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

The Sunday morning Worship service in Christianity

Expand Messages
  • jonathanjohns96
    All, ... Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the sense that he
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 25, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      All,

      In my previous post I stated:

      > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
      > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
      > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
      > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
      > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.

      Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally never felt obligated to worship Paul.

      But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships it.

      So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the members of the church which were called "his congregation." This service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and commonly used term in Christianity for this event.

      In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something. The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to bring a Bible from home.

      Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest" or "family day."

      Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.

      Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day, usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar shamelessly copied Christianity.

      There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like Christianity's worship service.

      The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from a Christian background."

      So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of Christianity.

      I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a country that was not predominantly Christian.

      Jonathan



      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
      >
      > Leaf,
      >
      > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
      >
      > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
      >
      > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
      >
      > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
      >
      > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
      > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
      > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
      > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
      >
      > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
      >
      > Jonathan
      >
      >
      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
      > >
      > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
      > >
      > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
      > >
      > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
      > >
      > > Quote:
      > >
      > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
      > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
      > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
      > > proper names of the same masters.
      > >
      > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
      > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
      > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
      > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
      > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
      > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
      > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
      > > prevent that confusion, imo.
      > >
      > > Jasmyn
      > >
      > > Endquote
      > >
      > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
      > >
      > > Leaf
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
      > > >
      > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
      > > >
      > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • tomleafeater
      ... ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don t recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar s
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 26, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        See my responses marked with asterisks below:



        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        > Leaf,
        >
        > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
        >

        ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.

        By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.



        > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
        >


        ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.



        > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
        >



        ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.

        *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]

        The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.



        > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
        >
        > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
        > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
        > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
        > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
        >



        ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.

        Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.

        But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.

        But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.

        Speaking for me only,

        Leaf



        > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
        >
        > Jonathan
        >

        > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
        > >
        > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
        > >
        > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
        > >
        > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
        > >
        > > Quote:
        > >
        > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
        > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
        > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
        > > proper names of the same masters.
        > >
        > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
        > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
        > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
        > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
        > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
        > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
        > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
        > > prevent that confusion, imo.
        > >
        > > Jasmyn
        > >
        > > Endquote
        > >
        > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
        > >
        > > Leaf
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
        > > >
        > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
        > > >
        > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • jonathanjohns96
        Leaf, Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar,
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 26, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Leaf,

          Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar, but I missed this:

          Leaf "The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification."

          By the way, my posts are often not showing up on Yahoo message boards; I don't know why. And sometimes they show up three days late. I have a detailed commentary on what a Christian worship service is (from my childhood memories). I posted it to Eckankar Truth twice already, but it hasn't shown up. It is probably nothing new to you, but I thought some Hindus in India might be interested to learn what happens at a Christian church Sunday morning, and how Eckankar's worship service compares with that.

          Of course, I am assuming that this post you are reading now will show up.

          Jonathan

          P.S. And thanks for the comments about a.r.e.; I'm going to remember them. It might help me to figure out what is really going on over there. In some ways I don't mind Jasmyn because I pretty much know what to expect. And she actual writes in an understandable fashion. I have been trying to just overlook her comments because my purpose over there is not to get into arguments and/or cause trouble. Sometimes I can't help myself though.

          ----------------------------------------------------

          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > See my responses marked with asterisks below:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Leaf,
          > >
          > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
          > >
          >
          > ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.
          >
          > By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.
          >
          >
          >
          > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
          > >
          >
          >
          > ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.
          >
          >
          >
          > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.
          >
          > *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]
          >
          > The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.
          >
          >
          >
          > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
          > >
          > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
          > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
          > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
          > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.
          >
          > Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.
          >
          > But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.
          >
          > But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.
          >
          > Speaking for me only,
          >
          > Leaf
          >
          >
          >
          > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
          > >
          > > Jonathan
          > >
          >
          > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
          > > >
          > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
          > > >
          > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
          > > >
          > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
          > > >
          > > > Quote:
          > > >
          > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
          > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
          > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
          > > > proper names of the same masters.
          > > >
          > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
          > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
          > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
          > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
          > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
          > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
          > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
          > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
          > > >
          > > > Jasmyn
          > > >
          > > > Endquote
          > > >
          > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
          > > >
          > > > Leaf
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
          > > > >
          > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
          > > > >
          > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
          > > > >
          > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
          > > > >
          > > >
          > >
          >
        • RR
          They have them: what today is a crest, was back then in hand to hand combat a shield.  Catholic Christian Orders maintain their own trademark. Many families
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 26, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            They have them: what today is a crest, was back then in hand to hand combat a shield.  Catholic Christian Orders maintain their own "trademark."
            Many families create their own.


            --- On Mon, 7/26/10, tomleafeater <tianyue@...> wrote:

            From: tomleafeater <tianyue@...>
            Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Should religions be granted trademarks?
            To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Monday, July 26, 2010, 3:05 PM

             



            See my responses marked with asterisks below:

            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
            >
            > Leaf,
            >
            > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
            >

            ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.

            By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.

            > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
            >

            ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.

            > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
            >

            ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.

            *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]

            The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.

            > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
            >
            > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
            > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
            > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
            > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
            >

            ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.

            Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.

            But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.

            But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.

            Speaking for me only,

            Leaf

            > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
            >
            > Jonathan
            >

            > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
            > >
            > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
            > >
            > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
            > >
            > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
            > >
            > > Quote:
            > >
            > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
            > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
            > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
            > > proper names of the same masters.
            > >
            > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
            > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
            > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
            > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
            > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
            > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
            > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
            > > prevent that confusion, imo.
            > >
            > > Jasmyn
            > >
            > > Endquote
            > >
            > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
            > >
            > > Leaf
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
            > > >
            > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
            > > >
            > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
            > > >
            > >
            >

          • tomleafeater
            My posts haven t been showing up sometimes as well, Jonathan. I ve been posting them twice, then deleting the extra one if both show up. Looks like Yahoo is
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 27, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              My posts haven't been showing up sometimes as well, Jonathan. I've been posting them twice, then deleting the extra one if both show up. Looks like Yahoo is acting funny lately. I notice you're posting a lot of stuff at a.r.e. -- that's courageous of you. A.r.e. can get pretty hateful... ;)

              Leaf

              --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
              >
              > Leaf,
              >
              > Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar, but I missed this:
              >
              > Leaf "The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification."
              >
              > By the way, my posts are often not showing up on Yahoo message boards; I don't know why. And sometimes they show up three days late. I have a detailed commentary on what a Christian worship service is (from my childhood memories). I posted it to Eckankar Truth twice already, but it hasn't shown up. It is probably nothing new to you, but I thought some Hindus in India might be interested to learn what happens at a Christian church Sunday morning, and how Eckankar's worship service compares with that.
              >
              > Of course, I am assuming that this post you are reading now will show up.
              >
              > Jonathan
              >
              > P.S. And thanks for the comments about a.r.e.; I'm going to remember them. It might help me to figure out what is really going on over there. In some ways I don't mind Jasmyn because I pretty much know what to expect. And she actual writes in an understandable fashion. I have been trying to just overlook her comments because my purpose over there is not to get into arguments and/or cause trouble. Sometimes I can't help myself though.
              >
              > ----------------------------------------------------
              >
              > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > See my responses marked with asterisks below:
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Leaf,
              > > >
              > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
              > > >
              > >
              > > ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.
              > >
              > > By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.
              > >
              > > *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]
              > >
              > > The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
              > > >
              > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
              > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
              > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
              > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.
              > >
              > > Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.
              > >
              > > But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.
              > >
              > > But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.
              > >
              > > Speaking for me only,
              > >
              > > Leaf
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
              > > >
              > > > Jonathan
              > > >
              > >
              > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
              > > > >
              > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
              > > > >
              > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
              > > > >
              > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
              > > > >
              > > > > Quote:
              > > > >
              > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
              > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
              > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
              > > > > proper names of the same masters.
              > > > >
              > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
              > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
              > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
              > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
              > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
              > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
              > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
              > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
              > > > >
              > > > > Jasmyn
              > > > >
              > > > > Endquote
              > > > >
              > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
              > > > >
              > > > > Leaf
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • jonathanjohns96
              Leaf, Thanks for telling me that. I m feeling a lot better now. I was getting paranoid and wondering whether someone from Eckankar was working for Yahoo and
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 27, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Leaf,

                Thanks for telling me that. I'm feeling a lot better now. I was getting paranoid and wondering whether someone from Eckankar was working for Yahoo and messing up my posts. I knew it was probably just Yahoo's servers or something messing up.

                Over on a.r.e., I got a little bit overzealous with a post with Rich; many would probably say I was mean, and I wouldn't necessarily deny that. Then he got really mean with me (my perception). Then I got really angry and started cross-posting every one of my worthwhile posts from ET and ESA over to a.r.e. So right now it is one big soap opera. I have no intentions in getting into long, drawn-out conversations over there. I can deal with Etznab, JR, and even Jasmyn to some degree. But right now, I can't think of anyone else who even communicates like a normal human being. I'm wondering whether all of the weird people over there were hired by Eckankar to just keep a.r.e off kilter since Ecknakar has no control over what is said on the board.

                But I discovered one thing. I have a really hard time dealing with people who are codependent and then refuse to express an opinion (aka members of Eckankar), but instead just give you a quote form Ecknakar or somewhere else. That's probably because that is how I was in my nuclear family, then for almost 29 years in Eckankar. I actually never gave quotes of any kind to people, but I was hesitant or even afraid to express my opinion for almost my entire life.

                So I'm trying to think of something positive to say. I guess I will say to those of you who were in Ecknakar, and had a codependent personality, and were afraid to give your opinion, try to find some way to transform your personality to something better. For me, the many different methods in EFT (Emotional Freedom Technique) have been useful for me.

                Jonathan



                --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@...> wrote:
                >
                > My posts haven't been showing up sometimes as well, Jonathan. I've been posting them twice, then deleting the extra one if both show up. Looks like Yahoo is acting funny lately. I notice you're posting a lot of stuff at a.r.e. -- that's courageous of you. A.r.e. can get pretty hateful... ;)
                >
                > Leaf
                >
                > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Leaf,
                > >
                > > Great comments. And I never even thought about the following comment that you made. I believed that I had thought about everything regarding Eckankar, but I missed this:
                > >
                > > Leaf "The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification."
                > >
                > > By the way, my posts are often not showing up on Yahoo message boards; I don't know why. And sometimes they show up three days late. I have a detailed commentary on what a Christian worship service is (from my childhood memories). I posted it to Eckankar Truth twice already, but it hasn't shown up. It is probably nothing new to you, but I thought some Hindus in India might be interested to learn what happens at a Christian church Sunday morning, and how Eckankar's worship service compares with that.
                > >
                > > Of course, I am assuming that this post you are reading now will show up.
                > >
                > > Jonathan
                > >
                > > P.S. And thanks for the comments about a.r.e.; I'm going to remember them. It might help me to figure out what is really going on over there. In some ways I don't mind Jasmyn because I pretty much know what to expect. And she actual writes in an understandable fashion. I have been trying to just overlook her comments because my purpose over there is not to get into arguments and/or cause trouble. Sometimes I can't help myself though.
                > >
                > > ----------------------------------------------------
                > >
                > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > See my responses marked with asterisks below:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > > Leaf,
                > > > >
                > > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things. Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only one that I know of.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > > ***Yes, Jasmyn is a relative newbie on a.r.e. I don't recall her being around during the big debates when quite a few detractors were taking on Eckankar's claims. So she is more unguarded, and follows the party line. I would say that the others, especially Rich, Ken, Doug, Michael, etc, are much more supportive of the party line than they might appear at first glance. But they are more guarded, having been through the intense period of debates that went on for years on a.r.e. Newbies are often a lot more "fun," because they inadvertently reveal, through the party line comments, the indoctrination and cultism so common in Eckankar. They haven't yet learned to rephrase their remarks as the old-timers have.
                > > >
                > > > By the way, a few of these Ecksts, such as Rich, for example, do "monitor" these ex-eckankar sites (such as eckankartruth) fairly regularly. You can be sure that your comments here are read by some of them. They will bookmark links to any comments they think are useful that could discredit any of the participants here for later use. Rich, especially, is known for this. Eckankar certainly, without doubt, assigns people to monitor the internet for criticism and negative comments about eckankar.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example, confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ***In The Path of the Masters, the word eckankar appears, but it is spelled without the "c" as "ekankar," but is otherwise identical. This is highly significant because The Path of the Masters by Julian Jonson was the basic model that Twitchell used as the primary source text for creation of Eckankar. I don't think adding a "c" changes the word enough to support their use of the word as a unique trademark, but again, we're living in a Eurocentric society that is often ignorant of the religious traditions of other cultures. All of the words trademarked are words borrowed from Eastern traditions. Even "mahanta" is not unique to eckankar, meaning "head of a monastery" (such as an abbot) in Hindi.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated. From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with them either.)
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ***All good points, Jonathan. The reason Eckankar feels threatened by other groups is because Eckankar has no verifiable history and no admitted connection to an established tradition or line of masters* and thus all it has are the trademarks to protect its brand. If it had a provable history complete with all the supporting documents, it could use that as a way to establish authenticity, but lacking that, it stands on the very weak position of trademarks to maintain some sort of brand identification.
                > > >
                > > > *[that is to say, no established tradition other than its true origins of Radhasoami and Ruhani Satsang, which Eckankar leaders try to distance themselves from with the obfuscating explanation that Twitchell "studied numerous paths," which ignores the fact that Eckankar is, despite a few differences, almost an identical match to Radhasoami and that PT heavily plagiarized Julian Johnson - read the J.J. books cover to cover and you get a sense of this]
                > > >
                > > > The trademark issue is not a new one in Eckankar. People have been debating this stuff for years. There is no "new" information coming from eckankar that will materially change the debate, other than more spin of the truth, unless the leadership comes forth with honest admissions, which isn't likely to happen.
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                > > > >
                > > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                > > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                > > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                > > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again, seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > ***Yes, Klemp has been creating rituals and ceremonies, such as worship services, consecration ceremonies, a coming of age ceremony, memorial services, Hu songs, hymns, (Amazing grace, etc), prayers, and other such familiar trappings in an attempt to Christianize and further Westernize Eckankar in order to better sell the product to the Christian world. PT Westernized Eckankar too, but he didn't go as far as Klemp. PT reduced the time required by Radhasoami/Ruhani to spend in meditation, eliminated the vegetarian requirement, and Westernized the teachings enough to make them more comfortable for Christian society. Klemp is continuing that trend.
                > > >
                > > > Klemp also eliminated some of PT's more esoteric books, and has moved PT's discourses to the very end of the study sequence (if they are offered at all anymore), and edited the rest of PT's books that are still offered. Part of this is probably being done to eliminate some of the plagiarism, but it's also to further westernize the teachings. Klemp is from the Midwest, and anyone who has spent time in that region knows the Midwest will not accept Eckankar unless it is Christianized.
                > > >
                > > > But it's not working. Eckankar membership, according to observations of seminar attendance and other reports, is at an all time low. The books, once common in bookstores, are now less widely distributed. And the internet hasn't helped Eckankar, since the truth about eckankar has become widely available through that medium.
                > > >
                > > > But what really undermines eckankar are the lies about its history, the fact that it is a rip-off of somewhat more authentic teachings, the attempt to cover up its true heritage and origins, the various controlling and manipulative devices to entrap the follower through fear, the attempts to suppress dissent and questioning. All three of Eckankar's leaders have contributed to the charade.
                > > >
                > > > Speaking for me only,
                > > >
                > > > Leaf
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                > > > >
                > > > > Jonathan
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater" <tianyue@> wrote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this very topic.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                > > > > >
                > > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan, between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the trademarks.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Quote:
                > > > > >
                > > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not to have
                > > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are several
                > > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even using the
                > > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to officially use
                > > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi ECK
                > > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the general public
                > > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated from the
                > > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people who might
                > > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously and think
                > > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to try to
                > > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Jasmyn
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Endquote
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson, the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common words from another culture's language.
                > > > > >
                > > > > > Leaf
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@> wrote:
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the trademark.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just businesses, not religions.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                > > > > > >
                > > > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • etznab@aol.com
                I think the Sunday service used to be a round table discussion where the chairs were in a circle and not theater style. A HU Chant on Sunday, too. Does anybody
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 27, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think the Sunday service used to be a
                  round table discussion where the chairs
                  were in a circle and not theater style. A
                  HU Chant on Sunday, too.

                  Does anybody remember it like that?

                  Etznab

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                  To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                  Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service in
                  Christianity

                   
                  All,

                  In my previous post I stated:

                  > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                  > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                  > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                  > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                  > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.

                  Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did
                  encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the
                  sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will
                  automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally
                  never felt obligated to worship Paul.

                  But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant
                  as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is
                  concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was
                  supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And
                  assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in
                  Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who
                  would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in
                  Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships
                  it.

                  So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to
                  explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                  familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority
                  of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day
                  (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant
                  (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday
                  school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be
                  taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came
                  what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the
                  main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the
                  members of the church which were called "his congregation." This
                  service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or
                  "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and
                  commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                  In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at
                  the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the
                  sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about
                  life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual
                  singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the
                  singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by
                  the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something.
                  The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to
                  bring a Bible from home.

                  Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday
                  morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning
                  Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very
                  little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big
                  deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States
                  had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest"
                  or "family day."

                  Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no
                  reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at
                  the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.

                  Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning
                  Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day,
                  usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu
                  chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of
                  time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves
                  some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual
                  Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian
                  minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar
                  shamelessly copied Christianity.

                  There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although
                  I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering
                  whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like
                  Christianity's worship service.

                  The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for
                  one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members
                  who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like
                  Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from
                  a Christian background."

                  So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's
                  implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                  Christianity.

                  I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted
                  to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a
                  country that was not predominantly Christian.

                  Jonathan

                  --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                  <no_reply@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Leaf,
                  >
                  > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so
                  I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person
                  who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things.
                  Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only
                  one that I know of.
                  >
                  > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is
                  stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example,
                  confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar
                  may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed
                  to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in
                  Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole
                  it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                  >
                  > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated.
                  From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late
                  2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to
                  preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the
                  teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has
                  nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying
                  that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow
                  undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                  suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with
                  them either.)
                  >
                  > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done
                  more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the
                  facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                  >
                  > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never
                  intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                  > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning
                  "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state
                  that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service
                  was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                  Christianity.
                  > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is
                  too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                  > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to
                  say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again,
                  seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new
                  members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                  >
                  > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                  teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing
                  more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have
                  wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more
                  likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let
                  Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether
                  Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                  >
                  > Jonathan
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                  <tianyue@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this
                  very topic.
                  > >
                  > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                  > >
                  > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan,
                  between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by
                  an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the
                  trademarks.
                  > >
                  > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                  > >
                  > > Quote:
                  > >
                  > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not
                  to have
                  > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are
                  several
                  > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even
                  using the
                  > > proper names of the same masters.
                  > >
                  > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to
                  officially use
                  > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                  ECK
                  > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the
                  general public
                  > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated
                  from the
                  > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people
                  who might
                  > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously
                  and think
                  > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to
                  try to
                  > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                  > >
                  > > Jasmyn
                  > >
                  > > Endquote
                  > >
                  > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word
                  "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson,
                  the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon
                  which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were
                  found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I
                  have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's
                  ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that
                  ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common
                  words from another culture's language.
                  > >
                  > > Leaf
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                  <no_reply@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to
                  Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to
                  Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me
                  that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics
                  could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for
                  violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus
                  Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the
                  trademark.
                  > > >
                  > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it
                  issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take
                  place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office
                  needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to
                  stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with
                  trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just
                  businesses, not religions.
                  > > >
                  > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that
                  trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • jonathanjohns96
                  Etznab, Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two different situations in two different Eck centers in two different parts of the United
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 28, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Etznab,

                    Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two different situations in two different Eck centers in two different parts of the United States:

                    (1) An Eck Center in a large metropolitan area used the theater seating. And the format was very much like a sermon in church, but WITH audience participation. But definitely not a roundtable discussion, although some people did rant, and it sometimes it seemed somewhat like a roundtable discussion.

                    (2) An Eck Center in a moderately sized metropolitan area where the chairs were arranged in a circle. They had the standard "sermon" by the Eckist in charge for that day. However, it was much more like a roundtable discussion. As the director of the Eck center said "WE found that people like to let it turn into a BS session." In other words, the director of the Eck center was looking out for the needs of the local Eckists. By the way, I can confirm that this director is exactly right in what he said about what the local Eckists want.

                    Of course, Eckankar's official policy is #1, probably because they want it to appear like "church" to newcomers. But the actual needs of the Eckists are #2. Of course, Klemp, being totally out of touch with the needs of the local Eckists tries to enforce #1 on the local centers.

                    Thanks for your comment though. You are so right about the seating. I do think it was probably in a circle originally, but then I believe that the demagogues at Eckankar headquarters enforced #2 on the local centers. I just thought I would let you know that there are still a few renegades in Eckankar who go against the "enforcers" in Chanhassan.

                    Jonathan


                    --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                    >
                    > I think the Sunday service used to be a
                    > round table discussion where the chairs
                    > were in a circle and not theater style. A
                    > HU Chant on Sunday, too.
                    >
                    > Does anybody remember it like that?
                    >
                    > Etznab
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                    > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                    > Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service in
                    > Christianity
                    >
                    >  
                    > All,
                    >
                    > In my previous post I stated:
                    >
                    > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                    > > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                    > > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                    > > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                    > > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                    >
                    > Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did
                    > encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the
                    > sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will
                    > automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally
                    > never felt obligated to worship Paul.
                    >
                    > But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant
                    > as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is
                    > concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was
                    > supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And
                    > assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in
                    > Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who
                    > would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in
                    > Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships
                    > it.
                    >
                    > So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to
                    > explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                    > familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority
                    > of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day
                    > (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant
                    > (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday
                    > school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be
                    > taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came
                    > what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the
                    > main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the
                    > members of the church which were called "his congregation." This
                    > service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or
                    > "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and
                    > commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                    > In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at
                    > the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the
                    > sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about
                    > life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual
                    > singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the
                    > singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by
                    > the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something.
                    > The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to
                    > bring a Bible from home.
                    >
                    > Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday
                    > morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning
                    > Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very
                    > little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big
                    > deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States
                    > had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest"
                    > or "family day."
                    >
                    > Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no
                    > reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at
                    > the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.
                    >
                    > Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning
                    > Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day,
                    > usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu
                    > chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of
                    > time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves
                    > some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual
                    > Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian
                    > minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar
                    > shamelessly copied Christianity.
                    >
                    > There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although
                    > I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering
                    > whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like
                    > Christianity's worship service.
                    >
                    > The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for
                    > one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members
                    > who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like
                    > Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from
                    > a Christian background."
                    >
                    > So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's
                    > implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                    > Christianity.
                    >
                    > I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted
                    > to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a
                    > country that was not predominantly Christian.
                    >
                    > Jonathan
                    >
                    > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                    > no_reply@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Leaf,
                    > >
                    > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so
                    > I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person
                    > who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things.
                    > Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only
                    > one that I know of.
                    > >
                    > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is
                    > stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example,
                    > confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar
                    > may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed
                    > to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in
                    > Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole
                    > it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                    > >
                    > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated.
                    > From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late
                    > 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to
                    > preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the
                    > teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has
                    > nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying
                    > that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow
                    > undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                    > suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with
                    > them either.)
                    > >
                    > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done
                    > more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the
                    > facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                    > >
                    > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never
                    > intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                    > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning
                    > "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state
                    > that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service
                    > was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                    > Christianity.
                    > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is
                    > too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                    > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to
                    > say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again,
                    > seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new
                    > members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                    > >
                    > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                    > teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing
                    > more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have
                    > wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more
                    > likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let
                    > Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether
                    > Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                    > >
                    > > Jonathan
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                    > <tianyue@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this
                    > very topic.
                    > > >
                    > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                    > > >
                    > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan,
                    > between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by
                    > an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the
                    > trademarks.
                    > > >
                    > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                    > > >
                    > > > Quote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not
                    > to have
                    > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are
                    > several
                    > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even
                    > using the
                    > > > proper names of the same masters.
                    > > >
                    > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to
                    > officially use
                    > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                    > ECK
                    > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the
                    > general public
                    > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated
                    > from the
                    > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people
                    > who might
                    > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously
                    > and think
                    > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to
                    > try to
                    > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                    > > >
                    > > > Jasmyn
                    > > >
                    > > > Endquote
                    > > >
                    > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word
                    > "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson,
                    > the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon
                    > which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were
                    > found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I
                    > have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's
                    > ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that
                    > ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common
                    > words from another culture's language.
                    > > >
                    > > > Leaf
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                    > <no_reply@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to
                    > Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to
                    > Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me
                    > that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics
                    > could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for
                    > violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus
                    > Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the
                    > trademark.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it
                    > issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take
                    > place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office
                    > needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to
                    > stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with
                    > trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just
                    > businesses, not religions.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that
                    > trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • jonathanjohns96
                    Etznab, You mentioned the HU. Yes, My memory is that every worship service I attended started with a HU, but it was a very short one, perhaps 2 to 3 minutes. I
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 28, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Etznab,

                      You mentioned the HU. Yes, My memory is that every worship service I attended started with a HU, but it was a very short one, perhaps 2 to 3 minutes.

                      I never saw a situation where there was a worship service in the morning at say 11 AM, and then a full HU chant of 20-30 minutes at say 8 PM.

                      Jonathan

                      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Etznab,
                      >
                      > Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two different situations in two different Eck centers in two different parts of the United States:
                      >
                      > (1) An Eck Center in a large metropolitan area used the theater seating. And the format was very much like a sermon in church, but WITH audience participation. But definitely not a roundtable discussion, although some people did rant, and it sometimes it seemed somewhat like a roundtable discussion.
                      >
                      > (2) An Eck Center in a moderately sized metropolitan area where the chairs were arranged in a circle. They had the standard "sermon" by the Eckist in charge for that day. However, it was much more like a roundtable discussion. As the director of the Eck center said "WE found that people like to let it turn into a BS session." In other words, the director of the Eck center was looking out for the needs of the local Eckists. By the way, I can confirm that this director is exactly right in what he said about what the local Eckists want.
                      >
                      > Of course, Eckankar's official policy is #1, probably because they want it to appear like "church" to newcomers. But the actual needs of the Eckists are #2. Of course, Klemp, being totally out of touch with the needs of the local Eckists tries to enforce #1 on the local centers.
                      >
                      > Thanks for your comment though. You are so right about the seating. I do think it was probably in a circle originally, but then I believe that the demagogues at Eckankar headquarters enforced #2 on the local centers. I just thought I would let you know that there are still a few renegades in Eckankar who go against the "enforcers" in Chanhassan.
                      >
                      > Jonathan
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > > I think the Sunday service used to be a
                      > > round table discussion where the chairs
                      > > were in a circle and not theater style. A
                      > > HU Chant on Sunday, too.
                      > >
                      > > Does anybody remember it like that?
                      > >
                      > > Etznab
                      > >
                      > > -----Original Message-----
                      > > From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                      > > Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service in
                      > > Christianity
                      > >
                      > >  
                      > > All,
                      > >
                      > > In my previous post I stated:
                      > >
                      > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                      > > > morning "worship service" even though the original teachings
                      > > > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                      > > > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                      > > > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                      > >
                      > > Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul Twitchell did
                      > > encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that in the
                      > > sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers will
                      > > automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I personally
                      > > never felt obligated to worship Paul.
                      > >
                      > > But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly insignificant
                      > > as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service is
                      > > concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship service was
                      > > supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the time. And
                      > > assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped in
                      > > Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an Eckist who
                      > > would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced in
                      > > Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether anyone worships
                      > > it.
                      > >
                      > > So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I am going to
                      > > explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                      > > familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast majority
                      > > of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be their holy day
                      > > (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my Protestant
                      > > (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for Sunday
                      > > school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for children to be
                      > > taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over, then came
                      > > what my family called "church" which was a service conducted in the
                      > > main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked to the
                      > > members of the church which were called "his congregation." This
                      > > service was also commonly referred to as the church's "service" or
                      > > "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known and
                      > > commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                      > > In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would stand up at
                      > > the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but the
                      > > sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or "lesson about
                      > > life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as individual
                      > > singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying the
                      > > singing. There were also times when the congregation was instructed by
                      > > the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read something.
                      > > The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you didn't have to
                      > > bring a Bible from home.
                      > >
                      > > Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no Sunday
                      > > morning worship service. My memory was that there was a Sunday morning
                      > > Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I saw very
                      > > little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same day, big
                      > > deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the United States
                      > > had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day of rest"
                      > > or "family day."
                      > >
                      > > Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture, no
                      > > reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief reading at
                      > > the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.
                      > >
                      > > Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday morning
                      > > Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to another day,
                      > > usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday morning Hu
                      > > chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture" ahead of
                      > > time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk" usually involves
                      > > some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an actual
                      > > Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a Christian
                      > > minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how Eckankar
                      > > shamelessly copied Christianity.
                      > >
                      > > There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services, although
                      > > I actually supported starting that. But now I am really wondering
                      > > whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too much like
                      > > Christianity's worship service.
                      > >
                      > > The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was done for
                      > > one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar. Specifically, members
                      > > who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar look like
                      > > Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are coming from
                      > > a Christian background."
                      > >
                      > > So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that Eckankar's
                      > > implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                      > > Christianity.
                      > >
                      > > I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but I wanted
                      > > to reach a broader audience including people who were raised outside a
                      > > country that was not predominantly Christian.
                      > >
                      > > Jonathan
                      > >
                      > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                      > > no_reply@ wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > Leaf,
                      > > >
                      > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments recently so
                      > > I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is the person
                      > > who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of things.
                      > > Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is the only
                      > > one that I know of.
                      > > >
                      > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line She is
                      > > stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for example,
                      > > confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view she/Eckankar
                      > > may have a point. I still don't think that religions should be allowed
                      > > to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God) was in
                      > > Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul Twitchell stole
                      > > it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to trademark it?
                      > > >
                      > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn stated.
                      > > From what I heard from higher initiates before I left Eckankar in late
                      > > 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in order to
                      > > preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that whether the
                      > > teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them. It has
                      > > nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like saying
                      > > that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that somehow
                      > > undercut the purity of the teachings of Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                      > > suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't agree with
                      > > them either.)
                      > > >
                      > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold Klemp has done
                      > > more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look at the
                      > > facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                      > > >
                      > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell never
                      > > intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                      > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday morning
                      > > "worship service" even though the original teachings of Eckankar state
                      > > that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship service
                      > > was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                      > > Christianity.
                      > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the former is
                      > > too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                      > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the HU sing to
                      > > say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer. Again,
                      > > seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any potential new
                      > > members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like Christianity.
                      > > >
                      > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                      > > teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since he is doing
                      > > more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I have
                      > > wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar. It is more
                      > > likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am eager to let
                      > > Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been wondering whether
                      > > Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                      > > >
                      > > > Jonathan
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                      > > <tianyue@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is dicussing this
                      > > very topic.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                      > > > >
                      > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to, Jonathan,
                      > > between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from a.r.e. by
                      > > an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending the
                      > > trademarks.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Quote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words might be not
                      > > to have
                      > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups. There are
                      > > several
                      > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar teachings, even
                      > > using the
                      > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was allowed to
                      > > officially use
                      > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                      > > ECK
                      > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even the
                      > > general public
                      > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group separated
                      > > from the
                      > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some people
                      > > who might
                      > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR previously
                      > > and think
                      > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes sense to
                      > > try to
                      > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Jasmyn
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Endquote
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the word
                      > > "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian Johnson,
                      > > the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized and upon
                      > > which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other words were
                      > > found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as well? I
                      > > have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my move. It's
                      > > ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark laws that
                      > > ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of common
                      > > words from another culture's language.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Leaf
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                      > > <no_reply@> wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue trademarks to
                      > > Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt status to
                      > > Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also seems to me
                      > > that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the Catholics
                      > > could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the Protestants for
                      > > violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the name Jesus
                      > > Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate claim to the
                      > > trademark.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then why was it
                      > > issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs to take
                      > > place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark office
                      > > needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS needs to
                      > > stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities with
                      > > trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really just
                      > > businesses, not religions.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two "religions" that
                      > > trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to think about.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • etznab@aol.com
                      I just remember going, sitting in a large circle, singing a short HU and then having round table discussion. Of course, this was way long time ago now. Much
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 28, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I just remember going, sitting in a large circle,
                        singing a short HU and then having round table
                        discussion. Of course, this was way long time
                        ago now. Much earlier than 2008. I'm not sure
                        what they even called it then. I don't think it
                        was called Worship Service.

                        Etznab

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                        To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Wed, Jul 28, 2010 11:17 am
                        Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: The Sunday morning Worship service in
                        Christianity

                         
                        Etznab,

                        You mentioned the HU. Yes, My memory is that every worship service I
                        attended started with a HU, but it was a very short one, perhaps 2 to 3
                        minutes.

                        I never saw a situation where there was a worship service in the
                        morning at say 11 AM, and then a full HU chant of 20-30 minutes at say
                        8 PM.

                        Jonathan

                        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                        <no_reply@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Etznab,
                        >
                        > Regarding the seating. In December of 2008 I can confirm two
                        different situations in two different Eck centers in two different
                        parts of the United States:
                        >
                        > (1) An Eck Center in a large metropolitan area used the theater
                        seating. And the format was very much like a sermon in church, but WITH
                        audience participation. But definitely not a roundtable discussion,
                        although some people did rant, and it sometimes it seemed somewhat like
                        a roundtable discussion.
                        >
                        > (2) An Eck Center in a moderately sized metropolitan area where
                        the chairs were arranged in a circle. They had the standard "sermon" by
                        the Eckist in charge for that day. However, it was much more like a
                        roundtable discussion. As the director of the Eck center said "WE found
                        that people like to let it turn into a BS session." In other words, the
                        director of the Eck center was looking out for the needs of the local
                        Eckists. By the way, I can confirm that this director is exactly right
                        in what he said about what the local Eckists want.
                        >
                        > Of course, Eckankar's official policy is #1, probably because they
                        want it to appear like "church" to newcomers. But the actual needs of
                        the Eckists are #2. Of course, Klemp, being totally out of touch with
                        the needs of the local Eckists tries to enforce #1 on the local centers.
                        >
                        > Thanks for your comment though. You are so right about the
                        seating. I do think it was probably in a circle originally, but then I
                        believe that the demagogues at Eckankar headquarters enforced #2 on the
                        local centers. I just thought I would let you know that there are still
                        a few renegades in Eckankar who go against the "enforcers" in
                        Chanhassan.
                        >
                        > Jonathan
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I think the Sunday service used to be a
                        > > round table discussion where the chairs
                        > > were in a circle and not theater style. A
                        > > HU Chant on Sunday, too.
                        > >
                        > > Does anybody remember it like that?
                        > >
                        > > Etznab
                        > >
                        > > -----Original Message-----
                        > > From: jonathanjohns96 <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Sent: Tue, Jul 27, 2010 2:03 am
                        > > Subject: [eckankartruth] The Sunday morning Worship service
                        in
                        > > Christianity
                        > >
                        > >  
                        > > All,
                        > >
                        > > In my previous post I stated:
                        > >
                        > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                        > > > morning "worship service" even though the original
                        teachings
                        > > > of Eckankar state that Eckists do not worship anyone or
                        > > > anything. This worship service was started to imitate the
                        > > > Sunday morning worship service of Christianity.
                        > >
                        > > Some people would disagree with me and state that Paul
                        Twitchell did
                        > > encourage people to worship him. There is some truth to that
                        in the
                        > > sense that he did say "I am God realized" and many followers
                        will
                        > > automatically accept that as a cue to worship him. But I
                        personally
                        > > never felt obligated to worship Paul.
                        > >
                        > > But whether Paul encouraged worship of himself is fairly
                        insignificant
                        > > as far as my basic comment about Eckankar's worship service
                        is
                        > > concerned. I never saw any indication that the worship
                        service was
                        > > supposed to be about worshiping the Living Eck master of the
                        time. And
                        > > assuming that I am correct about that, then what is worshiped
                        in
                        > > Eckankar's worship service? I don't think I ever met an
                        Eckist who
                        > > would say that Eckists worship God. From what I experienced
                        in
                        > > Eckankar, Eckists believe that God doesn't care whether
                        anyone worships
                        > > it.
                        > >
                        > > So now I'd like to discuss the Christian worship service. I
                        am going to
                        > > explain this as if the reader is a Hindu from India with zero
                        > > familiarity with Christianity in the United States. The vast
                        majority
                        > > of Christians in the United States consider Sunday to be
                        their holy day
                        > > (a very tiny number use Saturday). So Sunday is it! In my
                        Protestant
                        > > (Presbyterian) upbringing, Sunday morning was the time for
                        Sunday
                        > > school (a school-like "classroom inside the church for
                        children to be
                        > > taught about Christianity). After Sunday school was over,
                        then came
                        > > what my family called "church" which was a service conducted
                        in the
                        > > main part of the church. The pastor stood up front and talked
                        to the
                        > > members of the church which were called "his congregation."
                        This
                        > > service was also commonly referred to as the church's
                        "service" or
                        > > "worship service." So "worship service" is a very well known
                        and
                        > > commonly used term in Christianity for this event.
                        > > In the church's worship service, the pastor/minister would
                        stand up at
                        > > the front and deliver a sermon. He would quote the Bible, but
                        the
                        > > sermon almost always involved some kind of "message" or
                        "lesson about
                        > > life." There was also singing, both as a chorus, and as
                        individual
                        > > singers. And there was a pipe organ being played accompanying
                        the
                        > > singing. There were also times when the congregation was
                        instructed by
                        > > the pastor to open their Bible to a specific place and read
                        something.
                        > > The Bibles were already in the church pews (seats); you
                        didn't have to
                        > > bring a Bible from home.
                        > >
                        > > Now let's look at Eckankar in "pre-Klemp" times. There was no
                        Sunday
                        > > morning worship service. My memory was that there was a
                        Sunday morning
                        > > Hu chant. I didn't mind that it was on Sunday morning, and I
                        saw very
                        > > little parallel to Christianity in any way. It was the same
                        day, big
                        > > deal! It was a convenient day because Christianity in the
                        United States
                        > > had already established Sunday as the religious day, or "day
                        of rest"
                        > > or "family day."
                        > >
                        > > Before, during, and after this Hu chant there was no lecture,
                        no
                        > > reading of Eckankar scripture except perhaps a very brief
                        reading at
                        > > the beginning to set the tone for the Hu chant.
                        > >
                        > > Then all of a sudden (under Klemp) Eckankar started a Sunday
                        morning
                        > > Worship Service. The Sunday morning Hu chant was moved to
                        another day,
                        > > usually a weekday in the evening. What did Eckankar's Sunday
                        morning Hu
                        > > chant look like? A member of Eckankar prepares a "lecture"
                        ahead of
                        > > time, from the Eck writings. And the lecture or "talk"
                        usually involves
                        > > some principle in Eckankar. In other words, there is an
                        actual
                        > > Principle or topic or lesson present. Sound a lot like what a
                        Christian
                        > > minister/pastor does, doesn't it?! It's really pathetic how
                        Eckankar
                        > > shamelessly copied Christianity.
                        > >
                        > > There was very little singing in Eckankar's worship services,
                        although
                        > > I actually supported starting that. But now I am really
                        wondering
                        > > whether Eckankar discouraged that for fear of looking too
                        much like
                        > > Christianity's worship service.
                        > >
                        > > The punchline. Eckankar's starting of a worship service was
                        done for
                        > > one reason: to bring more members into Eckankar.
                        Specifically, members
                        > > who had a previous background in Christianity. "Make Eckankar
                        look like
                        > > Christianity. Then it will look familiar to people who are
                        coming from
                        > > a Christian background."
                        > >
                        > > So I hope this gives a more thorough view of why I say that
                        Eckankar's
                        > > implementation of a worship service was a direct imitation of
                        > > Christianity.
                        > >
                        > > I know that this is "old news" to most of you here on ET, but
                        I wanted
                        > > to reach a broader audience including people who were raised
                        outside a
                        > > country that was not predominantly Christian.
                        > >
                        > > Jonathan
                        > >
                        > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, jonathanjohns96
                        > > no_reply@ wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Leaf,
                        > > >
                        > > > I have been over there on a.r.e. making a few comments
                        recently so
                        > > I am somewhat familiar with the people who post. Jasmyn is
                        the person
                        > > who you can always count on for the official Eckankar view of
                        things.
                        > > Not all posters over there are like that. In fact, Jasmyn is
                        the only
                        > > one that I know of.
                        > > >
                        > > > Her statement is a bit different that the official line
                        She is
                        > > stating that potential new members of Eckankar could, for
                        example,
                        > > confuse ATOM with Eckankar. From Eckankar's point of view
                        she/Eckankar
                        > > may have a point. I still don't think that religions should
                        be allowed
                        > > to trademark things. And as we all know, Eck Onkar (one God)
                        was in
                        > > Sikhism and Hinduism for hundreds of years before Paul
                        Twitchell stole
                        > > it from those religions. Then Eckankar has the nerve to
                        trademark it?
                        > > >
                        > > > Eckankar's official line is different than what Jasmyn
                        stated.
                        > > From what I heard from higher initiates before I left
                        Eckankar in late
                        > > 2008, its official line is that they must trademark things in
                        order to
                        > > preserve the teachings of Eckankar. My opinion is that
                        whether the
                        > > teachings of Eckankar are preserved is entirely up to them.
                        It has
                        > > nothing to do with what anyone else says or does. That's like
                        saying
                        > > that because the Protestants split from Catholicism, that
                        somehow
                        > > undercut the purity of the teachings of
                        Catholicism/Christianity. (I
                        > > suppose some Catholics could argue that to be true. I don't
                        agree with
                        > > them either.)
                        > > >
                        > > > Getting back to Eckankar, my opinion is that Harold
                        Klemp has done
                        > > more to undermine the teachings of Eckankar than anyone. Look
                        at the
                        > > facts about Eckankar since Harold Klemp has taken over.
                        > > >
                        > > > 1. Eckankar declared itself a religion. Paul Twitchell
                        never
                        > > intended Eckankar to be a religion.
                        > > > 2. Eckankar imitated Christianity and started a Sunday
                        morning
                        > > "worship service" even though the original teachings of
                        Eckankar state
                        > > that Eckists do not worship anyone or anything. This worship
                        service
                        > > was started to imitate the Sunday morning worship service of
                        > > Christianity.
                        > > > 3. Eckankar changed "HU chant" to "Hu sing" because the
                        former is
                        > > too reminiscent of Eastern religions such as those in India.
                        > > > 4. In late 2008, Eckankar changed the definition of the
                        HU sing to
                        > > say that is a now considered by Eckankar to be a prayer.
                        Again,
                        > > seemingly to imitate Christianity or at least placate any
                        potential new
                        > > members of Eckankar by making Eckankar look more like
                        Christianity.
                        > > >
                        > > > So if Eckankar is truly concerned about preserving their
                        > > teachings, they should get Harold Klemp under control since
                        he is doing
                        > > more to undermine Eckank's teachings that anybody. Although I
                        have
                        > > wondered whether Klemp is truly the person running Eckankar.
                        It is more
                        > > likely Peter Skelsky or somebody else. It's not that I am
                        eager to let
                        > > Klemp off the hook, but since about 1990 I have been
                        wondering whether
                        > > Klemp has actually been the person running Eckankar.
                        > > >
                        > > > Jonathan
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "tomleafeater"
                        > > <tianyue@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Well, there's a thread up on a.r.e that is
                        dicussing this
                        > > very topic.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > http://tiny.cc/d2zhn
                        > > > >
                        > > > > To underscore the confusion you referred to,
                        Jonathan,
                        > > between copyrights and trademarks, here's a recent post from
                        a.r.e. by
                        > > an eckist who not only has these confused, but is defending
                        the
                        > > trademarks.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > http://tiny.cc/t5s0b
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Quote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > I think the reason they copyrighted some words
                        might be not
                        > > to have
                        > > > > confusion between "ECKANKAR" and any other groups.
                        There are
                        > > several
                        > > > > who left it and spun off with quite similar
                        teachings, even
                        > > using the
                        > > > > proper names of the same masters.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > HU is not copyrighted. But if any group was
                        allowed to
                        > > officially use
                        > > > > those particular copyrighted words such as
                        ECKANKAR, Vairagi
                        > > ECK
                        > > > > Masters, ECK, Mahanta, how would newcomers or even
                        the
                        > > general public
                        > > > > who aren't participants be able to keep that group
                        separated
                        > > from the
                        > > > > original ECKANKAR? It would be confusing to some
                        people
                        > > who might
                        > > > > join ATOM or the others having heard of ECKANKAR
                        previously
                        > > and think
                        > > > > that's the group they were joining. It just makes
                        sense to
                        > > try to
                        > > > > prevent that confusion, imo.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Jasmyn
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Endquote
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Notice there is no cognizance of the fact that the
                        word
                        > > "ekankar" is mentioned in The Path of the Masters, by Julian
                        Johnson,
                        > > the Radhasoami text that Paul Twitchell heavily plagiarized
                        and upon
                        > > which he based his own rip-off path, Eckankar. Several other
                        words were
                        > > found in that text, such as vairag, and wasn't "ek" used as
                        well? I
                        > > have to check that, but my book is again in storage after my
                        move. It's
                        > > ludicrous that Eckankar is able to use eurocentric trademark
                        laws that
                        > > ignore other cultures with impunity to allow trademarking of
                        common
                        > > words from another culture's language.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Leaf
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com,
                        jonathanjohns96
                        > > <no_reply@> wrote:
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > If the trademark office is going to issue
                        trademarks to
                        > > Eckankar, and then the IRS grants a religion-based tax exempt
                        status to
                        > > Eckankar, it seems that something is VERY wrong. It also
                        seems to me
                        > > that this opens a very large Pandora's Box. Technically, the
                        Catholics
                        > > could trademark the word "Jesus Christ" then sue the
                        Protestants for
                        > > violating their trademark! And since Catholicism used the
                        name Jesus
                        > > Christ first, they would be the ones that had legitimate
                        claim to the
                        > > trademark.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Furthermore, if Eckankar is a religion, then
                        why was it
                        > > issued trademarks in the first place? One of two things needs
                        to take
                        > > place. Either the trademark office needs to (1) the trademark
                        office
                        > > needs to stop issuing trademarks to religions, or (2) the IRS
                        needs to
                        > > stop issuing religion-based tax exempt status to entities
                        with
                        > > trademarks because these entities with trademarks are really
                        just
                        > > businesses, not religions.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Another thing to consider. The only two
                        "religions" that
                        > > trademark things are Eckankar and Scientology. Something to
                        think about.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.