Talk:Charles Buell Anderson/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Aren't there more centers in Europe? 2 Thanks for the info, I have just updated accordingly 3 Hi Scott, 4 Cult and NPOV 5 Page title 6 Move accomplished 7 Endeavor Academy - a different perspective... 8 Encouraging 'different perspectives' of EA 9 In Reply to Former EA Student 10 Reply from former EA student 11 Reply to former EA student 12 Reply to Bodhi 13 Reply from Robin 14 Rationale for recent revert 15 Reply to Scott 16 Personal testimony by RobinEvans 17 Reply to Bovlb 18 My Experience at EA 19 Update - Internet Censorship 20 My name is Robin!!! 21 Question re: EA belief in the 'tribulation' 22 Posting policies for article discussion pages 23 Your not too impersonal Endeavor Academy article 24 I experienced my own healing at EA, and saw much good there 25 Ominicosm hasn't yet listed any personal info or set up a user page. 26 Further re: Wiki user-id's and Wiki editing policies 27 Wiki documentation policy 28 I understand and will abide 29 NPOV? 30 Onmicosm (cont'd): Learning to heal by changing my mind 31 Almost the entire article is a fiction, what gives? 32 POV text 33 sorry for mistakes 34 Reply to E.J. 35 “What the hell is he talking about?” 36 Full reply to E.J.'s last post, attempting some clarification 37 Notice: a major rewrite/ split of the Anderson article is planned 38 Completion of significant rewrite: rationale and description 39 Crucifixion 40 Proposed Renaming 40.1 What is current Wiki practice on this? 40.2 A Redirect created for now 40.3 Further considerations regarding an article move 40.4 Does Wiki 'endorse' titles?

Aren't there more centers in Europe?

Doesn't it have affiliated centers in Wusterwitz, Germany and a defunct one in Laag Soeren, the Netherlands? I visited the one in Laag Soeren but I was then totally unaware that this was part of a controversial group. My friends later moved to Wisconsin Dells. Andries 20:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I have just updated accordingly

Dear Andries,

Thanks for the input. I just finished visiting the Endeavor website, which reports that the Netherlands center is still active, but that apparently the Byron Bay: Australia center is now closed. The original information I had on the page was copied from the main ACIM article in Wikipedia. Apparently it was outdated. I have now updated the Endeavor article accordingly.

Scott P. 01:17, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Scott,

I edited the article directly and tagged my edits - you can remove them, alter them or whatever you like but I tried to remain objective...

Thanks Bodhi, miracleweb@gmail.com Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Cult and NPOV

They way that the justification of the cult label is phrased comes across as somewhat POV. Could we improve it? Better still, could we attribute it? Could we relate it to the cult checklist? Bovlb 04:51, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

This article is really bad --Alterego 14:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Page title

Why isn't this article at Chuck Anderson? Is his name "Chuck Anderson, Leader of Endeavor Academy"? There doesn't seem to be any other Chuck Anderson that conflicts. I suggest a page move. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

On that topic, maybe this article could be improived by splitting it into an Anderson article and a Endeavor Academy article. I know that it can be hard to separate new religious movements from their founders, but it makes the articles easier to edit, categorize, etc. Just a suggestions... Cheers, -Willmcw 06:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. This article was originally about Endeavor Academy, but Chuck Anderson got folded in. Perhaps referring back to that version might be helpful. Bovlb 14:12, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move the article to Chuck Anderson. The reason that it morphed into a Chuck Anderson article is because I came to realize that the title Endeaver Academy was really not addressing the truly central phenomenon having to do with this group of people. The truly central phenomenon that affects them most deeply is the fact that they believe that they are following the new Messiah, thus, the name change for the article. At this time, in as far as I am able to determine, Anderson and Endeavor Academy are nearly synonomous, and as such, I can't see the need just yet to create two separate articles.

Thanks for the good suggestions, Scott P. 20:57, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Move accomplished

Scott P. 21:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have shortened some of the redirect chains left in the wake of this series of page moves. (See here.) I have left links to Endeavor Academy in case we want to write that article. You may want to consider listing Chuck Anderson, Leader of Endeavor Academy for speedy deletion. Bovlb 03:33, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC) This looks like it was done and redirected to this page. Ste4k 13:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Endeavor Academy - a different perspective...

I am an ex-student, having been involved with Endeavor Academy for more than three years. I left freely, was never abused, asked for money, or treated unfairly in any way. I note that the internet has some negative news on the Academy, but much of this is recent, and has been published by Robin Evans, a.k.a. Bodhi. I know Bodhi well - he used to publish the miracle times and was deeply involved with Endeavor, on and off, for several years. I note that he opens his lengthy blog with two distinct statements: a) that he rarely understood what Charles Anderson was talking about, and b) that he never received the recognition from Anderson that he craved. We need not read on.

Endeavor is not for everyone. It's an uncompromising, in-your-face, 24-hour-a-day wake-up call. Some people don't enjoy the time they spend there, as it confronts us about who we really are. Others, on the other hand, find themselves drawn back to it's incredible energy and teachings time and time again, regardless of the inner turmoil which this tends to stir up, for it is clear that Anderson and his entourage have a secret to share. For those willing to stay the course, and not to buy into anything other than their own individual awakening, there is a remarkable treasure to be attained. For me, the seed fell on fertile ground, and that which I now know is truly not of this world.

Endeavor, in the words of Ernest Holmes, was the answer to my prayers. It could not have happended any other way. If there is anything wrong with it whatsoever, then there is something wrong with me. And I can assure you, that thanks to Endeavor Academy, I now know that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with me.

That said, I have no thoughts to return. It feels over for me now, like college or university. Not that I have anything against them. But the simple fact is; Endeavor Academy works, as does A Course in Miracles, as does The Science of Mind upon which their ideology is also based. And now that it has worked for me, and completely transformed my life, I am happy to express Truth in whichever 'location' or circumstance I find myself in. For me, although I am always ready to change my mind, Endeavor appears to be no longer required.

But I may be wrong. :)

There is no world. There really isn't. And you don't need Endeavor to figure that out. But if you do find yourself drawn to it then I would be the first to recommend you take the plunge. They won't hurt you, brainwash you, or rob you. And there's no sexual deviance going on there, regardless of the chinese whispers you may have read (I assure you, whilst they may forgive such actions - they would not tolerate even the slightest indiscretion of that kind within their church). As for the one accused of sexual impropriety in his past, we need not overly concern ourselves. Universal Law is clear; what goes around comes around; we need not interfere. Instead, let us recognise the 'eye-for-an-eye' world of The Old Testament around us, and remember that Jesus said 'I am the end of the old, and the beginning of the new.' And then let us apply his New Testament; his simple teaching of Forgiveness, in order that we may truly be redeemed, that the new world which he delivered may be ushered in, and that the Truth can set us free.

Forgiveness. Total Forgiveness. It's mind-blowing, it really is.

And, if you find that you don't like it there, for whatever reason, and you don't openly attack them as Bodhi did whilst still in residence, then they'll hold the door open for you as you leave with one simple instruction on how to behave towards everyone you meet on your travels.

Give 'em heaven!

Thanks for reading,

10:04, July 19, 2005 81.151.222.142

Encouraging 'different perspectives' of EA

Dear Former EA Student,
          Your input is appreciated. It is the aim of the Wikipedia to fairly represent all views, and not to be 'censorious' of any one particular view. Naturally facts speak far louder than feelings, and as an encyclopedia, facts are generally given far more print-space than feelings. Also, the information in this article is not by any means all from one exclusive source. It seems to me that by choosing to openly contribute a few edits to this article, that Robin Evans did something that was probably not easy for him, but that he felt was truthful, needed to be done, and which may have been more responsible behavior than many others who have expressed similar feelings anonymously elsewhere, but who have not the strength of purpose to contribute as meaningfully as Robin Evans has here. I would hope that you might be able to some day forgive and refrain from judgment regarding what is Robin's documented factual account, of what happened to himself and his son at EA.

          To get a better idea of where the majority of the material in this article comes from, do a Google search on the search-phrase, ("endeavor academy" problems). Hundreds of source articles will pop up, with only a few of which have anything to do with Robin Evans. Interestingly, running a Google search on the search phrase, ("endeavor academy" solutions) returns significantly fewer hits, and half of these hits seem to be articles that are critical of EA. Only a very small percentage of the info in this article came from Robin.

          If you have found any of the factual information contained in the article to be untrue or inaccurate, please, by all means, either report that here and it will be corrected, or correct it yourself if you want. If you would like to edit yourself, it will add much weight and credibility to your edits if you would at least register as a Wiki user, then make sure you're logged in while editing the article. The only thing required to register is a valid email. Also, if you do decide to edit directly, I will be happy to assist you in familiarizing yourself with the Wiki guidelines for editing, the most important of which is the Wiki NPOV guideline which can be found at: Wikipedia:NPOV

Again, thanks for your input,

Take care,

Scott P. 17:49, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In Reply to Former EA Student

Dear Former EA Student,
Thank you for your input, however as is so often the case with people from Endeavor Academy, you have the advantage, because you have chosen not to identify yourself. You say that "There is no world" (a direct quote from A Course in Miracles) and yet there seems to be enough of one for you to make you feel unsafe enough to choose anonymity over exposure? Interesting approach but it lends little weight to your defense of Endeavor Academy and even less to your attack upon me.

You said that I attacked Endeavor Academy whilst I was still living there, interesting how we all see things so very differently. I do not feel I have ever attacked Endeavor Academy or any of its people, I have simply told the truth as I perceived it and continue to. I will be most happy to make any alterations to any of the web documents that I have on-line if you can please point out anything at all however small that is untrue. I have no wish to deceive anyone so please, write to me and include the .htm, paragraph and sentences that you feel are not true.

Attack is pointless, as Jesus so wisely points out in his Course I could ONLY attack myself, I was aware of that fact before I ever heard about the Academy. It is my opinion that, although A Course in Miracles is bandied about an awful lot at the Academy, it is neither adhered to nor is it taught there. Anderson uses the Course and the Bible as many new age’s and evangelical’s do, to add credibility to a message that he uses to dupe innocent people out of their money, their property and years of wasted life. This is what I have truly come to believe, it is no more than my opinion and it is certainly not meant to be an attack. It is based on many years of experience and conversations with friends and others who also attended the Academy.

Thank you for your contribution here and I hope that you will follow Scott’s advice above, this is an open forum with everyone’s opinions being welcome however it is important to base our opinions upon our own honest, personal experience. We all seem to experience the same situations so differently that any that are left out will inevitably leave a gaping hole. I am sure that your opinions would carry much more weight if you would focus less on defense and more on the facts of your experience. What does Jesus say? Oh yes - “When I defend myself I am attacked”

Blessings

--Robin 18:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

PS My latest web event endeavoracademy.info

Reply from former EA student

Dear Robin

Thankyou for your response. The energy in your words shows me that you have mellowed since leaving the academy, as have I.

I agree with some of your words. Finding myself in a state of 'no world', and truly knowing what that means, any form of interacion subsequently seems futile. But to create is also my nature. I choose anonymity because I have a longer term sense of how such, seemingly innocent conversations, will one day be viewed. Be as innocent as doves but as sly as foxes (?) was, i think, our master's advice.

The obvious aside, I have a limited view of what motivates Charles Anderson (i.e. his 'assignment'), but I recognise his activities as being based primarily on The Science of Mind, by Ernest Holmes. I think you've probably read that. What I do know is that I have learnt a great deal from him, and that he has radically transformed my life. I sense that he uses A Course in Miracles because it is The spiritual masterpiece, and that he knows it's power. I doubt very much if he wishes to mistreat anyone, or steal from them, for any selfish purposes. If he does, and knowing what I know he does, then he would be the biggest fool on the planet. And I certainly don't believe that. I would question some of his Biblical interpretations, but that's ok. I don;t need him to be right about everything, and I actually like him more for his few but obvious misconceptions, and his occasional vulnerability.

Anyways, now that you've responded I'll just change my mind about 'you' and stop doing what I accuse you of. All power is at my disposal, and I will get EXACTLY what I choose to believe in. Thanks for pointing out my little 'I'm right, you're wrong' grievance'. Good luck Robin - it was a pleasure to have known you.

God Bless,

12:03, July 25, 2005 81.159.244.101

Reply to former EA student

Hmmm why do you fear the future so, I thought there wasn't any?

Just one thing, you refer to Anderson as 'our master' no way... That man is no master to me, I learned only that I can be made a sucker, from him, and I won't be going there again anytime soon...

I don't really want to continue to talk with a person who I don’t know, and who doesn’t feel safe identifying him/herself to me, so I shall not be posting to you again... If however you will identify yourself I'll be happy to, you can write to me in confidence at miracleweb@gmail.com...

Robin

Reply to Bodhi

I am the creator of the future. The universe does my bidding. That's how it is for all of us of course, wouldst that we know it. In knowing it, I do my best to relinquish that power, following the Master to whom I refer; Jesus. As for the future of which I speak, it is the unfolding of his scripture, his word, which must be fulfilled.

07:17, July 27, 2005 81.151.223.244

Reply from Robin

Why? Why would you attempt to relinquish a God given power and what makes you think that in such relinquishment you are fit to follow Jesus? Where does he say that it is necessary to relinquish your creative power? It sounds to me like false humility and an attempt to flaunt that which you are yet to attain.

Do you think it's cool not to identify yourselves or something? Even Jesus realized the necessity of personal exposure; if as you say you aspire to follow him you might start by following his example.

--Robin 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) AKA (Bodhi)

Rationale for recent revert

Dear Pro-EA Article Editor,
          Your most recent edit of the article was entirely reverted because there was not a single documentable or verifiable fact presented there, yet the entire article was presented as fact. At Wiki, items are not presented as fact unless they can be documented and verified. If you have any difficulty with any of the facts already presented in the article, rather than erasing them, perhaps you might do better to present disproving facts, which Wiki policy would certainly welcome. Admittedly the article appears to document only one particular view of EA. This is because so far, the only individuals who have been able to adequately document their presentation with facts (feelings are subjective and as such cannot be presented as proof of facts) are individuals who have had a critical view of EA.

          Rather than simply erasing facts and replacing them with your feelings, and doing this anonymously, if you would like to have EA represented in this article in a less critical light, perhaps you might do better to:

1. Register with Wiki as a user,
2. Edit while being logged in as that user,
3. Only present information that is documentable.

          Also while presenting such information, documentation should be properly referenced, and if you are merely presenting a statement such as:

"The Master Teacher's credential is the transmission of the power of Resurrected Mind into the sleeping mind of this dream world."

Then you would do well to recognize that such a credential is not recognized as a standard teaching credential within the world of encyclopedic research, and as such, requires certain contextualization. Instead such a statement might be presented as:

"Anderson asserts that his primary teaching credential is his alleged ability to transmit 'the power of Resurrected Mind into the sleeping mind of this dream world.' Apparently his reference to a transmission of power is a claim to enable a raising of consciousness by the force of his presence, and by adherence to his direction and teaching. "

          If you desire to state something as you did in your previous edit, such as:

"(The) raising of the dead become(s) a natural occurrence."

Then you would do well to also present a documented instance of such an event, as presenting such an unsubstantiated assertion as fact with no documentation will only harm both the credibility of the article and of the editor. However, if such an assertion were presented with substantiating factual evidence, then undoubtedly, both the credibility of the article and of the editor would be enhanced.

          Also, the fact that Anderson acclaims himself, or is acclaimed by others to be the Messiah, is not normally the type of fact that is elaborated upon to any great extent in an encyclopedia article, unless there might be relevent, actual, verifiable and documentable facts that can document the reason for this belief. The fact that one or two hundred people may feel that this is true is already presented in the current article. Any further documentation of this would require additional documentable facts.

          Thank you for your input. If you might be able to present more facts and fewer feelings presented as fact in your next edit, perhaps it will be something that would improve the article.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 13:54, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

---

As an experienced Wikipedia editor who is unfamiliar with EA, but who has read both versions of the article, I must agree with User:Scottperry. He gives excellent advice on how to write for this encyclopedia. All articles, whether about saints or sinners, should stick to summarizing verifiable sources with a neutral point of view. -Willmcw 22:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Scott

Scott, can you see the cult like behaviors evolving here as they inevitably do in other places around the internet where cult groups seek to spread their indoctrination?

All actions by unidentified EAites are justified simply because they are awake and we are asleep. How, I ask you, can you beat that for an argument LOL.

I agree with your post and I see it as practical, necessary advice. However, given the superior nature of those you are attempting to educate here, I don't see it ever being taken in the spirit in which it was so obviously intended.

It is very important to stay within the guidelines for this publication, so that its overall integrity can be maintained. You have given us fair and easy to understand examples of how we can all do this and have our points of view heard.

Thank you for your thoughtfulness.

--Robin 18:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal testimony by RobinEvans

I have removed a long section by RobinEvans which was a signed first person account of experiences with Anderson and consequent life-changing events. I'm afraid this is not encyclopedic. Bovlb 14:24:01, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

Reply to Bovlb

That is perfectly ok, I had my doubts as to it's worthiness for publication in this forum. I am presently working on an improved version of the article with quotations from ACIM and when it is complete I will publish it on my website with a link to it here - Thank you for keeping to the integrity of the Wikipedia. --Robin 22:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

My Experience at EA

I went to the Endeavor Academy and lived there for about 2 years. I met many intelligent and caring people there, both long timers and temporary people. It's too bad that many of the inner circle there seem to have more mental problems than most regular people do, and that sometimes some of the students there can be abused and hurt.

I only saw Master Teacher as a nice old man, and I felt as if the Academy wanted more from me than he did. I saw many miracles while I was there but miracles are everywhere. I only needed to see them. I wanted a life of my own, instead of just worshiping and focusing on one man.

Perhaps the Academy is a fast road to salvation, but many of the people there do not seem to me to be very happy.

Dorothea Stefen

--Dstefen 23:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Update - Internet Censorship

On Tuesday August 2. 2005. I received notice via an e-mail from my server http://www.kingshosting.com that they had been threatened with a cease and desist notice from the lawyers of Mr. Russell Wright of Wisconsin Dells WI.

http://www.kingshosting.com was told to remove my web-site http://www.endeavoracademy.info from their server and from the Internet. They immediately complied, though I do not understand why, most of the contents of my site are also contained in briefer terms in the article here on the Wikipedia entitled Charles Buell Anderson

The same facts about Endeavor Academy, C. B. Anderson and certain sexually deviant practices at Endeavor Academy appear on dozens of sites around the internet including such reputable sites as The Ross Institute and Answers.com

I believe that Mr. Wright has a personal vendetta against me as there is no other reason I can think of for his bizarre behavior toward me. Mr. Wright is himself an ex-cult member from the Endeavor Academy so his actions in this matter seem somewhat contradictory.

My site will be back up on a different server ASAP.

--Robin 21:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Bodhi,

Give it up. There is nobody out there but you. Don't you get it? The tribulation is at the door, right now. The trouble that we expect is about to come, and yet you persist in this nonsense. The Fig is flowering Bodhi. Come on!!! Get ready for the ascension brother. The Shift is upon us.

Good luck,

08:46, August 5, 2005 81.159.244.5

My name is Robin!!!

There you go again, trying to convince me that there is something metaphysical going on in order to make my point mute. I don't believe the religious gobbledygook you do, it's meaningless to me, I'm not frightened by your veiled threats of coming tribulation, just as I wasn't by Anderson's. Shame on you for trying to teach love using fear anyway!

--Robin 02:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Question re: EA belief in the 'tribulation'

To anyone who may know this,

The last edit to this page by the anonymous EA student who wrote about an EA belief in the coming tribulation raises a question for me. Does anyone know what Anderson predicts will happen to the rest of us supposedly dead ones after he has made his supposed ascension? Does he predict some sort of Biblical tribulation as in the book of Revelations? Based on the tone of the EA-tribulation poster above, this would seem to be the case. Does anyone know any more about this?

Scott P. 16:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

To clarify Scott,

My posting is not influenced by the teachings of Endeavor Academy. The Teacher there has different biblical interpretations to me. That said, whilst you will catch him talking occasionally of difficult times ahead, he mostly focuses on LIFE and ASCENSION. That is his purpose.

Let me say this. What he has to say on this particular subject is actually irrelevant, because everything that needs to be said has already been communicated by our saviour. Matthew 24. It is Now. He brought it with him.

And Scott. You are not a dead one my friend. You are a perfect manifestation of your creator, forever cradled in his mind. What else could you be? Where else could you be? Who else could you be? All Jesus wanted was for you to know that, in time for the 'tribulation' - the imminent polar shift - in order that your mind may be freed from this 'world', and ascend to 4th (and then 5th) dimensional reality. Have you ever tried to tell a 2-dimensional creature about your world? He'll call you crazy!! Plato's cave.

You have as much right as any Endeavor-ite, including the teacher, to make that choice. But you will suffer the consequences if you don't. There's no wrath of God in that. It's just causation. You are free to choose. And I strongly recommend that you pay attention to the one who came to save you.

When on the cross, Jesus asked 'Father, why have you forsaken me?' The answer came to him immediately of course, and clarified his own teaching; 'The sign of the son of man will be seen by all the tribes of the earth, coming in the clouds of heaven with great power and glory'. What is that sign? A RED CROSS.

-86.129.254.228 August 5, 2005, 14:55

Let's please keep the conversation on this talk page directly related to writing an encyclopedia article. Saving souls, etc, is better done on user talkpages, by email, in person, etc.

Thanks,

-Willmcw 18:57, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Posting policies for article discussion pages

Dear Anonymous EA Poster(s), whomever you might be,
          You have obviously chosen to subscribe to a belief system that is based more upon supposition and feelings than upon provable facts. Yet in your own mind(s), you hold these beliefs as facts, rather than as mere suppositions. I hope you will forgive myself, and some of the other Wiki editors, but Wiki is a place where we try not to portray such belief systems as if they were facts. Herein lies the rub.... as they say.
          So, I suppose you will probably call some of us blind, because we refuse to accept anything without a factual basis, and I suppose I must admit that your chosen beliefs, that you have not yet been able to prove to have any factual basis, appear to be a bit misdirected to myself, and probably also appear this way to some, or perhaps many other Wiki editors as well.
          I apologize for asking the question about Anderson’s ‘Tribulation’ teachings here, as I suppose in doing this I opened up a topic that is probably too contentious for discussion on this article discussion page. I thank you for your input, and I hope you will forgive me for my mistake. I am afraid I must agree with User:Willmcw. Unless you are wanting to present facts, then this is probably not the best page for you to be posting to.
          If you have a personal message for Robin which you would like to have Wiki incorporate into its archives, then the best page for that would be:

User_talk:RobinEvans

          If you would like to contact Robin privately, I believe the email that he has posted above is:

miracleweb@gmail.com

          If you have a personal message for myself which you would like to have Wiki incorporate into its archives, then the best page for that would be:

User_talk:Scottperry

          If you would like to contact me privately, then please feel free to do so by emailing to:

scotwperry@yahoo.com

          Again, thank you for your input.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 14:44, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your not too impersonal Endeavor Academy article

"An encyclopedia article must be detached and lukewarm - if not entirely clinical."Wiki. It seems that the tone of your Charles Anderson and Endeavor Academy Articles are totally personal and I will be adding some "Facts" to them in the future. I hope that will be ok.

God Bless,

Tony Schaefer,

-User:Acourseinmiracles 16:54, August 6, 2005

Dear Tony,

I'm glad that someone from EA is finally willing to put a name to their editing here. Yes facts are facts, and EA is certainly entitled to put it's facts (as opposed to theories) in the article. By the way, that quote that you listed above was in-fact not an official Wiki quote. It was a quote of a Wiki user by the name of User:Stevertigo who wrote this as his personal opinion of what an article should read like.

Sincerely,

Scott P. 21:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I experienced my own healing at EA, and saw much good there

I would like to express that the statement "central phenomenon that affects them most deeply is the fact that they believe that they are following the new Messiah" is not really true. To previous students who felt that they were not given the proper recognition they deserved, and to those who have never attended it may appear this way. The central "phenomenon" if there is one, is that each student individually at some time had a deeply personal experience with the Course In Miracles that led them to desire to have a fuller integration of it's teachings in their lives.

Endeavor is a teachers training academy with this goal. Its sole purpose is to assist those who wish to undergo the experience of enlightenment as offered by The Course In Miracles and to help them mature as Teachers of the Course. Also, Endeavor is committed to making the message of the Course available to anyone who wants it anywhere in the world.

The students of Endeavor do not "worship" Anderson as a messiah but consider him to be an elder brother, deserving of respect, as expressed in the teachers manual of the Course. Also, the students of Endeavor consider themselves to be followers of Jesus and practice the prinicples of love, forgiveness, service and non-judgment as taught by Jesus in his Course and New Testament. I see that the article on Anderson/Endeavor is painted from only a particular perspective.

What is not mentioned is that Endeavor has been an active force in the promotion of A Course In Miracles worldwide. Endeavor got the Course into public domain and freed Course teachers everywhere from lawsuit threats by Ken Wapnik, who sought to oppress all Course teachers worldwide. Endeavor has attended many prestigious international events that were dedicated to peace and spiritual awakening such as the Millinneum Peace Summit for Religious and Spiritual Leaders sponsored by the United Nations, was a presenter at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Barcelona, the worlds most prestigious religious gathering, spoke at the Intl. Forum for Science and Religion held in Brazil and many more events.

As a former student at Endeavor I can only say that my experience was life changing and infinitely positive. Before my Endeavor experience, I had been diagnosed with a terminal condition but through the practices and teachings there, I was miraculously healed. In addition, I have never been sick again, not even a cold! I experienced Endeavor as a loving, supporting place with an incredible staff of teachers. My experiences with the Master Teacher were all benevolent and opened my eyes to a whole new way of being. I must admit that I was at times challenged to have to face my own darkness and fears, but emerged unharmed in happiness.

I did notice that there were those who were demanding to receive special attention for themselves to try and become part of some perceived inner circle but who were not taken seriously. They are primarily the ones that I see on the internet launching the heated attacks against Endeavor. I myself did not witness an "inner circle," or the connotations that go with it. There was however, a group of staff that was very active and dedicated to the projects and functions of Endeavor and this group worked closely with Anderson, but at no point was any person at Endeavor excluded from participation. -Omnicosm Aug. 7, 2005

Dear Onmicosm,

What were you diagnosed with? I assume that the diagnosis was done by an MD? Would you be willing to document it? If so, then this is the type of pro-EA fact that might make a worthy reference in the article. Even aside from documentation of your healing account I will attempt to include some of the other positive info you have provided into the article at some time within the next day or two. Regarding your sense that Anderson is not central to EA, that I do not quite understand. I assume that you do believe that Anderson is Jesus, yet you do not feel that his presence at EA is central to what EA is accomplishing? Please clarify.

Regarding the sense that EA and some other ACIM students/ teachers may have felt oppressed by Wapnick's FIP publishing operation, I believe that as a result of another EA student's edits, this fact is now addressed in the article. I don't think that it would be a fair representation to imply in the article that most ACIM students (which ACIM also defines as ACIM teachers) worldwide felt personally oppressed by Wapnick, unless you could somehow document this.

It is my understanding that there were three or four prominent ACIM teachers, who happened to be the leaders of well established ACIM teaching organizations, whose publications were found to infringe on the original ACIM copyright. As such, the publisher of ACIM, (FACIM/ Wapnick) ordered that some of these three or four must destroy some of the materials that were found to be infringing the old copyright, others were merely warned to be more careful in future publications. I suppose that you could automatically multiply the number of those who felt oppressed by assuming that all of the students of these three or four organizations probably also felt similarly oppressed as the heads of these three or four organizaitons probably did, and end up with a number closer to three or four hundred vs: perhaps over a million student/ teachers worldwide. If you might have documentation that there was more to it than that, then please let me know.

Thanks for your input. By the way, it might help to reslove questions of anonymity if you updated your user page at Omnicosm with some personal info, but minimally, it is generally expected at Wiki that once one person establishes a user account, that that one person will stick to using only that user account for all future entries, and that nobody else will use that same user account, in order to avoid unneccessary confusion and to prevent possible editorial abuse. Again, thanks.

Scott P. 22:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

(continued in Onmicosm thread below.)

Ominicosm hasn't yet listed any personal info or set up a user page.

I wonder why you people expect anyone to take you seriously when you insist on messaging anonymously, what, we are just supposed to believe what you say on some sort of faith and deny those that have the courage to write here under their own real names? Pl-e-a-s-e!

For me I will only consider words that can verifiably be traced back to a real person, the rest could be written be anyone and is meaningless because of that fact.

--Robin 22:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Robin, you are right that it still seems as if the last poster has not yet been as willing to present his or her true identity as most Wiki editors. Also you are right that much of what was written, such as the healing account, is rendered as unusable for the article because it is essentially totally anonymous. Still, the presentation of one's full identity is not done by many Wiki editors, and is usually tolerated, so long as such editors do not abuse the identities that they already have, either by allowing multiple individuals to use a single account, which is essentially dishonest, or by creating multiple accounts for a single individual, which is also essentially dishonest. It can also sometimes be helpful if a user provides a valid email at the time of creating their account, which I noticed user:Onmicosm has not yet done.

Also, regarding how to set up a new user page, whenever a new user account is created, the user page is not also automatically created. In order for a new user to set-up his or her Wiki user page, while logged in, click on your user-id link at the top of the page, then in the edit box that appears, enter any biographical info you may wish. Many users have very elaborate user pages that they sometimes use as a sort of an Internet-Calling-Card to help new friends to find out a little more about them.

Scott P. 22:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Further re: Wiki user-id's and Wiki editing policies

(continuing from the previous topic)

Regarding "real names" and personal experience: The names of the editors should not matter because editors should not add any information which is not verifiable by other editors. This is our key "Wikipedia:No original research" policy, and it forbids adding personal experiences, reminiscences, logical deductions, etc. Also, while users may have particular points of view, when they add material it should all adhere to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, another core policy. Thus, if editors are acting properly, their identities and histories should not matter, only their contributions. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the value of having a Wiki user-account: While on the one hand it is entirely true that the personality or personal undocumented, previously unpublished accounts of any individual editor are not at all intended to be a part of any Wiki article, and it is also true that Wiki's open editing policies allow for anyone with an online computer anywhere to personally edit almost anything anywhere in Wiki, still, it has been found that those who edit Wiki via a Wiki user-account usually contribute higher quality material to Wiki than those who enter information under cover of total anonymity. Also those with a Wiki user-account are enabled to dialogue far more productively on discussion pages. This is because it is quite near impossible to carry on any kind of a serious dialogue when one of the two voices appears to be to be unwilling to back up his or her comments with even a fairly anonymous Wiki user-account.

A semi-anonymous Wiki user-account only asks that a registered Wiki editor consistently enter all of his or her edits under a single 'nom-de-plume' as it were, unique to that Wiki editor. Those who register generally seem to make edits with more care, responsibility and meaningfulness, than unregistered users. Perhaps this is due to the tendency of one who registers to usually attempt to create a good history of well received edits associated with his or her user-id. Vandalism on Wiki is most often done by unregistered users for obvious reasons. So in summary, by registering with Wiki under a relatively anonymous nom-de-plume username, an editor is usually taken more seriously than one who edits without even a Wiki user-id.

-Scott P. 09:21, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that "anonymous user" is a common, but entirely inaccurate, term. Unregistered users are identified by their I.P. numbers, which in many cases identify a user's location and ISP, and in some cases even more. Users who wish to keep anonymous are better-off registering because it affords considerably more privacy (or less, if you choose to use your real name). Further, as SP has said, the contributions of unregistered users are automatically viewed with less credibility than registered users. Lastly, there are several advantages to having a stable username, such as watchlists.

-Willmcw 09:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki documentation policy

Thanks for the clarification on this in the previous topic Willmcw. When I wrote that I would try to incorporate Onmicosm's info into the page, I was planning on doing a little trolling of the internet to find corroborating verifiable accounts, then posting that here. Actually perhaps I am offering too freely to do all of someone else's footwork, no?

Onmicosm, I apologize, I stand corrected by Willmcw. If you would like to get info into this article regarding the ability of Anderson to heal, then you would first have to be able point out already published accounts of this occurring. Sorry, my mistake. Obviously if your own healing account has already been documented and published somewhere, by a source that could reasonably be seen as having no known issues with credibility, then that would be sufficient. Nonetheless, if you were able to provide me with the actual documentation of your own healing experience, it would certainly give me reason to do a thorough search for published accounts of similar healings by Anderson or his students that could be included in this article.

I ask, Willmcw please correct me if I am in any way mistaken in stating this policy.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 00:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you've got it right!

Cheers,

-Willmcw 01:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I understand and will abide

If this is the case with Wiki then of course I will abide by it however personally I have no confidence in postings by users that choose to remain anonymous.

As for Anderson having mystical healing powers, in the 7 or 8 years I spent with him at Endeavor Academy I never once witnessed him healing anyone. I saw him brutalize people and humiliate people often. I saw him attacking the world and I saw him try to persuade people to part with large sums of money. I saw him nagging at his followers to bring certain wealthy individual’s like Mal Gibson into fold but I never saw him do one single mystical thing ever.

Anderson’s main objective seemed to be the acquisition of a satellite system that would be entirely devoted to disseminating his video teachings. He spent many hours cursing and bullying his followers because they were not providing this service for him. He seemed not to understand that one doesn’t just go out and buy a satellite, or that he could buy time on one any time he liked. It was very disturbing when he started one of his satellite binges and the attendance at Session would go down suddenly when this happened, he literally became a raving lunatic and it was no fun at all to be seated in the front row at these times.

--Robin 04:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article is a thorough diss on this guy. That's all it is.

I think A Course in Miracles people are wacky enough, but even Mr. Anderson I'll give his due in a balanced manner.

sheesh.

--Defenestrate 00:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome to add to the article yourself if you feel that strongly about this. If you can find any encyclopedic info on the guy that is positive, it would certainly be appreciated if you could add it. This is basically all of the encyclopedic info we have been able to find thus far. Thanks for presenting your view.

-Scott P. 00:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Onmicosm (cont'd): Learning to heal by changing my mind

(continued from Onmicosm thread above)

Scott, thanks for the reply, I will respond.

I was diagnosed with AIDS and was given 8 months to live. I had no options left and when I ran across the Couse, I began to practice it. At Endeavor I was given the certainty that the key was my mind and that I could overcome my sickness by changing my mind. It worked. Presently, I am not willing to publicly document the information on this case. My reason is that the occurrence was a matter of faith and must remain so. Even many doctors who saw my records refused to accept the evidence in front of them. I feel that those who believe will experience, and those who don't will probably not be convinced no matter the evidence.This is not meant in a judgmental or derogatory manner in any way. It is only based on my own experience.

Scott, do not take offense, but I must admit that I nearly fell off my chair laughing when you wrote "I assume that you do believe that Anderson is Jesus". That is rather presumptuous on your part and the kind of drivel that people would rather believe than to go to the source and find out for themselves. Somepeople may believe that, but how can you in all fairness attribute that to everyone without having experienced EA yourself? Yes, I do believe in Jesus. I believe in God. I believe that they are both an inherent part of who and what I am. I believe that Anderson is a divine being created by God, as is everyone. He was a teacher that helped me to awaken. To answer your question, those who were unhappy with their Endeavor experience target Anderson as a cult leader. Big deal, Brittany Spears is a cult leader. Me, and many other EA students I know, do not feel mistreated.

As far as documenting the oppression of Course students, that is an easy issue. There were several general statements issued to the course community by the foundation for inner peace stating that no one could use or reprint anything from the Course without express permission or they would be sued. This included translations of the course in other languages. Many people did receive cease and desist letters from fip. Everyone that taught the course, wrote about it, quoted it, all knew that they were doing so against the foundations mandates. What was perpexing was that Jesus says in the course to spread his message of love, healing and forgivenss and yet the founders of fip, supposedly dedicated to the course, were not allowing the message to to be shared.

To let you know, I will be filling out my user profile soon, it has been busy for me this week and I haven't had time. Please understand that none of my posts are in any way derogatory. I understand the sensitive nature of the topic, I even understand the viewpoints of those who are angry at Endeavor and Anderson. I only want to show another side that there are many people who are extremely happy healed and grateful from their Endeavor Experience. I will end with this thought, do I think that Anderson is my Saviour? You bet I do. He told me that I had the power of the love of God in me and that if I believed in it and took a chance on it, I could heal. He was the first one who ever go through to me. He was right. That is why I am alive today, here, typing on this forum.

Thanks Scott,

User:148.63.105.192 00:40, August 12, 2005

Dear Onmicosm,

It is good to hear that your faith-healing came about from what for you was the influence of the teachings of Endeavor Academy and of Charles Anderson. Personally the experience you have described sounds to me like a genuine experience. For the sake of getting the account into the Wiki article, since it remains undocumented and unpublished, it must unfortunately remain out of the Wiki article. The only reason that Anderson's account of his own healing got into the article was because it was a first hand account of Anderson's own personal life experience, and he is the main subject of the article. (Please note that even Mr. Anderson's account is carefully worded so as to clearly reflect the fact that it is merely a recounting of Mr. Anderson's own words, and has not been medically corroborated.) Still, if you might happen to know of a single documented healing account, I would very much appreciate your making that information available either here or to my email as listed below.

Regarding what you believe was Kenneth Wapnick's oppression of ACIM students, as I wrote above, I am only aware of four individuals or organizations that received any kind of legal notices from FIP. If you might happen to have any kind of documentable list that is significantly longer than this, please email it to me, along with verifying public documents so that some summary of it might make it into this article. My email is:

scotwperry@yahoo.com.

Regarding your statement that you find Anderson as your Savior, I thank you for sharing that with me here, and I have no doubt that he has been a positive influence in your own life, and in the lives of some others too, or perhaps of many. I have listened to one of the online videos by Mr. Anderson, and I must say, while he never directly said in it that he was Jesus himself, he did seem to me to strongly imply it in the video on more than one occasion. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your comments about whether or not for you he is in fact the returned historical Jesus gave me the same impression.

As I am certain you know, my own personal bias tells me that he is also a human being, and as such, just like us all, he is capable of both great divine wonders, and also perhaps, of erring sometimes too. Thus, this is why it seems to me that in addition to the accounts, such as your own, of those who have benefited at EA, there may be some who may have some legitimate reasons to feel they have had less than beneficial experiences there too. There may also be some who wish to blame Anderson for their own mistakes too. And there may possibly also be one or two mistakes made by Anderson that got blamed onto others too. Who knows? We are all human.

It is not for us to determine blame. As a Wiki editor, it should properly be my only concern to assure that only accurate and properly documented facts make it into Wiki. In my humble opionion, in any such relationship in which some pain may still remain, it is usually best for these types of things to be resolved directly between the two or more parties involved.

Obviously there is something at EA which is far more than mere mistakes, or you could not possibly be writing here as you just have. That part I am (and I think others are too) very much hoping to somehow put into the article as well. Still such information must first be properly documented before it can be put in.

Again, if you know of any documented healings, please let me know. I thank you for sharing your positive, kindly and warm account of your experiences with Mr. Anderson and EA.

Take care my friend,

Scott P. 04:59, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

dear omnicosm

i don't know who you are(!), though i daresay we shared a moment or two in the EA dining room. thank you for your beautiful account. it's lovely to hear of another who has come away from the dells with such joy. i know they're out there, but we tend to stay silent do we not? and as for your healing. wow!!! congratulations! i believe every word of it.

i guess it's hard for some to accept miracle healing, although those who have experienced it have only done so because such doubt has been eradicated. once our mind has changed, it does not change back. thus, we remember not how to doubt. indeed, miracles are as normal as rainfall for me now. it's not even a matter of expectancy anymore. i simply give thanks, tell our father that i know he hears me, and ask for that which i believe i need. in that moment, it is done, and the clock ticks of it's own accord as it's material expression takes shape.

thankyou for changing your mind. thankyou for standing at the gate as the new world is ushered in. thankyou for facing all of the fear, anger and judgement that once crowded your mind. but most of all, to the one who hears.

thankyou,

81.151.222.206 06:21 August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Almost the entire article is a fiction, what gives?

Dear Scott,

I was at EA for a few years (98-01) and at all the centers around the world that they had at the time while I was there. I was in Byron Bay, Australia when the "holy smoke" newsletters came out and was even the topic of one issue. I went on trips with the old man, shared planes and cars, ice cream and french fries, watched football games with him. Hell I even chatted with him while peeing next to each other in a public bathroom. I talk to him on the phone occasionaly even though I haven't been at EA since Oct of 2001. I am also pretty good friends with Ted Poppe who was really the one who started the school and was the administrator for a long time as well as quite a few of the guys still there. I left EA because I was done. I'm gratefull for the experience and really glad I did it and don't have any reason to look back except in gratitude.

I went there a broken man emotionaly and physicaly, homless more or less, and now I'm not. Nobody has said boo to me about leaving and nobody has told me I'm dead. Nobody asked me for money while I was there other than for tution, room and board(which by the way was $700.00 a month and included a private room and bath, all the food I could eat all the time, free video and book rentals, two pools, one indoor and outdoor, a jacuzzi and ping pong table.) As a matter of fact people gave me money for tution and paid for airplane tickets and I've seen a whole lot of this planet on EA's dime...and I made enuff money working while there to move on to now live in one of the most expensive and beautifull places on the planet. I saw no sexual abuse and minamal physical stuff and none as a matter of routine. Shoot, if anybody was gonna be screwing and beating people using teaching as an excuse, it woulda been me!

I know the guy, I've hung out with him, I've been to his house. If you want to know something ask me, privately if you want, and you can post whichever parts you think are appropriate. I can't speak for Chuck or EA but there are interpretive errors that you make on the page. On the other hand, Chuck's no saint, but niether was Jesus. EA's not perfect although there are certainly some conceptual whack jobs runnin around at the place imagining they got a good bead on things who think it is. But not perfect compared to who or what group of people, especially "spiritual" ones, that is perfect?

I just don't get this victim bullsp*t. Where's the personal responsibility?

In any event EA certainly wasn't the way you portray it, for me, and Chuck wasn't and is not now that way with me. How you can say what "EA" thinks or says is a mystery since there is no such thing as an EA talking, just people, talking.

Very little of what you post on the front page (other than Chuck's history and the lawsuit) Scott, or things posted by the anonymous bliss bozo(dude you ain't helping clarity wise) or that Robin attributes to Chuck's way of thinking about ACIM, what he teaches and what happens at EA, are facts at all. Certainly when you read Robin's posts you can actually see what he thinks the Course says. And there's no arguing after that has been established as true unless we look at the entire ACIM intepritation because he argues that the old man isn't teaching the Course based on his own interpretation, which by the way he also conveniently says is BS.

And THAT is the crux, the point where you'll find most of the "spiritual" seekers sticking around to say negative things about ANY spiritual establishment they left because they were pissed off that the teacher or teaching didn't do what they thought. They came in with established ideas of how things should be, how they should be percieved and treated, which usually to be told how spiritual they are! They turn themselves into victims and teachers into bullies and relieve themselves of responsibility for being stupid enuff to join a cult in the first place! I guess there are "dangerous" cults...I dunno, I never been in one that i felt threatened by. I do know that EA isn't any more dangerous to the people who go there than any other place they go, since they take themselves with them :-)

To be honest this forum does not seem like a good place to discuss facts if you are using sources like your own interpretation of traditional spritual definitions, Robin's page and the Rick Ross pages as factual accounts. Robin has a particular gruesome situation that he is twisting rather dramaticly to make his case which did not occur at EA(and this after being a pretty staunch EA supporter for 7 years) and Rick Ross is simply in the cult finding business. Do you have a page on the DAR and The Wizard of Oz? The last time I checked he had them down as cults.

And quite frankly you yourself using unprovable terms like "the course community and it's intepretation of ACIM" is pretty bogus. Saying what the Course says and doesn't say by cherry picking one or two sentances from a thousand pages to prove your point is pretty cult like if you ask me :-) And any forum like this lends itself to all kinds of interpretations and ultimately pointless pissing contests. I mean fer crissakes, now the posts are about wikpedia rules! Still, this will all come down to interpretation and perception of ACIM, which as you know are pretty skimpy forms or facts.

(All)That being said, my guess is that, in answer to your question (above about EA's teaching about the 'tribulation'), I think he (Anderson) would say if there is a tribulation it's got to be personal or subjective(as is ACIM by the way) and if you go through yours then he will have disappeared! He might also say or at least I've heard him say this, "some by fire, some by water" meaning some burned in tribulation and some bathed in light. I don't know if this has been helpfull. I will say that these days I only recomend EA to the most arrogant and egotistical of seekers. EA ain't for sissies, it ain't a cheese and cracker party, but niether is actual awakening....but heck, I'm a tribulation man myself. :-)

thanks

let me know if there is any light I can shed on the subject

Ej Shearn aka Morgan/ Carmel Valley, CA

172.198.234.46 2005-08-25 09:33:31

Dear Morgan,

I appreciate your interest in this article and in this dialogue. Thanks for joining in here. I know you are new here and there is one thing that I should probably let you know. When you posted, you first erased the posts of a few other users here on this discussion page. No offence intended, as it seems to me that you are already going out of your way to post here, but erasing the input of others on a discussion page is usually not done on Wiki discussion pages. So I hope you don't mind, but I have gone ahead and restored the erased posts above, and moved your post to the bottom where it can more easily be found.

Now, regarding your post.... You claim in your letter that "Very little of.... (the points of information listed in the article) are facts at all," yet nowhere in your post could I find you presenting any one specific fact that soundly disproved a single fact in the article. I did see how, from your perspective, you might believe that the article is inaccurate, yet I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but after carefully going through your post, nothing that I could find in it directly refuted anything in the article.

1. In your post you appeared to be saying that because you had a greater personal familiarity with Mr. Anderson than some of the others who have contributed to this page, that whatever anyone else has experienced of Mr. Anderson that conflicts with your own experience must be mistaken. Surely you're not meaning by this that you know everything there is to know about everything the man has ever done ever since EA was founded, are you?
2. The existing Wiki-article alledges that Anderson only uses the term "Dead Ones" to refer to those who disbelieve his message, which you clearly believe in, so I'm not quite certain why you are mentioning in your post that Mr. Anderson doesn't call you a "Dead One" as to me that seems to still be consistent with what the existing Wiki-article is only pointing out.
3. Obviously the fees for room, board and tuition that you were charged while at EA were quite generous. Are you saying that nobody else at EA has ever been asked or advised by Mr. Anderson to donate/ give any more than what you were asked to donate/ give? Please explain.
4. You have written that quotes referring to ACIM teachings have been "cherry picked", apparently meaning that you feel that there must be other quotes within ACIM that somehow refute the quotes used in the article. I have found many other quotes in ACIM that support the general idea that ACIM was intended to be a self-study type of course and not the type of Course where one living person assumes the fixed role of teacher and others assume the fixed roles of students as they do at EA. If you could point out anything in ACIM that supports your apparent belief that ACIM contradicts the quotes in the article and supports the teaching model of EA where students and their teacher assume fixed roles, I would very much appreciate it.
5. Concerning Anderson's teaching about the tribulation: Also, I know of no place in ACIM where anything is mentioned about anyone or anything getting burnt or otherwise harmed by any sort of an end-times related tribulation. If you might be able to direct me to any such passage, I would also very much appreciate it.

Again, thanks for your input here.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 12:36:56, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

POV text

• Yet these students cannot seem to concieve of another way to achieve this deluded notion of escaping their own thoughts without admitting they were mistaken somewhere along the line. The final rub comes for these individuals when their idea of enlightenment and therefore spiritual identity gets exposed as meaningless. Then the "master" suddenly becomes something else and once again the notion that they were mistaken one way or another never seems to occur to them. They slide into the prevelant, morbid societal role of "victim" by projecting blame and guilt as a way of avoiding personal responsibility.

I reverted the edits that added this and other unverifiable opinion. Please be aware that this is an encyclopedia and we need the information to be presented in a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and use verifiable sources. -Willmcw 19:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have just attempted to upgrade and improve the 'Teachings' section of the article with a view to a few of the minor inaccuracies regarding exactly how Anderson is viewed as Jesus, and other such things that were pointed out in the recent POV edit attempt. Thanks to the anonymous editor for pointing out a few of these minor inaccuracies and for helping to make the article more informative.

-Scott P. 00:06:29, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

sorry for mistakes

Hey Scott, here are some further thoughts. You wrote:

Dear Morgan,

I appreciate your interest in this article and in this dialogue. Thanks for joining in here. I know you are new here and there is one thing that I should probably let you know. When you posted, you first erased the posts of a few other users here on this discussion page. No offence intended, as it seems to me that you are already going out of your way to post here, but erasing the input of others on a discussion page is usually not done on Wiki discussion pages. So I hope you don't mind, but I have gone ahead and restored the erased posts above, and moved your post to the bottom where it can more easily be found.

Sorry about that. Not only am I sort of a moron literaly and even more so computer wise, but now I have this new laptop and all bets are off. :-)

I didn't mean to delete anything. By the way, most people call me E.J., just like my momma. You can call me Morgan if you feel more comfortable though. That's a name that Master Teacher gave me...I only use it within that continuum, since, my passport says something else.  :-)

Now, regarding your post.... You claim in your letter that "Very little of.... (the points of information listed in the article) are facts at all," yet nowhere in your post could I find you presenting any one specific fact that soundly disproved a single fact in the article. I did see how, from your perspective, you might believe that the article is inaccurate, yet I hope you don't mind me pointing this out, but after carefully going through your post, nothing that I could find in it directly refuted anything in the article.

What do you consider documented proof? Website opinions? What is your proof other than opinions? I mean I can see that you have proof of concepts like guru and stuff like that. Certainly nothing on EA's webpage or anything I've ever read that they put out used the term "second resurection." Second coming maybe, and nowhere in EA's literature or doctrine is there anything about admitting to a guru relationship in order to participate. On the other hand, in your opinion, when one signs up for a place that is headed by a "Master Teacher" what is one to expect?

In your post you appeared to be saying that because you had a greater personal familiarity with Mr. Anderson than some of the others who have contributed to this page, that whatever anyone else has experienced of Mr. Anderson that conflicts with your own experience must be mistaken. Surely you're not meaning by this that you know everything there is to know about everything the man has ever done ever since EA was founded, are you?

No, not at all. My whole point in geting involved here is to show that maybe there is something more (or less) going on than some people think. If what I'm saying is true then the notion that there is one way that EA and Mr. Anderson "is" cannot be. It's a fairly pertanent point that any interaction between two people is affected by both partie's views and ideas. Nothing happens in a vaccum. Also in my experience most people who get dissapointed in their experiences at EA had a preconcieved bunch of "spiritual" notions ABOUT THEMSELVES before they came there. So, no, I don't know everything and niether does the people who's viewpoints you use as gospel, but I know about more than most that have left EA and some stuff the cult killers haven't even gotten a hold of yet! :-) In your opinion, what would be the optimum experience of a place like EA, in a perfect world? Obvioulsy I haven't been there since 2001 so anything could have happened.

The existing Wiki-article alledges that Anderson only uses the term "Dead Ones" to refer to those who disbelieve his message, which you clearly believe in, so I'm not quite certain why you are mentioning in your post that Mr. Anderson doesn't call you a "Dead One" as to me that seems to still be consistent with what the existing Wiki-article is only pointing out.

What is your documentated proof of the notion that Mr Anderson "only uses the term Dead Ones to those who disbelieve his message"? That's not really true but I have no documented proof. On the other hand, if what you are saying is correct - that he is a guru demanding total surrender and that the inner circle or people who believe in his teaching are the only ones with him, or whatever, then the fact that I did leave EA means that I disbelieve and therefore I should be a "dead one." LOL The fact is I don't believe and don't follow a lot of what his teaching says, but I do understand why and how he teaches it that way based on his experience. And I don't see how he teaches it as outside the bounds of ACIM, although it admittedly is at the outer edges. I don't believe and follow a lot of what Jesus is supposed to have taught either. I also see why Anderson get's crucified on the net and it is his own doing, as well as the inane mimics and wannabes around him that think they know what he's saying and rant about it on the net, do so for approval and attention which he really has no control over. These guys are much like Robin Evans had been for seven years prior to the situation that led to his leaving and blaming EA for the situation that happened elsewhere. How do i know, I did that! If you look at some of the emails I sent that were published in the "holy smoke" newsletters or my 4 star flamer on Rick Ross' page you'll find good examples...LOL...and believe me, i didn't get any gold stars at EA for those! The act is, there is a maturity thaat can occur if we don't cling to, or "land" anywhere, which is another way of saying staying miracle or open minded.

However that rule of responsibility holds true for those who crucify him too. And these days I understand why guys like Ian Blair Hamilton, Robin Evans, Katie Picone and others can see it the way that they do. If someone is happy making the master teacher into the boogie man or going after cults, I have no problem with it. For me, it's always about "what's it for?" My purpose for participating here is not to defend the old man, it's simply to participate in open minded communication, which is the same as saying maybe there is another way of seeing this other than what is already couched in static and non-productive (or non-healing) ideas. Maybe there really are miracles, healing and forgiveness available, right here and now in these very notions? Wouldn't that be cool?

I attempt to say what I mean without saying how this or that should be seen. It's not to deny any one's perception other than to point out that it is all just that (including my views), a relative perception for which the only proof is consensus, which in my mind is pretty flimsy proof when it comes to the ideas concerning the radical transformation of mind/perception which is presented in ACIM. It's my experience that in open mindedness(which is the same as miracle mindedness) something previously unseen can appear and visa versa. Which can be very cool, mind boggling stuff.  :-)

Obviously the fees for room, board and tuition that you were charged while at EA were quite generous. Are you saying that nobody else at EA has ever been asked or advised by Mr. Anderson to donate/ give any more than what you were asked to donate/ give? Please explain.

What documented proof do you have that he has (and I'm not saying that he hasn't)? I'm not trying to be argumentitive, but you're saying that that's important. This is the thing Scott, I'm saying that things aren't all one way or another as you portray it at EA. It's a lot like any other thing or place or group in the world, which would be an appaling admission at EA. There was a lot of wierd money stuff....all across the board, but in both directions, but, and maybe this has changed, most of what I know occured around Ted Poppe's tenure(he started Ea by the way, not Anderson) asadminastrator, who had a sometimes miraculous way of dealing with people and money. I don't know any one there now who functions within their own light as well as he did in that area, so maybe the old man has taken on a more hands on approach, which is pretty funny.

Here's some personal examples about how money works at EA. In my first week at EA a guy came up to me and handed me a check for $2000 because the Holy Spirit guided him to! Another time, I called the old man to tell him I was skipping "school" to go to a Cubs game at Wrigley Field, which was very cool for me being a big baseball fan, and he said, I think you're going to Holland. (I did go to the game, it was 1998 and Mark Maguire and s Sammy Sosa where hitting all those homeruns. As an aside I also got to go and play baseball at the actual Field Of dreams movie site while i was at EA) The next day, somebody asked me if i wanted to go to Europe with them and offered me a ticket. On the other hand I was guided to ask a guy in Holland for 10k guilders while I was teaching there and honestly it didn't mater to me whether I got it or not(which I did) because my job was to follow the guidance, not decide outcomes. And another time I gave away $5000 in cash to one person, sent $2000 to the video dept. at EA, and paid for a bunch of airline tickets, hotels and cars, and a building for a center, after one guy gave $76,354.98 unasked for and another anonymous donor put an envelope with 50 $100 bills in the donation box the day before while we had a group in Mt Shasta and I was the "master teacher" at that facility for a while.

You have written that quotes referring to ACIM teachings have been "cherry picked", apparently meaning that you feel that there must be other quotes within ACIM that somehow refute the quotes used in the article. I have found many other quotes in ACIM that support the general idea that ACIM was intended to be a self-study type of course and not the type of Course where one living person assumes the fixed role of teacher and others assume the fixed roles of students as they do at EA. If you could point out anything in ACIM that supports your apparent belief that ACIM contradicts the quotes in the article and supports the teaching model of EA where students and their teacher assume fixed roles, I would very much appreciate it.

Good point. I agree in one regard, that ACIM is ultra personal. On the other hand it's whole basis is to an open minded or open ended understanding and allowance for miraculous and radicaly transformative possibility. Certainly your quotes assume that Mr. Anderson IS ALREADY doing what you and others say he is, that is being established in fixed roles. ACIM says that questioning how a teacher of god spends his day is meaningless because his mind is open to ever present living guidance in all conditions, healing by living miraculous. For me, the main premise of ACIM is to establish communication with your "inner teacher" and subsequently to "listen, learn and do" by following that "guidance", again in open ended living. Whose to say how long "fixed" is? Do you see the problem with making defininitive statements like that? It's actually a form of fear to concrete what is always changing, and merely a perception anyway...The question then is, is Mr Anderson or any students, at any time, following guidance in whatever they are doing? Anderson says often that Jesus told him to do stuff. Who am I to say he isn't perfectly following what he's or anybody is supposed to do, and who am i to say what it is for? I contend that to do so as a form rote thought would mean I am not following my own guidance! At one point my guidance said "go to EA, stay put and give it all you got", at another it said "go out and teach", and at yet another, "we're done here, let's go"....such is life or learning.

Concerning Anderson's teaching about the tribulation: Also, I know of no place in ACIM where anything is mentioned about anyone or anything getting burnt or otherwise harmed by any sort of an end-times related tribulation. If you might be able to direct me to any such passage, I would also very much appreciate it.

Well the "fire" is not literal, of course, (i guess it could be) it's an allagory, as is "light" by the way! Burning away the dross, or miracles are evrybody's right but purification is necassary first kinda thing. You rally are worried about that tribulation thing, huh? I already had mine, so, I don't blame you, it realy, really sucks, until it doesn't...and no I have no proof :-)

You do know that a main premis of ACIM is that you are NOT a body, NOW and ALREADY, correct? And that you are responsible for what you see, there is nothing outside of your mind, you are the cause of the world(and it's end-times) that you see, which in reality has no existance? Maybe your problem is with ACIMs cosmology? I don't want to get into the metaphysics or teaching and niether do you probably, I'm not sure if you are an ACIM practitioner or just a cult guy because you make a boatload of assumptions concerning what's true that could be refuted by many prvelant themes presented throughout ACIM. Did you know that in the ur-text it says that Lucifer actually is a symbol of mankind? Heavy stuff!

Anyway, you can look up things in ACIM if you want that say something like, all the times he refers to you being in hell or stuff like "you must retrace the steps of your decsent into fear" or everyone must "return to the time and place where terror seemed to take the place of love" to understand what I mean. Remeber, you said ACIM is private so when it says those things, it's talking to you, if you are true to what you are saying. At least I read it thatway. So, these moments were quite literal for me, as is awakening first to and then from the dream of separation, again, no proof of that is available objectively :-)

I don't have a book that has the numbers and stuff and I don't feel like looking shit up to be honest. I don't even know where my Course is actually, but then again I don't know where my 7th grade algebra book is either. Suffice to say I failed that course as well  :-)

Again, thanks for your input here.

Ok, here's my deal. I left EA and Master Teacher's apparent forms of tautology and solipsism for a few reasons. Mosy importantly was that I didn't wake up by doing ACIM and I finally understood all this was about ME, not him. In fact I don't think ACIM is concerned with actual awakening but more of a healing or purification of mind, healing and forgiveness, which it says is for illusions, and is a still dream, albeit a happy one.

I can see how you could awaken using ACIM, but only if you did the lessons without clinging to previously conceived expectations of awakening or healing or resurection etc. even and especially the ones set forth as descriptions(not prescriptions!) in the text, and if you did them exactly as they are instructed, one a day, howvever many times a day, for 365 days, and then, and this is the most important part, then put the book down and lived your life open to learning or actualizing the lessons that you thought you knew in concepts, but now in real time....which few if any do. Certainly they don't at EA. Anyway, i didn't awaken that way so teaching it became sort of contridiction for me, so I stopped.

So my purpose was awakening, after a rather unexpected, spontaneous and terrifying experience(see Arjuna and his raction after being shown "all that is" by Krishna in The Bagavhad Gita for a similar description to my experience) not learning more spiritual crap, regardles of how profound and interesting. I ended up at EA because after this "event" my life just sort of fell apart, with my help of course, and i couldn't figure out any other place to go to undergo this, whatever it was, that didn't force me to wear robes and dots on my forehead. Another thing that you fail to mention is that the primary purpose for EA, in the begining, was to be an academy for teachers of acim, not students, hence the title "master teacher", the teacher of teachers...and it was meant to be only a 30 day stay but only after you put your life in order first. How it evolved to all this hubub about satalites and ACIM movies, getting the books and vidoes out is however good view of how most good ideas dissolves into bullshit over time  :-)

Another thing I didn't put much stake in after a while was the "assignment" concept. Certainly I wasn't gonna wait untill ACIM was popular or for some lawsuit to be won or lost, or how many videos get made to wake up to the fact that the world isn't "real", is of my own making and does not in fact exist as I thought, think, perceive or concieve. But I understand the value of that notion...but it's never gonna be what anybody thinks it's for. While "assignment" can be a valuable metaphor, taken literally too often it's an ego feeding proposition, at leat it was for me after a while.

Finally, the fact is the old man didn't wake up from or with or by using ACIM and only came upon it later and said it was the best way...if there is an underlying dilema at EA, a fraudulance, an impetous for the seeming self-righteous declarations and piousness, demand for attention, need for approval and verification, the outlandish justifications etc., it is probably contained in that fact, which of course is not outside the facility of healing or miraculousness. As the old man has often said "the first one in is always the last one out" and i always assumed he was speaking about himself, personaly

 :-)

thanks scott

ej

Reply to E.J.

Dear E.J.,

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply in your last post re EA. First I’d like to clarify regarding some assertions or implications that you made in your last post about what you felt might be the intention of the Wiki article regarding Mr. Anderson. You wrote that you felt that the information in the article might be (biased) by “cult-killers” who might be trying to paint Anderson as some kind of a “boogeyman”.

For me, this article isn't about killing any cult or killing anything or anyone else. It's only about truth. If Anderson is somehow teaching that ACIM justifies anger in certain circumstances, yet ACIM consistently and without fail teaches the opposite, that anger is never justified, then this article is about simply stating that contradiction. If Anderson is somehow teaching that he is in some way the Savior or Jesus, yet if ACIM teaches categorically that Jesus is not coming back in the flesh, then that's what this article is about. If lots of former students (but not all) have had negative experiences at EA, yet Anderson doesn't want anyone to know this, then this is what the article is about. If anybody has had a documentable "miracle cure" at EA, then this is what the article is about too. If somehow Anderson could really prove that he is actually somehow Jesus, the Savior, or whatever it is that many of his students seem to believe especially about him, then this is what this article is about too.

Personally, I don't see Anderson as the "boogeyman", only as someone who has said many things about ACIM and about himself which seem to me to make no sense and to cause far more confusion in people’s minds about ACIM’s actual contents than to accurately reflect what is actually written on its pages. If you or anyone else could better explain to me how these apparent contradictions that I have just mentioned, are in fact somehow accurate representations of ACIM, then I would certainly very much appreciate your helping me to better understand these things.

You have asked me to document accounts of Anderson asking for people to donate more than $700/ mo. You yourself just wrote to me that you had been involved in securing far greater donations than this. I understand that Anderson teaches those who are wealthy that they are doing what he calls “holding,” which is something akin to the Biblical story (that is in the book of Acts, and if you wanted, I could look it up for you) of the couple who didn’t give everything they had to the early group of disciples. According to this rather bizarre Biblical story (at least bizarre to me), once Peter discovered that this one couple had not shared everything they had, they both died shortly thereafter, just as they were claiming falsely before Peter that they had supposedly shared everything they had. Yecht! Is that what Anderson means by his term: “holding”?

You wrote that you believe that ACIM teaches us that we are not to ask any questions about the actions of others (such as Anderson) whenever they might appear to us that they may be mistaken. You are correct if by this you mean that ACIM does ask that we constantly work to recognize the Truth that can be found in all circumstances, and that we must work to disregard error. So if this is what you were meaning, then in this spirit I ask: please teach me where the Truth lies between Anderson’s teachings, ACIM’s teachings, anger, equality, and whatever this end of the world according to the book of Revelations that Anderson seems to be teaching, but that ACIM does not appear to teach.

I appreciate your help thus far E.J. in trying to help to work these things out. I know that I must never be afraid to look squarely at Truth in the eye, without blinking. The more I am able to be open to whatever truth others may have to teach me, the more I will know, and the more I will benefit. Thanks E.J. for your input here thus far, and I look forward to your honest reply.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 01:54:42, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

OK, my reply, you wrote;

Dear E.J.,

Thanks again for your thoughtful reply in your last post re EA. First I’d like to clarify regarding some assertions or implications that you made in your last post about what you felt might be the intention of the Wiki article regarding Mr. Anderson. You wrote that you felt that the information in the article might be (biased) by “cult-killers” who might be trying to paint Anderson as some kind of a “boogeyman”.

=====Well, you didn't answer any of my questions, which were asked sincerely, but it's really too late now. So I'm gonna unload with both metaphysical barrells since you seem to be asking for it. After this we'll be complete. Anything more would be ego crap, if this isn't already

 :-)

For me, this article isn't about killing any cult or killing anything or anyone else. It's only about truth.

====Well it's a fgood thinf since death is a thought thatn there is a thought that you cannot get the results of..in other words, death is an illusion and infact ultimately you'd only be killing yourself, again. Can you define what you mean by truth for me so I can see if what you are declaring is in fact true? The truth is that you are hallucinating. The difference between how you and I see is that I know I am seeing things, ncluding this "me" sitting at a computer :-) It's amazing actually...the truth is this is a dream and you have made yourself into the hero of the dream, with all your altruistic concepts, all of which must spring from and act as an avoidance of your own unheaded or unhealed personal suffering or sense of separation from god. No big deal...but is is the deal And to get honest at that point, to honestly and consciously engage the suffering and sense of isolation that separation is, is to begin to wake up...and nothing happens before that admission. You could call it the price of admission  :-)

If Anderson is somehow teaching that ACIM justifies anger in certain circumstances, yet ACIM consistently and without fail teaches the opposite, that anger is never justified, then this article is about simply stating that contradiction.

===he's not teaching anything of the sort, in my opinion. And I doubt anyone has incured his intense and PERSONAL confrontations more often than me! funny thing I never felt physicaly threated, ever, at EA.

If Anderson is somehow teaching that he is in some way the Savior or Jesus, yet if ACIM teaches categorically that Jesus is not coming back in the flesh, then that's what this article is about.

====You personaly talk about the man Jesus a lot, at least what the bible says is Jesus, but never about Christ, or Christ Mind, which I find a little peculiar in this context. What the master teacher is teaching, as does the course, is that you must take your place as savior of the world you made be deciding to deny the denail of god that this world "represents". What he is willing to do is represent that idenity in a very real way, to mirror it. Sure it's east to say you want to be like guys who ain't here, who are only your thoughts of guys, Like jesus, but all hell breaks loose when somebody in the flesh says I know about my self what jesus knows about him Self. Then you get at the nails and crown of thorns. Dude, I'm the same self as jesus and so are you! How do you deny that very real equality is a good question to look at?

If lots of former students (but not all) have had negative experiences at EA, yet Anderson doesn't want anyone to know this, then this is what the article is about. If anybody has had a documentable "miracle cure" at EA, then this is what the article is about too.

====So, you deny the ACIM pronouncment that you are responsible for what you see, choose what you feel and decide what anything means, that nothing comes unbidden etc. then? Let's look at Robin. When he came to EA, he was a real rutterless, spiritual sleazeball in my opinion, typical of Byron Bay, wearing nerhu shirts, beads, even a fez for goodness sakes. He left pretty cleaned up in his mind, a succesfull business man, an altruistic purpose. The change I see in him is pretty miraculous. That it took a tragedy and a grievance to get him to start to say no to EA and yes to himself is sometimes part of how it works. Any snapshot is of any continum of individual awakening is still only the middle of the story. Thefact that grievances are hding the light of the world from himself is just an ego delaying tactic.

If somehow Anderson could really prove that he is actually somehow Jesus, the Savior, or whatever it is that many of his students seem to believe especially about him, then this is what this article is about too.

===That is comical. What are your thoughts on actual forgiveness? It's interesying that you haven't mentioned it once....do you think you can forgive something real? Do you think something real NEEDS forgiveness?

Personally, I don't see Anderson as the "boogeyman", only as someone who has said many things about ACIM and about himself which seem to me to make no sense and to cause far more confusion in people’s minds about ACIM’s actual contents than to accurately reflect what is actually written on its pages. If you or anyone else could better explain to me how these apparent contradictions that I have just mentioned, are in fact somehow accurate representations of ACIM, then I would certainly very much appreciate your helping me to better understand these things.

===You don't seem like a course student to me. You seem like a generic spiritual personality who tries to make acim fit into their multi faceted and multi layered, unexamined already existant ego/world assumptions. It's simple actually, the text is a merely a theoretical foundation, a context, for the practical application of the content of the course which is found in doing the workbook, as it is given to do, very specificly, systemtaicly and without concern of your effort to understand, like or even accept. That is why it's miraculous and upon completion, meaningless. But it IS simply a course, not a theology, not a philosphy. It has a specific purpose and a specific efficacy upon application. And most importantly, you cannot possibly "know" what that is before hand without reducing the course to your idea of it and therfore setting your own cirriculum, which is to say there's no transformation and you are just verifying all the crap that you already think you know.

You have asked me to document accounts of Anderson asking for people to donate more than $700/ mo. You yourself just wrote to me that you had been involved in securing far greater donations than this.

===What does that have to do with Ea or Mr Anderson. I asked for money for me, I used the money to go to New Zealand, EA and Soria never saw a dime of it. You are pasting together all these things but they are only connected in your mind....based on something you have already decided is true. And you keep building a case...it actually seems like a kind of vengance to me, to be honest. And is that what you call documentation, a story i told you via a post?

I understand that Anderson teaches those who are wealthy that they are doing what he calls “holding,” which is something akin to the Biblical story (that is in the book of Acts, and if you wanted, I could look it up for you) of the couple who didn’t give everything they had to the early group of disciples. According to this rather bizarre Biblical story (at least bizarre to me), once Peter discovered that this one couple had not shared everything they had, they both died shortly thereafter, just as they were claiming falsely before Peter that they had supposedly shared everything they had. Yecht! Is that what Anderson means by his term: “holding”?

====Again, you are stating all this has something to do with some story of jesus in the bible that you connect the dots to make true to you, all based on heresay. I don't understand it that way at all. To me you are just holding the past against everyone including yurself. MT teaches the notion of letting go, of loosing or giving up the belief attatchment to the sustanance offered by what you percieve as a world. he teaches that to everyone, regardless of their financial situation. Just as buddha taught attatchment is suffering, and any number of spiritual teaching and teachers do. I never heard him use the term holding. He talks about possesions possesing you. But the fact is, if that wasn't true for an individual, that is, if an individual had stuff that they weren't attatched to, they wouldn't be able to or have to give it up. There are plenty of guys who have money and houses etc at EA. YOU are the one who seems all hung up on the money. Does the old man have a finacial agenda? Yes, to get the book out in the world. He believes he can do that through exposure of his teaching viia the vidoes. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant to your position.

You wrote that you believe that ACIM teaches us that we are not to ask any questions about the actions of others (such as Anderson) whenever they might appear to us that they may be mistaken.

====I did not! I said the purpose of ACIM is to establish communication with your "inner teacher" and "listen, learn and do" whatever you are guided or directed to do and in doing that, and only in taking that action of mind, can you discover the miracle. I said you are responsible for your thoughts and if your thoughts, with guidance, lead to questioning, go for it and not only that but nobody could question it if you did, just be open to getting an answer you don't expect or can't imagine prior. Just because you find things out of order and questionable however doesn't mean that i don't see exactly the same thing as exquisit, perfect and divinly orchastrated. I double dogg dare you to go into a sunday bibls class and ask the old man your questions. I'll give ya $100! You are obcviously attracted to him

You are correct if by this you mean that ACIM does ask that we constantly work to recognize the Truth that can be found in all circumstances, and that we must work to disregard error. So if this is what you were meaning, then in this spirit I ask: please teach me where the Truth lies between Anderson’s teachings, ACIM’s teachings, anger, equality, and whatever this end of the world according to the book of Revelations that Anderson seems to be teaching, but that ACIM does not appear to teach.

====Truth? Truth doesn't lie anywhere, it isn't found anytime. truth simply Is, and what's the problem then? I'll have to wait for your definition of truth before I can even begin to address that request, but you have one thing really wrong. The course says it's purpose is to unblock awareness, not to realize anything. If you realized truth none of these question or dramas would occur to you as anything more than a kinda cosmic joke. In the letting go, truth is already here. You say it as if it's effort and an acumulation...lol...that's "holding" but if not letting go, then eventualy truth will be found in the undoing. Truth isn't found in conditions, it isn't found before and after anything. Remember "some by fire and some by water?" It could be said as an analogy that being undone equates to fire and letting go to water. I suppose that's the only choice a real ACIM practitioner has....I mean I can see what your asking and i can see why, I think, you would ask this. But the question really and truly make no sense to me. You aren't trying to let go and you are unwilling it seems to be undone, your are trying to accumulate, to make truth fit your already established definitions and setting the conditions! Which is cool, that'll get painfull and explosive sooner or later, which is good in my book. It's energetic, it's movement, it's alive! But a better question would be what seperates truth and from what is it separate? How do you hold truth apart and from what, and most especially WITH what?

====If you are a course student and you actually believe all these things you say are true, how do you deal with a notion like truth is true and nothing else is true? or that this world was over a long time ago? that god doesn't know of this place? that this world is a slaughterhouse? Or that nothing real can be threatened and nothing unreal exists?

====My understanding of Revalations is that it is a story of personal transformation. That the seven churches are equal in a sense to chakras in the eastern kundalini protoype. You yourself has stated that he teaches an ecclectic bunch of things....this is one thing that he teaches and he MEANS it, an actual physical resurection is possible. That is, through the same power of mind that makes this world, a reversal or "great turnaround" occurs miraculously and you begin converting or transforming the dark form energy contained in thought, that "makes up" matter, that establishes space and time, the things that make up your identification as a body, which is in fact in your mind, your mind in which the entire world seems to exist, like a dream, that through a decision this whole notion of separation can be healed through forgiveness and be no longer contained as dark form but released in eternal, infinite light energy, which everything actually is anyway, inspite of what's seen and therefore thought to be true. You want to squeeze THAT into your little candy ass conceptual consruct of reality, of nice vs not nice percepion?!

I appreciate your help thus far E.J. in trying to help to work these things out. I know that I must never be afraid to look squarely at Truth in the eye, without blinking. The more I am able to be open to whatever truth others may have to teach me, the more I will know, and the more I will benefit. Thanks E.J. for your input here thus far, and I look forward to your honest reply.

======in my opinion my friend, your questioning is one big blink. And in that blink all the dreams of all time and space, of separation occur. It's really too bad that you just don't want to know the truth, that you want the truth on your already preset conditions....that sort of let's me off the hook ;-) The god damn holy spirit is really riding me with the court room scene/rant by Jack Nicholson from A Few Good Men about "the truth", but I'm not biting! What a wise guy! But your assumption that you can know truth objectivly or know it in parts is a mistake, as well as the notion that it is a "thing" that can be known, be somewhere in between some other thing or and again especially that there is a true error. Every asumption that you make in this post could use either a good, ruthless examining or a good release... Some by fire and some by water  :-)

I won't be able to be responding any longer here Scott. i got my instructions, what was supposed to happen did. I appreciate your changing the page to incorporate other ideas which is why i was asked to participate. That's a joining and a miracle we share...pas it on

I'll leave you with this from my Course that i found just to express this...it's all held together by duck tape, water marked and some other stains that i don't wanna know what they are! It actually has a decal of a blond girl in a hula skirt for some reason, as well as a worn out holographic image of a drop hitting a calm pond...anyway, from the intro to the TM - Clarification of Terms, 4th paragraph;

The ego will demand many answers to questions...  ;-) well you can read the rest up to

Yet there is no answer, only experience. Seek only this, and DO NOT let theology delay you.

amen

Then go in peace my friend. May we both find the Truth with a capital T, whatever that may be. (And if anyone else wanted to join us, they're welcome to hop on too.)

-Scott P. 17:53:42, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

PS: By the way, why do you feel that you are somehow obligated to have to prove that Anderson's teachings about ACIM are fully compatible with ACIM, when you yourself have written that you feel he (uses) "tautology", (tautology: superflously redundant), and that he (teaches) "solipsism", (solipsism: egotism or self absorption), and that he "will be the last person out" (or saved?)? If you still actually do want me to document the things that we both already know full well are true (namely Anderson's usage of the term "dead-ones" to describe those who do not submit to him, and his asking for more than $700/ mo. from some of his students), then please let me know and I will spend a few more hours of my time documenting them for you. -Scott P. 02:10:07, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

“What the hell is he talking about?”

I have nothing at all to gain by lying to anyone, and besides, the truth always has a certain ring to it, you know in your heart as you are reading these pages what is and is not the truth. We all do and in that vein I am now going to tell you what I know from what people inside the Academy, as well as outside the Academy, but who have all had first hand experience of, this most controversial man you all like to call the “Master Teacher”.

I have, on many occasions been standing in what you all call the session room, and over hearing people whispering statements like “What the hell is he talking about?” I have seen many people physically shudder in utter confusion while trying to listen with true determination, and I have experienced this same thing myself on many an occasion.

I have had people who I had had the uttermost respect for tell me that, “It doesn’t matter that what he says is un-understandable, all that matters is being in his light.” Sadly, I became even more confused by comments like this, and was often unable to maintain the degree of respect I had previously held for these souls.

Many many people have told me that they do not feel that they need to understand him but I do. I do have a driving need in my being to understand everything that I come across in this vast and mysterious universe.

I have a teacher who died several years ago who used to hold sessions that thousands of people would attend. He told stories and he answered questions, (even the silly ones though he never humiliated the questioner, no matter how childish the question might be.) I knew that this teacher loved the very essence of me and I couldn’t wait for session to start every day. I later came to understand that it was because this teacher knew who I was, even though at that time, I did not.

At the Academy I tried with all my heart to understand what your Master Teacher was saying, but I was very seldom able to even go to his sessions. The fact that he would not or could not say things in a simple happy communicative language that I could understand easily, led me to wonder whether he did in fact worship the same simple happy and wonderfully understanding Father that I do.

I am my Father’s son and He has never kept anything at all from me. He knows me to be His Own fun loving child who delights in Him, as He does in me.

I have come to realize, that my Father has never stopped me from doing anything I have wanted to do, and I have done some really silly things in my time. He never interferes with the Will of anyone, and that can be seen simply by looking at the Willfulness of any child. I believe that your Master Teacher is just a Willful silly child and I know in my heart that many many of you believe this as well, because you have told me that you do.

There is nothing at all wrong with Mr. Anderson, or anything that he does, or says, but by the same token there is also nothing at all wrong with anyone else telling the truth, of their experience of being with him.

I am fairly certain that I would probably not have listened to someone telling me that Mr. Anderson was just a man who tells very confusing, muddled, and sometimes even outright boring stories. But, I might not have endured the pain and sacrifice that I did lavish upon myself at Endeavor Academy, for as long as I did, had someone told me these things.

I do not blame Mr. Anderson for my suffering; I did it entirely to myself, because I chose to stay in his company and try to understand him. I did it to myself and now I am doing what I would have appreciated someone doing for me, (eventually) telling the truth about what I heard and experienced living with all the good people at Endeavor Academy – Simply put Mr. Anderson talks a load of silly nonsense in almost everyone’s opinion I have spoken to, both inside the Academy and outside.

Whatever you may think or feel or believe about what I am saying here is of no consequence to me, because I am saying it for my own satisfaction in telling the simple truth. You see, ultimately everyone has to tell the truth as they experience it, the only thing that gets in the way, is time, and apparently time isn’t real anyway.

We have nearly all left the Academy now, those that came in at around the time I did, many left because they finally saw that what I am saying here was true for them as well, and they had the moral fortitude to admit to themselves, that they had been wrong. Others were literally expelled because they were braver than I, and they said what I am saying here, directly to Mr. Anderson, or to those in his inner circle.

Sadly though, some of the bravest and noblest, were treated very badly by Mr. Anderson himself, and they were forced into unnecessary conflicts with him that ended in devastating estrangements, these few coincidentally, were to me, the most respected of friends. They are true teachers of the Love, the Light and the Joy that ACIM gave them.

Through his own childish arrogance, Mr. Anderson did this most unfortunate and silliest of things to himself. He never lost these great souls, because they can never be lost to any of us, but the example in “time wasting” that he set during this period, will I think, be his only truly lasting legacy to a world in which his only real accomplishment was “real estate sales person.”

--Robin 09:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

PS I suppose for purposes of clarity I really should add here that I was in fact expelled from Endeavor Academy form telling the truth as I saw it – here is a copy of my notice of expulsion: Click Here to see a scan of the document of my expulsion from Endeavor Academy
--Robin 10:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Full reply to E.J.'s last post, attempting some clarification

Dear E.J.,

I apologize if I may not have been succinct enough in two of the paragraphs of my last full reply to you. I also recognize that based on your most recent reply, you may not choose to reply to this post. Still, for the sake of clarity, I have attempted to clarify and reword two of the paragraphs of my last full reply to you. They now read:

Revised paragraph about my personal view of Anderson:

Personally, I don't see Anderson as a "boogeyman". I only see him as someone who appears to believe that he has the power to spiritually save whomever might succeed in totally submitting their beliefs to his "teachings". To my reading of ACIM, this apparent belief of Anderson appears to be totally at odds with the actual teachings of ACIM. Please tell me if I am wrong, but all that I am able to pull out of the teachings in ACIM are quotes like "Freedom cannot be learned by tyranny of any kind, and the perfect equality of all God's Sons cannot be recognized through the dominion of one mind over another".

====You aren't wrong or right. It's how you see it, it's how you hear it and you you say it should be taught. Cool. I don't see him as asking anybody to submit in the name of ACIM. In the name of EA, that's different and his perogative. Your pulling stuff out to defend your viewpoint vs. his is based on the assumption that he is doing what you or others see him doing. I can pull out a hundred quotes about you "being the denial of God" of you "being a murder" "you are the cause of what you see, feel experience", etc. that are highly confronative and direct. That's how he saw it and how he teaches it. ACIM is so perverse and in a sense profound it can be come at from a whole bunch of angles. Look at what the Buddha taught and look how zen evolved it. Buddha wasn't smacking people with zen sticks and screaming at guys for not keeping posture like they do in zen. But zen is still buddhism, and the most effective I might add.

---

I have found similar quotes to this throughout ACIM, and I have not been able to find any references in ACIM that would appear to teach anything about the need for anyone to submit their beliefs or wills to Anderson, or to anyone else like him. If you could kindly direct me to any quote in ACIM that you feel could clarify for me just how Anderson believes that ACIM advocates for people to submit their wills to his, or to somehow rely upon Anderson, instead of directly upon God without any middlemen, to "save them from the world", then I would be most grateful.

======= again you are assuming that that view you have formulated by interpreting other peoples perceptions of what occurs is true, and is defensible by acim. You are mitsaken, It is defendable to a point as far as behavior and purpose only as far as joining EA. Not ACIM.

The whole of ACIM is a middle man and about depending on Jesus himslef, as the author claims to be the mid point between you and God, and The Holy Spirit is a middle man between your right and "wrong mind. If you could go directly to "God" then why the hell don't you? Why are you messing around with this crap, all of it, CA, EA, ACIM, even whatever your current incarnation of what you think "god" means...they are all in between you and god.

All that aside, to sign up to participate and live at EA entails a certain amount of surrender, as joining any group does. Have you seen CA's videos, which are more directed for the general acim student? There are no requests to submit to him at all. You got submit on the brain, as is obvious from all your religious labeling and defining. Again, you are speaking on what goes beyond the scenes at EA, which you have no personal experience of and in fact what you call documentation is merely written opinion, and assuming that has to do with ACIM or anything but pesonal POV. It doesn't have anything to do with anything but the formulation of concepts by individuals who either feel threatened or wronged. What then do you do with the acim idea that "nothing comes to you unbidden?" ACIm is in a sense a front at EA, it's kindergarten to be honest. Not EA as much as acim is. I understand you find it impressive and profound...and it is. But it certainly is not true.

---

On a different note, as someone who has a strong interest in studying the ACIM texts, I also see Anderson as someone who has done a great service to myself and to all others who may have similar interests in closely studying and analysing the ACIM text (and many of these others have also expressed similar gratitude). I say this because I believe that the dilligent and difficult work that he did in order to have the copyrights to the earlier versions of this text released, and also the work that he did in order to both secure copies of these editions and to release them via the Internet and via other channels, was an extremely invaluable service to all such interested parties.

=========== Whatever

---

Revised paragraph about ACIM's teachings about questioning others:

You wrote that you believe that ACIM teaches us that we are not to ask any questions about the actions of others (such as Anderson) whenever they might appear to us that they may be mistaken. Quote: M-16.1. "How should the teacher of god spend his day? To the advanced teacher of god this question is meaningless." I have found numerous quotes in ACIM advocating for correction of error, and not only for the correction of the errors of the student him or herself, but also advocating that a good student might at times allow him or herself to be a channel for God to enable the correction of the understandings of others in addition to themselves. It would seem to me that Anderson might see himself in this role of correcting others. Are you saying that you believe he is the only one who is a good enough student of ACIM to allow these types of corrections to take place perhaps?

============== I said you must first question yourself. Look, if you go to a place that is headed by a Master Teacher, what would you expect? NO, stop thjinking you know what I'm asking. Stop and think....without trying to answer based on the way you already think now. Open your mind and look at it as a peson who willungly signs up for a stint at EA. What do you think that they expect? They are looking for a guide, someone to surrender too.

That he is a Master Teacher of ACIM is his call, not mine. Everybody at EA does confronations. No ohjne confronts the old man because he is their teacher. I have seen guys make fun of him to his face and I have seemn him admitt mistakes. I'm not saying he's an ACIM teacher, he is. I'm saying he teaches using acim....if you think that there is one legit way to teach acim I'd say you're both mistaken and presumptive. Guys place him on a pedastal for selfish reasons, and knock him off for them same. Istarted a blog on EA that may be usefull. These discussions are only so to a point. http://eaisadream.blogspot.com/

---

Again, I know that you may not reply, but for the record, I thought that these revisions to these paragraphs might help to clarify this dialogue, should you choose to continue it any further. Thanks for all of your patience and thoughtful replies thus far, and should this be the end of this dialogue, then I do want to sincerely thank you for spurring me on to study ACIM more thoroughly as a result of this dialogue.

====== Look if you truly believe that nothing stands in your way and that acim is the way. forget all this discussion about what you see and rewad and hear. Stay with the book and your day to day life, that's the only cirrciculuum you'd ever need.

ej

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 14:38:49, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Notice: a major rewrite/ split of the Anderson article is planned

I have noted that yesterday a significant, somewhat POV edit of the Anderson article has been made. This has prompted me to embark on a project that I have been considering for some time. I feel that I now have enough documentation available to justify breaking this article down into three parts:

1. Charles Buell Anderson.
2. Endeavor Academy.
3. Prevailing ACIM student community views of Anderson's teachings.

At the time that this article first took form, an article breakdown that might run somewhat along these lines was originally proposed as a future possiblity. I feel that the time has now arrived for such a rewrite. If anyone should have any comments or suggestions about this planned rewrite, I would appreciate any input.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 23:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Completion of significant rewrite: rationale and description

I have just completed my recent rewrite of this article, splitting it into two articles, one about Charles Anderson, and the other about Endeavor Academy. I did this rewrite as the result of two things.

1. Much newly gained information about both Anderson and about Endeavor Academy, enough that in my opinion justified this split.
2. A recent edit that was apparently made by an anonymous student of Anderson's, which required some attention in order to be rendered NPOV.

I feel that the most recent edition of this page is now written in a more neutral fashion than any previous edition, and also has far more detailed verifiable information about Anderson's personal history and life than any previous edition. In this rewrite I have intentionally attempted to phrase some of the pertinent facts about Anderson's life in the most neutral tone possible, and it is my hope that the tone of the current edition might be found to be more neutral by others as well. Also I have attempted to highlight some newly gained information in this most recent edit, both supportive and critical, about Anderson. While nearly all of the critical information that was found in earlier editions is still present within the article, I have consciously attempted to 'temper' and summarize the presentation of such critical information much more than in previous editions, and to place such information in less prominent locations within the article than it was previously found.

I realize that there are parties on both sides of questions regarding Mr. Anderson, some who might like to see this article written in a style more akin to earlier editions, and others who might like to see it written in a style more akin to some of the edits made by students of Mr. Anderson. I feel that the current edition is more in accordance with Wikipedia standards than either such preference might be, and I would like to make it clearly known to any interested parties, that any future edits to this article that might be intended to either delete or confuse any of the information or views expressed in the current edition, will be strongly debated and most probably reverted, as Wikipedia policy advocates strongly for the fair presentation of all views regarding any controversial topics. Such a fair presentation of all views is what Wikipedia refers to as Neutral Point of View, or NPOV. (POV meaning a Point of View edit.)

So, I write this description of my rationale for the most recent major edit of this article hopefully to help inform and as a sort of a guideline to future editors of this article. Please whenever making edits to this article, do your best to be respectful towards opposing points of views in your edits, and to only present verifiable information in commonly accepted terminology that can be understood by the average reader. Any edits made to this article that may fall short of this goal, may be significantly re-edited, or entirely reverted. Still all edits to this page that are made in the spirit of respect to all sides, and most importantly in the spirit of respect for the simple common truth, are welcome.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 22:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Crucifixion

Helen earns a PHd late in life. In her fifties. She could be cashing in. Lining herself up for a fat paycheck. Building her career. Getting ahead.

Instead she spends seven years of her precious life delivering this material to us. Due diligence. And all we have to do is spend less money than it costs to fill up our gas tank to own the fruit of all that labor.

When she was all done, she asked Ken Wapnick to clean it up and organize it, which he did. Then, her cheeks slightly reddish, she asked to keep alot of the private stuff in those seven years worth of notes private.

To violate her wishes would be - well rude at best.

Howcum so many ACIM students find it so easy to honor the ego of Charles Anderson and crucify the spirit of Ken Wapnick and Helen Schucman? (And Bill Thetford.)

Just curious.

Can someone explain where the course teaches us to do such a thing? It must have been edited out of my edition...
(unsigned)

What is the difference between what you call CA's ego and KW, HS,(and BT)'s spirit?

That anything or anyone is being crucified, and that you have confusion, about who and where to ask such questions and what the course does and doesn't "teach"(in my opinion it doesn't teach, it trains), may be because you're view is slanted to an already established perspective, narrow as such, loaded with assumptions. and, in fact only seeing the past? Who's crucifying who and when?

(unsigned)

Proposed Renaming

I propose that we rename this article to "Master Teacher." Whether or not we think Charles Buell Anderson is or is not a "Master Teacher" whatever that is, "Master Teacher," or "The Master Teacher" is the name he goes by and is known by.

There are lots of other controversial spiritual teachers out there, Adi Da and Osho to name two, yet their articles aren't named by their birth name.

We may not like his name, we may not like the fact that his name is a title and has meanings and implications, and, well that is the name he goes by. I will wait awhile before making the change, if I don't hear any response. Hoping to hear responses, peace, Seth Sethie 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sethie,

I agree with you that the title Master Teacher is used to refer to Mr. Anderson more often by his students than his legal name, however unfortunately the term Master Teacher is a rather well used phrase and title, claimed by hundreds of other people and organizations. I just did a Google search on the term Master Teacher and found a link to Charles Anderson coming up as link number 398. In other words there appear to most probably be 397 other uses of the term that are more well known than the use that Master Teacher's students have for it. In order to move the article, it would seem to me that first a disambiguation page listing all 398 other uses of the term would first have to be made on Wikipedia. Terms like Adi Da and Osho seem to me to be fairly rare and less likely to get confused with some other use. Thus, I have added an explanatory sentence #2 to the article, but I feel that moving the article to that heading would create too much confusion in Wiki.

Thanks for the suggestion. -Scott P. 19:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What is current Wiki practice on this?

Your welcome, and thanks for your suggestion.

I don't find your ideas particulary convincing. There is no need for a disambig page with EVERY listing you can find!

Even if all 398 wanted to be listed on a page, why would that be an excuse for innacuracy?

Unless you can find another spiritual teacher who went by a spiritual name, called himself/herself that, was called that by their students, yet is listed in wiki by their legal name, I am becoming convinced this is an open and shut case, unless we want to form a special relationship with MT/CBA. Sethie 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See Rajneesh. -Will Beback 21:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummm not sure how this is an example.... Rajneesh went by the name "Rajneesh!" His students called him that. (Apparently by Sethie)

He later adopted the name OSHO, which is what adherents now call him. -Will Beback 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

YesSethie 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

See also Prem Rawat. -Will Beback 21:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with him, what he calls himself, or what his students call him? Please don't answer here... I will take up that debate on that page later. (Apparently by Sethie)

He is normally called Maharaji by his adherents. His birth name is Prem Rawat. -Will Beback 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will take this up on that page later.Sethie 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you dig for hourse, you might be able to find a few more... but the bottom line is, spiritual teachers are 98% of the time listed by their "spiritual" name.

One more factor to consider: He has published books under the name "Master Teacher, :) he has his own section listed here, at a non-Endeavor affiliated site [1] Sethie 21:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't dig for hours, those were off the top of my head. Please give your reference for your statistic of 98%. How did you arrive at that number? -Will Beback 22:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I imagined you digging through wikipedia, looking at every spiritual teacher and finding about 7 or 8 out of 500. I appologize for presenting my thought experiement as if it was a fact.... I try not to think in black or white terms, I try to quanitfy my guesses and hunches, and in this case, I left out the "I imagine" or "I predict." Sethie 22:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

A Redirect created for now

In my view the Prem Rawat article has many naming-concerns which might be seen as similar to the naming-concerns related to the Charles Anderson article. The followers of both teachers most often use honorific names for their teachers which are also names which are used by many others. Yet in both cases, no other articles have yet been started in Wiki for another guru, or any other person that share either of these titles.

In the case of the Prem Rawat article, until it becomes clear that there is a need for another article for another Guru that goes primarily by the name Maharaji, a redirect has been created that steers all inquiries for the term, Maharaji to the Prem Rawat article.

This is not etched in stone, but I feel that the most encyclopedic way to handle an article about someone whose name could so easily be confused with other things, is to simply place the main article under the legal name, and until whatever other things that might require articles under the name Master Teacher should evolve, to simply create a redirect for Master Teacher that steers inquiries to the Charles Anderson article. Accordingly, unless or until it might be decided otherwise by consensus, I have gone ahead and created such a redirect. If anyone might find any other spiritual teachers with articles in Wiki that have highly common sounding titles that do not follow this convention, then perhaps we should discuss this further here. The only real concern here is to follow reasonable encyclopedic/ Wiki practices in this question.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I will leave the Prem Rawat for the Prem Rawat page.

Thanks for the redirect!!!!

Sethie 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Further considerations regarding an article move

Correct me if I am wrong, and my understanding is that you would prefer the article under CBA to: create clarity, follow encylopedia policies, and prevent future possible confusion?

Is that accurate?

And I want to be clear on why I would preffer it under MT: to recognize and acknowledge the fact of his publication under that name, to recognize and acknowledge the fact of what he has chosen to call himself and to follow convention with regards to spiritual teachers.

Regardless, the article is going to need a re-write not so much in terms of content, but in terms of what he is called in the article. Your arguement rests on the idea that we should name the article CBA ONLY because MT could be confused with other terms. The logic and reason for that is clear (not saying we have to do it that way, just saying it makes sense). However, why would we reffer to him within the article as CBA?

And just to be clear I am a fan and a critic of Him, having actually spent time at Endeavor. Sethie 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

For our guidelines, please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Western clergy), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). -Will Beback 19:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting "our" guidelines. :) I am a bit confused however, do any of the pages you listed clear up the issue for you? The Western clergy has no application, it is all about Catholicism. As for the other two I did not find any specific content that I could see a clear connection to this issue... please clarify.

-Sethie 20:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The basic standard is "firstname lastname", or "firstname middlename lastname". That much is quite clear. -Will Beback 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What is clear is that you think the situation is clear and you believe that thought! If what you were saying is true, every article would be "firstname middlename lastname." Every article is not that way, hence your belief must be false. Sethie 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That is, in fact, the basic standard. The naming convention guidelines exhaustively cover the exceptions. As you pointed out, there doesn't seem to be an exemption to cover this case, so the basic standard should apply. -Will Beback 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ummmmmmmmmmm I was pointing out that there was nothing in those pages I saw that supported CBA! :) Long-winded reply coming..... Sethie 04:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Does Wiki 'endorse' titles?

Sethie,
If I decided to call myself simply Master, and then if I gathered a group of students around me who also called me Master, I sincerely doubt that any reporting organization would write any articles about me in which I was primarily referred to as simply, Master. Why? Because the word Master has a number of problems. Foremost amongst these is the fact that it is a rather generic word which has many other uses, and as such could be too easily confused by others with other uses.

Also, many readers could be somewhat put-off by any article that might be written in this way, as using such a term to primarily describe me might in some ways be construed by readers to imply that Wiki's acceptance of this title was in some way inferring that Wiki agreed that I was indeed a Master, whereas many readers might not view me as their Master or fully accept my claim to exclusive or primary use of such a title.

I do not think that Wiki wants to be in the business of endorsing titles that have not yet been generally accepted by the public (which renaming the CBA article to Master Teacher could be seen by some readers as accomplishing). I must be forthright here.... clearly the great majority of non-Master-Teacher-students do not view Mr. Anderson as their Master Teacher or even as a Master Teacher. Wiki merely wants to be in the business of reporting on titles, not endorsing them, which I feel that this article now does. If the day shoud ever arrive where Mr. Anderson is most often recognized by the general public as Master Teacher, just as the Pope is generally recognized as The Pope, then I have no doubt that Wiki would soon follow suite, but no sooner.

I appreciate your patience with this editorial process here.

Thanks, -Scott P. 17:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)