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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.