Re: What is the primary reason that Eckankar went non-profit religious teaching?
Etznab
> On Feb 18, 9:37 pm, Santim Vah <santim...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What is the primary reason that Eckankar went non-profit religious
> > teaching?
>
> > The first step to that occurred in 1970. Later Sri Harold took it a
> > step further.
>
> > There have been lot's of reasons given over the years, from Paul to
> > David Lane and inbetween.
> > So what is your best guess as to the over-riding reading primary most
> > critical reason that led Paul and others to agree to shift to a non-
> > profit religious organisation?
>
> > Here i will help with the first most likely suggestion:
>
> > To reduce expenses by cutting the over-bearing taxation impiosed by
> > Govt at all levels.
>
> > Sounds damn impressive and compelling yes?
>
> > OK .. any others or a refinement of the above point?
>
> > INSERT IDEAS HERE : >>>>>>>>>>
>
> > or don't , I don;t care ;)
> > thx sean
>
> Good Question, Sean.
>
> My impression is that Sri Paul resisted it, based on what his
> intentions were for a Spiritual journey leading to one's true
> identity. Let me contemplate this. JR
My impression is also that Paul resisted it. However:
"On the advice of Paul's attorneys, in 1970 Eckankar was
established as a nonprofit organization. This would provide
financial stability, continuity of the ECK teachings, and in-
sure the future of Eckankar. [....]"
- The Future of ECK, by Harold Klemp
http://www.eckankar.org/Masters/Peddar/man.html#training
So there you have it. "On the advice of Paul's attorneys ...."
Etznab
Etznab
> intent?
> eg
> What is the primary reason that Eckankar went non-profit religious
> teaching?
>
>
> Whilst this seems quite true it doesn't seem to cover on what basis
> [ primary reason] was this advice given, and then accepted after a
> lifetime of rejecting such ideas.
>
> Though, given the more common belief / frame that it was about cutting
> taxes expenses etc [ that would provide financial stability,
> continuity of the ECK teachings, and insure the future of Eckankar ]
> it's noted that the advice hasn't been reported by Harold that it came
> from Accountants, nor specifically Tax Accountants.
>
> iow this comment by Harold on the surface appears to be in total
> opposition to what David L claimed in his research into Eckankar
> [ it's all the $] , and what many still accept and believe to this
> day.
>
> I think this could, would, should mean something to the average bear,
> xox Yogi B Bear.
>
> [ I am simply doing a litmus test in this thread -- there is NO wrong
> answer here ok ]
>
> Personally, I like JR's approach. Works for me.
Not saying it was primary. Only submitting related material.
Ford Johnson has another take about the why. And I believe
it had to do with certain "protections" afforded to "churches",
"religious myths", etc.
Also not saying this is THE primary reason, IMO. I am only
bringing the "knowns", or what "has been said", out onto the
table - where we (anybody) might be able to disect, scrutinize
them at will. Maybe get to see what each one ate, or had for
dinner :) So to speak.
Etznab
Etznab
> What is the primary reason that Eckankar went non-profit religious
> teaching?
>
> The first step to that occurred in 1970. Later Sri Harold took it a
> step further.
>
> There have been lot's of reasons given over the years, from Paul to
> David Lane and inbetween.
> So what is your best guess as to the over-riding reading primary most
> critical reason that led Paul and others to agree to shift to a non-
> profit religious organisation?
>
> Here i will help with the first most likely suggestion:
>
> To reduce expenses by cutting the over-bearing taxation impiosed by
> Govt at all levels.
>
> Sounds damn impressive and compelling yes?
>
> OK .. any others or a refinement of the above point?
>
> INSERT IDEAS HERE : >>>>>>>>>>
>
> or don't , I don;t care ;)
> thx sean
"What is the primary reason that Eckankar went non-profit
religious teaching?"
Sean,
Do you have the book The Whole Truth, by Doug Marman?
Turn to page 167: The Non-Profit Question.
IMO, not only was JR correct to say that Paul resisted, but
(on p. 168) Paul said "They'll be sorry."
Going back to p. 167, though, one can see David Lane &
his reference to "mounting pressure from Eckankar board
members". One can see Doug Marman admitting that he
(David) was right about a board of directors. Patti says:
"It just galls me to say this, but in this case David was right.
There was a board of directors and there was tremendous
pressure from them. Paul finally agreed to the non-profit
religious organization. They all pressured him unbelievably.
He finally just gave in."
Turn the page to p. 168 and read where Patti says: "They
acted as if this was a wonderful accomplishment to beat
him down."
Time for a Hu-More break:
Put em up! Put em up! :) :) :) (The Cowardly Lion, Wizard
of Oz)
******************************************************************
For something on topic spiritual & religious organizations
(according to Doug) turn to page 410. I think some of this
is really good. No kidding.
On topic of fiction& fact, see p. 142, 4th paragraph. ("He
didn't need to mix fiction with fact.") Etc.
Going back to another person's belief (and to clarify some-
thing I mentioned earlier) about why Eckankar became a
"religion" (Not non-profit organization? Is there a difference?)
"[....] This was also one of the reasons that Paul changed
his perspective and turned Eckankar into a religion. He was
well aware of the deceptions and fabrications in his writings.
If he made Eckankar a religion, no one could legally question
the truth of what he wrote for it would constitute religious
dogma protected by the Constitution of the United States. If
it were merely a non-profit organization, like HCS (Higher
Consciousness Society), it would be subject to a much higher
legal standard of truth. It has none of the legal protections that
the dogma and myths of religions can look to for protection.
That is also why Scientology became a religion. When you
have something to hide, such as the truth behind your public
story, there is no better protection than that provided by the
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. [....]
[Based on: The Truth Seeker BB Post by TS (Entitled: Com-
ments on Postings by Soultraveler: Paul Twitchell and Eckankar)
- 08/30/05 - @
http://www.thetruth-seeker.com/dispBB.asp#m1421
Perhaps one needs to clarify what Eckankar "became" in 1970?
A Non-Profit organization? Non-Profit religious organization? Or
what? I'm not sure. In other words, I don't know.
Somebody pass me another can of spinach! :)
One more quote. (So glad I compiled all of this and don't have
to go running around searching a dozen or more books until my
vision goes a blur. It's all in a single four-page file. My Eckankar
Trivia Timeline. And user friendly, too! I don't mean to brag. Well,
yes! I do mean to brag :)
"The reason Paul abandoned the profit company for bringing out
the ECK teachings is that it offered no umbrella of protection for
the initiates of local Satsangs to hold classes. Each time they
met, a city official could have insisted upon a business license.
It took Paul awhile to realize it, but Constitutional protection had
long ago been provided for groups of religious teachings, and that
was to be a church." [Harold Klemp quote? See link]
http://www.littleknownpubs.com/Dialog_Ch_Three.htm
That old constitutional protection reference appears once again!
Not to mention, church!
"Isn't that special?" (Church Lady quote?) :)
Non of this answers the initial question, perhaps, but it does do
the subject some justice. IMO. If nothing else to seek clarity on
the subject of "Non-Profit" vs. "Religious Organization".
So it was the lawyers that convinced him?
The board of directors that pressured him?
But why?
Still searching ....
Etznab
P.S. And WHY was Paul Twitchell poisoned? a month or two
after Eckankar became a non-profit organization in July 1970?
It was a rough year for people generally? As at least 384,790
people died from natural disaster deaths in 1970? - according
to my records.
P.P.S. Seminars, Satsangs and Service. I can't say much for
Seminars and Satsangs, but I'm glad to be of Service :)
Etznab
> On Feb 20, 12:31 pm, Etznab <etz...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Time for a Hu-More break:
>
> > Put em up! Put em up! :) :) :) (The Cowardly Lion, Wizard
> > of Oz)
>
>
> > ******************************************************************
>
> > For something on topic spiritual & religious organizations
> > (according to Doug) turn to page 410. I think some of this
> > is really good. No kidding.
>
>
> > On topic of fiction& fact, see p. 142, 4th paragraph. ("He
> > didn't need to mix fiction with fact.") Etc.
>
>
> Exactly, but is Paul the one that did that as much mixing as others
> after him? :)
>
> If you turn back a page "Truth is different than facts or knowledge"
> and refer to the links I gave about *framing" by Laykoff. [ first part
> of his talk in the bookstore]
>
> You cannot tell the truth, "breathe out Truth" as Doug put it, without
> framing. Facts or knowledge alone cannot do it.
>
> See? ;-)
>
> thx sean
"Exactly, but is Paul the one that did that as much mixing as others
after him? :)"
It's good to make note of that question. IMO. I'm beginning to like
the
thread too. I will follow it and maybe it will lead me to a ball of
string :)
Fun! Fun! Fun! :) :) :)
Etznab