Message Length


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."