Reverend Eric Berg retiring?

An update on Reverend Eric Berg's web site shows that he is apparently pulling away from the "new" Chapel of Awareness. Much of his activities on his page are crossed out and he states that he plans to retire three months.

This is what he says there: "At present I support the Chapel school and church, as well as the community of ministers and non-ministers, but am considering retirement when I return to Washington 4/1/2011." -- http://psiontist.com/eclarr/rev_eric.htm

It now looks as if the Friends of Chapel of Awareness group publicly went after the characters of members and ministers, in Reverend Eric's and Donald's names, only for them now to be gone.

Thank you all for keeping my post unnamed.

"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.

Regarding Chapel's handling of Donald

from xxxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 8:42 AM
subject Regarding Chapel's handling of Donald

Friends,

I am mournful not only of Donald's death but of the sad state of affairs at Chapel now itself. The leadership's behavior gives me every reason to believe that their rallying behind Donald in the last year had nothing to with him, and everything to do with themselves. Here is why.

1. I as a member of this church never received any notice of Donald's passing. I had to find out here, and then wait for the "new" Chapel website to post something. Why is the leadership not communicating with us?? They were on top of it when they decided to sue the Chapel in Donald's name, and now they are dropping the ball on everything.

2. There has been no obituary posted for Donald that I can find. Why?? He was an acclaimed artist, including to such stars as William Shatner, and yet there is nothing about him anywhere. Why no word to the public??

3. The leadership and new pastor [Don Miller] are now claiming "Many at Chapel have spoken to Donald since his crossing, and he is enjoying his new-found freedom" [This is Reverend Miller's words]. Well this is very convenient that they would claim to have some level of exclusivity in contacting a man who just passed on [especially coming from a group whose members claim to channel one of the the holiest of holies, Jesus, with no sanctioned training]. This supposed contact with Donald would also indicate that his abilities for Spirit-side are superior to those of Reverend Gene Larr himself, which I cannot accept [With all respect to Donald's abilities and heart].

For the love of the Universe, let Donald adjust before trying to clog his path with your vibrations. That is disrespectful and not helpful. And all the "talking" seems odd given that Gene to my knowledge ordained only one medium in the last 40 years. In other words, it's not a simple diploma that just gets handed out to someone who passes all the tests. It is serious business that requires careful instruction and confirmation.

Chapel's credibility has been destroyed by these new claims as far as I am concerned. I believe they used Donald when he was alive to rally around and sue Chapel and now I believe they are barely giving him lip service now that he is gone. It only shows me they are "done" with him now that their fight is over and he has passed.

I am heartbroken.

My reax to Yelp post

from xxxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:56 PM
subject My reax to Yelp post

Hi Guardian,
Who is chapel to demean metaphysical shops when it creates a Yelp page for itself soliciting reviews???  Yelp _is_ for storefonts and I think its tasteless for a church of any kind to promote itself there.  I am disappointed our old church is going in this direction.

Thank you,

RE: Yelp conflict of interest

from xxxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 11:53 AM
subject RE: Yelp conflict of interest

Dear Chapel Guardian,

I am offended by the snobbery expressed in the Yelp review you write of.  I find it noteworthy too because the language Terry Hall uses smacks exactly of what the first reviewer complained about.  By speaking of "storefront psychics" and "paper mill" ministers he is lumping an entire community of fellow ministers and practitioners into a category that is inaccurate and lowbrow.  If he truly knows the history of Chapel of Awareness as he claims, he would know that GENE LARR himself ordained and educated many who have gone on to help so many people in the community no matter where we "hang our shingle".  I have known some of these people, some of whom have since passed into spirit.  How disrespectful.

If this is representation of the new Chapel of Awareness leadership, then the church really is in trouble, because the leadership should be proud of all of its ordained ministers and students who serve in such a diverse variety of ways.  They have no business slapping the faces of those who disagree with them, like Harmony Grove, or those in our community who serve with the highest purpose.  Chapel of Awareness, shame on you.

Highest Blessings,

I am upset (message to Chapel Guardian)

from xxxx
to Chapel Guardian
date Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 19:37 PM
subject I am upset

Dear chapel guardians...

I am just reporting in to be honest in what I feel since all the things went down with chapel. I am saddened to see the uncofortable nature of things. Some people from the friends of chapel frequent the E street cafe not far from the chapel and I have had to stop going there [a place a I love], because I am made to feel that I have to justify mysefl as to why I do not go to chapel any more. Not for benefit of me but because they some how take it personally that I do not go any more. I learned from chapel some time ago to believe in right thought and right action, and I stopped going to chapel completely after I found out that the friends of chapel took over and expelled 2 excellent and beautiful ministers. Revenge and expelling people is not right thought and right action. Chapel guardians. Please, do not stop taking our observations, because we need to keep track. Thankyou.

A good bye post

from xxx@xxx.xxx
to Chapel Guardian chapelguardian@gmail.com
date Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:11 PM
subject A good bye post

[PLEASE PUBLISH AS ANONYMOUS]

Chapel Guardian,

From what I have been able to observe, it seems much the same mistakes (or call them in Chapel terms "sins"--falling short of universal laws such as non-interference, no distractions, moderation, and self-responsibility, as well as non-conformance to community spirit, bylaws, and court rulings) which some feel Rev. Ann Lorenzini and Rev. Barbara Koenig may have made which may have contributed to the "fall" of Chapel through 2009, are now being repeated this year by the majority of the new Board in their effort to bring "Peace, Love and Harmony" to Chapel, members, and visitors.

(The quote "Peace, Love and Harmony" is from a sign off to a May 20 email by Rev. Sherry DeLoach 1st Vice Chair, forwarded to me by another anonymous individual for my information. I appreciate knowing what is going on at "my" Chapel.)

Some may say this proves nothing good can come of these sins, so the new order will fail or should be overthrown. Others may say nothing wrong is being done, or what is done is necessary for re-establishment of heaven on earth. One person has little input or ability to undo what has been or change what will be done. So I agree with neither extreme. I wish all the best. I seek to forgive past sins. But I will forget nothing.

I conclude, without anger or sadness, that religion and spirituality are great, good, beautiful, and powerful forces and things. Problems arise when humans become involved.

I thank Chapel Guardian blog for providing alternative information and opinion to Friends of Chapel. I see both sites as imperfect, slanted products, but have appreciated being able to read and learn from each. Thank you and good bye (Spirit be with you).

Landmark connection?

from xxx@xxx.xxx
to Chapel Guardian chapelguardian@gmail.com
date Wed, May 5, 2010 at 7:30 PM
subject Re Landmark connection

Dear Guardian, please keep my identity anonymous. It might be worth your time to check into the Friends of Chapel connection, if any, to Landmark. Please also keep my email address confidential.

"May Day" meeting ([Chapel Guardian] New comment on Twitter posts revealed)

(Below is a comment posted in reply to "Twitter posts revealed". Chapel Guardian is also posting it separately because of what the poster has to say.)

Anonymous xxxxxxx-xxxxxxx@blogger.com
to chapelguardian@gmail.com
date Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:50 PM
subject [Chapel Guardian] New comment on Twitter posts revealed.

I am a Chapel member, and am absolutely horrified at the recent turn of events. Twenty years ago Rev. Larr chose Rev. Ann to lead the church, and the members of the congregation have consistently voted her as Pastor every year for two decades. She and her spouse, Joe Myers, devoted all these years of their lives to the continuing care and stewardship of the Church.

Recently, 72 members from the highly volatile and fanatically organized Friends of Chapel group, attended the April special election in person and by proxy, to take over the Board of Trustees. According to the third party neutral Ms. Hasler, who was chosen through mediation to run the meeting, there were 252 members entitled to vote.

The result of the election was that 7 Friends of Chapel members became a majority on the 9 member Board of Trustees. These majority members are now in the process of orchestrating a list of "grievances" which they intend to use to destroy the Chairman of the Corporation Rev. Ann, who holds office as Chairman of the Board until the year 2012.

The 7 called a "May Day" Board meeting for Saturday, May 1st, to which only Friends of Chapel members were invited. They held this meeting in the spiritual sanctuary of the church, to begin the process of evisceration.

It is interesting that this was the first meeting of the Board of Trustees ever held on a Saturday. Board meetings have always been held on Sundays, after services. It appears to me this date was chosen to enhance a "May Day" effect, and it is a sad use of the Chapel's sanctuary.

It is time for the rest of the 180+ members of the Chapel to speak up, if they want to save their church.


Posted by Anonymous to Chapel Guardian at May 5, 2010 9:50 PM

A thought as Jan. 8 approaches

In the midst of the current Chapel of Awareness conflict, Chapel Guardian has pledged to look at information presented and offer alternative points of view as a counterbalance.

What has ultimately taken Chapel Guardian by surprise is how far the "Friends of Chapel" group has pushed the boundaries of taste, civility, and truth.

Pursuing a legal hearing of their grievance was their fair right, but they went far beyond that. They were unwilling to wait for a Jan. 8 hearing. They escalated hostile feelings by using inaccurate information, innuendo, rumor, and personal attacks, and venting all of that on a public blog. This behavior has not been evident on the Chapel of Awareness side.

Both sides originally acted in the way they felt was right, but it has been the "Friends of Chapel" who have unreasonably escalated the hostilities.

Now as the Jan. 8 hearing approaches, the “Friends of Chapel” group continues to engage in misinformation, loose interpretations, intimidation, among other tactics, to get its message across.

Regardless of the outcome of Jan. 8’s legal hearing, the Chapel of Awareness congregation as a whole, however it comes together after this time, must hold the “Friends of Chapel” group accountable for its mean-spirited philosophy.

"Now I'm under attack, and what for??"

(**This is a follow-up submission in response to a posting by Terry Hall on the "Friends of Chapel" blog at friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Jan. 1, 2010.)

Now I'm under attack, and what for??
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 11:37 PM
To: chapelguardian@gmail.com
Cc: xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, friendsofchapel@gmail.com

Dear Chapel Guardian,

As a follow-up to what I wrote earlier, I wanted to further say that I am upset that friendsofchapel have taken upon themselves to attack family members of those involved in this membership argument.

I stood alone as a Chapel member, and as a professional individual, when I held the board accountable for what I personally believed was an ill-advised process for historical preservation. What friendsofchapel is not telling anyone is that my mother, Basia Koenig, and stepfather, John Petrowski, were on the board at that time, when I *was not*. They are also not telling anyone that Don Miller was also on the board at the time, the same man who is involved with friendsofchapel and is listed in Nell Rose Smith's legal action.

Terry Hall's friendsofchapel post refers to me as Barbara and John's "son" while roping me into this alleged conspiracy of leadership headed by Ann Lorenzini, making it sound as if I have some kind of covert leadership position and a vested interest in Ann's alleged real estate scam. *I have never served on the board nor have I ever put my name in nomination for the board; no one has ever put my name in nomination.*

I am a professional working in the public spheres of journalism and higher education, and I resent that Terry Hall and friendsofchapel have taken this approach to achieve their goals. It is deceptive, hurtful and spiteful.

I allow only Chapel Guardian to publish this and my previous message today. Posting of these materials anywhere else is done without my permission as author.

Thank you,
Roman S. Koenig

"re: Chapel-DEMA deed misinformation"

(**This is a submission in response to a posting by Terry Hall on the "Friends of Chapel" blog at friendsofchapel.blogspot.com on Jan. 1, 2010.)

re: Chapel-DEMA deed misinformation
Kick Boxaah xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx
Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 3:51 PM
To: xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: friendsofchapel@gmail.com, chapelguardian@gmail.com

Dear Terry Hall,

I have quietly followed the postings on friendsofchapel (and the counter-blog chapelguardian) for some time, but after what you posted on friendsofchapel at the start of this New Year, I am now compelled to respond to statements made by you that I find outrageous and false.

I don’t know you, nor your motives for posting what you did on the friendsofchapel blog. But since I am someone with direct knowledge of the situation you address (independent of my family ties, before you pass judgment on me), I must set the record straight on what you claim.

First of all, you claim that it is the now-former pastor who is dragging this “friends” mess into court, when it is the friendsofchapel group itself that initiated a court action, not her. All you need is a copy of the friendsofchapel action as filed by Nell Rose Smith to see that (handed outside the annual meeting Decemeber 13th). So that is falsity number one.

Second and most relevant to this message to you is the issue of the chapel building’s historical status.

You claim that “canceling the historical status for the Chapel may have foreshadowed her intentions to use the Chapel property for her own personal benefit.” Seeing as *I* am the one who demanded that the board review the plans for historical status, I can tell you that your claim in your friendsofchapel post is outright false.

The issues regarding the deed restriction came to my attention in mid-2008 when an Encinitas-based film festival was advertising events scheduled in the Chapel of Awareness building, unknown to the Board of Directors or the general membership, and when the handover of the deed had not taken place and no final board approval had been given.

As a filmmaker, journalist and member of Chapel, this raised a red flag with me. So I raised the issue with the Board of Trustees at its next meeting (which I recall was September 2008). I demanded that, as a member of Chapel, I get a direct understanding of what the plans were for the deed restriction and historical designation through the Downtown Encinitas MainStreet Association (DEMA). Members of the board were also unhappy with the methods used by the board chairman and first vice-chair at that time to push the proposal through with as little discussion as possible.

Having been a past member and secretary of the Encinitas Historical Society, an avid local history buff, and having a journalistic relationship with DEMA separately, I had a general idea of how appropriate channels should work for these kinds of dealings. From my own understanding of process and how Chapel is designed to function, I sensed something wasn’t adding up.

I was not satisfied with the explanations I got from the Chapel board chairman and first vice-chair, nor were other members of the board at that time. (This was all in open session of the board, so I can discuss this as an active party and witness. I am not privy to any closed-session issues, obviously, so that is not appropriate to address.)

The situation escalated when DEMA published on its website that the Chapel building deed had been turned over to the organization, when in fact it had not, nor had even been finalized. I again brought this to the board’s attention, and the board handled the concerns that followed as they saw fit.

I was at the open-session board meeting at which the board chairman resigned, and the vice-chair was forced to resign. Again, *speaking as the person who raised concerns about the deed issue myself*, I can tell you that any actions regarding this matter had to do with the board’s concerns over the DEMA process and the actions of the chairman and vice-chair.

The fault, in my opinion, didn’t lie with the board, nor with DEMA. The chairman and vice-chair should have been more open about the process to the board and membership. That lack of communication could have been completely unintentional, but that wasn’t the point. The process was viewed as contaminated because I, as a member, and board trustees felt that the Chapel as an organization had been left in the dark as to what exactly was happening.

You claim in your missive that, “At the 12th hour, the agreement was canceled by Lorenzini. It is unclear to me whether the cancellation of this agreement had Board Approval.”

The *board* opted not to go through the process, not because Ann Lorenzini had some secret real estate deal in the works, but because this was an issue that *I* brought to the board’s attention as a responsible, active member of Chapel.

So you are right in one respect. You are unclear in your understanding of the issues.

Further, you demand that friendsofchapel “bring this matter to the attention of the Court as evidence that Lorenzini has NOT performed her responsibilities as the Chapel's Pastor.” They are more than welcome to do so, as I will testify to the contrary if called upon to do so. The trustees’ minutes, tape recordings, and roll call of the meetings in question will show I am accurate about this.

Even more outrageous is the posting of your misguided information on the friendsofchapel blog, a group under the guidance of Wanda Olson, among others. I bring her up because at the September 2009 meeting in which Olson and others engaged in a shout fest to prevent the board from doing its regular business, Olson claimed “she attended board meetings” at the time I did regarding the historical-status concerns in 2008. I told her during that shout fest that I never saw her there. In fact, I was the *only* regular Chapel member who apparently cared enough to attend open board meetings at the time. The meeting roll calls will show this.

Had I not been there to raise concerns as a regular member, the board would have entered into an agreement it and the membership might have later regretted. Historical status can be sought anytime, and you learn along the way as you learn the process.

I have tried to keep a certain distance from the friendsofchapel conflict, and I will not tolerate being dragged into it as you have done with me by discussing issues you clearly know nothing about but which I have direct knowledge of.

I find this conduct so outrageous that I am cc’ing friendsofchapel and chapelguardian alternative blog, and bcc'ing Chapel itself and the Downtown Encinitas MainStreet Association. DEMA deserves to know they have been brought up in friendsofchapel’s smear campaign (albeit indirectly, by bringing up the proposed deed transfer).

Roman S. Koenig

Reflections for the Holiday

If there is one thing the last decade has taught us, it is that one cannot take what another says simply at face value, believe it, and act on it. We have seen this in acts of war, and acts of politics.

We have unfortunately seen this in certain circles associated with Chapel of Awareness. And before you nod to yourself thinking "yes, that's them," read completely ...

In 2009, Chapel of Awareness saw the cancellation of memberships based on non-participation, as interpreted through due process by the Board of Trustees.

Some current and former members seized on this action to build a movement based on their own self-interest. This group was formed by people who left Pastor Rev. Ann Lorenzini in the lurch after Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr passed away. They were gone for three years and did nothing as Rev. Lorenzini struggled to keep the Chapel going.

What this splinter group cannot stand, however, is the fact that she succeeded where they expected her to fail. She brought in a minister -- the only one to Chapel Guardian's knowledge awarded mediumship papers by Rev. Larr -- to help rebuild the Chapel after the exodus of ministers and members after his death. With Rev. Basia Koenig's inspiration, they rallied the membership through fundraisers to replace the Chapel's aging roof. They brought back events first started by Rev. Larr, such as Reading in the Round, and original teachings into the classroom.

The Friends of Chapel will not tell you this. It is not in their self-interest to do so.

Chapel Guardian has already taken Friends of Chapel to task for their questionable tactics and mean-spirited actions, so there is no need to rehash them in this message.

What is tremendously sad is that people with legitimate questions have been brought into the so-called Friends' fold like a dark figure trying to build a following. Chapel Guardian is not saying that this is what they are, only that their behavior shows this.

Good decisions cannot be made when only one side of a story is given ... frankly, forced upon a captive audience (current and former members of Chapel being that audience).

Fundamentalist religions and political dictatorships show all too well what happens when a flock is encouraged -- required -- to listen only to its dogma. Judgment, hostility, and fear are the only glue that holds the bond together. Anything that could reveal cracks in that dogma is immediately attacked through words, actions, and thoughts.

And what have the so-called Friends of Chapel done?

1) Engage in fear: Using a questionably obtained mailing list to stir fear and rancor among the flock to bring people to their side. The Friends' Mission Statement says that they seek "to restore order to the Chapel," yet there never has been a lack of order ... only the rancor caused directly by the Friends' actions, even before the changes in membership, and the perpetuation of rumors.

2) Engage in judgment: Anyone who does not see the Friends' way has been demonized ... people with the kindest hearts who honestly have the Chapel's best interests at heart. Even the founder himself, Rev. Eugene C. Larr, as been demonized by the Friends' blog.

3) Engage in hostility: Friends of Chapel have recruited members and non-members to harangue Chapel parishioners before and after services, handing them leaflets of material and legal actions that should be left to a court to decide. Friends of Chapel disrupted a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees, engaging in a shouting match that forced regular business to be delayed. These are only two among several incidents and tactics concretely reported to Chapel Guardian, or witnessed by the Guardian itself.

Chapel Founder Rev. Eugene C. Larr began his institution in-part with the idea that enlightenment is discovered through good thought, good science, and exploration of the greatest philosophers and teachers of humankind.

In other words: An open mind and an open heart.

The actions of the Friends of Chapel run completely counter to these ideas. Chapel of Awareness does not need a cliche "Mission Statement" to live by Rev. Larr's principles, and it doesn't throw around "loving kindness," "thoughts are things" and "moderation" like an advertising campaign.

So as you grapple with the schism at the Chapel of Awareness, follow what the principles of the Chapel ask ... look at all sides and decide for yourself. Don't believe one side without looking at the other. And certainly don't decide based on how an interest group tells you to.

-- Chapel Guardian

Why so angry?

(**This is a reader submission and does not necessarily represent the view of the blog administrator.)

Hello Guardian:

What is that FOC group so angry about? They lay claim to the original teachings of the church, lay claim to scores of "friends" and several ministers, so why don't they start their own church? As I hear it, they didn't support, contribute to, or participate in the original church after the founder died, so it seems to me they would want to have their own organization.

The church building sits on a prime piece of real estate located at the corner of 3rd and E in upscale Encinitas, worth from 5 million to 8 million dollars. It sits across the street from the empty old Pacific View School site which is prime for development in the downtown historic district. When the founder died, I understand the first thing out of the collective mouth of that FOC group was, "Who holds title to the deed?"

So it's all about the money, and all that stuff about spirituality is smoke and mirrors. It's pretty clear to me that group wants the building, and they thought if they all walked away, the hand full left to run the church couldn't do it. I guess they figured that it would be just a matter of time before they could come back in force and simply take it over. I think they deserve what they got by losing their membership, and don't deserve what they're after.

Sleuth