently
                          believed that
                          > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last
                          paragraph.)
                          > > Granted, not in the same form.
                          > >
                          > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                          > >
                          > > -----Original Message-----
                          > > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@>
                          > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                          > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had
                          "come
                          > > clean" in 1983...
                          > >
                          > >  
                          > > All,
                          > >
                          > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                          > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read
                          Ford's
                          > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's
                          lies that the
                          > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection
                          back in
                          > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                          immediately
                          > > accepted his conclusion.
                          > >
                          > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the
                          supposition
                          > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be
                          the
                          > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the
                          members
                          > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read
                          Ford's
                          > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his
                          general
                          > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his
                          conclusion the
                          > > first time I read it in his book.
                          > >
                          > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                          > >
                          > > Jonathan
                          > >
                          >
                        • etznab@aol.com
                          Read the second open letter. It s a little different. http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/SecondOpenLetter.aspx ... From: jonathanjohns96
                          Message 12 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Read the second open letter. It's a little different.

                            http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/SecondOpenLetter.aspx

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                            To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 9:50 pm
                            Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                            clean" in 1983...

                             
                            All,

                            I wonder whether people are getting tired of all my commenting here,
                            but this paragraph by Ford Johnson is really sending me off the deep
                            end. It is doing that because I have no idea why he included it in the
                            transmittal letter.

                            Lets summarize. Ford Johnson wrote a very long book detailing all of
                            the lies, fabrications, and curses by Paul Twitchell, all of which had
                            been continued by Harold Klemp for the 20 years between the time Klemp
                            took over in 1983 and 2003 when Ford sent a copy of said book to Klemp.
                            In the book, Ford also points out many of the deficiencies of Harold
                            Klemp himself. And then Ford sends a copy of the book to Klemp. The
                            letter includes a paragraph nicely informing Klemp that he still can
                            clean up Paul Twitchell's lies, fabrications, and curses. Hmmm.

                            On the surface of things, I am having a very hard time understanding
                            why Ford would have thought that Klemp would care one bit about
                            anything Ford said in "the paragraph." Did Ford add it just for the
                            sake of completeness? Did he add it just so Klemp had one last reminder
                            about the right thing to do? That's the only theory I can come up with
                            now. Otherwise, "the paragraph" looks like a bunch of craziness to me.

                            Jonathan

                            --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
                            <jonathanjohns96@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > All,
                            >
                            > I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the
                            chances of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But
                            I admire Ford for at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't
                            think Klemp will ever do it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's
                            writing about it on Ecknakar.org about Paul being a master compiler,
                            etc may have actually opened a crack in the door. So I can almost give
                            some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure that a lot of former
                            Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose in writing
                            that stuff.
                            >
                            > I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a
                            possibility of SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on
                            what I know at the present time I would find a complete housecleaning
                            very hard to believe. However, Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the
                            history of Eckankar. Whose to say they can't write Paul Twitchell out
                            of the history of Eckankar over the next 50 years? Keep his basic
                            principles that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage out more and
                            more.
                            >
                            > Jonatahn
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                            "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Thanks, Etznab,
                            > >
                            > > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this
                            letter that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent
                            one of the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford
                            actually does sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar
                            cleaning up Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his
                            paragraph here:
                            > >
                            > > Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                            > > "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's
                            talks when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell.
                            Obviously you did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross
                            settled into Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his
                            fabrications. I know how difficult it would be to remove the lies in
                            Eckankar — extensively detailed in Confessions — and strip it of the
                            distortions of truth that mislead soul. However, I believe that
                            Eckankar could survive the cleaning. Not in the same form that it is
                            today, but in a purer form that accomplishes what all paths to God
                            should; to teach, to empower and then to set souls free to realize and
                            experience their oneness with ALL THAT IS."
                            > >
                            > > Jonathan
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@
                            wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's
                            book
                            > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally
                            read Ford's
                            > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up
                            Twitchell's lies that the
                            > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My
                            recollection back in
                            > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                            immediately
                            > > > accepted his conclusion.
                            > > >
                            > > > Jonathan,
                            > > >
                            > > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently
                            believed that
                            > > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See:
                            2nd-last paragraph.)
                            > > > Granted, not in the same form.
                            > > >
                            > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                            > > >
                            > > > -----Original Message-----
                            > > > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@>
                            > > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                            > > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp
                            had "come
                            > > > clean" in 1983...
                            > > >
                            > > >  
                            > > > All,
                            > > >
                            > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's
                            book
                            > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally
                            read Ford's
                            > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up
                            Twitchell's lies that the
                            > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My
                            recollection back in
                            > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                            immediately
                            > > > accepted his conclusion.
                            > > >
                            > > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the
                            supposition
                            > > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what
                            would be the
                            > > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction
                            by the members
                            > > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and
                            read Ford's
                            > > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with
                            his general
                            > > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his
                            conclusion the
                            > > > first time I read it in his book.
                            > > >
                            > > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                            > > >
                            > > > Jonathan
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • jonathanjohns96
                            Etznab, As soon as I read the following sentence by Julian Johnson quoting Vivekananda I said Yep. That s in Eckankar s writings somewhere. A man may
                            Message 13 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Etznab,

                              As soon as I read the following sentence by Julian Johnson quoting Vivekananda I said "Yep. That's in Eckankar's writings somewhere."

                              "A man may believe in all the churches in the world; he may carry in his head all the sacred books ever written; he may baptize himself in all the rivers of the earth - still if he has no perception of God, I would class him with the rankest atheist."

                              Interesting find because this sentence is such a memorable sentence for me. I remember the rest of the paragraph too, but not verbatim.

                              Jonathan


                              --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > About the master compiler point, here is something
                              > perhaps none of you have ever seen (in such detail)
                              > before.
                              >
                              > http://tinyurl.com/2ua8pjx
                              >
                              > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/browse_thread/thread/638b86992cc197c3?hl=en#
                              >
                              > Look at the third post, then go to the first one with a
                              > paragraph by Swami Vivekananda.
                              >
                              > Ford Johnson illustrated this topic in his book but -
                              > as you will see - the apparent plagiarism of Swami
                              > Vivekananda extends beyond the quote in The Path
                              > of the Masters, by Julian Johnson.
                              >
                              > Just recently discovered the extent of this myself.
                              >
                              > Etznab
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                              > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 7:09 pm
                              > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                              > clean" in 1983...
                              >
                              >  
                              > All,
                              >
                              > I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the chances of
                              > Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But I admire
                              > Ford for at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't think
                              > Klemp will ever do it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's
                              > writing about it on Ecknakar.org about Paul being a master compiler,
                              > etc may have actually opened a crack in the door. So I can almost give
                              > some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure that a lot of former
                              > Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose in writing
                              > that stuff.
                              >
                              > I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a possibility of
                              > SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on what I know at the
                              > present time I would find a complete housecleaning very hard to
                              > believe. However, Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the history of
                              > Eckankar. Whose to say they can't write Paul Twitchell out of the
                              > history of Eckankar over the next 50 years? Keep his basic principles
                              > that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage out more and more.
                              >
                              > Jonatahn
                              >
                              > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
                              > jonathanjohns96@ wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Thanks, Etznab,
                              > >
                              > > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this letter
                              > that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent one of
                              > the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford actually does
                              > sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar cleaning up
                              > Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his paragraph here:
                              > >
                              > > Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                              > > "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's talks
                              > when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell. Obviously you
                              > did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross settled into
                              > Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his fabrications. I know
                              > how difficult it would be to remove the lies in Eckankar â€" extensively
                              > detailed in Confessions â€" and strip it of the distortions of truth that
                              > mislead soul. However, I believe that Eckankar could survive the
                              > cleaning. Not in the same form that it is today, but in a purer form
                              > that accomplishes what all paths to God should; to teach, to empower
                              > and then to set souls free to realize and experience their oneness with
                              > ALL THAT IS."
                              > >
                              > > Jonathan
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                              > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read
                              > Ford's
                              > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's
                              > lies that the
                              > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection
                              > back in
                              > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                              > immediately
                              > > > accepted his conclusion.
                              > > >
                              > > > Jonathan,
                              > > >
                              > > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently
                              > believed that
                              > > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See: 2nd-last
                              > paragraph.)
                              > > > Granted, not in the same form.
                              > > >
                              > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                              > > >
                              > > > -----Original Message-----
                              > > > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@>
                              > > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                              > > > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                              > > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had
                              > "come
                              > > > clean" in 1983...
                              > > >
                              > > >  
                              > > > All,
                              > > >
                              > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's book
                              > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally read
                              > Ford's
                              > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up Twitchell's
                              > lies that the
                              > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My recollection
                              > back in
                              > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                              > immediately
                              > > > accepted his conclusion.
                              > > >
                              > > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the
                              > supposition
                              > > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what would be
                              > the
                              > > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction by the
                              > members
                              > > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and read
                              > Ford's
                              > > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with his
                              > general
                              > > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his
                              > conclusion the
                              > > > first time I read it in his book.
                              > > >
                              > > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                              > > >
                              > > > Jonathan
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • jonathanjohns96
                              Etznab, So that paragraph in the Ford s first letter to Klemp where Ford seems hopeful that Klemp will actually address Twitchell s lies and curses was in
                              Message 14 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Etznab,

                                So that paragraph in the Ford's first letter to Klemp where Ford seems hopeful that Klemp will actually address Twitchell's lies and curses was in July, 2003. Nine months later in April, 2004, Ford already concluded that Klemp wasn't going to do anything positive. Sounds fair to me especially since I would have assumed from the beginning that Klemp wasn't going to do anything.

                                I still wonder if Ford was just being polite.

                                Thanks for the additional information.

                                Jonathan


                                --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > Read the second open letter. It's a little different.
                                >
                                > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/SecondOpenLetter.aspx
                                >
                                > -----Original Message-----
                                > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@...>
                                > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 9:50 pm
                                > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come
                                > clean" in 1983...
                                >
                                >  
                                > All,
                                >
                                > I wonder whether people are getting tired of all my commenting here,
                                > but this paragraph by Ford Johnson is really sending me off the deep
                                > end. It is doing that because I have no idea why he included it in the
                                > transmittal letter.
                                >
                                > Lets summarize. Ford Johnson wrote a very long book detailing all of
                                > the lies, fabrications, and curses by Paul Twitchell, all of which had
                                > been continued by Harold Klemp for the 20 years between the time Klemp
                                > took over in 1983 and 2003 when Ford sent a copy of said book to Klemp.
                                > In the book, Ford also points out many of the deficiencies of Harold
                                > Klemp himself. And then Ford sends a copy of the book to Klemp. The
                                > letter includes a paragraph nicely informing Klemp that he still can
                                > clean up Paul Twitchell's lies, fabrications, and curses. Hmmm.
                                >
                                > On the surface of things, I am having a very hard time understanding
                                > why Ford would have thought that Klemp would care one bit about
                                > anything Ford said in "the paragraph." Did Ford add it just for the
                                > sake of completeness? Did he add it just so Klemp had one last reminder
                                > about the right thing to do? That's the only theory I can come up with
                                > now. Otherwise, "the paragraph" looks like a bunch of craziness to me.
                                >
                                > Jonathan
                                >
                                > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, "jonathanjohns96"
                                > jonathanjohns96@ wrote:
                                > >
                                > > All,
                                > >
                                > > I thought about this again for one minute. I still think the
                                > chances of Eckankar cleaning up Twitchell's lies are minutely slim. But
                                > I admire Ford for at least suggesting the possibility to Klemp. I don't
                                > think Klemp will ever do it. But I will accept the theory that Klemp's
                                > writing about it on Ecknakar.org about Paul being a master compiler,
                                > etc may have actually opened a crack in the door. So I can almost give
                                > some credit to klemp for that, although I am sure that a lot of former
                                > Eckists will disagree with me that this was Klemp's purpose in writing
                                > that stuff.
                                > >
                                > > I think when the next Eck master comes along there is a
                                > possibility of SOMETHING happening, but I'm not sure what. Based on
                                > what I know at the present time I would find a complete housecleaning
                                > very hard to believe. However, Eckankar wrote Darwin Gross out of the
                                > history of Eckankar. Whose to say they can't write Paul Twitchell out
                                > of the history of Eckankar over the next 50 years? Keep his basic
                                > principles that Ecknakar needs, but phase his personage out more and
                                > more.
                                > >
                                > > Jonatahn
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com,
                                > "jonathanjohns96" <jonathanjohns96@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Thanks, Etznab,
                                > > >
                                > > > That's very interesting. As stated on Ford's website, this
                                > letter that you link to is the transmittal letter for when Ford sent
                                > one of the first copies of his book "Confessions" to Klemp. Ford
                                > actually does sound optimistic about the possibility of Eckankar
                                > cleaning up Twitchell's lies. I'm going to go ahead and quote his
                                > paragraph here:
                                > > >
                                > > > Ford Johnson's letter to Klemp:
                                > > > "Perhaps you will finish what you started in your 1980's
                                > talks when you began to reveal the truth about Paul Twitchell.
                                > Obviously you did not go far enough. Instead, both you and Darwin Gross
                                > settled into Paul's mythology, perpetuating and reinforcing his
                                > fabrications. I know how difficult it would be to remove the lies in
                                > Eckankar â€" extensively detailed in Confessions â€" and strip it of the
                                > distortions of truth that mislead soul. However, I believe that
                                > Eckankar could survive the cleaning. Not in the same form that it is
                                > today, but in a purer form that accomplishes what all paths to God
                                > should; to teach, to empower and then to set souls free to realize and
                                > experience their oneness with ALL THAT IS."
                                > > >
                                > > > Jonathan
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com, etznab@
                                > wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's
                                > book
                                > > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally
                                > read Ford's
                                > > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up
                                > Twitchell's lies that the
                                > > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My
                                > recollection back in
                                > > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                                > immediately
                                > > > > accepted his conclusion.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Jonathan,
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Even after writing Confessions, Ford Johnson apparently
                                > believed that
                                > > > > .".. Eckankar could survive the cleaning." (See:
                                > 2nd-last paragraph.)
                                > > > > Granted, not in the same form.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/FirstOpenLetter.aspx
                                > > > >
                                > > > > -----Original Message-----
                                > > > > From: jonathanjohns96 <jonathanjohns96@>
                                > > > > To: EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > > Sent: Sat, Sep 18, 2010 5:11 pm
                                > > > > Subject: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp
                                > had "come
                                > > > > clean" in 1983...
                                > > > >
                                > > > >  
                                > > > > All,
                                > > > >
                                > > > > I just wanted to give some more credit to Ford Johnson's
                                > book
                                > > > > "Confessions Of A Godseeker." That is where I originally
                                > read Ford's
                                > > > > assertion that if Klemp had tried to clean up
                                > Twitchell's lies that the
                                > > > > entire teachings of Eckankar would unravel. My
                                > recollection back in
                                > > > > December of 2008 or "whenever I read it" was that I
                                > immediately
                                > > > > accepted his conclusion.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > When I decided to write this post I started out with the
                                > supposition
                                > > > > that "If Eckankar ever attempted to come clean, what
                                > would be the
                                > > > > likely approach, and what would be the likely reaction
                                > by the members
                                > > > > of Eckankar." But I didn't go back to "Confessions" and
                                > read Ford's
                                > > > > stuff again. I simply started out from scratch, but with
                                > his general
                                > > > > conclusion already in my head because I accepted his
                                > conclusion the
                                > > > > first time I read it in his book.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Just giving credit where credit is due.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Jonathan
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.