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

Re: Unscrambling the pieces

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.