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

Re: [EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous] Re: What if Klemp had "come clean" in 1983...

Expand Messages
  • etznab@aol.com
    Read the second open letter. It s a little different. http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/SecondOpenLetter.aspx ... From: jonathanjohns96
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
      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 2 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
        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 3 of 14 , Sep 20, 2010
          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.