Talk:Eckankar

Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Top-importance).

ECK master was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Eckankar. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Broken Link

Apologize this is not the correct way to do. Ref 13 link to VA is broken. New link is: http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp Thanks.

spirit, soula and body

does your teachings include that we as people are spirit, soul and body? and that our spiirt includes three parts, those parts being our consceince, imagination and our intuition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda.brooks32 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

monotheistic or panentheistic??

In the opening paragraph of this article is states that "Eckankar is a monotheistic religion[citation needed]"

As someone who has been involved in the religion for several years I have to contend that the supreme god or "Sugmad" of Eckankar is conceived far more in terms of a panentheistic deity and not strictly monotheistic. I have no clear citations to give but a cursory glance of Eckankar literature concerning the Sugmad would likely convince anyone engaged in Theology or Religious Studies that this is the conception they have of the ultimate creator. Also, there is a well known sub-deity named "Kal" who controls the "lower planes" of existence and can be compared to concepts such as Satan or the Demiurge yet is still working within the spiritual hierarchy of Eckankar and seen, largely, as lesser deity under the control of Sugmad. Eckankar scripture also affirms the existence of many gods, specifically the Hindu "triad" of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, as well as Shakti and Ganesha, and sees these as lesser sub-deities. It is therefore my contention that Eckankar cannot be properly called a "monotheistic" religion. Thank you.

Criticism section

I couldn't help noticing that the criticism section fails to summarize the criticism, and in fact seems crafted to obscure it rather than clarify it. DrSocPsych (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly after reading the page. It felt like I was reading the about section of their facebook page. The criticism section wasn't even criticism and it was rather confusing what the point even was. This page seems to be written by eckists with no objectivity. 70.139.68.205 (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DrSocPsych I also doubt about the notability. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest being BOLD and editing the article by adding actual criticism from reliable media and academic sources. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Wikipedia's policy is to favor integrating material into an article rather than having it relegated to a criticism section. And this particular criticism section is about as poorly written as any I've seen on Wikipedia. I think what I wrote was clear, and a similar point in the criticism section did not come across well (in fact, seemed intentionally obfuscatory), but my well-cited addition was deleted by someone "policing" the article for negative comments. I suggest we eliminate the criticism section and integrate material into the article. DrSocPsych (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one has commented, so I will revert the ill-advised deletion of important, cited material I added in an appropriate place. It does not "belong in the criticism section" in my opinion. Supporters, especially those affiliated with Landmark, should be careful editing this article so as not to violate Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the template that seems misleading: redundancy is not the issue; bias in editing this article is. Replaced with appropriate template. DrSocPsych (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]