Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Nathan Zafran
- Oh, God, Sharon...mentioning Jerry Mulvin and his loss
of an initiation, makes me laugh....
What an old, old dream when I think of those
times...how deluded we were...
Jerry and I were waiting on the eve of the
presentation of the next LEM...he was convinced he was
to be "the one." Marjorie Klemp later told me that he
was very close. Now, he's a registered sex offender
for downloading child pornography while leading his
own "spiritual path", as a "master" to hook others up
to the sound current.
(I married Jerry when I was 19 and he was the one who
recruited me into the org....We were extremely active,
encouraged by Paul Twitchell to "spread the word",
which we did in Los Angeles, California in those
years. Finally, at 27 we divorced and I began my
"real life"...haven't regretted it at all...ever...I'm
just thankful I "woke up". I've been happily married
for 23 years and have a fulfilled life for which I'm
very grateful. Liberation was what saved me.)
--- Sharon <brighttigress@...> wrote:
> --- In eckankartruth@y..., "John Hellyer"=====
> <john_hellyer@h...> wrote:
> > It is really difficult to protect the greedy.
> I had to think about this one awhile, John, before
> it hit me!
> Very true! And...this goes not only for
> money-making schemes, but
> for just about anything else - like e-kult. If
> someone *wants* to
> believe, they're going to.
> I looked at the website where David found the
> posting about Nathan,
> and it looks like he's got a lot of supporters - so
> who knows whether
> it's true or not? And...is it really important?
> My main thought is that as one grows spiritually,
> one will naturally
> have higher ethics. If the cult was all it claimed
> itself to be,
> there would be more signs of this in the members,
> but there's not.
> But, I'll betcha that if Nathan was de-clergied
> because of his
> financial dealings, it's more likely that he was
> de-clergied because
> perhaps he was soliciting investors in the cult -
> sort of a conflict
> of interest - but the problem wasn't unethical
> behavior, it was not
> putting the cult first. Sort of like when Jerry
> Mulvin lost an
> initiation for setting up his own herb business
> which seemed to
> interfere with Gail's Sunasu MLM racket.
> Wasn't it Sword who wrote about an HI who ripped off
> some other
> eckists, but evidently this one was "loyal" enough
> to the cult so
> basically no one cared, and the ones who got ripped
> off were told it
> was karma or something?
> Well...just some thoughts!
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David D. Rogers
> > To: eckankartruth@y...
> > Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:50 AM
> > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Nathan Zafran
> > --- In eckankartruth@y..., Randy Cable
> <doodah952000@y...> wrote:
> > > I find it incredible that our government has
> > > invetigated this Nathan. I also find it
> > > that a class action lawsuit has not been filed
> > > him. If Providian Bank can loose a class
> > > lawsuit, then why not Nathan? If someone
> brings his
> > > actions to the attention of the US government
> > > crimes will be brought to light, otherwise the
> > > below are cyber-space legend and nothing more.
> > > Randy
> > Well, as far as I can tell, Nathan is based in
> Canada, and his
> > "Financial Prosperity Club" is based "offshore",
> so any law
> > enforcement would have to involve the
> cooperation of other
> > The U.S. government can only do so much, and a
> lawsuit might have
> > be filed in a Canadian court or in a third
> country. Plus, the
> post I
> > quoted was made only about four months ago. I
> don't know if the
> > or Canadian governments are investigating this,
> but for the sake
> > argument, let's assume they found out about this
> just a few months
> > ago. If the operation is even remotely as big as
> the person
> making the
> > allegations suggests, they would probably want
> to do a _lot_ of
> > investigating before filing any charges. It sure
> suspicious, and
> > I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if
> Nathan's "club" had
> > to do with his loosing his status in Eckankar. I
> *haven't* said
> > Nathan is anything more than "allegedly"
> involved in a scam, but
> I am
> > comfortable enough to post about the allegations
> because it *does*
> > look suspicious enough. Wait and see what the
> government(s) do,
> or if
> > anything happens at all.
> > -David
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged,
confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the person(s) named. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure to another person is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos