Chapel of Awareness pastor's letter

"Your current Board members are all free thinkers and none were held hostage or coerced into making decisions they didn't agree with."

Reverend Don Miller, Chapel of Awareness pastor

In such a fractious time in the world, in an era where unity is needed most in the name of "loving kindness" (as the Friends of Chapel have put it) Chapel of Awareness Pastor Don Miller takes an uncalled-for slap to the faces of a good amount of the Chapel of Awareness membership who supported the previous Board prior to (and during) the Friends' lawsuit.

Reverend Miller has opted to turn what was once a positive, inspirational, and unifying annual letter to the congregation by previous pastors into a negative political play designed to ostracize those he and the Friends of Chapel do not agree with. Coercion and "hostage holding" are serious accusations. He has thrown them at current members without qualification or example. This is inappropriate and unbecoming of a pastor -- especially one who admits in his own letter that he has been gone from Chapel for about a third of a year.

Reverend Miller states in the letter that Reverend Nell Rose Smith took over as Pastor in his absence, yet the present church bylaws do not state a procedure for such a handover (the closest that can be found is the calling of a special meeting of the congregation); even if such a handover was done properly by board action, no notice was ever sent out to the congregation.

Before he takes this slap at members and the previous board (representative of the chapel membership as elected), Reverend Miller refers to church founder Reverend Eugene C. Larr's "mundane practices" of teaching. Does he really mean to call the founder's teachings "mundane"? As to say, by definition, "common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative"? From Chapel Guardians' observations, this approach falls in line with the very publishing of the book In the Beginning, material that (by the book's own admission) founder Larr did not want published (a position he was consistent on for years).


Reverend Miller's letter is ironic in that he literally sat on both sides of the fence during the church conflict, serving and voting with some of the very board members he accuses of "hostage holding" while supporting the Friends' lawsuit. This calls his loyalties into question when it comes to a whole congregation, which Chapel of Awareness members assumed would be made whole by the Friends' stated goals upon taking over the church. This letter does not make the congregation whole; it only keeps the wound open. Many argue that it is the Friends of Chapel who fractured the congregation to begin with, and based on the actions (recall: right thought, right action) of the sitting leadership, Chapel Guardian must now agree.


Reverend Miller says the current Friends leadership is working to make sure there are no hostile takeovers of Chapel of Awareness. But there has been one. Theirs ..... From the filing of a lawsuit to the banning of ministers, corporate members and leadership against mediation, to the publishing of a book the founder didn't want to a new leadership that has been consolidated into Friends of Chapel backers.


From the letter, Reverend Miller would have the membership believe that Chapel of Awareness was saved from some underground force bent on taking it over (odd, given that the alleged ringleader was pastor for about two decades). That was not the case, no matter what Friends of Chapel propaganda would have you believe.


Reverend Miller's tone -- his statements in this letter -- is a new unfortunate chapter in Chapel of Awareness history. Is this what Chapel of Awareness has come to? Is this what Reverends Eugene C. Larr and Donald Schwartz would advocate? Is this what you want out of what has often recently been termed "Your Chapel"?

Chapel of Awareness annual meeting and chairman's letter

As Chapel of Awareness enters its annual phase of electing members of the board, Chapel Guardian take note of some points made by Reverend Nell Rose Smith in her letter to the congregation in her capacity as board chair. [Mailed election materials are at the bottom of this post]

As with last year on the heels of the Friends of Chapel take-over of Chapel of Awareness, Reverend Nell states: “nothing is more precious than the generosity of those who make it work through their commitment, time and energy, their ideas and resources” … none of which Reverend Nell provided herself when she and the Friends of Chapel faction disappeared from Chapel of Awareness and then proceeded to sue the church as it struggled.

She thanks the following people whose behavior was questionable over the year: She thanks Reverend Sherry DeLoach as membership director [who has resigned her board position], who sent collection notice-style letters to corporate members warning them of their “termination” if they did not pay their corporate dues. A stick-rather-than-a-carrot approach with shades of the very behavior she and the Friends accused the former board of. Reverend Nell also thanks Terry Hall as the webmaster, who was cited by Yelp and Wikipedia for terms-of-service violations and who proliferated Chapel of Awareness “business” listings across Websites of questionable taste and information.

Finally, in the annual meeting materials provided to the membership this year, the sitting board opted not to provide pre-stamped proxy envelopes to mail back to chapel. The stamping of the return proxy envelopes, for years, was designed to encourage members to return their proxies in the event they could not attend the annual meeting – as a courtesy. The sitting board has apparently chosen to forgo courtesy, and perhaps discourage proxy voting by this quiet, albeit incidental, change of procedure.

Chapel of Awareness closed?

 Chapel Guardian were tipped off this week that Chapel of Awareness' Facebook page says that Chapel is "Closed Now".

The Friends of Chapel's public Chapel of Awareness Facebook Page, as of October 20th and 21st, does indeed clearly state that Chapel is "Closed now". (see attached page copy and this link)

For almost two years now, the Friends of Chapel (now in control of Chapel) have continually claimed that expelled Pastor Reverend Ann Lorenzini and the expelled board of directors closed chapel during the Friends lawsuit against the Chapel; a claim that was not true. Up until just a couple of months ago, Friends of Chapel member Reverend Eric Berg made the same claim on his own Chapel of Awareness page; a claim he removed after Chapel Guardian brought it to the congregation's attention.

Now, we see the very people perpetuating this misinformation stating on their own Chapel of Awareness Facebook Page that they have now closed Chapel of Awareness.

This is truly sad, and deserves public clarification. Please hold the Friends of Chapel on the current church board accountable for what this closure means, as the Annual Meeting approaches.

Where are the Chapel of Awareness ministers?

A couple of tips came to Chapel Guardian recently after the Guardians' post about the Chapel of Awareness calendar.

Regarding one tip, Guardian appreciate that the Friends of Chapel leadership took note and chose to follow the spirit of church bylaws by adding monthly board meetings to the calendar. Until Guardian brought up the issue, board meetings had stopped being placed on the calendar. Keeping the meetings on the calendar keeps the Friends of Chapel leadership in line with the bylaws, which state that members of the congregation can attend the board at meetings. That is difficult to do when no one knows the meeting dates. So kudos for making that change.

But the calendar now seems to indicate that ministers are stepping away from their active participation in Sunday services (a familiar tone when these same ministers became inactive in Chapel starting in 2006 ... are we seeing a repeat of that?). The new calendar (as of April 26th) shows only four Chapel minister-led Sunday lectures for the entire spring and summer seasons. All the rest (between May 1st and September 11th) are listed with semi-anonymous first names like "Lecture by Bill", followed by "Lecture by To Be Announced" starting September 18th.

Why would someone curious about Chapel of Awareness be inclined to make the choice to attend a Sunday service for the first time with a "Lecture by Bill"? Or a "Lecture by Helene"? etc. What kind of message does that send? The Chapel of Awareness web site is a window into the church for those potentially interested in finding out more. A "Lecture by Bill" is not the way to do that, as far as Chapel Guardian are concerned.

So where are the ministers?? More importantly, where is the Pastor??

They and the Pastor are supposed to be leading Sunday services, and leading the lectures. Turning this responsibility over to no-name mysteries sends a murky message.

No Chapel of Awareness board meetings?

A Chapel Guardian observer sent in a note that Chapel's online Calendar shows only Services and Classes but no scheduled Board Meetings even though the calendar legend shows they should be on there. As of 4-14-11 the Calendar shows no Board Meetings listed for ANY month this year. Classes are there; Services are there; but there are no Meetings.

If the Meetings are actually happening, why aren't they in the Calendar? In the past Chapel Board Meetings were open to the Members to attend and even speak. The Friends of Chapel flooded some of them in 2009 and 2010 and in one they even brought a yelling, threatening lawyer demanding that they be heard. Now that they are in control, nothing.

January's Calendar highlights the Friends' Chili Cook-Off. So apparently Chili Cook-Offs are more important than following Chapel of Awareness Bylaws and running regular Meetings of church business?

Chapel of Awareness business?

Tourists traveling in the area made an unwitting observation about how the Friends of Chapel appear to be changing Chapel of Awareness's direction into business and not a nonprofit church.

The photo above has a note attached saying "They were having a cute gallery shop, so we popped in". (dated March 12th) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/orignauxmoose/5545080034/)

The church's new leadership has been sending out notices about rummage sales (including one that was planned for March 5th), but then some church members got a message promoting an art show for Donald Schwartz. The note posted by the tourists seems to indicate that what they saw was not an art show but a "gallery shop". That sounds like a storefront, not an event. (Note also that nowhere in the promotion for the art show, or even the rummage sales, is there an indication of any proceeds going to the church as a fund-raiser)

Before the Friends of Chapel took over, Chapel of Awareness had set up a store, but it was for parishioners with all proceeds going to the church as a fundraiser. It was not a storefront for the public.

What steps has the new Chapel leadership taken to make sure that they are operating a storefront properly under the auspices of a non-profit church? As usual, who knows?

Given the Friends' placement of Chapel of Awareness under a large number of online "business" listings (not religious), and now with the creation of this "store" and a book without showing how Rev. Gene Larr's church is benefiting, the appearance is that the new church leadership is moving Chapel of Awareness towards a for-profit business, in Chapel Guardian view.

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with that, as long as it is done legally and transparently to the congregation. No matter what, as of now the focus is becoming confusing.

Chapel of Awareness "rummage sale"

Note to Guardian: Received a tip about a Craigslist post for Chapel's March 5 rummage sale. Interesting thing is the post which was dated February 28 was flagged for removal. Try the link on it and it goes to "This posting has been flagged for removal.". Usually these things are flagged for some kind of posting violation or questionable content. Seems to be a recurring issue with the new group's use of the web. Biggest unanswered question is where the money from these rummage sales is going? If its a Chapel event then it needs to state these are donations to Chapel. They never say that. If its not a Chapel event then they need to say that too. Imagine members trying to write off donations that actually aren't.

Chapel of Awareness letter about revoking memberships

Chapel Guardian received the above letter (name removed by request) from a Chapel of Awareness member. The letter from Sherry DeLoach uses (as the sender noted) the words "revoke" and "terminate", which by definition carry punitive connotations.

From Chapel Guardian's reading, the wording of Sherry DeLoach's letter falls within this definition, indicating without being explicit that punitive action is imminent. Just because someone chooses not to renew corporate membership, that doesn't mean they have engaged in misconduct. Plus, who would honestly contact their organization and ask "Please revoke my membership"? This is no way to encourage anyone in our congregation to keep a membership of any level.

A year ago, the Friends of Chapel sent out a letter in which they pledged to "restore balance, wisdom, and spiritual leadership" to Chapel of Awareness. Sherry DeLoach's letter is another in a list of examples now of how those words had no meaning, as far as Chapel Guardian are concerned.

Sherry DeLoach is among the leadership of the Friends of Chapel. They organized and sued the Chapel for the very issue raised in the letter she sent. Lack of participation and non-payment of corporate dues were among the reasons that Friends of Chapel memberships were canceled, leading to their lawsuit and resulting mediation. Now in control, Sherry DeLoach and the Friends of Chapel are citing the very same reasons for threatening to revoke memberships.

Response to Chapel of Awareness newsletter

The Friends of Chapel of Awareness recently released a newsletter (copy at the end of this entry), and there are several items that warrant scrutiny, in the opinion of Chapel Guardian.


DISCOUNTED ART
Chapel Guardian are disappointed to see that the Friends of Chapel leadership are cheapening Rev. Donald Schwartz's famous artistic legacy by marking down his fine art by 25% and raffling off his prints. Why the fire sale? Adding insult to injury is the fact that the Friends are "celebrating" his birthday by slashing the prices of his prized art ... owned and celebrated by celebrities like William Shatner, racing professionals, and horse owners. Remember that Donald was the one the Friends put on their pedestal in their lawsuit to overtake Chapel of Awareness. This fire sale is the result?

More questionable is ... again ... the noticeable absence of any explanation of where the proceeds from this event are going. Is this a Chapel of Awareness fund-raiser? If it is a private event being held at Chapel of Awareness, how is the church benefiting from the use of church facilities and people? Are the funds going directly to church leadership and not the church for the congregation’s benefit? There is no transparency.


HEALING CENTER
The Friends of Chapel appear now to be backtracking about the use of Sherry DeLoach's phone number for what is supposedly a Chapel of Awareness program. The newsletter says "Please call 760 672-2868 rather than the Chapel phone since the Chapel phone is not monitored daily". Fair enough, but this is a significant change in church policy since the Friends of Chapel won control.


Up until last spring, the church phone was checked frequently and often daily. So the Friends' explanation begs a question: Why isn't the Chapel phone checked regularly anymore? That is a basic function of church business. This issue is compounded by observations Chapel Guardian have received that the Chapel of Awareness phone, within the past year, has had a steady busy signal for a day or two at a time.


"A SPIRITUALIST'S BIBLE"
In the newsletter, the Friends of Chapel leadership are now touting their book as "Rev. Larr's book". This is a significant change in description. From the beginning, the Friends of Chapel described this book as a supposed compilation of his journals and writings, which means that this is not his book. Several people who were close to Rev. Eugene C. Larr have said it is doubtful that he would ever have called a book something like this in the first place. Given Chapel's former non-denominational, spiritual (not Spiritualist) approach, the use of the term "Spiritualist's Bible" is blatantly inconsistent with Rev. Larr's vision.

As with Donald's artwork and other Chapel functions, the Friends of Chapel do not make it clear exactly where the proceeds of this book are going. The newsletter states that the book costs 20 dollars (including tax) if purchased through Chapel of Awareness. However, it states that if you buy the book through Chapel, you have to pick it up at Chapel. If you want to buy it and are not within distance of Chapel, you have to buy it through Amazon, Borders, or Barnes and Noble.

Most importantly, members of the Chapel have a right to know where their money is going when they buy this publication. If it is a Chapel publication that you can buy through Chapel, then is it a tax-deductible donation to the Chapel, as it should be? If it is sold through book sellers, how is that donation handled? If it is not a Chapel donation, what individuals or groups are potentially profiting from Rev. Larr's work? These questions need to be answered.


NEWSLETTER AVAILABILITY
Under Friends leadership, Chapel of Awareness has apparently abandoned mailing church newsletters, under the apparent assumption that everyone has email and good web access. This is an exclusionary action, requiring all members to have only a specific way to get information about the church they value. Some church members may not have access to the Internet, the knowledge to use it to significant value, or the money to afford high-speed access that can handle the huge file sizes that the new leadership uses for some reason. Others value their online privacy and might not want to give their email address to this Chapel leadership.

In Touch out of touch?

As has been common practice with the Landmark/Friends of Chapel leadership since they took over Chapel of Awareness, only certain members are receiving the church newsletters. There has yet to be any explanation of their rationale for this.

Chapel Guardians' opinion that they are excluding members of the chapel (which goes against the spirit of their own lawsuit) have gone unchallenged for months now.

The latest, dated "Winter 2010", has more interesting items to consider.

ANNUAL MEETING:

Of most interesting note is the lack of transparency when it comes to the Annual Meeting election results. When the Landmark/Friends were suing Chapel of Awareness, they demanded transparency to the point that they were publishing election results on their blog. Now, as leadership of the chapel, there is no announcement on the Chapel website, no mention in the newsletter, no email announcement.

The only reference to the election results is a cryptic announcement in the "In Touch" leaflet: "A list of the names of the full board of directors for 2011will be posted inside the Chapel Sanctuary."

This notice is exclusionary. It essentially tells chapel members who are not able to attend services (some of the very people they claimed to speak for in their lawsuit) that they are not privy to the workings of the church. This attitude runs counter to their goals as claimed in 2009-10.

CHURCH NAME:

As already noted by some Guardian contributors, the Landmark/Friends group continue to misuse "Spiritualist" in the name of the organization, not in keeping with founder Rev. Gene Larr or the bylaws (which they sued over, as well).

The use of "Spiritualist" in the name of the church now has also gone unchallenged by the Landmark/Friends group. Chapel Guardian can only draw from this that such a name and philosophy is intentional, unless they clarify this to the membership. If anyone truly understands Chapel of Awareness philosophy, they know that there is a difference.

HEALING "CENTER":

Sherry DeLoach's "Healing Center" (formerly referred to as Healing Clinics, a name which connotes medical knowledge) is reportedly closed for part of the Winter, yet her imanifestwellness.com website does not state this. She also continues to promote her own phone number and contact information for what is being touted as a chapel function. Another cryptic statement in the "In Touch" leaflet: "Please use the kitchen entrance".

"SPIRITUALISTS BIBLE":

The leaflet also continues to promote a publication that the Landmark/Friends claim is the work of founder Rev. Gene Larr. Guardian have not dealt with this issue directly yet, but will say now that the validity of the publication deserves to be confirmed for all who care about Chapel. Most notable, the name of the book ("A Spiritualist's Bible") itself, which runs counter to Tau Sing, Rev. Larr's own words, and the bylaws of the church. Chapel Guardian believe it is highly unlikely that Rev. Larr would ever title a book in this way, as evidenced by his philosophy and every Chapel and personal published work before this.

More confusion on Chapel of Awareness' name

from xxxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 5:06 PM
subject Re Chapel of Awareness name

Dear Guardian, the Chapel of Awareness is being referred to as a "spiritualist" church.  Rev. Eugene C. Larr, specifically named the church the Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church.  He said that he wanted to distinguish it from other Spiritualist organizations.  The new Friends of Chapel should at least use its correct name.

 

This name is prominent on their letterhead they are using to send out their newsletter, InTouch.  According to the Chapel's by-laws that the Friends of Chapel published on line several months ago, Article 1 Section 1 states: "The name of this Corporation is 'Chapel of Awareness Spiritual Church Corporation,'..."

 

In addition, the "Preamble" states: "We have formed this organization for the purpose of bringing forth the truth and universal knowledge that resides in all mankind..."  "All mankind" refers to all religions - spiritualist and otherwise, and is unique among churches. 

 

It appears that the new Friends of Chapel group have taken upon themselves to rename the Chapel among their other questionable activities.  To rename the Chapel would require a change in the by-laws. membership.  They should go out and look at the sign in front of the building to know what the name is.

 

Anonymous

Attempt to hack Chapel Guardian

FYI Chapel Guardian readers:

There was an attempt to hack this blog on December 13th at 9:22 A.M.

re: Letter from the Chapel of Awareness chairman

(Reposted from comments)

Anonymous said...

I was a member when Gene was around and it was clear then a lot of the staff and member were all about power!!!! Nothing more nothing less. It was clear to me 10 years ago this place would have a falling out after Gene and guess what it has. You don't have to be psychic to predict this one. All the best,

December 6, 2010 3:32 PM

Letter from the Chapel of Awareness chairman

The Chapel of Awareness annual report and meeting materials arrived for most members, apparently, in the last few days. Some Chapel members in contact with Chapel Guardian have shared some of their thoughts about the materials.

As the annual meeting approaches, Chapel Guardian point out more things to consider regarding the activities of the current Chapel leadership. This time in the board chairman's letter:

Chairman Rev. Nell Rose Smith tells us that "nothing is more precious than those who step forward - even in small ways - to volunteer their time, energy, resources and ideas." This must explain the precious absence of so many --- including Rev. Nell --- over nearly five years as Rev. Ann Lorenzini struggled to keep Chapel of Awareness patched together. This must also explain Rev. Nell's precious commitment to sue the Chapel, Rev. Ann, and fellow members she now serves with. It must also explain her strong commitment to push through the expulsions of members and ministers, including Rev. Ann.

In Chapel Guardian opinion, Chapel of Awareness members should keep this behavior in mind as the annual meeting approaches. The majority of Chapel voters may well see the current board's behavior as appropriate for a spiritual organization, and fair enough if so. But they must remember that many do not see it that way.

Letter from the Chapel of Awareness pastor

The Chapel of Awareness annual report and meeting materials arrived for most members, apparently, in the last few days. Some Chapel members in contact with Chapel Guardian have shared some of their thoughts about the materials.

As the annual meeting approaches, Chapel Guardian point out (again) the inconsistencies in behavior and thinking that cause us to question the activities of the current Chapel leadership. Consider:

1) Amy Milford and Louise Morin are mentioned prominently in Pastor Don Miller's report. They are listed as "co-leaders of the Ways and Means Board Committee". Louise also heads the tape department. Chapel Guardian are pleased that Amy and Louise appear so committed to the Chapel after serving on the board in the prior year, with Rev. Don, in which they contributed little to the board and turned on Rev. Ann Lorenzini, as did Don. So where was this commitment in the past two years? Recall that the three of them initially backed the discontinuation of memberships of those who stopped participating in Chapel activities over several years. As members of the board, they were the very targets of the lawsuit they later supported. Their contributions to the Chapel have been confusing at best, deceptive at worst, in Chapel Guardian opinion.

2)  It's ironic that Don would also highlight two people who were 100% absent over the final five years that Rev. Ann was pastor and board chair: Melissa Hall and Suzy Sisler. Rev. Don even notes Melissa's "long hiatus". Melissa (like Rev. Don, Suzy Sisler, Amy Milford and Louise Morin) was an active member of the Friends of Chapel group, which sought to take over Chapel from fellow members.

3) John Dorian is also listed, another member who did nothing for years while attacking the character of Rev. Ann Lorenzini and others, in open meetings, as a member of the Friends of Chapel group.

4) The Friends of Chapel pastor also commends Rev. Nell Rose Smith as board chair, who (among other "accomplishments") engaged in a mean-spirited campaign to successfully expel Rev. Ann and several other members who did not fit within her vision of Chapel.

5) The Friends of Chapel pastor also highlights the activities of Rev. Sherry DeLoach. In his letter, Rev. Don states that Rev. Sherry has started healing clinics: "... The first time that Chapel has offered something like this to the public". Chapel Guardian find this statement interesting since Rev. Sherry never uses Chapel addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses to promote these supposed Chapel clinics --- only her personal and business contact information.

Chapel Guardian notes that these ongoing concerns are not lost on a good number of the Chapel membership.

More personal promotion

Friends of Chapel leadership continue to use Chapel of Awareness as a personal platform for their own events.

Reverend Sherry DeLoach continues to promote her "I Manifest Wellness" events on her personal website along with Craigslist and local newspapers. Captures of these listings are provided.

What makes it self promotion and not a Chapel event? Notice how Sherry DeLoach does not provide a Chapel of Awareness phone number or email address for her services. All contacts are personal phone numbers and email addresses. These events are not for Chapel. If they were, they would be promoted as such, and they are not. Chapel is only listed as a location.

When the December General Meeting approaches, will the Friends of Chapel leadership disclose how much money from these personal events has gone to Chapel in the form donations or rent, and how they are allowed under the bylaws?

The Friends of Chapel, including Sherry DeLoach, sued the church and accused members and ministers they expelled of this very practice, without proof or substance. Yet, for their own behavior, here it is.

"Halloween Spooktacular"

Chapel Guardian ask with all seriousness: How can our Chapel of Awareness be taken seriously anymore with an announcement like the one above? Their "new" Website is the public face of our church, and this is potential first impression. (Announcement Link)

During the time of conflict, the Friends of Chapel (now controlling the Chapel of Awareness) demanded to be taken seriously. When they felt they were not being taken seriously, they filed a lawsuit -- but after the conflict was supposedly resolved in mediation, they immediately began to erode that which they demanded. They laid quick claim to "channel" the Reverend Donald Schwartz almost immediately after his death. Now in the week of Reverend Schwartz's memorial, the Chapel of Awareness posts a Halloween party announcement complete with Casper the Ghost and a claim to have a "REAL GHOST!" at the event.

This kind of treatment of Reverend Eugene C. Larr's teachings, and those of the major belief systems of the World, is embarrassing and inappropriate, in Chapel Guardian opinion.

The passing of Rev. Donald Schwartz

Chapel Guardian are saddened to receive word of the passing of Rev. Donald Schwartz.

Despite the ugly business that has continually taken place among special interests at the new Chapel of Awareness, there has never been any question as to Donald's dedication to Chapel over the decades. So it is with deep sadness that we mark his passing, and it is with highest and best wishes that his crossing has been peaceful.

Aside from word of mouth, there has been no official announcement from the new Chapel leadership as of Sept. 9. We await word from Chapel leadership about the circumstances of his passing, and plans for any memorial.

Website likens Chapel to "Spiritual Ducttape"

Does Reverend Gene Larr's philosophy amount to "spiritual ducttape"? The Friends of Chapel, now running Chapel of Awareness, apparently believe so.

A new website, "Chapel of Awareness Under Development" with a domain of "spiritualducttape.com", is now available online. Terry Hall registered the domain, according to Web domain ownership records. What is so disappointing is that it seems Chapel Reverend Bob Sisler has signed off on this unfortunate approach to Chapel philosophy, as the full front page link is "spiritualducttape.com/members/sisler3/" (image below)

The webpage information says "Chapel of Awareness Coming Soon".

From marketing alone, why would anyone consider joining a supposedly spiritual organization that refers to itself as "spiritual ducttape"?

What the Friends of Chapel plan to do with this domain is unknown.

Yelp conflict of interest

A page on Yelp.com has existed for Chapel of Awareness for some time, but only in the last few months has there been any activity. Yelp.com offers the opportunity to post positive and negative criticism about a business or institution. One of the marks of a spiritual pathway is the ability to accept criticism and grow from it.

Friends of Chapel behavior shows a lack of ability to take criticism and learn from the experience, in the Chapel Guardians' opinion. Now, again, exists evidence that this problem persists, now brought to the public sphere thanks to a questionable use of the Yelp site. The posts are shown below. The link is here: www.yelp.com/biz/chapel-of-awareness-encinitas

On June 2, someone posted a critical review of Chapel of Awareness. On July 30, new Chapel webmatser Terry Hall posted a review touting the virtues of Chapel. The way it's written, it's clear this is a response to try to counter the negative impact of the critical review.

Nowhere in the review does Terry Hall clarify who he is or his professional ties or leadership role with Chapel; it is written like "just another review."

Under the Content Guidelines in Yelp's Terms of Service, it states that "you should not review your own business or a business at which you have been or are currently employed." The Content Guidelines also state: "Conflicts of interest. Your reviews should be unbiased and objective. If there's any hint of a conflict, please don't post the review. For example, owners shouldn't sing the praises of their own businesses or bash their competitors, and users shouldn't comment on their current or former employers."

The Chapel Guardian will let readers of this post decide whether the original post is accurate in its criticism. What's clear, in Chapel Guardians' opinion, is the continued misuse of online outlets to self-promote while harming others. This is one of the dark legacies the current Chapel leadership risk leaving behind when their terms end.