Regarding postings on friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Thursday, April 29 ("Chapel of Awareness Classes" and "Chapel of Awareness Board Meeting"):
Chapel Guardian have been given information that the new chapel Board of Directors is sending inconsistent or selective mailings of important announcements for all members.
1) A mailing announcing the resumption of classes was inconsistently mailed to the membership. Some got it, some did not.
2) There is apparently a call for Chapel members to attend an "open forum" meeting at 10am Saturday morning May 1 to vent frustrations at the board. The Chapel Guardian applauds the idea of holding an open forum of this type. It's probably needed. But was the whole membership told of this opportunity? No.
If these announcements were intended to the whole membership, these announcements would at least have been posted on the Chapel's official website, www.chapelofawareness.org, which this new board now has control of. As of Friday April 30, there are no such announcements. (Note also that friendsofchapel also continues to maintain a "shadow" Chapel of Awareness site at sites.google.com/site/friendsofchapel/ promoting publications and activities.)
The only place these announcements have been placed is on the blog of friendsofchapel.
Maybe all this is just an oversight. Or maybe the new board is slow on the uptake in getting mailings out. Nonetheless, the membership is not being given fair notice of these activities.
The Chapel Guardian would like to make a suggestion: Why not have an open forum for the next board meeting, too, and give ample notice to the entire membership for an opportunity to be heard?
Friday, April 30, 2010
A letter about domain names
Chapel Guardian has received a letter today regarding recent rumors about blogs and domain names. Both sides should find it interesting.
Friday, April 23, 2010
"Election day"
re: Election day
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Chapel Guardian:
Thanks for posting your info about the election on April 18.
Unfortunately, I can vouch for the accuracy of what you reported based on my experience that day.
I personally have nothing against the Friends of Chapel people and I don't really know a lot of them. But their hisses at me as I walked to the podium to give my 30-second statement were a shabby and immature way to treat a child of chapel. (I first experienced chapel as a child when my mom started there in 1975-76.) Their schoolyard display didn't hurt me, but the intent seemed clear.
I didn't expect to win, but I chose to clap for them when they did, in good faith. I even had a nice conversation with Rev. Nell Rose Smith afterward, and Rev. Don Miller and I had a nice exchange as we all signed in.
But with the overall behavior I witnessed, and now the postings on the Friends blog, I have lost whatever faith I had in this group's good intentions and abilities. I really hope that faith can be restored because ultimately I believe in the goodness of human nature.
(I give Chapel Guardian permission to post this.)
Thanks,
Roman Koenig
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 1:41 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Chapel Guardian:
Thanks for posting your info about the election on April 18.
Unfortunately, I can vouch for the accuracy of what you reported based on my experience that day.
I personally have nothing against the Friends of Chapel people and I don't really know a lot of them. But their hisses at me as I walked to the podium to give my 30-second statement were a shabby and immature way to treat a child of chapel. (I first experienced chapel as a child when my mom started there in 1975-76.) Their schoolyard display didn't hurt me, but the intent seemed clear.
I didn't expect to win, but I chose to clap for them when they did, in good faith. I even had a nice conversation with Rev. Nell Rose Smith afterward, and Rev. Don Miller and I had a nice exchange as we all signed in.
But with the overall behavior I witnessed, and now the postings on the Friends blog, I have lost whatever faith I had in this group's good intentions and abilities. I really hope that faith can be restored because ultimately I believe in the goodness of human nature.
(I give Chapel Guardian permission to post this.)
Thanks,
Roman Koenig
"please post this comment"
Fw: Re please post this comment
xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Dear Chapel Guardian (whoever you may be):
This is to thank you on behalf of the Chapel of Awareness for being the lone voice of sanity during all of our recent turmoil. It felt good to know that someone out there could see through the morass and know what the truth really was. Please know that we do appreciate your very fair comments.
I do want to clarify one thing however. The Chapel of Awareness group did not agree to taking down the Guardian blog. On the contrary, we told them that we did not know who the Guardian was and we had no authority to ask him/her to do this. Apparently they didn't believe us. You are right in saying that we cannot speak for you and truly, we did not. I trust you will believe us on this matter as we would very much like to meet you one day and shake your hand.
Sincerely,
Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini,
Chairman of the Board
Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church
xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx
Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Dear Chapel Guardian (whoever you may be):
This is to thank you on behalf of the Chapel of Awareness for being the lone voice of sanity during all of our recent turmoil. It felt good to know that someone out there could see through the morass and know what the truth really was. Please know that we do appreciate your very fair comments.
I do want to clarify one thing however. The Chapel of Awareness group did not agree to taking down the Guardian blog. On the contrary, we told them that we did not know who the Guardian was and we had no authority to ask him/her to do this. Apparently they didn't believe us. You are right in saying that we cannot speak for you and truly, we did not. I trust you will believe us on this matter as we would very much like to meet you one day and shake your hand.
Sincerely,
Rev. Ann Marie Lorenzini,
Chairman of the Board
Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Newly empowered, badly behaved
We of Chapel Guardian were ready to congratulate the new pastor and board members this week in light of their successful election on Sunday April 18. But in light of the newly elected pastor’s tactics reported to Guardian on April 18, and now a posting at the Friends of Chapel blog site, it is apparent that such congratulations are not in order yet. We hold out hope that can change sometime soon.
We are saddened, disheartened and disappointed that their tactics continue despite their success. We had honestly hoped that a new era could begin with both sides abiding by mediation and moving Chapel forward. It was even hoped that the purpose of Chapel Guardian would come to an end. This week has shown that this cannot yet be the case.
Rather than empowering harmony for everyone at Chapel of Awareness, they are pouncing on a power play. We believe they have failed the benefit of the doubt already.
Cases in point:
Newly elected pastor Reverend Don Miller is already bulldozing over the new Board of Directors (which happens to include his own allies such as Reverends Nell Rose Smith and Sherry DeLoach), setting agendas that are not appropriate for him to set.
It was reported to Chapel Guardian that to the protest of the third-party election mediator who ran the election on April 18, Reverend Miller proceeded to take the podium and announce the setting of a board meeting and the opening of the chapel, a direct challenge to the new Board of Directors’ functions. This was followed by his Friends of Chapel announcement on their blog that he “announces the immediate re-opening of the Chapel of Awareness Sunday Services”. (http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com/2010/04/chapel-of-awareness-sunday-services.html)
The former Board voted in a properly convened meeting to close chapel services as the church was under the assault of Friends of chapel. Now it is for the new Board to vote the Chapel open, and to unanimously approve the reactivation of retired Chapel ministers (one of whom happens to be Reverend Miller). So a retired minister who has to be approved as reactivated is setting service dates and Board agendas before the Board even has had a chance to meet. That is not appropriate and does not make sense, in Guardian’s opinion. It is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and a “new era”.
It is ironic that the Friends of Chapel who have cried “Point of Order!!” throughout the last six months over the chapel’s Bylaws are now flouting those very Bylaws. This further calls Friends of Chapel motives into question: Friends of Chapel never had intention of following Chapel’s Bylaws themselves. Or they do not understand or know the Bylaws as they claim.
It was also reported that in the course of the April 18 election that Reverends Sherry DeLoach and Nell Rose Smith were sharing a proof of the so-called Spiritualist’s Bible, which claims to be a compilation of Founder Reverend Eugene Larr’s works. (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZVukuKH9FnkZGNnZng1YmpfMTdmd3Y1NXNmNg&hl=en and http://sites.google.com/site/friendsofchapel/)This book has been clearly established as a Friends of Chapel publication, yet they revealed it at the Chapel of Awareness election. Will Chapel itself ever see a cut of this book’s profits when it is released, in support of the church he founded? Doubtful.
It was also reported to Chapel Guardian that certain candidates for office, among them Reverend Ann Lorenzini and advisor candidate Roman Koenig, were noticeably hissed at by Friends of Chapel members as they prepared to make some remarks. Chapel Guardian assume that these hisses were Friends’ attempt to prove their stated mission of “loving kindness”. So be it.
Based on the time and date stamps on their posts April 18 (http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com/2010/04/special-election_18.html), Friends of Chapel flouted the stated order of the third-party election mediator to turn all cell phones off. Yet Friends of Chapel defied this order as they posted election actions live to their blog in the middle of that election.
Those who care about the state of Chapel of Awareness, as expressed through Chapel Guardian, will continue to call Friends of Chapel on their behavior. They cannot honestly expect that their questionable behavior will go unnoticed or unchallenged by those who desperately seek a balance of some kind, especially knowing what Reverend Larr's philosophy truly represents.
We are saddened, disheartened and disappointed that their tactics continue despite their success. We had honestly hoped that a new era could begin with both sides abiding by mediation and moving Chapel forward. It was even hoped that the purpose of Chapel Guardian would come to an end. This week has shown that this cannot yet be the case.
Rather than empowering harmony for everyone at Chapel of Awareness, they are pouncing on a power play. We believe they have failed the benefit of the doubt already.
Cases in point:
Newly elected pastor Reverend Don Miller is already bulldozing over the new Board of Directors (which happens to include his own allies such as Reverends Nell Rose Smith and Sherry DeLoach), setting agendas that are not appropriate for him to set.
It was reported to Chapel Guardian that to the protest of the third-party election mediator who ran the election on April 18, Reverend Miller proceeded to take the podium and announce the setting of a board meeting and the opening of the chapel, a direct challenge to the new Board of Directors’ functions. This was followed by his Friends of Chapel announcement on their blog that he “announces the immediate re-opening of the Chapel of Awareness Sunday Services”. (http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com/2010/04/chapel-of-awareness-sunday-services.html)
The former Board voted in a properly convened meeting to close chapel services as the church was under the assault of Friends of chapel. Now it is for the new Board to vote the Chapel open, and to unanimously approve the reactivation of retired Chapel ministers (one of whom happens to be Reverend Miller). So a retired minister who has to be approved as reactivated is setting service dates and Board agendas before the Board even has had a chance to meet. That is not appropriate and does not make sense, in Guardian’s opinion. It is certainly not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and a “new era”.
It is ironic that the Friends of Chapel who have cried “Point of Order!!” throughout the last six months over the chapel’s Bylaws are now flouting those very Bylaws. This further calls Friends of Chapel motives into question: Friends of Chapel never had intention of following Chapel’s Bylaws themselves. Or they do not understand or know the Bylaws as they claim.
It was also reported that in the course of the April 18 election that Reverends Sherry DeLoach and Nell Rose Smith were sharing a proof of the so-called Spiritualist’s Bible, which claims to be a compilation of Founder Reverend Eugene Larr’s works. (http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AZVukuKH9FnkZGNnZng1YmpfMTdmd3Y1NXNmNg&hl=en and http://sites.google.com/site/friendsofchapel/)This book has been clearly established as a Friends of Chapel publication, yet they revealed it at the Chapel of Awareness election. Will Chapel itself ever see a cut of this book’s profits when it is released, in support of the church he founded? Doubtful.
It was also reported to Chapel Guardian that certain candidates for office, among them Reverend Ann Lorenzini and advisor candidate Roman Koenig, were noticeably hissed at by Friends of Chapel members as they prepared to make some remarks. Chapel Guardian assume that these hisses were Friends’ attempt to prove their stated mission of “loving kindness”. So be it.
Based on the time and date stamps on their posts April 18 (http://friendsofchapel.blogspot.com/2010/04/special-election_18.html), Friends of Chapel flouted the stated order of the third-party election mediator to turn all cell phones off. Yet Friends of Chapel defied this order as they posted election actions live to their blog in the middle of that election.
Those who care about the state of Chapel of Awareness, as expressed through Chapel Guardian, will continue to call Friends of Chapel on their behavior. They cannot honestly expect that their questionable behavior will go unnoticed or unchallenged by those who desperately seek a balance of some kind, especially knowing what Reverend Larr's philosophy truly represents.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Mediation does not apply to this website
It has been brought to Chapel Guardian’s attention that, in mediation, Friends of Chapel demanded that the Chapel Guardian blog be taken down as part of its agreement with Chapel of Awareness. In turn, Chapel of Awareness agreed to this arrangement, provided that Friends of Chapel take its blog down in return.
The statement of intent on this blog is clear, and has been unchanged since the Friends’ blog and legal action began: “Chapel Guardian represents only the opinions of the administrator, and is not a sanctioned activity of the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church Corporation or any other entity or person.”
Apparently, the Friends of Chapel mediation group neither read nor understood this statement.
The Friends of Chapel mediation group had no business demanding that a third-party blog be taken down as part of their own lawsuit. Chapel of Awareness had no business agreeing to it.
Such a demand is just as inappropriate as if Chapel were to demand that Rev. Eric Berg take down his blog site (revericsblog.blogspot.com) ... one that uses the words “senile dementia” in the same breath as board chair Rev. Ann Lorenzini ... when he is not a named party in the Friends’ litigation, either.
Therefore, Chapel Guardian does not recognize this demand and agreement on the part of Friends of Chapel and Chapel of Awareness. These parties have no right to demand the silencing of free speech, especially when the blog in question is not a litigant in this case. This demand is not binding on Chapel Guardian.
Chapel Guardian will consider legal avenues if there is a continued attempt to “mediate” away its right to free speech by anyone involved in this dispute, especially when Chapel Guardian is not a plaintiff or a defendant.
The Chapel Guardian was not the first to attack the characters of Chapel congregants, ministers, and board members. But it was the first to defend them, and it will continue doing so.
The statement of intent on this blog is clear, and has been unchanged since the Friends’ blog and legal action began: “Chapel Guardian represents only the opinions of the administrator, and is not a sanctioned activity of the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church Corporation or any other entity or person.”
Apparently, the Friends of Chapel mediation group neither read nor understood this statement.
The Friends of Chapel mediation group had no business demanding that a third-party blog be taken down as part of their own lawsuit. Chapel of Awareness had no business agreeing to it.
Such a demand is just as inappropriate as if Chapel were to demand that Rev. Eric Berg take down his blog site (revericsblog.blogspot.com) ... one that uses the words “senile dementia” in the same breath as board chair Rev. Ann Lorenzini ... when he is not a named party in the Friends’ litigation, either.
Therefore, Chapel Guardian does not recognize this demand and agreement on the part of Friends of Chapel and Chapel of Awareness. These parties have no right to demand the silencing of free speech, especially when the blog in question is not a litigant in this case. This demand is not binding on Chapel Guardian.
Chapel Guardian will consider legal avenues if there is a continued attempt to “mediate” away its right to free speech by anyone involved in this dispute, especially when Chapel Guardian is not a plaintiff or a defendant.
The Chapel Guardian was not the first to attack the characters of Chapel congregants, ministers, and board members. But it was the first to defend them, and it will continue doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)