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

Re: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces

Expand Messages
  • David Osborn
    But - but - but...  How can Rick Perry loudly proclaim his Christian faith, and be the featured speaker at all these evangelical Christian rallies if he is
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 17, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      But - but - but...  How can Rick Perry loudly proclaim his Christian faith, and be the featured speaker at all these evangelical Christian rallies if he is heavily invested in the porn industry?! 

      (How am I doing at feigning naivete?  Or is my facetiousness showing through?)

      And how did you come across this juicy little tidbit about Rick Perry?  It would be nice, if he became the Republican nominee, for the Democrats to save it, and drop it like a bombshell as an October surprise right before the election.

      It would be nice if the Democrats had the guts and the integrity to drop Obama and move on, and get behind someone who is a real progressive.  Or will this coming presidential election be the greatest case of "the lesser of two evils" that the country - or even the world - has ever seen?

      In US politics, if the two major parties and their candidates leave too much to be desired, then someone forms a third party, whose candidate never wins, but merely siphons off voters from the major party candidate who most closely resembles him.  In the world of light and sound cults, a new "Eckspawn" group simply splinters off and forms.

      David

      --- On Sat, 9/17/11, harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      From: harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
      To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 4:59 PM

      I remain absolutely amazed how truth has no effect on people. With a family member still in this cult, and despite all of the lies, treachery, debunking, slander, and deceit that is provably attributable to eckankar and its cult leaders, nothing makes a bit of difference to some people.

      It's the same in politics. You can point out that Rick Perry is invested in the porn industry (which he is) or that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but people will follow the lie rather than having the guts and good sense to get out and begin anew.

      I have no idea exactly why good people stay in eckankar when it is obvious that it's a scam, but that's the way some people are. Facts just don't mean shit to them.



      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
      >
      > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
      >
      >
      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
      > >
      > > *********
      > >
      > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
      > > 
      > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
      > > 
      > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
      > > 
      > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
      > > 
      > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
      > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Alf,
      > > >
      > > > I wrote a response just today, but shortly afterward learned that it was undeliverable. The reason was that my Yahoo account was bouncing e-mails again! I have to admit, I've never seen so much bouncing than I have in this past year. Something is causing this, but I don't know what.
      > > >
      > > > Maybe I'll retrieve copy & paste the original message when there is time, but not going to spend any more time on e-mail right now.
      > > >
      > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, al_radzik <no_reply@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Etznab,
      > > > >
      > > > >   You claim to be an Eckist but challenge many of the beliefs. You seem to sit on the fence and bring up the age old a.r.e. arguments regarding Paul's birthday; his whereabouts as a child; Steiger's book, plagiarism etc. Have you perused the early years or a.r.e? Have you read David Lane's expose'? I would think by now you would have caught on that this so-called spiritual path has been sufficiently debunked and laid to rest for all but the few followers left.
      > > > > If you ARE an Eckist, what exactly is in it for you? What kind of spiritual nourishment do you receive in spite of all the overwhelming evidence that Twitchell was a liar?
      > > > > I would never deny you the right to believe in whatever you want but of all the religions and cults I have studied over the past several decades, this is the one that is blatantly lacking in any truthful sources or spiritual value...IMHO.
      > > > >
      > > > > Alf
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [alt.religion.eckankar repost - 09/04/11]
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Unscrambling the Pieces
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Paul loved his privacy. Early in his youth he was involved in a
      > > > > > variety of activities, but he made it a point to obscure any facts
      > > > > > associated with his life. In so doing, he left a trail so clouded that
      > > > > > it's going to take our historians years to piece it together. [....]
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
      > > > > >
      > > > > > You don't say? On the same page, the paragraph above read:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > There are several different versions of the date Paul was born into
      > > > > > this life. One person I talked to said the Twitchell family Bible
      > > > > > recorded the year as 1910; another person, who also told me he'd seen
      > > > > > the family Bible, said Paul's birthdate was shown as 1908. It's
      > > > > > amazing how certain each person was that he knew the truth. Each one
      > > > > > claimed to have seen it with his own eyes. So by some accounts, he was
      > > > > > born on October 23, 1908 or 1910, while other accounts give the date
      > > > > > as October 22.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
      > > > > >
      > > > > > How about 1909? Based on the Kentucky Census (believed conducted in
      > > > > > the spring)of 1910 suggesting that Paul was 6 months old?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > OK. Why does this stuff even matter? Perhap's it's all about
      > > > > > unscrambling the pieces and determining fact from fiction.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Researching the lineage of Eck Masters, or when Paul Twitchell came to
      > > > > > contact an Eck Master, one is naturally drawn to the mid 1930's
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
      > > > > > Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
      > > > > > 1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on
      > > > > > Sudar Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named
      > > > > > Sundar Singh, who is not the same person at all.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
      > > > > > whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
      > > > > > all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
      > > > > > more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
      > > > > > initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man2.html
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Hey now! 1935. That's the ticket!
      > > > > >
      > > > > >  ". . . I found this to be true of Sudar Singh, the strange mystic of
      > > > > > Allahabad, in the summer of 1938, when I visited him with my step-
      > > > > > sister." [Based on: ECKANKAR-The Key to Secret Worlds, by Paul
      > > > > > Twitchell, Chap. 10, 3rd paragraph]
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1938 was later edited out. See 1988 version, p. 169-170.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >    ". . . I found this to be true of Sudar Singh, the strange mystic
      > > > > > of Allahabad, the summer I visited him with my half sister."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > What is wrong with this picture? Paul Twitchell was apparently NOT a
      > > > > > teenager in the mid 1930's but, in fact, had already graduated high
      > > > > > school and been to college already!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > How could Paul Twitchell have been a teenager when he (reportedly)
      > > > > > went to Paris, France? Or later stayed at Sudar Singh's ashram in
      > > > > > India for about a year?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Unscrambling the pieces? For heaven's sake! What pieces?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "It was upon their return to Paris that Paul met Sudar Singh for the
      > > > > > first time. The Indian holy man was lecturing in France in an effort
      > > > > > to gain sincere disciples."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
      > > > > > 51]
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "[...] Sudar Singh was silent for several moments before he spoke. 'Am
      > > > > > I to understand that you would like to return with me to my spiritual
      > > > > > retreat in Allahabad?'
      > > > > >    " 'That is my wish,' Kay-Dee said emphatically. 'Paul?' [....] Kay-
      > > > > > Dee and Paul lived in Sudar Singh's ashram for nearly a year before
      > > > > > the irate Grands managed to haul them home."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
      > > > > > 52]
      > > > > >
      > > > > > "This year in India was not spent totally in an attitude of holy
      > > > > > learning. Paul had reached his sixteenth birthday [1925?], and he
      > > > > > decided that he needed a furlough from the ashram. He traveled to
      > > > > > Bombay, put up in a hotel, and then set out in search of a   holy man
      > > > > > who Sudar Singh had said was extremely wise in the ways of God."
      > > > > >
      > > > > > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
      > > > > > 53]
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Nice going Paul / Brad!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Brad Steiger's book most likely introduced a number of people to Paul
      > > > > > Twitchell and Eckankar for the first time. However, Paris, Kentucky
      > > > > > (where Paul Twitchell's sister allegedly DID go to college) is NOT
      > > > > > Paris, France! And for those who might argue it was an "inner"
      > > > > > journey, that is NOT how the context reads in the book I quoted from.
      > > > > > Including the stay in an ashram for nearly a year.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have a question. Why didn't Harold Klemp consult the "mahanta
      > > > > > consciousness" to determine Paul Twitchell's actual D.O.B.? Why didn't
      > > > > > he do the research and consult the 1910 Kentucky Census? Umm ... or
      > > > > > why hasn't the latest research about Paul Twitchell's birthdate been
      > > > > > added to the official Eckankar website instead of Harold Klemp's 1984
      > > > > > reference to 1908, or 1910? If the 1909 D.O.B. is the correct year,
      > > > > > then why isn't it there? After a quick scan of pages about Paul
      > > > > > Twitchell at the official Eckankar website I found the year 1909
      > > > > > mentioned NADA times!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Is it really more fun to find out yourself - rather than be told -
      > > > > > about the life of Paul Twitchell and his contacts with Eckankar
      > > > > > Masters, etc.? If that were the case then why did Paul Twitchell and
      > > > > > other Eck Masters write about and tell people already about all these
      > > > > > things? In order to keep the pieces scrambled and just so people could
      > > > > > have fun unscrambling them?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > My understanding is that it's incumbent on the leader of Eckankar, the
      > > > > > Living Eck Master, to update the teachings of Eckankar. Problem is,
      > > > > > how does one unscramble the pieces of their predecessors? Especially
      > > > > > the founder? Apparently, it is incumbent upon the members of Eckankar
      > > > > > too - not to mention anybody reading about Eckankar period - to
      > > > > > unscramble some of the pieces.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > What has it led to? What the result of people attempting to unscramble
      > > > > > the pieces?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/topics?hl=en&start=
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.eckankar/topics?lnk=rgh&pli=1
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous/
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/rsch3.html
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm1.html
      > > > > >
      > > > > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Did it really have to take all that? And, Was [AND IS IT STILL] really
      > > > > > more fun?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Comments go here :)
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >




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

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
          eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

    • al_radzik
      Etznab, I don t see how Paul s birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 17, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Etznab,

        I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
        If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
        I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children.
        My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.

        Alf



        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
        >
        > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
        >
        >
        > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
        > >
        > > *********
        > >
        > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
        > >
        > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
        > >
        > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
        > >
        > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
        > >
        > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard.
      • David Osborn
        Dear Alf, Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 17, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Alf,

          Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold, so, I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.

          My the Eckless Blessings Be!
          David

          --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

          From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
          To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM

          Etznab,

          I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
          If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
          I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
          My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.

          Alf

           

          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
          >
          > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
          >
          >
          > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
          > >
          > > *********
          > >
          > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
          > > 
          > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
          > > 
          > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
          > > 
          > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
          > > 
          > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 




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

          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

          <*> Your email settings:
              Individual Email | Traditional

          <*> To change settings online go to:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
              (Yahoo! ID required)

          <*> To change settings via email:
              eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
              eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

        • al_radzik
          Interesting. So you are from the old school ? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Interesting. So you are from the "old school"? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable mahanta and would agree that Paul did have some integrity but I believe when Darwin came on board, that's where the path started falling apart. He was like one of those cheating televangelists from what I recall. He also fancied himself as a musician. I can tell you from a professional standpoint, he was absolutely horrible.<GG>
            I don't believe Eckankar is a dangerous cult because we are all responsible for what we believe and the psychic karma they threaten you with if you leave is the same bunk that got you there in the first place. If you are an old time Eckist, doesn't it follow that there should always be a mahanta on the Earth? What is it about the Darwin/Klemp transition that bothers you? Show me where the unbroken lineage of Eck masters exists throughout the ages as Paul proposed. How do you handle the plagiarism? This was all during Twitchell's reign as you know.
            alf

            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
            >
            > Dear Alf,
            >
            > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold, so,
            > I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
            >
            > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
            > David
            >
            > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
            >
            > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
            > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
            > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
            >
            > Etznab,
            >
            > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
            > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
            > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
            > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
            >
            > Alf
            >
            >  
            >
            > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
            > >
            > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
            > > >
            > > > *********
            > > >
            > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
            > > > 
            > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
            > > > 
            > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
            > > > 
            > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
            > > > 
            > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
          • etznab@aol.com
            Since you mentioned Jesus I would like to comment. How does anybody know there was a person who matches the story told about Jesus? There is a section in Ford
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Since you mentioned Jesus I would like to comment. How does anybody
              know there was a person who matches the story told about Jesus? There
              is a section in Ford Johnson's book about the story of Jesus and how
              similar to stories from other cultures.

              It was over 2,000 years ago, the story of Jesus. How do I, or anybody,
              know for sure the story about Jesus is true in all its details? Just
              because so many people say so? So many people who were not even born
              until centuries after the fact?

              When I hear people talking about how they lived during the time of
              Jesus and they comment about his life, it usually always matches with
              popular belief. Then sometimes people change the details a bit, saying
              Jesus lived for a time in their country (India, etc.). Well, I don't
              believe beyond a doubt all of those stories either because, Why should
              I?

              Suppose there wasn't an Internet and information sharing like we have
              today where people can research information to verify whether true. And
              suppose that all people had to know about history of Eckankar were the
              new and updated Eckankar books. Fast forward 2,000 years from now and
              what do you suppose the books would say? Would they match the ones
              being printed today? or would they contain (if allowed to do so) even
              more embellishments, etc. etc.?

              If I were living in a world 2,000 years from now I could be skeptical
              about the stories just the same as then from now. In such a world,
              however, How could I find the truth?

              Just because people say it's so, that doesn't mean its true. IMHO.

              Now I suppose there WERE people living during and after the time period
              attributed to Jesus. What are their versions about the time period and
              do any of their writings survive in original form? So many people
              probably claim that they do, but how can this be proved?

              If you ask me, Catholicism became an arm of the Holy Roman Empire that
              was used to conquer and subjugate peoples from many countries at a time
              when the Pope chose the Emperors, Kings and leaders of those same
              countries. Those countries and their Kings could be later "ordered" to
              go on Crusades and do just what the armies in the Old Testament
              reportedly did by the command of Jehovah; Kill every man, woman and
              child. The same God that reportedly told Moses: Thou shalt not kill,
              etc." And what were all those people fighting about in the first place?
              Some said holy regions in the Middle East. Places that had to do with
              Jesus and Mohammad. And still today, centuries later, people are still
              fighting over those same areas. It's not to say that Catholicism, or
              any religion is total malware, badware. It's only to say that if the
              truth be known, I suspect there would be less reasons to kill innocent
              people in the name of religion.

              When I consider the scope and repercussions today for even challenging
              the stories about Jesus and Mohammad I realize how powerful are the
              forces of belief, whether what people believe in has any correlation
              with actual fact. When I entered a.r.e. (alternative.
              religion.eckankar) many years after it began and looked at the
              discussions, eventually I decided to sift fiction from fact for myself.
              And even there, as an Eckist, I received some of the same insults and
              childish banter thrown by Eckists at Non-Eckists. I would have loved to
              continue laying out all the facts, having discussion and dialogue about
              them, and learning from them, etc. Even teaching others a truer version
              of the actual events. But you know what happened at a.r.e.? Even though
              at times I quit for a short time and later came back, in the long run I
              didn't leave. And today a.r.e. is like the cartoon Casper the Friendly
              Ghost where somebody yelled GHOST! and everybody fled. I didn't,
              because I'm not afraid of no ghosts :) I'm not afraid of looking at
              earlier versions of Eckankar - even if they include things that
              contradict contemporary belief. What I'm interested in about this
              religion is the truth. Whether that truth appears ghostly, haunting, or
              scares people doesn't concern me. I think it's better to preserve the
              truth now before we all "give up the ghost". Future generations might
              be grateful that we did.

              So long story short. It's not over. Just because David Lane, Ford
              Johnson, Doug Marman and others wrote some books, in my book it doesn't
              mean all the puzzle pieces have been put back together, let alone
              found. And just because there are groups like a.r.e. ESA, eckankrtruth,
              etc. that does not mean to me that all has been said and done.

              Perhaps the truth about a particular time period is like a landscape.
              One that changes over time. A lot of the old jungles and forests in
              South America held pyramids and ruins centuries old that most of the
              world hadn't a clue about. They were there all the time, but when
              people abandoned those places - for whatever reason - the WEEDS were
              allowed to grow. And grow they did! Lack of care, or concern allowed
              the truth to be covered up so that generations of people the world over
              had no idea.

              The following is "poetry".

              I don't think one can call a weed-eater a weed. Just because it moves
              within and gets covered by so many weeds. That is just the nature of
              the job. Calling it a weed is only an attempt to destroy the weed-eater
              so all people can Hail and Worship the God (and Gods) of WEEDS!

              Etznab



              -----Original Message-----
              From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
              To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sat, Sep 17, 2011 9:58 pm
              Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces

               
              Etznab,

              I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture.
              Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what
              he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his
              life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into
              what is now known as Christianity.
              If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a
              charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar
              nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary
              uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself
              known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like
              to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a
              self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of
              a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught
              to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the
              case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen?
              Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred
              personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The
              plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common
              sense away and look elsewhere.
              I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had
              towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly
              enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending
              towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would
              make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations
              and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to
              express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children.
              My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a
              tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to
              be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the
              truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make
              up your mind. That's all.

              Alf

              --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@...>
              wrote:
              >
              >
              > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
              >
              > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
              >
              >
              > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@>
              wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the
              message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your
              post.
              > >
              > > *********
              > >
              > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not
              what it used to be.
              > >
              > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of
              David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one
              thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing
              what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and
              evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my
              back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to
              research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
              > >
              > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to
              Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
              > >
              > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in
              the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I
              think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists
              generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I
              think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include
              those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
              > >
              > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell
              used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one
              (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census.
              Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded
              about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one
              tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the
              things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to
              all the other stories I've heard.
            • David Osborn
              Dear Alf, I suppose that I would call myself of the old school if I had to say one way or the other; definitely, I am NOT of the Harold Klemp new school . 
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Alf,

                I suppose that I would call myself of the "old school" if I had to say one way or the other; definitely, I am NOT of the Harold Klemp "new school". 

                You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy.  And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there, as I understand it, had its own share of hush-hush scandals.  And you are probably right about him not being such a great musician, and I should know.  I was one of the flute players in the orchestra, backing up Darwin as he sang his ECK songs.  Although the songs themselves are great, Darwin had a notoriously bad sense of timing when it came to performing them onstage.  We would always be looking up at Darwin to try to get our clues from him as to where he was going with a phrase, and when, in order to synch our playing with his delivery.  Being relatively young and naive then, I just figured that he must just be so ecstatically blissed out, and lost in the Ocean of Love and Mercy that such mundane matters as musical timing were irrelevant, or not important to him from his lofty, exalted perspective. 

                What confused and bugged me about the two masters period was that these two supposedly God Realized beings, or co-Mahantas, were demonstrating that they were obviously NOT free of certain human foibles like egotism and attachment.  Darwin did not want to let go of his captive audience, especially as a musician, so he tried to hog as much time as he could at Eckankar seminars playing to his adoring crowd of Eckfans.  This caused friction and problems with the Harold Klemp faction, who I believe were trying to look for a way, an opportune moment, to oust Darwin from the organization anyway.  And they finally did.

                I never said that Twitch had absolute, or a hundred percent, integrity.  The whole plagiarism thing came as a big shock to me, too as I found Path of the Masters, and started comparing it with Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds.  But, relatively speaking, Twitch had more integrity than Klemp. 

                I hope that this explains things better.

                David

                --- On Sun, 9/18/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:20 AM

                Interesting. So you are from the "old school"? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable mahanta and would agree that Paul did have some integrity but I believe when Darwin came on board, that's where the path started falling apart. He was like one of those cheating televangelists from what I recall. He also fancied himself as a musician. I can tell you from a professional standpoint, he was absolutely horrible.<GG>
                I don't believe Eckankar is a dangerous cult because we are all responsible for what we believe and the psychic karma they threaten you with if you leave is the same bunk that got you there in the first place. If you are an old time Eckist, doesn't it follow that there should always be a mahanta on the Earth? What is it about the Darwin/Klemp transition that bothers you? Show me where the unbroken lineage of Eck masters exists throughout the ages as Paul proposed. How do you handle the plagiarism? This was all during Twitchell's reign as you know.
                alf

                --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
                >
                > Dear Alf,
                >
                > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold, so,
                >  I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                >
                > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                > David
                >
                > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                >
                > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                >
                > Etznab,
                >
                > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
                > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                >
                > Alf
                >
                >  
                >
                > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                > >
                > >
                > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                > >
                > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                > > >
                > > > *********
                > > >
                > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                > > > 
                > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                > > > 
                > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                > > > 
                > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                > > > 
                > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >




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

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/

                <*> Your email settings:
                    Individual Email | Traditional

                <*> To change settings online go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/join
                    (Yahoo! ID required)

                <*> To change settings via email:
                    eckankartruth-digest@yahoogroups.com
                    eckankartruth-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    eckankartruth-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

              • al_radzik
                Very interesting! So you actually played along with Darji!I too am a musician and you re so right about timing. Our old drummer had a tendency to slow down in
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Very interesting! So you actually played along with Darji!I too am a musician and you're so right about timing. Our old drummer had a tendency to slow down in mid-song and it drove me crazy!That's why he's our old drummer.
                  Did you happen to catch the debate with Darwin and some Christian evangelist on You Tube? Darwin comes off as a complete fool. Sometimes the Christian guy does too but in comparison, Darji just sits there like a hog staring at a wristwatch.
                  I can see how Paul was attracting people to his Soul Travel. You've got to remember that timing is everything. It was 1965 and Paul had already been well read on Eastern matters with the likes of the famous 50's yogi Premananda. The Beatles went to India and the subculture of the mid 60's was in full swing. (All You Need Is Love). We were protesting everything and tearing down our parent's values and ethics. Whatever they were all about, we were going to do the opposite.
                  Paul, Guru Maharaji, Baba Ram Dass, ISKCON and a host of westernized Easterners were proliferating and we were clamoring for the exotic teachings of Krishna and the Vedic Scriptures. In lieu of Christianity, we were finding refuge and "knowledge" in ashrams and communes. Unfortunately, we all grew up and became capitalists which put us square in the mess we are in today. Woodstock sucked. Free love was bullshit. Drugs destroyed our roots and we became "free spirits" with no absolutes. We are all older now but we never grew up.
                  Good to hear from someone who's been there from the beginning. Keep postin' pardner!

                  Alf

                  --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Alf,
                  >
                  > I suppose that I would call myself of the "old school" if I had to say one way or the other; definitely, I am NOT of the Harold Klemp "new school". 
                  >
                  > You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy.  And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there, as I understand it, had its own share of hush-hush scandals.  And you are probably right about him not being such a great musician, and I should know.  I was one of the flute players in the orchestra, backing up Darwin as he sang his ECK songs.  Although the songs themselves are great, Darwin had a notoriously bad sense of timing when it came to performing them onstage.  We would always be looking up at Darwin to try to get our clues from him as to where he was going with a phrase, and when, in order to synch our playing with his delivery.  Being relatively young and naive then, I just figured that he must just be so ecstatically blissed out, and lost in the Ocean of Love and Mercy that such mundane matters as musical timing were irrelevant, or not important to him from his lofty, exalted
                  > perspective. 
                  >
                  > What confused and bugged me about the two masters period was that these two supposedly God Realized beings, or co-Mahantas, were demonstrating that they were obviously NOT free of certain human foibles like egotism and attachment.  Darwin did not want to let go of his captive audience, especially as a musician, so he tried to hog as much time as he could at Eckankar seminars playing to his adoring crowd of Eckfans.  This caused friction and problems with the Harold Klemp faction, who I believe were trying to look for a way, an opportune moment, to oust Darwin from the organization anyway.  And they finally did.
                  >
                  > I never said that Twitch had absolute, or a hundred percent, integrity.  The whole plagiarism thing came as a big shock to me, too as I found Path of the Masters, and started comparing it with Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds.  But, relatively speaking, Twitch had more integrity than Klemp. 
                  >
                  > I hope that this explains things better.
                  >
                  > David
                  >
                  > --- On Sun, 9/18/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  >
                  > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                  > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                  > Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:20 AM
                  >
                  > Interesting. So you are from the "old school"? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable mahanta and would agree that Paul did have some integrity but I believe when Darwin came on board, that's where the path started falling apart. He was like one of those cheating televangelists from what I recall. He also fancied himself as a musician. I can tell you from a professional standpoint, he was absolutely horrible.<GG>
                  > I don't believe Eckankar is a dangerous cult because we are all responsible for what we believe and the psychic karma they threaten you with if you leave is the same bunk that got you there in the first place. If you are an old time Eckist, doesn't it follow that there should always be a mahanta on the Earth? What is it about the Darwin/Klemp transition that bothers you? Show me where the unbroken lineage of Eck masters exists throughout the ages as Paul proposed. How do you handle the plagiarism? This was all during Twitchell's reign as you know.
                  > alf
                  >
                  > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Dear Alf,
                  > >
                  > > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold,
                  > so,
                  > >  I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                  > >
                  > > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                  > > David
                  > >
                  > > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                  > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                  > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                  > > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                  > >
                  > > Etznab,
                  > >
                  > > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                  > > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                  > > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
                  > > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                  > >
                  > > Alf
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > >
                  > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                  > > >
                  > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > *********
                  > > > >
                  > > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                  > > > > 
                  > > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                  > > > > 
                  > > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                  > > > > 
                  > > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                  > > > > 
                  > > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                • al_radzik
                  Yes, Etznab, I read the Jesus Mysteries too. There is no actual proof of Jesus existence. All we have is the esoterica, some vague accounts by others and the
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yes, Etznab, I read the Jesus Mysteries too. There is no actual "proof" of Jesus existence. All we have is the esoterica, some vague accounts by others and the writings of Josephus. I do believe that most scholars now believe that there probably was a person like Jesus around the time he lived. No one can pinpoint the exact date but this begs the question as to why the teachings of Christianity have evolved into the largest denominations on Earth. They had to have had a source. That being said, I seriously doubt if the teachings of Twitchell will ever evolve. His path had been bastardized by two successors and Eckankar is by no means catching on fire in the world. I would even suspect that membership is stagnant or waning because Paul stole some great ideas from the "heavyweight" paths but never followed through on his claims. Like an amateur, he simply took buzz phrases from all religions and created a "quick fix" religion called Soul Travel. To me, (and I've said it before), it is the MacDonald's of all religions. Fast and tasty but of little nutritional value.

                    --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, etznab@... wrote:
                    >
                    > Since you mentioned Jesus I would like to comment. How does anybody
                    > know there was a person who matches the story told about Jesus? There
                    > is a section in Ford Johnson's book about the story of Jesus and how
                    > similar to stories from other cultures.
                    >
                    > It was over 2,000 years ago, the story of Jesus. How do I, or anybody,
                    > know for sure the story about Jesus is true in all its details? Just
                    > because so many people say so? So many people who were not even born
                    > until centuries after the fact?
                    >
                    > When I hear people talking about how they lived during the time of
                    > Jesus and they comment about his life, it usually always matches with
                    > popular belief. Then sometimes people change the details a bit, saying
                    > Jesus lived for a time in their country (India, etc.). Well, I don't
                    > believe beyond a doubt all of those stories either because, Why should
                    > I?
                    >
                    > Suppose there wasn't an Internet and information sharing like we have
                    > today where people can research information to verify whether true. And
                    > suppose that all people had to know about history of Eckankar were the
                    > new and updated Eckankar books. Fast forward 2,000 years from now and
                    > what do you suppose the books would say? Would they match the ones
                    > being printed today? or would they contain (if allowed to do so) even
                    > more embellishments, etc. etc.?
                    >
                    > If I were living in a world 2,000 years from now I could be skeptical
                    > about the stories just the same as then from now. In such a world,
                    > however, How could I find the truth?
                    >
                    > Just because people say it's so, that doesn't mean its true. IMHO.
                    >
                    > Now I suppose there WERE people living during and after the time period
                    > attributed to Jesus. What are their versions about the time period and
                    > do any of their writings survive in original form? So many people
                    > probably claim that they do, but how can this be proved?
                    >
                    > If you ask me, Catholicism became an arm of the Holy Roman Empire that
                    > was used to conquer and subjugate peoples from many countries at a time
                    > when the Pope chose the Emperors, Kings and leaders of those same
                    > countries. Those countries and their Kings could be later "ordered" to
                    > go on Crusades and do just what the armies in the Old Testament
                    > reportedly did by the command of Jehovah; Kill every man, woman and
                    > child. The same God that reportedly told Moses: Thou shalt not kill,
                    > etc." And what were all those people fighting about in the first place?
                    > Some said holy regions in the Middle East. Places that had to do with
                    > Jesus and Mohammad. And still today, centuries later, people are still
                    > fighting over those same areas. It's not to say that Catholicism, or
                    > any religion is total malware, badware. It's only to say that if the
                    > truth be known, I suspect there would be less reasons to kill innocent
                    > people in the name of religion.
                    >
                    > When I consider the scope and repercussions today for even challenging
                    > the stories about Jesus and Mohammad I realize how powerful are the
                    > forces of belief, whether what people believe in has any correlation
                    > with actual fact. When I entered a.r.e. (alternative.
                    > religion.eckankar) many years after it began and looked at the
                    > discussions, eventually I decided to sift fiction from fact for myself.
                    > And even there, as an Eckist, I received some of the same insults and
                    > childish banter thrown by Eckists at Non-Eckists. I would have loved to
                    > continue laying out all the facts, having discussion and dialogue about
                    > them, and learning from them, etc. Even teaching others a truer version
                    > of the actual events. But you know what happened at a.r.e.? Even though
                    > at times I quit for a short time and later came back, in the long run I
                    > didn't leave. And today a.r.e. is like the cartoon Casper the Friendly
                    > Ghost where somebody yelled GHOST! and everybody fled. I didn't,
                    > because I'm not afraid of no ghosts :) I'm not afraid of looking at
                    > earlier versions of Eckankar - even if they include things that
                    > contradict contemporary belief. What I'm interested in about this
                    > religion is the truth. Whether that truth appears ghostly, haunting, or
                    > scares people doesn't concern me. I think it's better to preserve the
                    > truth now before we all "give up the ghost". Future generations might
                    > be grateful that we did.
                    >
                    > So long story short. It's not over. Just because David Lane, Ford
                    > Johnson, Doug Marman and others wrote some books, in my book it doesn't
                    > mean all the puzzle pieces have been put back together, let alone
                    > found. And just because there are groups like a.r.e. ESA, eckankrtruth,
                    > etc. that does not mean to me that all has been said and done.
                    >
                    > Perhaps the truth about a particular time period is like a landscape.
                    > One that changes over time. A lot of the old jungles and forests in
                    > South America held pyramids and ruins centuries old that most of the
                    > world hadn't a clue about. They were there all the time, but when
                    > people abandoned those places - for whatever reason - the WEEDS were
                    > allowed to grow. And grow they did! Lack of care, or concern allowed
                    > the truth to be covered up so that generations of people the world over
                    > had no idea.
                    >
                    > The following is "poetry".
                    >
                    > I don't think one can call a weed-eater a weed. Just because it moves
                    > within and gets covered by so many weeds. That is just the nature of
                    > the job. Calling it a weed is only an attempt to destroy the weed-eater
                    > so all people can Hail and Worship the God (and Gods) of WEEDS!
                    >
                    > Etznab
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                    > To: eckankartruth <eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Sat, Sep 17, 2011 9:58 pm
                    > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                    >
                    >  
                    > Etznab,
                    >
                    > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture.
                    > Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what
                    > he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his
                    > life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into
                    > what is now known as Christianity.
                    > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a
                    > charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar
                    > nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary
                    > uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself
                    > known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like
                    > to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a
                    > self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of
                    > a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught
                    > to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the
                    > case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen?
                    > Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred
                    > personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The
                    > plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common
                    > sense away and look elsewhere.
                    > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had
                    > towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly
                    > enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending
                    > towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would
                    > make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations
                    > and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to
                    > express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children.
                    > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a
                    > tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to
                    > be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the
                    > truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make
                    > up your mind. That's all.
                    >
                    > Alf
                    >
                    > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" etznab@
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                    > >
                    > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@>
                    > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the
                    > message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your
                    > post.
                    > > >
                    > > > *********
                    > > >
                    > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not
                    > what it used to be.
                    > > >
                    > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of
                    > David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one
                    > thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing
                    > what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and
                    > evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my
                    > back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to
                    > research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                    > > >
                    > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to
                    > Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                    > > >
                    > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in
                    > the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I
                    > think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists
                    > generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I
                    > think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include
                    > those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                    > > >
                    > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell
                    > used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one
                    > (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census.
                    > Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded
                    > about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one
                    > tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the
                    > things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to
                    > all the other stories I've heard.
                    >
                  • etznab18
                    You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy. And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there,
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy. And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there, as I understand it, had its own share of hush-hush scandals."

                      "[....] Darwin Gross issued a worldwide memo on December 27, 1979 which states that there was NO plagiarism in Paul Twitchell's THE FAR COUNTY. Saying instead that it was dictated to Paul by Rebazar. In addition, the memo states that 'the book claimed to be plagiarized by Paul was not copyrighted.' [....]"

                      http://vclass.mtsac.edu:930/phil/kirpaltheory.htm

                      It's an expired link now so I can't confirm the source, however, I do suspect that Eckankar during the time of Darwin gross was not inclined to admit to plagiarism. Doug Marman included a quote from an August 1979 Mystic World article by Darwin's secretary which included the following:

                      "[...] Prominent will be the claim that many of Paul's writings prior to his advent as the Living ECK Master and Mahanta are found in other works or written by other people... [....]"

                      http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogPreface.htm

                      Oddly enough, it's not a full quote that Doug illustrated, but part of it was clipped off. In any case, Darwin's worldwide memo was dated December 1979 and would have appeared after Bernadine's Mystic World article.

                      From Ford Johnson's book there is more about the subject.

                      "Sensing the damage that the publication of David Lane's research would have on Eckankar, its lawyer, Alan Nichols, attempted to refute the charge that Paul [Paul Twitchell] had plagiarized the works of Julian Johnson. He wrote in a letter to Lane in 1977:
                      With a wide background of study you will find many similarities both approximate and exact in many religious statements, history and mythology. [....] How did you know Johnson didn't obtain his information from Twitchell or Rebazar Tarzs [sic] or some other common source? Don't be surprised that many people find the same truths and even in the same words, commandments, etc., whether they are concepts, stories of events, or levels of God Worlds or consciousness."

                      [See: Ford Johnson, Confessions of a God Seeker, A Journey to Higher Consciousness, p. 124] 

                      Let me know if someone finds a current link to that first quote about no plagiarism in The Far Country and the book not copyrighted. I know that Kirpal Singh didn't copyright a lot of his work but, as far as I know, Julian Johnson's work (the book claimed to be plagiarized) was.

                      --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Dear Alf,
                      >
                      > I suppose that I would call myself of the "old school" if I had to say one way or the other; definitely, I am NOT of the Harold Klemp "new school". 
                      >
                      > You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy.  And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there, as I understand it, had its own share of hush-hush scandals.  And you are probably right about him not being such a great musician, and I should know.  I was one of the flute players in the orchestra, backing up Darwin as he sang his ECK songs.  Although the songs themselves are great, Darwin had a notoriously bad sense of timing when it came to performing them onstage.  We would always be looking up at Darwin to try to get our clues from him as to where he was going with a phrase, and when, in order to synch our playing with his delivery.  Being relatively young and naive then, I just figured that he must just be so ecstatically blissed out, and lost in the Ocean of Love and Mercy that such mundane matters as musical timing were irrelevant, or not important to him from his lofty, exalted
                      > perspective. 
                      >
                      > What confused and bugged me about the two masters period was that these two supposedly God Realized beings, or co-Mahantas, were demonstrating that they were obviously NOT free of certain human foibles like egotism and attachment.  Darwin did not want to let go of his captive audience, especially as a musician, so he tried to hog as much time as he could at Eckankar seminars playing to his adoring crowd of Eckfans.  This caused friction and problems with the Harold Klemp faction, who I believe were trying to look for a way, an opportune moment, to oust Darwin from the organization anyway.  And they finally did.
                      >
                      > I never said that Twitch had absolute, or a hundred percent, integrity.  The whole plagiarism thing came as a big shock to me, too as I found Path of the Masters, and started comparing it with Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds.  But, relatively speaking, Twitch had more integrity than Klemp. 
                      >
                      > I hope that this explains things better.
                      >
                      > David
                      >
                      > --- On Sun, 9/18/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                      >
                      > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                      > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                      > Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:20 AM
                      >
                      > Interesting. So you are from the "old school"? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable mahanta and would agree that Paul did have some integrity but I believe when Darwin came on board, that's where the path started falling apart. He was like one of those cheating televangelists from what I recall. He also fancied himself as a musician. I can tell you from a professional standpoint, he was absolutely horrible.<GG>
                      > I don't believe Eckankar is a dangerous cult because we are all responsible for what we believe and the psychic karma they threaten you with if you leave is the same bunk that got you there in the first place. If you are an old time Eckist, doesn't it follow that there should always be a mahanta on the Earth? What is it about the Darwin/Klemp transition that bothers you? Show me where the unbroken lineage of Eck masters exists throughout the ages as Paul proposed. How do you handle the plagiarism? This was all during Twitchell's reign as you know.
                      > alf
                      >
                      > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Dear Alf,
                      > >
                      > > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold,
                      > so,
                      > >  I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                      > >
                      > > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                      > > David
                      > >
                      > > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                      > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                      > > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                      > >
                      > > Etznab,
                      > >
                      > > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                      > > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                      > > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
                      > > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                      > >
                      > > Alf
                      > >
                      > >  
                      > >
                      > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                      > > >
                      > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > *********
                      > > > >
                      > > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                      > > > > 
                      > > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                      > > > > 
                      > > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                      > > > > 
                      > > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                      > > > > 
                      > > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > ------------------------------------
                      > >
                      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                    • Paul Olson
                      I agree with assesment. Except for the declarition that we never grew up. I grew up and that required me leaving the illusions of the past. Eckankar. Joined
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree with assesment.  Except for the declarition that we never grew up.
                        I grew up and that required me leaving the illusions of the past.  Eckankar.
                        Joined in 1970.  Yep, met Paul and the gang.  Worked hard for this bullshit until I saw a reL light in a out 1998.  6th initiate by then and quit to embrace reality.  I don't post often now.  Too tired of the subject.  I do support your helping others to see the truth of the fraud that is called e kankar.

                        Paul Olson

                        Sent from my iPhone

                        On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:58 PM, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

                         

                        Very interesting! So you actually played along with Darji!I too am a musician and you're so right about timing. Our old drummer had a tendency to slow down in mid-song and it drove me crazy!That's why he's our old drummer.
                        Did you happen to catch the debate with Darwin and some Christian evangelist on You Tube? Darwin comes off as a complete fool. Sometimes the Christian guy does too but in comparison, Darji just sits there like a hog staring at a wristwatch.
                        I can see how Paul was attracting people to his Soul Travel. You've got to remember that timing is everything. It was 1965 and Paul had already been well read on Eastern matters with the likes of the famous 50's yogi Premananda. The Beatles went to India and the subculture of the mid 60's was in full swing. (All You Need Is Love). We were protesting everything and tearing down our parent's values and ethics. Whatever they were all about, we were going to do the opposite.
                        Paul, Guru Maharaji, Baba Ram Dass, ISKCON and a host of westernized Easterners were proliferating and we were clamoring for the exotic teachings of Krishna and the Vedic Scriptures. In lieu of Christianity, we were finding refuge and "knowledge" in ashrams and communes. Unfortunately, we all grew up and became capitalists which put us square in the mess we are in today. Woodstock sucked. Free love was bullshit. Drugs destroyed our roots and we became "free spirits" with no absolutes. We are all older now but we never grew up.
                        Good to hear from someone who's been there from the beginning. Keep postin' pardner!

                        Alf

                        --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Dear Alf,
                        >
                        > I suppose that I would call myself of the "old school" if I had to say one way or the other; definitely, I am NOT of the Harold Klemp "new school". 
                        >
                        > You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy.  And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there, as I understand it, had its own share of hush-hush scandals.  And you are probably right about him not being such a great musician, and I should know.  I was one of the flute players in the orchestra, backing up Darwin as he sang his ECK songs.  Although the songs themselves are great, Darwin had a notoriously bad sense of timing when it came to performing them onstage.  We would always be looking up at Darwin to try to get our clues from him as to where he was going with a phrase, and when, in order to synch our playing with his delivery.  Being relatively young and naive then, I just figured that he must just be so ecstatically blissed out, and lost in the Ocean of Love and Mercy that such mundane matters as musical timing were irrelevant, or not important to him from his lofty, exalted
                        > perspective. 
                        >
                        > What confused and bugged me about the two masters period was that these two supposedly God Realized beings, or co-Mahantas, were demonstrating that they were obviously NOT free of certain human foibles like egotism and attachment.  Darwin did not want to let go of his captive audience, especially as a musician, so he tried to hog as much time as he could at Eckankar seminars playing to his adoring crowd of Eckfans.  This caused friction and problems with the Harold Klemp faction, who I believe were trying to look for a way, an opportune moment, to oust Darwin from the organization anyway.  And they finally did.
                        >
                        > I never said that Twitch had absolute, or a hundred percent, integrity.  The whole plagiarism thing came as a big shock to me, too as I found Path of the Masters, and started comparing it with Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds.  But, relatively speaking, Twitch had more integrity than Klemp. 
                        >
                        > I hope that this explains things better.
                        >
                        > David
                        >
                        > --- On Sun, 9/18/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                        >
                        > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                        > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                        > Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:20 AM
                        >
                        > Interesting. So you are from the "old school"? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable mahanta and would agree that Paul did have some integrity but I believe when Darwin came on board, that's where the path started falling apart. He was like one of those cheating televangelists from what I recall. He also fancied himself as a musician. I can tell you from a professional standpoint, he was absolutely horrible.<GG>
                        > I don't believe Eckankar is a dangerous cult because we are all responsible for what we believe and the psychic karma they threaten you with if you leave is the same bunk that got you there in the first place. If you are an old time Eckist, doesn't it follow that there should always be a mahanta on the Earth? What is it about the Darwin/Klemp transition that bothers you? Show me where the unbroken lineage of Eck masters exists throughout the ages as Paul proposed. How do you handle the plagiarism? This was all during Twitchell's reign as you know.
                        > alf
                        >
                        > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Dear Alf,
                        > >
                        > > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold,
                        > so,
                        > >  I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                        > >
                        > > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                        > > David
                        > >
                        > > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                        > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                        > >
                        > > Etznab,
                        > >
                        > > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                        > > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                        > > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
                        > > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                        > >
                        > > Alf
                        > >
                        > >  
                        > >
                        > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                        > > > >
                        > > > > *********
                        > > > >
                        > > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                        > > > > 
                        > > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                        > > > > 
                        > > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                        > > > > 
                        > > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                        > > > > 
                        > > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------------------
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >

                      • al_radzik
                        Oh, I didn t mean all of us....just liberals.
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 18, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Oh, I didn't mean all of us....just liberals.

                          --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, Paul Olson <Paul@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > I agree with assesment. Except for the declarition that we never grew up.
                          > I grew up and that required me leaving the illusions of the past. Eckankar.
                          > Joined in 1970. Yep, met Paul and the gang. Worked hard for this bullshit until I saw a reL light in a out 1998. 6th initiate by then and quit to embrace reality. I don't post often now. Too tired of the subject. I do support your helping others to see the truth of the fraud that is called e kankar.
                          >
                          > Paul Olson
                          >
                          > Sent from my iPhone
                          >
                          > On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:58 PM, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          >
                          > > Very interesting! So you actually played along with Darji!I too am a musician and you're so right about timing. Our old drummer had a tendency to slow down in mid-song and it drove me crazy!That's why he's our old drummer.
                          > > Did you happen to catch the debate with Darwin and some Christian evangelist on You Tube? Darwin comes off as a complete fool. Sometimes the Christian guy does too but in comparison, Darji just sits there like a hog staring at a wristwatch.
                          > > I can see how Paul was attracting people to his Soul Travel. You've got to remember that timing is everything. It was 1965 and Paul had already been well read on Eastern matters with the likes of the famous 50's yogi Premananda. The Beatles went to India and the subculture of the mid 60's was in full swing. (All You Need Is Love). We were protesting everything and tearing down our parent's values and ethics. Whatever they were all about, we were going to do the opposite.
                          > > Paul, Guru Maharaji, Baba Ram Dass, ISKCON and a host of westernized Easterners were proliferating and we were clamoring for the exotic teachings of Krishna and the Vedic Scriptures. In lieu of Christianity, we were finding refuge and "knowledge" in ashrams and communes. Unfortunately, we all grew up and became capitalists which put us square in the mess we are in today. Woodstock sucked. Free love was bullshit. Drugs destroyed our roots and we became "free spirits" with no absolutes. We are all older now but we never grew up.
                          > > Good to hear from someone who's been there from the beginning. Keep postin' pardner!
                          > >
                          > > Alf
                          > >
                          > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > Dear Alf,
                          > > >
                          > > > I suppose that I would call myself of the "old school" if I had to say one way or the other; definitely, I am NOT of the Harold Klemp "new school".
                          > > >
                          > > > You say that Darwin was like a televangelist, and that is an interesting analogy. And how he ascended to the Mahantaship, and what he did when he got there, as I understand it, had its own share of hush-hush scandals. And you are probably right about him not being such a great musician, and I should know. I was one of the flute players in the orchestra, backing up Darwin as he sang his ECK songs. Although the songs themselves are great, Darwin had a notoriously bad sense of timing when it came to performing them onstage. We would always be looking up at Darwin to try to get our clues from him as to where he was going with a phrase, and when, in order to synch our playing with his delivery. Being relatively young and naive then, I just figured that he must just be so ecstatically blissed out, and lost in the Ocean of Love and Mercy that such mundane matters as musical timing were irrelevant, or not important to him from his lofty, exalted
                          > > > perspective.
                          > > >
                          > > > What confused and bugged me about the two masters period was that these two supposedly God Realized beings, or co-Mahantas, were demonstrating that they were obviously NOT free of certain human foibles like egotism and attachment. Darwin did not want to let go of his captive audience, especially as a musician, so he tried to hog as much time as he could at Eckankar seminars playing to his adoring crowd of Eckfans. This caused friction and problems with the Harold Klemp faction, who I believe were trying to look for a way, an opportune moment, to oust Darwin from the organization anyway. And they finally did.
                          > > >
                          > > > I never said that Twitch had absolute, or a hundred percent, integrity. The whole plagiarism thing came as a big shock to me, too as I found Path of the Masters, and started comparing it with Eckankar: Key to Secret Worlds. But, relatively speaking, Twitch had more integrity than Klemp.
                          > > >
                          > > > I hope that this explains things better.
                          > > >
                          > > > David
                          > > >
                          > > > --- On Sun, 9/18/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                          > > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > Date: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 7:20 AM
                          > > >
                          > > > Interesting. So you are from the "old school"? Do you retain a belief in the basic tenets of Eckankar as taught by Paul? I agree that Harold is a miserable mahanta and would agree that Paul did have some integrity but I believe when Darwin came on board, that's where the path started falling apart. He was like one of those cheating televangelists from what I recall. He also fancied himself as a musician. I can tell you from a professional standpoint, he was absolutely horrible.<GG>
                          > > > I don't believe Eckankar is a dangerous cult because we are all responsible for what we believe and the psychic karma they threaten you with if you leave is the same bunk that got you there in the first place. If you are an old time Eckist, doesn't it follow that there should always be a mahanta on the Earth? What is it about the Darwin/Klemp transition that bothers you? Show me where the unbroken lineage of Eck masters exists throughout the ages as Paul proposed. How do you handle the plagiarism? This was all during Twitchell's reign as you know.
                          > > > alf
                          > > >
                          > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Dear Alf,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp. That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's! Twitch would have never gone for it. In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway. He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella. This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him. You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM. I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left. I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold,
                          > > > so,
                          > > > > I haven't really experienced what you all have been through. I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                          > > > > David
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                          > > > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                          > > > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                          > > > > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Etznab,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                          > > > > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                          > > > > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children.
                          > > > > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Alf
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > *********
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard.
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > >
                          > > > > ------------------------------------
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > ------------------------------------
                          > > >
                          > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • harrisonferrel
                          The Rick Perry porn picture (how s that for alliteration?) is one of those items that are there for the public to see if they d only do a little homework. It s
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 19, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The Rick Perry porn picture (how's that for alliteration?) is one of those items that are there for the public to see if they'd only do a little homework. It's like all the dirt on Sarah Palin, Bush and the rest of these criminals.

                            Here's a link http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/18/1008220/-Rick-Perry-Has-A-BIG-PORN-Problem!



                            --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > But - but - but...  How can Rick Perry loudly proclaim his Christian faith, and be the featured speaker at all these evangelical Christian rallies if he is heavily invested in the porn industry?! 
                            >
                            > (How am I doing at feigning naivete?  Or is my facetiousness showing through?)
                            >
                            > And how did you come across this juicy little tidbit about Rick Perry?  It would be nice, if he became the Republican nominee, for the Democrats to save it, and drop it like a bombshell as an October surprise right before the election.
                            >
                            > It would be nice if the Democrats had the guts and the integrity to drop Obama and move on, and get behind someone who is a real progressive.  Or will this coming presidential election be the greatest case of "the lesser of two evils" that the country - or even the world - has ever seen?
                            >
                            > In US politics, if the two major parties and their candidates leave too much to be desired, then someone forms a third party, whose candidate never wins, but merely siphons off voters from the major party candidate who most closely resembles him.  In the world of light and sound cults, a new "Eckspawn" group simply splinters off and forms.
                            >
                            > David
                            >
                            > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                            >
                            > From: harrisonferrel <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                            > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                            > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 4:59 PM
                            >
                            > I remain absolutely amazed how truth has no effect on people. With a family member still in this cult, and despite all of the lies, treachery, debunking, slander, and deceit that is provably attributable to eckankar and its cult leaders, nothing makes a bit of difference to some people.
                            >
                            > It's the same in politics. You can point out that Rick Perry is invested in the porn industry (which he is) or that there were no weapons of mass destruction, but people will follow the lie rather than having the guts and good sense to get out and begin anew.
                            >
                            > I have no idea exactly why good people stay in eckankar when it is obvious that it's a scam, but that's the way some people are. Facts just don't mean shit to them.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                            > >
                            > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                            > > >
                            > > > *********
                            > > >
                            > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                            > > > 
                            > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                            > > > 
                            > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                            > > > 
                            > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                            > > > 
                            > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                            > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Alf,
                            > > > >
                            > > > > I wrote a response just today, but shortly afterward learned that it was undeliverable. The reason was that my Yahoo account was bouncing e-mails again! I have to admit, I've never seen so much bouncing than I have in this past year. Something is causing this, but I don't know what.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Maybe I'll retrieve copy & paste the original message when there is time, but not going to spend any more time on e-mail right now.
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, al_radzik <no_reply@> wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Etznab,
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >   You claim to be an Eckist but challenge many of the beliefs. You seem to sit on the fence and bring up the age old a.r.e. arguments regarding Paul's birthday; his whereabouts as a child; Steiger's book, plagiarism etc. Have you perused the early years or a.r.e? Have you read David Lane's expose'? I would think by now you would have caught on that this so-called spiritual path has been sufficiently debunked and laid to rest for all but the few followers left.
                            > > > > > If you ARE an Eckist, what exactly is in it for you? What kind of spiritual nourishment do you receive in spite of all the overwhelming evidence that Twitchell was a liar?
                            > > > > > I would never deny you the right to believe in whatever you want but of all the religions and cults I have studied over the past several decades, this is the one that is blatantly lacking in any truthful sources or spiritual value...IMHO.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Alf
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > [alt.religion.eckankar repost - 09/04/11]
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Unscrambling the Pieces
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Paul loved his privacy. Early in his youth he was involved in a
                            > > > > > > variety of activities, but he made it a point to obscure any facts
                            > > > > > > associated with his life. In so doing, he left a trail so clouded that
                            > > > > > > it's going to take our historians years to piece it together. [....]
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > You don't say? On the same page, the paragraph above read:
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > There are several different versions of the date Paul was born into
                            > > > > > > this life. One person I talked to said the Twitchell family Bible
                            > > > > > > recorded the year as 1910; another person, who also told me he'd seen
                            > > > > > > the family Bible, said Paul's birthdate was shown as 1908. It's
                            > > > > > > amazing how certain each person was that he knew the truth. Each one
                            > > > > > > claimed to have seen it with his own eyes. So by some accounts, he was
                            > > > > > > born on October 23, 1908 or 1910, while other accounts give the date
                            > > > > > > as October 22.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/hisStory.html
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > How about 1909? Based on the Kentucky Census (believed conducted in
                            > > > > > > the spring)of 1910 suggesting that Paul was 6 months old?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > OK. Why does this stuff even matter? Perhap's it's all about
                            > > > > > > unscrambling the pieces and determining fact from fiction.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Researching the lineage of Eck Masters, or when Paul Twitchell came to
                            > > > > > > contact an Eck Master, one is naturally drawn to the mid 1930's
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > "Paul first met Rebazar Tarzs in 1951 in the foothills of the
                            > > > > > > Himalayas near Darjeeling. Before that on his first trip to India in
                            > > > > > > 1935, he met Sudar Singh. We are still looking for information on
                            > > > > > > Sudar Singh. We have gotten a lot of reports about an individual named
                            > > > > > > Sundar Singh, who is not the same person at all.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > "Somebody asked Paul why he didn't simply look into the ECK-Vidya
                            > > > > > > whenever he needed to know something. He said he didn't want to take
                            > > > > > > all the surprise and adventure out of life. I feel the same way. It's
                            > > > > > > more fun to find out yourself rather than be told. This is why the ECK
                            > > > > > > initiates go out and find material about Sudar Singh themselves."
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man2.html
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Hey now! 1935. That's the ticket!
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >  ". . . I found this to be true of Sudar Singh, the strange mystic of
                            > > > > > > Allahabad, in the summer of 1938, when I visited him with my step-
                            > > > > > > sister." [Based on: ECKANKAR-The Key to Secret Worlds, by Paul
                            > > > > > > Twitchell, Chap. 10, 3rd paragraph]
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > 1938 was later edited out. See 1988 version, p. 169-170.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > >    ". . . I found this to be true of Sudar Singh, the strange mystic
                            > > > > > > of Allahabad, the summer I visited him with my half sister."
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > What is wrong with this picture? Paul Twitchell was apparently NOT a
                            > > > > > > teenager in the mid 1930's but, in fact, had already graduated high
                            > > > > > > school and been to college already!
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > How could Paul Twitchell have been a teenager when he (reportedly)
                            > > > > > > went to Paris, France? Or later stayed at Sudar Singh's ashram in
                            > > > > > > India for about a year?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Unscrambling the pieces? For heaven's sake! What pieces?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > "It was upon their return to Paris that Paul met Sudar Singh for the
                            > > > > > > first time. The Indian holy man was lecturing in France in an effort
                            > > > > > > to gain sincere disciples."
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
                            > > > > > > 51]
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > "[...] Sudar Singh was silent for several moments before he spoke. 'Am
                            > > > > > > I to understand that you would like to return with me to my spiritual
                            > > > > > > retreat in Allahabad?'
                            > > > > > >    " 'That is my wish,' Kay-Dee said emphatically. 'Paul?' [....] Kay-
                            > > > > > > Dee and Paul lived in Sudar Singh's ashram for nearly a year before
                            > > > > > > the irate Grands managed to haul them home."
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
                            > > > > > > 52]
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > "This year in India was not spent totally in an attitude of holy
                            > > > > > > learning. Paul had reached his sixteenth birthday [1925?], and he
                            > > > > > > decided that he needed a furlough from the ashram. He traveled to
                            > > > > > > Bombay, put up in a hotel, and then set out in search of a   holy man
                            > > > > > > who Sudar Singh had said was extremely wise in the ways of God."
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > [Based on: IN MY SOUL I AM FREE, by Brad Steiger (Copyright 1968?), p.
                            > > > > > > 53]
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Nice going Paul / Brad!
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Brad Steiger's book most likely introduced a number of people to Paul
                            > > > > > > Twitchell and Eckankar for the first time. However, Paris, Kentucky
                            > > > > > > (where Paul Twitchell's sister allegedly DID go to college) is NOT
                            > > > > > > Paris, France! And for those who might argue it was an "inner"
                            > > > > > > journey, that is NOT how the context reads in the book I quoted from.
                            > > > > > > Including the stay in an ashram for nearly a year.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > I have a question. Why didn't Harold Klemp consult the "mahanta
                            > > > > > > consciousness" to determine Paul Twitchell's actual D.O.B.? Why didn't
                            > > > > > > he do the research and consult the 1910 Kentucky Census? Umm ... or
                            > > > > > > why hasn't the latest research about Paul Twitchell's birthdate been
                            > > > > > > added to the official Eckankar website instead of Harold Klemp's 1984
                            > > > > > > reference to 1908, or 1910? If the 1909 D.O.B. is the correct year,
                            > > > > > > then why isn't it there? After a quick scan of pages about Paul
                            > > > > > > Twitchell at the official Eckankar website I found the year 1909
                            > > > > > > mentioned NADA times!
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Is it really more fun to find out yourself - rather than be told -
                            > > > > > > about the life of Paul Twitchell and his contacts with Eckankar
                            > > > > > > Masters, etc.? If that were the case then why did Paul Twitchell and
                            > > > > > > other Eck Masters write about and tell people already about all these
                            > > > > > > things? In order to keep the pieces scrambled and just so people could
                            > > > > > > have fun unscrambling them?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > My understanding is that it's incumbent on the leader of Eckankar, the
                            > > > > > > Living Eck Master, to update the teachings of Eckankar. Problem is,
                            > > > > > > how does one unscramble the pieces of their predecessors? Especially
                            > > > > > > the founder? Apparently, it is incumbent upon the members of Eckankar
                            > > > > > > too - not to mention anybody reading about Eckankar period - to
                            > > > > > > unscramble some of the pieces.
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > What has it led to? What the result of people attempting to unscramble
                            > > > > > > the pieces?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.eckankar/topics?hl=en&start=
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.eckankar/topics?lnk=rgh&pli=1
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EckankarSurvivorsAnonymous/
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eckankartruth/
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.aspx
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/rsch3.html
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://webspace.webring.com/people/de/eckcult/chapters/tmsm1.html
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > http://www.littleknownpubs.com/DialogIntro.htm
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Did it really have to take all that? And, Was [AND IS IT STILL] really
                            > > > > > > more fun?
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Comments go here :)
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                          • harrisonferrel
                            Wow, suggesting that Twitchell was better than Klemp is like saying AIDS is better than cancer. Twitchell was a conman, liar, thief and perhaps even sociopath.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 19, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Wow, suggesting that Twitchell was better than Klemp is like saying AIDS is better than cancer.


                              Twitchell was a conman, liar, thief and perhaps even sociopath. He started a cult, lied about its beginnings and his experiences, plagiarized most of his books (and for those who may be fuzzy on this topic, plagiarism means STEALING), etc. He was no kind of example of ethics. That makes him a rotten son of a bitch. Klemp is no better for all the nonsense he's done over the years.


                              ---------------------------
                              --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Dear Alf,
                              >
                              > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold, so,
                              > I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                              >
                              > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                              > David
                              >
                              > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                              >
                              > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                              > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                              > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                              >
                              > Etznab,
                              >
                              > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                              > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                              > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
                              > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                              >
                              > Alf
                              >
                              >  
                              >
                              > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                              > >
                              > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                              > > >
                              > > > *********
                              > > >
                              > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                              > > > 
                              > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                              > > > 
                              > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                              > > > 
                              > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                              > > > 
                              > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                            • al_radzik
                              Is there anyone alive who can give any account of Twitchell s life? Is his ex -wife still breathing? I d be curious to hear from any of his closest circle who
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 20, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Is there anyone alive who can give any account of Twitchell's life? Is his ex -wife still breathing? I'd be curious to hear from any of his closest circle who may have fallen from the path who could comment on the veracity of his motives and his well-cloaked biography.
                                This may be old news, but didn't Kirpal Singh reject one of Paul's books so Twitch revised his name to Sudar Singh only to become Rebazar Tarzs later on? When you step back and look at the whole picture and all the sources, it really doesn't look good for Twitch but then again, Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

                                --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, harrisonferrel <no_reply@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Wow, suggesting that Twitchell was better than Klemp is like saying AIDS is better than cancer.
                                >
                                >
                                > Twitchell was a conman, liar, thief and perhaps even sociopath. He started a cult, lied about its beginnings and his experiences, plagiarized most of his books (and for those who may be fuzzy on this topic, plagiarism means STEALING), etc. He was no kind of example of ethics. That makes him a rotten son of a bitch. Klemp is no better for all the nonsense he's done over the years.
                                >
                                >
                                > ---------------------------
                                > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, David Osborn <panfluteman2000@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Dear Alf,
                                > >
                                > > Call Twitch a charlatan or what you will, but I feel that he had more integrity than Klemp.  That worship temple in Chanhassen, MN - that was Harold's idea, NOT Twitch's!  Twitch would have never gone for it.  In fact, he never even called Eckankar a religion, because he didn't want to fall into all the trappings and stereotypes about religion, anyway.  He also wanted Eckankar to be self supporting, and not hide under the non profit tax umbrella.  This whole idea of bowing down and worshipping that Harold was into, I feel was basically foreign to him.  You see, I got into Eckankar right before Paul's passing, and was involved in it when Darwin was the LEM.  I was really wierded out by the whole Darwin - Harold two masters thing, which soon generated into a feud and a debacle, and instinctively didn't like the changes that I saw Harold put into place, so I left.  I was not really an Eckist, or at least not for very long, anyway, under Harold, so,
                                > > I haven't really experienced what you all have been through.  I suppose that I was from a totally different era when it came to ECK.
                                > >
                                > > My the Eckless Blessings Be!
                                > > David
                                > >
                                > > --- On Sat, 9/17/11, al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > From: al_radzik <no_reply@yahoogroups.com>
                                > > Subject: [eckankartruth] Re: Unscrambling the pieces
                                > > To: eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Date: Saturday, September 17, 2011, 7:58 PM
                                > >
                                > > Etznab,
                                > >
                                > > I don't see how Paul's birthday argument plays out in the big picture. Nobody knew exactly when Jesus was born or died or for that matter what he did for 30 years. All I know is that in the last three years of his life he had managed to vibrate his teachings to epic proportions into what is now known as Christianity.
                                > > If you step back and look at Twitch's record, he was more of a charlatan than a messenger from God. There exists NO proof of Eckankar nor its 900 + masters before 1965. Eckankar purports to be the primary uplink of all religions but has no historical proof to make itself known in sacred texts from anywhere in the world. If Eckists don't like to talk about the facts it is because there are none. Eckankar is a self-absorbing religion where you make up your own private Idaho out of a thin framework they provide. For example, God (or sugmad) is taught to be impersonal and you are a part of that Divine spark. If that's the case, why do they come to "WORSHIP" at the temple in Chanhassen? Worship is defined as reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage. Eckankar is rife with inconsistencies and paradoxes. The plagiarisms are enough (unto themselves) to turn anyone with common sense away and look elsewhere.
                                > > I was always stunned by the fierce anger and resentment they had towards naysayers back in the old a.r.e. days. IF they were truly enlightened, they should not have been so vindictive and condescending towards non-believers. By virtue of their own belief system, it would make sense that they would detach themselves from such confrontations and simply chant HU and be God loving soul travelers but many chose to express themselves as bratty, undisciplined little children. 
                                > > My intention is to not rain on your parade but I have seen you as a tireless poster both in a.r.e. and here in eckankartruth. You seem to be welcome in both because I detect a sincerity in you to know the truth. It just makes me wonder why it's taking so long for you to make up your mind. That's all.
                                > >
                                > > Alf
                                > >
                                > >  
                                > >
                                > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=68
                                > > >
                                > > > http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/scanindexsubAcss.aspx?indexID=67
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In eckankartruth@yahoogroups.com, "etznab18" <etznab@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > OK. Well, it doesn't take long to copy and paste. Here is the message I tried to send the first time. This was my response to your post.
                                > > > >
                                > > > > *********
                                > > > >
                                > > > > It's a good question, Alf. My perspective on Eckankar is not what it used to be.
                                > > > > 
                                > > > > Yes, I've read some of the early a.r.e. posts. Also, a lot of David Lane and Ford Johnson's research. What's in it for me? For one thing, I look forward to hearing Eckists admit the truth and to sharing what truth I can with others about the history of Paul Twitchell and evolution of Eckankar teachings. I would rather do this than turn my back and allow so many fairy tales to continue and grow. So I like to research Eckankar and other religions when time permits.
                                > > > > 
                                > > > > One unfortunate thing, however, is I don't have access to Paul Twitchell's files and early manuscripts.
                                > > > > 
                                > > > > People can say what they want - Eckists, or whoever - but in the end the truth is what will prevail, in my opinion. As it is now, I think a lot of David & Ford's findings are unpopular with Eckists generally because some people just don't want to talk about facts. I think if more people did talk about facts, more Eckists would include those facts as part of the Eckankar teachings.
                                > > > > 
                                > > > > For example, I believe the facts show that Paul Twitchell used two different birth dates for his two marriages and neither one (1912 & 1922) appear to be correct when compared to the 1910 Census. Birth date is one of the most primal pieces of information recorded about a person's life. The fact that Paul Twitchell used more than one tells me he was not beyond making things up. This, coupled with the things he did to promote his name ever since a young man, only adds to all the other stories I've heard. 
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ------------------------------------
                                > >
                                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.