Short messages are more effective than long messages. No one likes clicking through four or five pages of text.
Try to keep your messages within one screenful, or two screenfuls at the maximum. Most email programs will show approximately 30 lines of text, so try to keep your message length to less than 50 lines.
If you feel adventurous, you can try reading the following message. If you don't, you can either jump to the next page, or return to the Guidelines Page.
Warning!! The following message is 250 lines long.
In article <v0211010fac019bc67848@[199.171.21.35]>, [email protected] (John Riley) (by way of [email protected] (John)) wrote, in the alt.religion.eckankar newsgroup: :David D. Smith says: : :> Reading that the founder of your religion was a plagiarist isn't :> interesting? I'd say maybe you're a bit jaded... :) : : : David, with all due respect you're a newbie in here. Read it once ten :years ago and it's interesting. Read it over and over every week posted by :people who seem to think they're doing something special and it gets very :stale. Which is enough to make anyone jaded. I'm not _quite_ a newbie in here, John. Or at least I started posting soon before you left. I even posted a "good-bye" notice to you (though I don't think I saved it). I also wonder what you mean by "posted by people who seem to think they're doing something special." I'm only in here to exchange views and do some reality testing (mostly on myself, albeit in a public forum). : Why don't you tell us a little about yourself? That is something you :really do know something about, and it wouldn't just be a repeat of stuff :we alrady know. : : Give us a little introduction, eh? Or have I missed it. If so the jokes :on me. Hmmm... I don't think I have made a "formal" introduction. :) OK, for those of you who don't know (I guess that's most of you :), I'm a 23 year-old junior Journalism major at California State University Northridge. I was born on June 17, 1974 in Santa Barbara, and I've lived my entire life in the Los Angeles area. I was here (in Van Nuys, about 10 miles from Northridge) during the Northridge earthquake last year (scariest moment of my life ;( ), and I've been witness to the massive rebuilding that's been taking place here ever since. I've been a reporter at both of the student papers at CSUN (the Daily Sundial and the Matador Reporter), and I'm currently interested in a career in freelance writing, but even that may change. My hobbies include writing (of course ;), reading, music, traveling (when I get the opportunity), debating/exchanging points of view, 'net surfing (I've been online since 1990, and on the 'net since last year), and computers (I work part time at a computer store), among other things. I generally try to keep busy. :) My interest in Eckankar began when I was introduced to it by my mom, in early 1989 (when I was only 16). I had an interest in "alternative religions" but had not committed much study. (I had attempted to be an athiest for about a year, but had decided that I believed in something, not knowing what.) She introduced the subject to me in a crowded restaurant (though visably fearfull that others would hear what she was saying). When we got home, she showed me a videotape of Harold Klemp and "The Journey Home" video, which only made me more apprehensive towards the whole subject. Despite my objections, she took me along to some Eck youth meetings where I was formally introduced to the subject. The people seemed bright, cheery, and eager to tell me about their religion. Through them, I found out about Paul Twitchell and Harold Klemp (Darwin Gross would come later <g>), all the books they had written, how inspiring they were to them, and how much they had changed their lives. There was a definate comradery among them, something which I desperately wanted, having lost all hope of any kind of a relationship with a young woman that I was trying to court. Things were looking pretty dismal at that time in my life, and everyone I met in Eck seemed to be happy. Some of the beliefs and rituals seemed pretty kooky, but others did not, such as the belief in reincarnation (which I had accepted, even as an athiest). The need in a living master to show the right road was not obvious to me, but not totally incomcompatable with my existing belief system, either. I took the Eckists' advice and just went with the things I already believed in, with the confidence that I wouldn't always have to "rely" on faith. Besides, I figured, how bad could it be? If it really was something I shouldn't deal with, I figured I could always leave. As time passed, I believed more and more in the Eckankar doctrines, and that anything could be solved (or at least overcome) by applying them. While I never forgot Holly, my social life was mostly spent with other Ecksits. I mostly stayed away from devout Christians, becuase I "knew" they were entrapped by the Kal (negative) force, as Paul Twitchell had wrote (and as my new peers had always repeated). But while I came up with automatic responses to them, I never quite lost my doubts; they were only "below the surface." My reactions to criticism were usually along the lines of, "Well this is my belief system and you can't prove otherwise," or "I have proven this to myself," or "This is my belief system and that's that." When asked if it was some "kooky cult," I pointed out that Eckankar had "millions" of members. (This was something I never quite accepted, but Eckankar literature said (and still says) it, and I figured that millions or billions of people were unconscious Eckists anyway. <G>) Often, this was actually enough to keep the discussion from going any further. Usually, I just tried to skirt the subject. My doubts started to come to a head in late April, 1991, when an issue of Time magazine arrived at my door, containing a cover story entitled "Scientology: The Cult of Greed and Power." I was aware that Twitchell had been involved in Scientology, but I knew very little about it, other than the "Dianetics" commercials I saw occasionally on TV. ("Scientology" wasn't even a conscious part of my lexicon, and I had to be reminded that it was related to Dianetics.) In the article, there were a number of issues regarding Scientology that bothered me: how L. Ron Hubbard (LRH) changed significant details in his biography to impress Scientologists (he said that he was a "war hero," and had died two or three times but had come back to life due to his research into Scientology, neither of which were true); how it represents itself to different people as different things (as a business management system, as a type of psycho-therapy, or as a new-age reformed-Buddhist belief system, depending on who you are); how they charge tens (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars for courses; and how they harass ex-members and prominent critics who speak out against the cult (the elderly mother of a prominent critic in alt.religion.scientology was recently harassed by one of their private investigators, for example), often by using unethical and sometimes illegal means. While I was bothered by what I read about Scientology for Scientology's sake, I was also concerned about what it meant for Eckankar. Obviously, Twitchell had been a member (and LRH's press agent), and according to Harold Klemp, he had even learned a lot from him. While he might have learned some good things from LRH (I presumed that it couldn't be all bad, if people actually liked it <g>), I had to wonder how much of the destructive side PT had borrowed in creating Eckankar. While this was on my mind, it was something I was trying hard to suppress. But even though I was told not to criticize another religion while in Eckankar, I figured that Scientology could stand an investigation, if it really was as bad as it had been alleged. The first place I went was a bulletin board on one of the major online services here in the U.S.A. There were several critics, a few Scientologists, and no ex-members (as far as I could tell at the time). While some of the Scientologists did seem a little kooky at times, I could also recognize similarities between the Scientologists' plight at acceptance by the mainstream and plights by Eckists. While I rarely expressed it (for fear that I might not have knowledge of what I was talking about), I did have a certain empathy towards them. But some of that empathy had worn away with some of the behavior exhibited towards critics by the Scientologists, and by the critics' arguments against Scientology. (Most prominent in my mind was the belief in an intergalactic tyrant named Xenu who lived 75 million years ago, who is introduced in one of the church's top-secret levels.) Eventually, one dissatisfied former Scientologist went online, who confirmed the teachings about Xenu (among other things), and described how the church manipulated him into believing that his membership in Scientology was essential for his very survival, and for the survival of the planet. I began to see that it was indeed possible for a church to abuse its members, and I began to feel outrage. I also read _Bare-Faced Messiah_ by Russell Miller, a biography about LRH (and an excellent book, BTW). But I sometimes tried to avoid thinking about Scienotlogy. Why? Because the more I delved into the subject, the more I was unconsiously (and sometimes even consciously!) reminded of Eckankar! While I believed that my doubts were influenced by the Kal, and deserved no further thought, I knew that there were some unresolved issues concerning my membership, and I became increasingly aware that they would have to come to a head someday. Scientology reminded me of the problems I was having with Eckankar. I was introduced to a former Scientologist who became an Eckist (I don't know why he left or was kicked out of Scn), who told me that LRH's "tech" was "very powerfull. But in the wrong hands (which he felt the church is in now), it can be pretty fucking dangerous." Those last three words left a distinct impression upon me. But if so much of the "tech" was borrowed, plagiarized, or made up for convinence (as the critics alleged), then how could it be so "fucking dangerous?" In early 1993, I decided that my doubts would have to come to a head. I decided to withdrawl from all of my Eckankar activities until I had resolved them, though I had never formally withdrawln from the organization (I simply let my paid membership expire). Since I did not know of any other source for outside information on Eckankar, I requested a pamphlet from the Cult Awareness Network in Chicago. (Not knowing what its slant was, I had earlier tried getting hold of David Lane's _The Making of a Spiritual Movement,_ but I was unsuccessfull.) The pamphlet arrived over a week later, and it was frankly quite dry, in comparison with everything I've read in this newsgroup. There was a copy of a newspaper article quoting Lane (from the Seattle Times), in which he mentioned plagiarizing. But I somehow missed that until I found it out through someone else <G>, a few days later. There was also a photocopy of the table of contents from the Spiritual Counterfeits Project report on Eckankar, but nothing else from that journal. The only thing that that pamphlet had shown me that it is okay to have doubts about Eckankar (something that I had always heard, but had never believed (or seen anyone else exemplify).) I could almost feel a hole opening up in my head, almost wedging through my entire body, aware that my old beliefs were quickly disappearing, fearfull of what they were going to be filled in by. I had been feeling depressed that entire week, waiting for that pamphlet, and not knowing what was going to be inside. A included story by a former associate of Twitchell's (when they both were professional journalists) about how Twitch had passed off a fictional story and sold it to a paper as a true event destroyed his credibility in my eyes, and made me wonder how I had ever trusted his words. I later read how he substituted the names of the made-up "Eck Masters" for the names of real-life masters in rewrites of his previous works. I knew that I would have to be less trusting of people and claims that have not shown me their trustworthiness, as I had trusted Eckankar very readily. People in Eckankar often say that those who expect results from the teachings will be dissappointed. But I have seen how Eckankar sets people up for this, by not only telling them that they will have experiences, but what they will be. I had often heard Eckists make comments along the lines of, "So-and-so is not an ECKist, but s/he is a VERY spiritual person!"; as though this is a very rare thing for the non-Eckists. Those who practiced meditation outside of Eckankar were somehow more likely to be considered spiritual than those who did not. When I first started getting into debates about Eckankar, I often wondered why members didn't get upset at the "Eck Masters" when I brought up issues that were important to me, but took to attacking me instead (as Tim Kelly has been libeling David Lane in a.r.e as of late). Who wouldn't be concerned if they found out that the founder of their religion was a voluminous plagiarist and had lied about his own background? Who wouldn't be concerned if the founder of their religion had called African-Americans "darkies," as Twitchell did in a letter to the New York Times during World War II? Or if he had said that gays will become straight as they practice his self-perscribed techniques (all the while, somehow convinently forgetting to say anything about straights)? I have decided that the only people who wouldn't become concerned are those who have already made a tremendous stake in their decision, and would find their world crashing down upon them if they decided to turn things back. That may sound harsh, but that's the situation I was in when I left Eckankar. Spiritual experiences gained while in Eckankar may be seen as a reason to stay (and to somehow explain away all the other issues), but all of the spiritual experiences in the world won't make cold, hard, physical facts disappear. Speaking from experience, if I was them, I wouldn't want to face up to it either. [BTW: This post is being emailed to a few people whom I've shared the experience (who don't regularly read alt.religion.eckankar). This message is also being forwarded to alt.support.ex-cult, where it may be of interest. Becuase I am using a mail-to-news gateway (since my Usenet server is down again), I would appreciate it if all responses were directed towards both newsgroups, if it doesn't do it automatically.] Peace, <> David ------------- THE UNIVERSE IS EXPANDING!! New positions being created every minute!! For details, contact JPL at http://daphne.jpl.nasa.gov/otherLinks /jpl.html/, or NASA at http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/. ------------- "Win95 is proof that PC users can take a joke." --Steven Jobs "Is there room in that shower for *every* woman?" --Brett Butler's sister, after an annonymous fan told her that she was "every woman."