The Smiley Smile Message Board

Smiley Smile Stuff => General On Topic Discussions => Topic started by: patsy6 on May 07, 2022, 07:48:21 PM



Title: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 07, 2022, 07:48:21 PM
This was posted on YouTube today by Elora. Thoughts?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhgaX1-0SiA


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Ragegasm, Coming Soon To A Dictionary Near You on May 07, 2022, 11:29:51 PM
Along the same line, I found the LA Times obituary for MSIA founder John-Roger.


https://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-john-roger-20141023-story.html


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 08, 2022, 09:54:33 AM
Hmmm... I wonder how Gina, Jonah and Justyn felt/feel about MSIA. Are or were they ever members? Did they feel that it helped Carl? As no one in his family seems to be amenable to an official biography, I guess we'll never know.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: jeremylr on May 08, 2022, 05:55:00 PM
Was Carl's involvement in MSIA common knowledge among fans during his lifetime? Appreciate this new piece of the puzzle, Patsy6.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: juggler on May 08, 2022, 07:10:09 PM
Was Carl's involvement in MSIA common knowledge among fans during his lifetime? Appreciate this new piece of the puzzle, Patsy6.

I don't know what constitutes "common knowledge," but back in the early to mid-90s, I do remember a tiny bit of online chatter about Carl's involvement with the "John Roger" religious group (even that Carl was a sort of minister within the organization).  This chatter was on what constituted the online BB discussion of the era (e.g., Usenet, email lists, compuserve, whatever).  As I recall, the general gist of the chatter was that "John Roger" was a sketchy sort of character who was generating a fair amount of controversy, BUT Carl had the right to whatever religious views he wanted to have, and those view didn't have anything to do with the music or the band (i.e., this wasn't another "Maharishi tour" situation), so who cares?


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Wirestone on May 08, 2022, 07:27:35 PM
Yep, we’ve talked about it before. A known thing. Doesn’t seem to be a giant deal.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 08, 2022, 07:54:10 PM
The only place I've seen Carl talk about it was on the old PBS Late Night show with Dennis Wholey, 1983. The clip is on You Tube. It didn't sound like anything sinister to me; but I admit to not knowing much about the organization. Dave Davies of the Kinks got involved around the same time with the Aetherius Society, founded by Dr. George King; they talk about about contact with aliens, and say that Jesus lives on Venus.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 08, 2022, 07:54:44 PM
Was Carl's involvement in MSIA common knowledge among fans during his lifetime? Appreciate this new piece of the puzzle, Patsy6.

I don't know what constitutes "common knowledge," but back in the early to mid-90s, I do remember a tiny bit of online chatter about Carl's involvement with the "John Roger" religious group (even that Carl was a sort of minister within the organization).  This chatter was on what constituted the online BB discussion of the era (e.g., Usenet, email lists, compuserve, whatever).  As I recall, the general gist of the chatter was that "John Roger" was a sketchy sort of character who was generating a fair amount of controversy, BUT Carl had the right to whatever religious views he wanted to have, and those view didn't have anything to do with the music or the band (i.e., this wasn't another "Maharishi tour" situation), so who cares?
Obviously not you. Some fans are interested, though.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: juggler on May 09, 2022, 12:45:22 AM

Actually my point there wasn't about my personal feelings about the issue per se, but rather my recollection,  as someone who's been reading online BB info for 30 years, of the general nonchalance of BB fans when the issue came up.  This wasn't something like the Landy issue where many, many fans had very strong feelings that Landy was not a good person and was exploiting and/or mistreating Brian.  I don't remember ever seeing a single post suggesting that Carl was being a exploited by a cult or whatever.  So, again, the question was whether BB fans knew about the "John Roger" thing, and my recollection is that they did but no one seemed to be losing sleep over it.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2022, 08:47:20 AM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think if one were to feel uneasy about Carl's connection to this group, it wouldn't only be for fear of Carl being exploited or something of that nature, but also Carl simply being connected to a group that clearly some people and organizations took issue with.

I think the fact that this group only had a seemingly relatively short stint in the larger public eye and stayed relatively more low key than other organizations of a similar nature (I think we can all name the obvious ones), coupled with Carl's private nature, is what dictated that there was never a huge swath of Beach Boys fans expressing deep concern for Carl's links to the group. Carl died during the *relatively* early era of the internet, so there was less chance for more discussion to hatch concerning the group or Carl's links to it.

We still seem to know relatively little of Carl's connection to the group or his beliefs at any point, including near the end of his life. I can't claim I've ever felt *positive* about Carl's connection to that John Roger group, and certainly those couple of minutes of documentary footage showing Carl working events for the group don't make me feel any better about it. I don't think it's inappropriate to say it evokes in the minds of many a number of similar groups of distant and recent past. Again, we can name some of the obvious ones. And indeed, I recall reading, coincidentally back in the Usenet days of the mid-late 90s on the Beach Boys groups, that Carl at some point (presumably in the 70s and 80s) had allegedly "looked into" a number of groups/movements including Scientology.

It also may well be that *if* we knew more about his feelings and beliefs in general and specifically in regards to the John Roger group, that might speak to how he interacted with the band/organization over the years.

I don't look at Carl's connection to this group as "meh, no big deal." He was obviously entitled to his beliefs and to choose his associations. But it feels a bit more icky to me than "meh, no big deal"; that's just my personal feeling of course on it. But I also think we have far, far too little information about Carl to draw any particularly judgmental conclusions about Carl in regards to this organization. I'm certainly not willing to make any hugely negative assumptions or judgments. I think even looking at that footage, I could offer commentary as any of us could about what it seems/feels like, and as I mentioned, I don't ever get a *good* feeling from it. But until or if we get more info about Carl's life (you gotta commend not only Carl but also his tight relationships with others in that nobody seems to want to tell much about him), I'm not sure how much more we can say. Perhaps if we were to delve deep into that John Roger organization, enough troubling things would lead to a justified *attempt* to question his family about Carl's feelings about and connections to the group. Asking those questions wouldn't necessarily be out of line; and they in turn would absolutely have the right to not answer those questions.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: juggler on May 09, 2022, 10:19:28 AM
Well, you're right, HeyJude.  The internet was a much different thing in the '90s than it is now.   There's way more information now... and there's social media... and info moves much faster.... and photos and videos and articles are easily shared.   So, something like Mike Love's gig at the trophy-hunting convention -- something that might have flown under the radar 25 years ago -- can now generate a protest and thousands of signatures on a petition in the space of 24-48 hours.  So if one of the BBs in 2022 were involved with a John-Roger-type group, would the reaction of BB fandom over that fact be quite different than it was in, say, 1995?   My guess is that it would indeed be different.  You'd have people armed with articles and videos explaining the controversies about the group, and fans denouncing the BB's involvement therein in no uncertain terms, etc.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: HeyJude on May 09, 2022, 10:31:09 AM
The group's dips in popularity decades ago occasionally helped them ironically as well. They played Sun City in 1981/1982, and Mike made at least one inflammatory remark about it to the media, but nobody cared because nobody was paying attention to the Beach Boys in late 1981/early 1982.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 09, 2022, 03:14:47 PM
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I think if one were to feel uneasy about Carl's connection to this group, it wouldn't only be for fear of Carl being exploited or something of that nature, but also Carl simply being connected to a group that clearly some people and organizations took issue with.

I think the fact that this group only had a seemingly relatively short stint in the larger public eye and stayed relatively more low key than other organizations of a similar nature (I think we can all name the obvious ones), coupled with Carl's private nature, is what dictated that there was never a huge swath of Beach Boys fans expressing deep concern for Carl's links to the group. Carl died during the *relatively* early era of the internet, so there was less chance for more discussion to hatch concerning the group or Carl's links to it.

We still seem to know relatively little of Carl's connection to the group or his beliefs at any point, including near the end of his life. I can't claim I've ever felt *positive* about Carl's connection to that John Roger group, and certainly those couple of minutes of documentary footage showing Carl working events for the group don't make me feel any better about it. I don't think it's inappropriate to say it evokes in the minds of many a number of similar groups of distant and recent past. Again, we can name some of the obvious ones. And indeed, I recall reading, coincidentally back in the Usenet days of the mid-late 90s on the Beach Boys groups, that Carl at some point (presumably in the 70s and 80s) had allegedly "looked into" a number of groups/movements including Scientology.

It also may well be that *if* we knew more about his feelings and beliefs in general and specifically in regards to the John Roger group, that might speak to how he interacted with the band/organization over the years.

I don't look at Carl's connection to this group as "meh, no big deal." He was obviously entitled to his beliefs and to choose his associations. But it feels a bit more icky to me than "meh, no big deal"; that's just my personal feeling of course on it. But I also think we have far, far too little information about Carl to draw any particularly judgmental conclusions about Carl in regards to this organization. I'm certainly not willing to make any hugely negative assumptions or judgments. I think even looking at that footage, I could offer commentary as any of us could about what it seems/feels like, and as I mentioned, I don't ever get a *good* feeling from it. But until or if we get more info about Carl's life (you gotta commend not only Carl but also his tight relationships with others in that nobody seems to want to tell much about him), I'm not sure how much more we can say. Perhaps if we were to delve deep into that John Roger organization, enough troubling things would lead to a justified *attempt* to question his family about Carl's feelings about and connections to the group. Asking those questions wouldn't necessarily be out of line; and they in turn would absolutely have the right to not answer those questions.
Well said, Hey Jude. I suppose my radar is up right now, because I've just finished binge watching Leah Remini's expose on Scientology. I feel that somehow all three of the Wilsons and Mike Love, perhaps because of their upbringing, were/are vulnerable to people with narcissistic personalities. This fits right in with that tendency. I include Mike in this, as he suffered some emotional abuse by his mother, Murry Wilson's sister Glee. Murry and Glee both suffered at the hands of their father, Buddy Wilson. Mike certainly didn't fall under the spell of Murry, Landy, Manson or John-Roger, but he was entranced by the Maharishi.

After seeing the financial and emotional damage that certain groups with cultish tendencies can inflict on their members and their members' families, I would be interested to know the details of Carl's involvement in MSIA and its effect on his family. Particularly on Gina and his sons, of course, but also on his relationship with Brian.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: phirnis on May 10, 2022, 03:05:21 AM
In the band's history, Carl remains the big question mark for me in many ways. Always super diplomatic in interviews, to the point where it's almost impossible to tell how he felt about being a BB especially in his later years. In some 80s/90s footage he almost looks like he felt a little embarrassed here and there, like in the Little Old Lady from Pasadena TV performance or in the Crocodile Rock music video; yet even an observation as simple as this can feel like "reading too much into it" with a character as private and reserved as Carl. I love his singing but otherwise he's a bit of a mystery. That John-Roger stuff seems to make matters even more complex.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Tony S on May 10, 2022, 04:01:58 AM
Carl was such a private person perhaps none more so than his relationship with Gina his second wife. There's so little we know about their relationship, it seems like every comment about Carl that someone's asked for comes from Annie his first wife. It would beonderful to know more about his relationship with Gina and just what they did to unwind and for fun but sadly we may never find that out


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 10, 2022, 11:46:40 AM
Carl was such a private person perhaps none more so than his relationship with Gina his second wife. There's so little we know about their relationship, it seems like every comment about Carl that someone's asked for comes from Annie his first wife. It would beonderful to know more about his relationship with Gina and just what they did to unwind and for fun but sadly we may never find that out
I remember Annie making some nice contributions in the ESQ tribute issue back in 1998; nothing from Gina. It's contrary to the wishes of fans who want to know everything, but i think we have to respect their wishes for privacy. As far as Carl and John-Roger, if the program can bring more Carl-like souls into the world, them I'm all for it.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: HeyJude on May 10, 2022, 12:46:15 PM
Carl was such a private person perhaps none more so than his relationship with Gina his second wife. There's so little we know about their relationship, it seems like every comment about Carl that someone's asked for comes from Annie his first wife. It would beonderful to know more about his relationship with Gina and just what they did to unwind and for fun but sadly we may never find that out
I remember Annie making some nice contributions in the ESQ tribute issue back in 1998; nothing from Gina. It's contrary to the wishes of fans who want to know everything, but i think we have to respect their wishes for privacy. As far as Carl and John-Roger, if the program can bring more Carl-like souls into the world, them I'm all for it.

Carl was well-liked/respected/loved before his involvement in that organization.

Ironically, while it may or may not have anything to do with his involvement in the organization, Carl seemed to become more musically conservative (both in style and in terms of productivity) in the mid-late 80s and into the 90s, and evidence suggests Carl had largely abdicated “leadership” of the band to Mike apart from performing the literal on-stage musical director role by this time as well.

From the band/fan point of view based on the information we have, things got a bit more confusing/frustrating/lethargic in this era.

I’ve already mentioned that Carl was (obviously) entitled to whatever opinions/beliefs/affiliations he chose. But I’m certainly not willing to ignore a potentially problematic organization because we know a good guy was involved at some point.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: juggler on May 10, 2022, 04:23:14 PM
Speaking of Gina... has Brian's "Carl & Gina" ditty ever surfaced in any form?   I can't remember if Brian wrote it honor for their 1987 wedding or it predated that, but I've always been curious about the song (as I'm curious about any Brian Wilson song).  Anyone know anything about it?  Lyrics?  Anything beyond the title?


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Ian on May 10, 2022, 05:50:45 PM
There was that one very revealing Carl interview from, I think, the late 80s where he went into some detail about a number of controversial topics-like his 70s substance issues-he was super honest in that interview-which stands out in my mind because he was usually pretty diplomatic/cagey in interviews after 1982 or so.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: sloopjohnb72 on May 10, 2022, 06:11:06 PM
As far as Carl and John-Roger, if the program can bring more Carl-like souls into the world, them I'm all for it.

"As far as Dennis and Charles Manson, if the family can bring more Dennis-like souls into the world, then I'm all for it."

"As far as Brian and Eugene Landy, if 24-hour therapy can bring more Brian-like souls into the world, then I'm all for it."

These are all equivalent statements that make no sense when you think about them for more than 2 seconds. No one should be "all for" cults with sexual abusers in positions of high power.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 10, 2022, 07:42:43 PM
As far as Carl and John-Roger, if the program can bring more Carl-like souls into the world, them I'm all for it.

"As far as Dennis and Charles Manson, if the family can bring more Dennis-like souls into the world, then I'm all for it."

"As far as Brian and Eugene Landy, if 24-hour therapy can bring more Brian-like souls into the world, then I'm all for it."

These are all equivalent statements that make no sense when you think about them for more than 2 seconds. No one should be "all for" cults with sexual abusers in positions of high power.
Hmm, how do I respond to this? An honest reply, or a snarky response?


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: ♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇 on May 10, 2022, 09:50:06 PM
Those who know my feelings on organized religion can breathe a sigh of relief …I’m not going to open THAT can of worms!


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: HeyJude on May 11, 2022, 06:44:35 AM
There was that one very revealing Carl interview from, I think, the late 80s where he went into some detail about a number of controversial topics-like his 70s substance issues-he was super honest in that interview-which stands out in my mind because he was usually pretty diplomatic/cagey in interviews after 1982 or so.

There was this interview that someone on the board translated from 1989: http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,15607.msg369021.html#msg369021

He is asked about the '78 Australian situation, but while it's difficult to parse much, especially with the translation, he still seems a bit cagey in that one. He ascribes the situation to "tranquilizers and alcohol" and denies having taken heroin. Which is actually plausible even based on the most damning portrayals of the situation from the likes of Gaines/Pamplin. I can't blame him for not wanting to get into any of that.

But it's definitely true that Carl, who seems to have relatively rarely been interviewed over the years given the band's stature, was pretty cagey and/or diplomatic in interviews. That round of '83 interviews he did on TV was interesting, as he would occasionally start to go into detail (in one we may have had the only case of a BB actually saying the name "Carolyn Williams" in an interview), and then seem to catch himself and pull back.

That "30th Anniversary" special for UK TV that was made around 1991/1992 was interesting because the guys were all interviewed during the time that Brian/Landy situation was coming to a head, and I recall Carl starting to get into the Landy situation in one of those interviews and then kind of putting the brakes on and saying he couldn't say more.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 11, 2022, 05:41:21 PM
Carl briefly mentions John-Roger and MSIA in this 1983 interview. https://youtu.be/vpG7AL2UF4E


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 12, 2022, 11:37:15 AM
Carl briefly mentions John-Roger and MSIA in this 1983 interview. https://youtu.be/vpG7AL2UF4E
thank you


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 12, 2022, 11:39:27 AM
Carl briefly mentions John-Roger and MSIA in this 1983 interview. https://youtu.be/vpG7AL2UF4E
thank you
I forgot to mention that the John-Roger reference comes at about 12:45 in the video.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: El Molé on May 14, 2022, 12:44:52 AM
Slightly off topic, but it sounds like a lovely version of “I Wish For You” playing in the background. Is it just Carl performing live for this organisation (i.e. the audio from the short shots of Carl with guitar in the video)?


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 14, 2022, 04:01:24 PM
Slightly off topic, but it sounds like a lovely version of “I Wish For You” playing in the background. Is it just Carl performing live for this organisation (i.e. the audio from the short shots of Carl with guitar in the video)?
It appears so.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Alex on May 21, 2022, 07:22:21 PM
Was MSIA the same organization he wrote "Where I Belong" for?


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 21, 2022, 08:19:04 PM
Was MSIA the same organization he wrote "Where I Belong" for?
Although John-Roger, founder of MSIA, claimed that Carl wrote "Where I Belong" for them, I think you'd have to talk to Robert White Johnson about that. He wrote the lyrics for that song, and Carl wrote the music.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Join The Human Race on May 22, 2022, 07:50:31 AM
Carl led a private life. I think he was a really good guy, as many of his friends/colleagues have said over the years. I don't know much about MSIA, but one thing to consider, is that celebrities like Carl probably were treated differently than the average member. If John-Roger was as powerful and bad as people have said, he probably knew to hide that stuff from the big names. Carl could very well been insulated from that. It's all speculation, though. Another factor to consider is that John-Roger, in his own way, could control people, maybe like Landy with Brian. We probably won't ever know the extent of their relationship.

If he wrote Where I Belong as an ode to MSIA, that's fine, it's a great song.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 22, 2022, 08:30:33 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/4scLoNT.jpg)

That was 1987. Carl was indeed labeled a "celebrity minister" and mentioned in reports on the group. The suspicious activities and questions surrounding this organization and its founder/leader John-Roger surfaced multiple times in the late 80's into the 90's, specifically driven by an expose published by the LA Times in 1988 and other subsequent articles that picked up on the story. A previous executive from the organization published a book with all kinds of allegations against the group and its leader, including financial, moral, and even sexual misconduct detailed. Then it surfaced again when Arianna Huffington became a media and political figure in the 90's and her and her family's connections to the group were questioned in the press when the Huffington name was going on the election ballots. The celebrity press covered the group due to its lavish black-tie awards ceremonies featuring a lot of famous people showing up at these gala events and getting awards. That's where the photo above came from, when Carl received an "adjunct" Integrity Award or something in 1987.

In one of the expose articles, it was revealed through tax documents that Carl had donated over $200,000 to the organization, whether it was in the course of one year or several wasn't made clear. The group apparently demanded a percentage cut from their wealthy followers in perpetuity, which is coincidentally also what the Maharishi demanded of his famous devotees (and The Beatles refused).  And the organization's founder meanwhile lived a lavish lifestyle with all the trappings of modern non-religious wealth and excess, coming also from a supposed "religious exemption" through non-profit status the group had filed and coffers full of donations.

It seems like another Jim Bakker deal as with most of these groups through the decades, how they sucker people into sending thousands of dollars as the "leader" lives in extreme wealth while selling religious and spiritual philosophies and "methods" and "courses" to the followers and demanding donations is beyond me, but they're good salesmen. That's the only editorial I'll give on the whole deal.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: Lonely Summer on May 22, 2022, 10:48:02 PM
What I find puzzling about Carl and this organization; if he was so big into it, why wasn't he prosletizing for the group? There was no mention of them in the liner notes of his solo albums; and I'm only aware of one interview where he talked about them. Now how many times have we seen Mike Love talk about the benefits of TM?
I suspect it was a way and a life that he felt was beneficial to him, but he didn't have any desire to push it on anyone else.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: BJL on May 23, 2022, 01:58:34 AM
What I find puzzling about Carl and this organization; if he was so big into it, why wasn't he prosletizing for the group? There was no mention of them in the liner notes of his solo albums; and I'm only aware of one interview where he talked about them. Now how many times have we seen Mike Love talk about the benefits of TM?
I suspect it was a way and a life that he felt was beneficial to him, but he didn't have any desire to push it on anyone else.

I think these kinds of groups can be more like more "ordinary" organized religions than people realize...in that while, yes, there's often corruption and different kinds of abuse in the mix, and there are always some members who become so extreme or single-minded in their devotion that it becomes a detriment to other aspects of their lives, I think even cults often have a significant subset of members who are just getting the same thing from them that a lot of people get from being christian and going to church on Sunday - a sense of spiritual stability, community, and purpose in their lives.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 23, 2022, 10:29:40 AM
What I find puzzling about Carl and this organization; if he was so big into it, why wasn't he prosletizing for the group? There was no mention of them in the liner notes of his solo albums; and I'm only aware of one interview where he talked about them. Now how many times have we seen Mike Love talk about the benefits of TM?
I suspect it was a way and a life that he felt was beneficial to him, but he didn't have any desire to push it on anyone else.

From the Wikipedia page for Movement for Spiritual Inner Awareness:  "MSIA considers itself a church in very few traditional senses of the word. A deeply ambivalent attitude towards traditional "religiosity" characterizes the "Movement." While it is legally incorporated as a church and provides tools and techniques for Soul transcendence for those who are looking for them, it prohibits members from evangelizing; it spreads primarily by word of mouth. MSIA has no program of building churches or other buildings, giving it similarities with other 'churches without walls.' It ordains ministers, but ordains no one to preach or teach, only to be of service. Service choices are determined entirely individually. MSIA has only vague and wide guidelines here."


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: HeyJude on May 23, 2022, 10:49:21 AM
I'd also venture to say that had Carl strongly proselytized within the group, or even more so if he had done so with the public at large via concerts (or liner notes, or whatever), that may not have gone over well in the uber-political BB universe/organization. Especially into the 80s and 90s.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: phirnis on May 23, 2022, 09:53:14 PM
What I find puzzling about Carl and this organization; if he was so big into it, why wasn't he prosletizing for the group? There was no mention of them in the liner notes of his solo albums; and I'm only aware of one interview where he talked about them. Now how many times have we seen Mike Love talk about the benefits of TM?
I suspect it was a way and a life that he felt was beneficial to him, but he didn't have any desire to push it on anyone else.

It probably speaks for Carl that he didn't do this. The TM stuff was quirky enough (even though it had its charms whenever Brian chose to write a song about it) but that was enough for one band I guess, it would've been very odd if Carl had pushed his personal beliefs into their music and public appearances in the same way that Mike did.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: patsy6 on May 24, 2022, 03:37:37 PM
What I find puzzling about Carl and this organization; if he was so big into it, why wasn't he prosletizing for the group? There was no mention of them in the liner notes of his solo albums; and I'm only aware of one interview where he talked about them. Now how many times have we seen Mike Love talk about the benefits of TM?
I suspect it was a way and a life that he felt was beneficial to him, but he didn't have any desire to push it on anyone else.

It probably speaks for Carl that he didn't do this. The TM stuff was quirky enough (even though it had its charms whenever Brian chose to write a song about it) but that was enough for one band I guess, it would've been very odd if Carl had pushed his personal beliefs into their music and public appearances in the same way that Mike did.
It's not just Carl, though. MSIA members, even ministers, are instructed to not evangelize/proselytize, and to only be of service.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: HeyJude on May 25, 2022, 06:30:09 AM
While the indication is that the idea with the organization was not to evangelize/proselytize, the idea that it was to be brought to people via "word of mouth" certainly allows for some wiggle room. At what point is a person telling you about a thing, and how much they think it's great, a form of evangelizing, etc. simply on an individual basis rather than trying to sell it to groups of people?

In any event, it's certainly true that Carl did not go around harping on this thing all the time, to the point that many don't even know about his membership in the organization.

When cases like this come up (there are some obvious well-known cases of other big celebrities and well known organizations), the degree to which people find it problematic occurs on multiple levels. If the celebrity does actively try to sell others on it, that can be viewed as problematic. And then, separately, simple membership in the organization can be viewed as problematic by some based on the idea of viewing an organization as sufficiently problematic that fans or spectators find it impossible to ignore even when the celebrity doesn't proselytize, and also based on the idea that even the knowledge of this celebrity's membership is enough of an endorsement as to be problematic.

There are some obvious cases in modern times with some famous people where members of the public differ on how much of a problem it is when a famous person is a member of an organization that they find problematic, even if that celebrity doesn't actively try to recruit people, etc. Every person is going to come at this from a different point of view.

For me, I obviously would like to have more information before I write some huge essay on Carl's affiliation with this organization. As I've mentioned before, nothing about it makes me feel *better* about Carl (and, as I've also mentioned, the degree to which what I or anybody think even matters is quite debatable). It helps a little bit to put his persona and life, such as we're familiar with it, in perspective and context.

I don't view it as a flattering aspect of Carl's life, but again, a strong case can be made that what any fan thinks doesn't matter much. At the end of the day, it doesn't make me think he was a bad guy, and it certainly doesn't make me disassociate from his art. It appears he was a really great, loving guy whose friends held him in high regard (again, as I've said in the past, it speaks volumes that 24 years after his death, his friends and family still keep his privacy). This affiliation with this organization just seems to be something that I think many, taking the full scope of the organization into account, would find unfortunate. How much to lay all of that in the lap of Carl or his life or legacy is rather unclear without more information, which I suspect we may never get.


Title: Re: Carl and MSIA
Post by: guitarfool2002 on May 25, 2022, 07:01:11 AM
I think the issue more people would have is with the group itself, and its founder/leader, and possibly asking as a follow-up point how and why did successful people who managed multi-million dollar lives get involved in the first place, and not see what observers outside the bubble of membership could see as plain as day. That's always a fascinating question, and when large sums of money are involved it becomes even more of a mystery.

In this case, it was on the record that Carl gave at least $200,000 to this man and his organization, and who knows how much more was given in the years after that information was published in the LA Times.

That money could very well have gone to buy this leader a new luxury car, fund another luxury appointment for one of his mansions, buy a wardrobe of expensive clothes, funded a vacation home in some tropical resort,...etc...who knows. That's what I don't understand about these groups, those especially with religious and non-profit status exemptions, who most often get exposed when the leadership is found to have been spending the donations on their own luxurious lifestyles when the donors themselves gave their money to support and promote the organization's goals and work, NOT the millionaire lifestyles of the founders.

It's a story that has been repeated time and time again, and it always begs the question why would reasonably intelligent and successful people willingly fund these leaders and their sociopathic, narcissistic lifestyles which are on full view for anyone to see. You could make a list of just the most public figures who sold religion and spirituality as products which they then funded their own "Lifestyles Of The Rich And Famous" behaviors until they were exposed or their behaviors were revealed.

Again I'll say maybe they were and are just great salesmen, hucksters, and skilled con artists who have a talent for hustling people, and who use religious and spiritual pursuits and philosophies to do so. But the question is how did people like Carl not see what was going on or even continue to support this behavior through donations after it was exposed? Or did he?