-
Latest Comments
Pat on Anonymous Libraesque on Ok, this might be a girl thing… 
Louanne on Anonymous Okay I'm Anonymous N… on Anonymous Pat on Anonymous Okay I'm Anonymous N… on Anonymous Pat on Anonymous Louanne on Ok, this might be a girl thing… Libraesque on Ok, this might be a girl thing… Louanne on Questions go here! Tantor on Questions go here! Tantor on Questions go here! Tantor on Questions go here! Nobody on Questions go here! anonymous on Questions go here!
Nice to see you are not censoring posters, that does seem to be rare in the Scientology World.
You are welcome to join enturbulation.org to discuss there….I’n fact I am reposting some of your….well I can only call it propaganda from MY biased viewpoint, just as you can call it TRUTH from yours…which is why I guess why I’m inviting you to discuss ….anything really…i promise you wont get cooties
Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry, that most of the dates mentioned are about 60 to 70 years ago….and in other parts of this site…well, you propose as a counterpoint to our arguments (in regards to actions and policies that have the same time frame) that the world changes after such long times. As well, the fact that psychiatry is a “proven science” makes your arguments seem false. How do counter this?
(if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})
Anon: Bear in mind that by discrediting the process psychiatrists use to verify their results is to discredit the whole of the scientific community as there is a universal system in which all data is processed known as the “Scientific method”. Is the scientific method used in any of the auditing processes and “proven facts” of Scientology tech? If you are unfamiliar with the “scientific method” here is a link that may help… if you do not trust this source you may look in your “encyclopedia Brittanica” it is WELL documented in there as well. (yes it is a google search)
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=scientific+method
this is a more accurate representation of the method as it was intended to have no end .
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07/Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif
(if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})
im sorry to post multiple times but as I am unable to edit my post I feel I must do so.
please bear in mind that this will be posted on enturbulation.org in the “Media and Press” subforum it will be viewable by all the journalists that visit the site.
@Comment by Capt Jack on February 24, 2008 6:50 am
“Nice to see you are not censoring posters, that does seem to be rare in the Scientology World.”
The funny part is that there is no online Scientology World. It’s censored by some other groups, one of them calling itself “Anonymous”.
- Lu
@Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 1:46 pm
“You are welcome to join enturbulation.org to discuss there…”
Thanks, but “rabbit in snake pit” is not my style. 1:1, sure, 3:1, ok, 5:1, why not, but 50:1, no way.
- Lu
@Comment by I can Haz Chezbrgr on February 24, 2008 3:33 pm
“Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry”
Where? I usually don’t rant about psychiatry and haven’t here for sure.
“please bear in mind that this will be posted on enturbulation.org in the “Media and Press” subforum it will be viewable by all the journalists that visit the site.”
Alright, what exactly did you want to know?
- Lu
http://www.scientologymyths.info/psychiatry/
also…
Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry, that most of the dates mentioned are about 60 to 70 years ago….and in other parts of this site…well, you propose as a counterpoint to our arguments (in regards to actions and policies that have the same time frame) that the world changes after such long times. As well, the fact that psychiatry is a “proven science” makes your arguments seem false. How do counter this?
(if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})
Anon: Bear in mind that by discrediting the process psychiatrists use to verify their results is to discredit the whole of the scientific community as there is a universal system in which all data is processed known as the “Scientific method”. Is the scientific method used in any of the auditing processes and “proven facts” of Scientology tech? If you are unfamiliar with the “scientific method” here is a link that may help… if you do not trust this source you may look in your “encyclopedia Brittanica” it is WELL documented in there as well. (yes it is a google search)
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=scientific+method
this is a more accurate representation of the method as it was intended to have no end .
http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07/Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif
(if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})
First, I should apologize to you. My last comments in the Guardian’s Office, Cost A Lot, and E-Meter posts misinterpreted your statements.
You also called out my lack of evidence in one post, but I’m not sure how I’m supposed to back up my statements when you say I’m starting a link farm for posting 2-3 links per comment. For that matter, you haven’t been posting very many primary sources yourself, though the top of your page says you are only interested in them.
Also, I like this name.
I do have a few questions:
What do you think of the RPF, the RPF’s RPF, and the Purification Rundown? Do you have any first- or second-hand experience with them?
What do you think of Miscavige’s recent reissuing of the basics? Did LRH really not notice his words being distorted for thirty years?
What do you think of Hubbard’s policy of using the law to harass? The famous quote is:
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.
“The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.”
I also want to hear more about your thoughts on apostates, but I see someone else already asked that.
I understand that you are perhaps unable to answer my question, but your section upon “Aliens” was a bit vague and I would like clarification. I’ve gone through the list of definitions and I stumbled across the entry for “Space Opera”, which I’ll copy and paste so you don’t have to look it up:
space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track. See also whole track.
My question may be stupid thinking about it, but the above definition kind of contradicts the vague “it could be said” that “some” Scientologists believe in life on other planets because it states it as “not fiction”, meaning factual. So, yes, my question is “what importance does Space Opera hold in Scientology?” or something along those lines. I just want to learn the context in which a definition like that is used.
And another quick thing is that the “Xe nu/Xe mu/Ze nu” page seems to skim over mentioning it, refering to the worshipping side of it as a myth. I understand that Scientologists do not worship this entity called Xe nu, but he does play some part, even if it is small, in Scientology somewhere, right? In the ” Wall of Fire”, I believe.
I hope this question is in the right place and you can understand it. It’s late in my timezone so my head’s a bit murky right now so excuse the wording in some places…
Thank you for having this forum for open discussion and questioning, and thank you for reading this question.
I have suggested to the enturbulation moderators, A subforum in which only mods and admins and a select few intelligent members of anon may participate. If you wish to discuss in a more organized manner in which you choose from a que of questions just say yes.
but your earlier statement of “rabbit in a snake pit” is slightly off
I believe its more like “foriegn diplomat in a forum of magistrates”
yes, unwittingly you have now become the spokesperson for Scientology… enjoy your influence.
@Comment by chz brgr on February 25, 2008 10:05 pm
“I have suggested to the enturbulation moderators, A subforum in which only mods and admins and a select few intelligent members of anon may participate. If you wish to discuss in a more organized manner in which you choose from a que of questions just say yes.”
Sounds fun. Don’t you have another forum for this? I tell you what my reservation is and I don’t mind if you laugh about it: the term “enturbulation” is a Scientology term with a specific definition. Most of the guys on that board don’t even know its meaning, but it marks a condition of a human being in extremely bad shape and the exact opposite of what Scientology wants to achieve. Enturbulation means to harm people. Take is as a religious point: I would not like to push such an idea. I agree to the setting and yes, a forum is what I wanted to do at some point. Is there a different place where we can go? Let me know.
- Lu
@Comment by lu bu on February 25, 2008 6:28 pm
“space opera: of or relating to time periods on the whole track millions of years ago which concerned activities in this and other galaxies. Space opera has space travel, spaceships, spacemen, intergalactic travel, wars, conflicts, other beings, civilizations and societies, and other planets and galaxies. It is not fiction and concerns actual incidents and things that occurred on the track.”
You can believe this or not. The overriding Scientology principle is “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything.” (Source, full text here).
“So, yes, my question is “what importance does Space Opera hold in Scientology?” or something along those lines. I just want to learn the context in which a definition like that is used.”
None at all. L. Ron Hubbard usually sprinkles his lectures with stories about Space Opera, which is very interesting and entertaining but the practice and technology of Scientology are very much down to earth and not at all require a belief in “space opera” or Xe nu etc. On the latter, this comes from a few materials which are deemed confidential by the founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard. It’s part of the game rules that these sections are kept that way and you can’t expect Scientologists to discuss them. That would invalidate their belief and what they have accepted as their faith. As I state on the page, this space stuff is a very small portion of the whole of Scientology and has its place in the sequence called The Bridge. Its existence is not an invitation to ridicule the whole of Scientology and doing so just shows the lack of knowledge (or a lot of dumb arrogance) of what Scientology is and how it is being applied.
- Lu
@Comment by anmn on February 25, 2008 2:55 am
“You also called out my lack of evidence in one post, but I’m not sure how I’m supposed to back up my statements when you say I’m starting a link farm for posting 2-3 links per comment. For that matter, you haven’t been posting very many primary sources yourself, though the top of your page says you are only interested in them.”
Just put a space in the URL and the spam filter won’t catch it.
“What do you think of the RPF, the RPF’s RPF, and the Purification Rundown? Do you have any first- or second-hand experience with them?”
Yes, no, yes. I updated the page on the RPF yesterday, so that should answer this part of your question. I think the most misunderstood part about the RPF is that it is ONLY for members of the Sea Organization. No member or Church staff can participate in this program, only Sea Org members, the fraternal order of Scientology whose members signed up to serve their religion for “a billion years” (which logically requires that you are born again after this life). For what the Sea Org is, see here. There are more sources on the net and also on the ScientologyMyths site in the RPF section.
Purification Rundown. I did this detox program some years ago. It helped me to see colors again (before the program I saw more or less black/white or some faint colors). But that is not what the program is for. Scientologists do the Purification Rundown to get rid of chemical residues which block “clear thinking” and keep you down moodwise. For me it worked and I know quite a bunch of people with the same experience (the official description is here. A secular version of the program (that is, the fitness training parts of it, without parallel study of Scientology literature) exists as well, for example with the New York Detoxification Program, in Narconon, Criminon and other secular areas which took teachings of L. Ron Hubbard. The major difference here is the purpose: A Purification Rundown is done to get it of spiritual barriers based in the body. A secular detox program is done to regain health or to get rid of drug addiction.
“What do you think of Miscavige’s recent reissuing of the basics?”
You are asking for my opinion, so here it is: This was very well presented in a 3-hour long briefing last year and the books I took the time to compare with the old ones are in much better shape now. Not only the change to modern typesetting but also the inclusion of missing parts make them a better reading and gave me better comprehension of the material. I join the ranks of those who say that their understanding of basic Scientology principles grew a lot after re-reading the reissued books.
“Did LRH really not notice his words being distorted for thirty years?”
Watch the event. His words weren’t distorted, the books were incomplete or chapters in the wrong sequence. Yes, I believe that LRH did not read his own books.
“What do you think of Hubbard’s policy of using the law to harass? The famous quote is: “The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than win.”
Source? I think that the law can be used to harass and that there are numerous legal tactics which can feel very harassing to the person at the other end. Churches of Scientology have been subject to such harassment and sure the Church has done the same. It’s dirty and it is not good. The right way to go about it is to talk more and get the parties together to sort it out, not to overuse the court system. Again my opinion, as you asked for it.
“I also want to hear more about your thoughts on apostates, but I see someone else already asked that.”
Did you find the answer? The problem with ex-members is that they seem to be so fanatic and overreacting. A cool, calm presentation of the facts would invite to sort things out. Aggression just produces counter-aggression and nobody wins in the end (and yes, I violate that rule occasionally if someone really pisses me off).
- Lu
@Comment by i can haz chz brgr on February 25, 2008 1:02 am
>http://www.scientologymyths.info/psychiatry/
Ah, well, I give you that this is a very critical article about psychiatry but the sources are real and the story is true.
“Anon: on another note… I noticed in your tirade upon psychiatry, that most of the dates mentioned are about 60 to 70 years ago….and in other parts of this site…well, you propose as a counterpoint to our arguments (in regards to actions and policies that have the same time frame) that the world changes after such long times. As well, the fact that psychiatry is a “proven science” makes your arguments seem false. How do counter this?
(if you choose to reply do not go off on a tangent {this space reserved for you reply})”
(I always reply. It’s a promise I made when establishing this blog.)
I assume you are refering to the Guardian’s Office once more? Ok, how do I counter this? The nature of these two sets of information, chief organizers of worldwide psychiatry and a handful of Scientologists, is different. Psychiatric head organizations setting out to and making detailed plans about how to coax every citizen in harmful “psychiatric care” are not comparable to a group of criminal members of Scientology who have been violating Scientology administrative policies some 30 or 40 years ago and got jailed for their crimes. It’s just not comparable, neither in magnitude nor in principle.
“Anon: Bear in mind that by discrediting the process psychiatrists use to verify their results is to discredit the whole of the scientific community as there is a universal system in which all data is processed known as the “Scientific method”.”
Sure I do. Psychiatry will have to explain why they have no results, or why their “results” are apathetic people who “suddenly” turn from good guys for example into mass murders, like some of the recent school shooters.
“Is the scientific method used in any of the auditing processes and “proven facts” of Scientology tech?”
Again, don’t try to compare things which are not comparable. You can’t compare Scientology practices with psychiatric practices. Aside from the offense felt maybe even by both sides one is a religious practice concentrating on the spirit while the other is about the treatment of man as a chemical machine which turns a lot of people into vegetables.
In anything I do and even before I knew what Scientology is I always was interested in results and the quality of those results. Scientology technology works if applied in the required setting and by people honestly trained in it. Take it as “Lu’s empirical data”…
- Lu
>I assume you are refering to the Guardian’s Office once more?
I think he’s referring to the quotes on the psychiatry page, almost all of which are from between 1940 and 1951. Sciences of all types have come a long way in the last sixty years.
Also, I fail to see how psychiatry’s plans to infiltrate many parts of society are terrible things, when Scientology does the same with Narconon, Criminon, Applied Scholastics, and so on. Perhaps the language used in that 1940 speech was overly aggressive, but all areas of study seek to increase their breadth and impact.
>Psychiatry will have to explain why they have no results, or why their “results” are apathetic people who “suddenly” turn from good guys for example into mass murders, like some of the recent school shooters.
I think you will have to first show that this is not simply correlation, like the dihydrogen monoxide scare. For example, an alternate hypothesis may read: Depression is on the rise in the last few decades. Depression causes people to seek psychological treatment. Depression can also lead to violent acts.
For particularly violent surgical methods, look up split-brain surgery and hemispherectomy. Both are terribly invasive but serve to reduce the effect of harmful seizures in a person, with few or no negative effects.
Now that I think about it, I’m having a hard time separating psychology and psychiatry. Both aim to improve lives through thorough understanding of the brain and the mind. Do you draw the line at drugs, or do you oppose psychology as well?
>You can’t compare Scientology practices with psychiatric practices.
Can you compare Scientology practices with science in general? The scientific method is applied broadly across the hard and soft sciences.
>Scientology technology works if applied in the required setting and by people honestly trained in it. Take it as “Lu’s empirical data”…
I have several close friends who were depressed and listless until they started psychological therapy. A few went on antidepressants. I won’t say I was overjoyed when I heard this, but I trust the doctors and scientists behind it. And guess what: now they are normal, happy, independent people. So, psychiatry works. Take it as anmn’s empirical data.
@Comment by anmn on February 26, 2008 11:35 pm
>>Psychiatry will have to explain why they have no results, or why their “results” are apathetic people who “suddenly” turn from good guys for example into mass murders, like some of the recent school shooters.
>I think you will have to first show that this is not simply correlation, like the dihydrogen monoxide scare. For example, an alternate hypothesis may read: Depression is on the rise in the last few decades. Depression causes people to seek psychological treatment. Depression can also lead to violent acts.
I think the bottom line here is that psychiatry has failed to show results but eats up a lot of funding for that.
>For particularly violent surgical methods, look up split-brain surgery and hemispherectomy. Both are terribly invasive
>but serve to reduce the effect of harmful seizures in a person, with few or no negative effects.
Butchers… Listen, though I could go a long way debating psychiatry, this blog is about Scientology. Let’s stick to that.
>Now that I think about it, I’m having a hard time separating psychology and psychiatry. Both aim to improve lives through >thorough understanding of the brain and the mind. Do you draw the line at drugs, or do you oppose psychology as well?
Psychology is sure smarter than psychiatry ever was and can show some of the promised results without drugs and harmful treatements. So I guess you could say I do not oppose psychology as long as it is not used for mind control.
>>You can’t compare Scientology practices with psychiatric practices.
>Can you compare Scientology practices with science in general? The scientific method is applied broadly across the hard and soft sciences.
Probably not. Scientology works for me and others. It is a religion with religious principles and background and very workable, down to earth practices. A mix between belief and knowledge.
>I have several close friends who were depressed and listless until they started psychological therapy. A few went on antidepressants. I won’t say I was overjoyed when I heard this, but I trust the doctors and scientists behind it. And guess what: now they are normal, happy, independent people. So, psychiatry works. Take it as anmn’s empirical data.
Happy pills? I am happy to hear that your friends are doing good.
- Lu
@Comment by HeartAnon on February 26, 2008 11:42 pm
“Delete this if you want I’m just venting.”
Ok.
- Lu
>Source? I think that the law can be used to harass and that there are numerous legal tactics which can feel very harassing to the person at the other end. Churches of Scientology have been subject to such harassment and sure the Church has done the same.
Source is Exhibit G from the Fishman Declaration, a magazine article written by Hubbard. Reprinted, in part, here: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/Declaration/exhibg.html
It’s one thing to acknowledge that certain legal tactics may be perceived as harassment, but it’s another to see LRH’s written order to harass and ruin critics.
>Did you find the answer? The problem with ex-members is that they seem to be so fanatic and overreacting.
I found your answer, yes, and replied to it in the other post.
I’ll admit that some ex-scientologists do sound like conspiracy theorists. Others are much more reasonable.
Also, objectively, just because they seem to be fanatics is not a reason to disbelieve them.
So why should I believe either side over the other?
I don’t think the critics are unreasonable. I watched Mark Bunker get harassed by a trio of Scientologists on a public street just for holding a camera. I watched Tory Christman talk about several good friends of hers, young and smart people, who committed suicide. She blames the CoS. I watched Jenna Miscavige talk about going to school one day a week as a teenager. I watched Lawrence Wollersheim talk about getting paid millions for the physical and psychological suffering he endured while in the Church.
Are all of these people lying? If they’re telling the truth, what would be a more reasonable way to say it?
>I think the bottom line here is that psychiatry has failed to show results but eats up a lot of funding for that.
I notice now that my attitude here is becoming similar to a creation vs evolution argument. You have the tech; creationists have the Bible; I have science. But, in both cases, science is dynamic. It doesn’t profess to have all of the answers. Science changes, it advances, it throws out untenable conclusions and adopts more correct ones. It’s critically reviewed and logically supported.
The World Psychiatric Association has a code of ethics here: http://www.wpanet.org/generalinfo/ethic1.html Whether you agree with it or not, it is about as official as you’ll find, and it specifically prohibits certain acts you allege to be inherent in psychiatry today.
Certainly some aspects of Criminon, Narconon, and Applied Scholastics can be scientifically tested. They profess to get people off drugs or increase their learning ability. Are there any non-first-party references showing such things?
>Happy pills?
No. Science.
I would like to address a few questions to you concerning J.W Parsons and LRH but would prefer to off of here.
My understanding of the history the two men share is very different from what you have here. Is there anyway of posting these questions to you away from this board?
Thank You
@Comment by Ed on February 27, 2008 1:03 am
“I would like to address a few questions to you concerning J.W Parsons and LRH but would prefer to off of here. My understanding of the history the two men share is very different from what you have here. Is there anyway of posting these questions to you away from this board?”
There is. Send me an email at scientologymyths(at)yahoo.com .
- Lu
Thanks Lu but I’ll just post this for now as it say about what I was going to bring up .
I’ve studied The whole OTO,Crowley, Jack Parsons,Babalyon working and what became of it quite a bit. Have even found strange relationships to many in the entertainment industry to this day. Surely there must be some bigger connection to all of it ( I keep digging ) But did find a post about LRH and documents to back alot of what is being said .. Here it is … sorry for the lenth of the read,, but my question remains .
This is actually the Penthouse interview with L. Ron Hubbard JR. — not the L. Ron Hubbard who founded Scientology, but his son. Scientologists will claim that LRH Jr. is not a reliable source of information, but we have plenty of very reliable evidence which supports what he says about LRH being into black magic. It is of course well-known that Hubbard spent a period of time living in Pasadena with Jack Parsons, a follower of Aleister Crowley’s Ordo Templi Orientis, and performing magickal rituals with him and with Sara “Betty” Northrup, who would become Hubbard’s second wife (albeit by a bigamous marriage). Parsons documented the rituals, including Hubbard’s leading role, in his diaries and his correspondence to Crowley.
Now, Scientologists, if they know of that portion of Hubbard’s past at all, may believe Hubbard’s misrepresentation that as “an officer of the U.S. Navy”, he was “was sent in to handle” the situation of Jack Parsons, a rocket scientist, and other rocket scientists supposedly residing with Parsons, being involved with “the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley who called himself ‘The Beast 666′” and that “Hubbard’s mission was successful far beyond anyone’s expectations. The house was torn down. Hubbard rescued a girl they were using. The black magic group was dispersed and destroyed and has never recovered. The physicists included many of the sixty-four top U .S. scientists who were later declared insecure and dismissed from government service with so much publicity.” (The quotes in this paragraph are all from a paragraph printed in the Sunday Times in 1969. Scientologists have been known to claim that these are the claims of the Sunday Times itself, but the Sunday Times made it clear that they were only reprinting, verbatim, a statement originating from the Church of Scientology. Later, the original of the statement was submitted as evidence in a trial; the original was found to be in Hubbard’s handwriting.)
The statement is of course, self-serving, but that is not the sole reason it should be discounted. It should be discounted for a number of other reasons, starting with the claims in it which are contrary to known fact. For starters, the house was not torn down. Hubbard did run away with Parsons’ girlfriend Sara Northrup and with much of Parsons’ money, but this hardly caused the “black magic group” to be “dispersed”, much less “destroyed”: Parsons continued his black magic activities until he died in a laboratory accident in 1952 — six years after Hubbard’s departure. There is no evidence that any physicists, other than Parsons, lived at the house; there is no evidence that any physicist, not even Parsons, lost their security clearance due to any action of Hubbard’s.
But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Hubbard actually did go on a mission to break up Parsons’ black magic group, and merely misreported on a huge scale the success of his mission. This is not at all plausible, but let us just suppose it for the sake of argument. Hubbard might have misheard what happened to the house; what happened to Parsons; what happened to “the other physicists” — but is it plausible that he would have forgotten that “the infamous English black magician Aleister Crowley” was so bad that those physicists needed to be rescued from their association with him? In Hubbard’s 1952 “Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures” he referred to “Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend.” So, IF Hubbard’s accounts were honest — then in 1946 Aleister Crowley was an “infamous English black magician” from whom Hubbard was rescuing people, in 1952 Crowley was Hubbard’s “very good friend”, and then in 1969 Crowley was an “infamous black magician” again. Can anyone find this plausible? Isn’t it obvious instead that Hubbard was instead participating in black magic in 1946 with Parsons, name-dropping Crowley in 1952 in front of an audience that would be impressed by such a connection, and then disavowing all that in 1969 when the audience he was trying to attract were the kind of people who would look askance at experimenting with black magic? Crowley was not Hubbard’s “very good friend” at any point, by the way — there’s no evidence that the two men ever met, and Crowley’s only known correspondence on the subject of Hubbard calls him a “lout” playing “the ordinary confidence trick” on Parsons
@Comment by YetAnotherAnon on February 27, 2008 10:18 am
Deleted. Read the FAQ. No spamming allowed.
- Lu
OntheBridge wrote: “People saying child abuses going on in Scientology. [For the] people who are defending Scientology:
“1. What proof do you have it is not happening today?”
You are asking Scientologists to defend a negative. Isn’t it up to those making the accusations to actually provide the proof?
Anyone can throw around accusations all day. Scientologists live by the Hubbard credo “Love and help children.” As evidence, you will note that the “Youth for Human Rights” campaign (which promotes the teaching of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to youth) is fully supported by Scientologists and mainstream media.
OntheBridge wrote: “2. Do you deny the history as claimed in [the glossip anti-Scientology site] piece?”
Which history? Please be specific. The first video at the site appears to be a German media anti-Scientology propaganda piece. You will note that the recently reported “Germans Shutting down a Scientology kindergarten” was done for no other reason than that it was being run by people who used the educational methods developed by L. Ron Hubbard. Germany is annually criticized by the US Government for its human rights abuses against Scientologists, and literally anyone who might see some benefit in what L. Ron Hubbard had to say is “considered a cult member”. It’s extreme bigotry.
With regard to the content, it’s out of context and sort of slapped together to make Scientology look evil. This could be done with any religion. The video points out Scientology’s use of security to keep themselves out of harm’s way. This is not news — it is done by everyone, including other churches. One current example: the Catholic Church uses security for themselves, well published when the Pope was forced to ride in a bullet-proof car that rode through the public streets. The Vatican has an extensive security detail around their building(s).
If there are other specific questions from that video, please post them. (I provide additional information on issues facing those wanting to join the Sea Org at the end of this article.)
One note: the former Scientologist “Gerry Armstrong” who is interviewed in this first video, was literally exposed on an audio-tape in the early 80s as saying “just f*cking allege wrongdoing” against the Church of Scientology, when no wrong-doing could be found. This whole thing was documented by a former Scientologist, Vicki Aznaran, who was sickened by the lengths of deceit that some of her fellow former Scientologists were going to to attack the new Church leadership (many were part of an unsuccessful attempt to take over church management, and have never forgiven the new church management since that time):
http://bernie.cncfamily.com/sc/Aznaran.htm
The above statements will of course be attacked as “attack the attacker” strategy. But sorry — if someone is going around saying “just f*cking allege wrongdoing”, then this needs to be exposed. And further, if there is a single accusation made by Armstrong or the German propaganda machine, that has not already been addressed thoroughly at this or the Church’s site, then please let me know. And if it’s been addressed, but inadequately, then please provide follow-up questions here.
OntheBridge wrote: “If so how do you answer for the video of the kid that seems to be on some kind of inquiry?”
Looks like a deposition or a witness account in a court case to me, in some US Court of Law, from about 13 years ago. What in particular would you like an answer to? The Church (and this site) have taken up the actual definition of an SP, “fair game”, “disconnection”. Do you have follow-up questions? Are there additional points you would like responses to?
OntheBridge wrote: “3. Hypothetically: ‘You see abuses that the author and others are talking about going on at your church’ What do you do? Would you tell authorities?”
Of course I would tell authorities. But let’s be specific. What “abuses” are we talking about. If the above Germany “kindergarten story” is true, then according to them, just teaching people a study method developed by Hubbard is an “abuse”. Sorry, but this is clearly bigotry. The supporters of L. Ron Hubbard’s study methods were not doing anything illegal. They were simply exercising their right to teach in a way that they felt was best.
So I suspect that the anti-Scientologists are simply trying to bamboozle people into thinking that “just using Scientology” is “abuse”.
With regard to children and the Sea Org. If an individual of ANY religion decides they want to dedicate their lives to their Church — and they are married or have children — then they clearly have some difficult decisions to make. If any devoutly religious individual (with children and/or a spouse) decides to become a nun or a priest or a Buddhist monk etc. in the middle of life, isn’t this quite similar (other than the celibacy part) to what an individual Scientologist faces if s/he decides to join the Sea Org?
These same questions and issues are common to all faiths.
The fact of the matter is, most Scientologists with young children don’t join the Sea Org — the Sea Org is simply too time-consuming. I have also heard recently that as of the late 80s or early 90s, it is no longer allowed to join the Sea Org if you have young children.
Scientologists have an overriding belief that “Today’s children will become tomorrow’s civilization” and “the way to happiness has on its route the loving and the helping of children from babyhood to the brink of adult life.” (both LRH, Way to Happiness booklet.)
anmn said: “science is dynamic. It doesn’t profess to have all of the answers. Science changes, it advances, it throws out untenable conclusions and adopts more correct ones. It’s critically reviewed and logically supported.”
anmn, I believe that you are confusing “science” with the “scientific method”. The former changes, the latter does not. The latter, like Scientology, is seen as an imperfect, workable “applied philosophy” that is expected to be followed precisely by its practitioners - scientists.
Further, the “scientific method” is an approach that helps society find “objective truths” to help them understand and master the physical universe around us. The “scientology method” is an approach that helps an *individual* find “subjective truths” in order to help him understand and master his own internal universe. The results of both of these approaches never end, and continually change. They are dynamic, as you say.
The results of the “scientific method” is science — a set of objective truths that can be observed by all of us.
The result of Scientology is personal truth — observable first and foremost by the individual.
You will also notice that Scientologists do not generally object to the science of neurology or neuroscience … or even neurosurgery. It is when you get into the fields of “psychosurgery” that Scientologists object.
The brain is an actual organ. It can have real diseases. When these diseases are indeed REAL (as opposed to the pretend “diseases” like ADHD, bipolar disorder, depression, etc.), a physical, sometimes surgical approach, may in fact be warranted.
There are of course gray areas (no pun intended). But I for one, as a Scientologist of over 25 years, am all in favor of brain research.
I’m just not in favor of drugging, shocking or cutting up healthy brains in the name of “mental health” simply because the brain and body are going through a chemical change as a result of changes in emotions.
It is in fact a naturopathic approach. Scientologists are not the only ones who hold these views.
http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/
http://www.naturopathic.org/
anmn wrote: “I don’t think the critics are unreasonable. I watched Mark Bunker get harassed by a trio of Scientologists on a public street just for holding a camera.”
And I watched a group of Scientologists and their families, gathering peacefully on the street outside their Church, being harassed by Mark Bunker with a camera and offensive anti-Scientology rants.
Ed wrote: “but we have plenty of very reliable evidence which supports what he says about LRH being into black magic”
LRH was into all areas of human knowledge, Ed. In his 1951 book “Science of Survival” he acknowledges “fifty thousand years of thinking men, without whose work Dianetics could never have been formulated.”
In his 1954 book “The Creation of Human Ability”, LRH says “Subjects which were consulted in the organization and development of Scientology include the Veda; the Tao, by Lao-Tzu; the Dharma and the discourses of Gautama Buddha; the general knowingness about life extant in the lamaseries of the Western Hills of China; the technologies and beliefs of various barbaric cultures; the various materials of Christianity, including St. Luke; the mathematical and technical methodologies of the early Greeks, Romans and Arabians; the physical sciences, including what is now known as nuclear physics; the various speculations of Western philosophers such as Kant, Nietzche, Shopenhauer, Herbert Spencer and Dewey; and the various technologies extant in the civilizations of both the Orient and Occident in the first half of the twentieth century.”
With regard to Aleister Crowley and “magick”, I don’t really see the connection to the subject. Magick involves “rituals”, “spells”, “incantations” and general symbology and superstition. Scientology is really the opposite of all this. I guess there are some ideas about “causation” and some philosophical similarities, but in effect, these appear to have been borrowed from eastern philosophy by Crowley anyway.
The quote by LRH that you provide “my good friend Aleister Crowley” — if you listen to the audio tape — is made as a joke, particularly the “friend” part. The Church and Ron acknowledge Ron’s “association” in 1947 with the Parson’s group and Crowley, as the ScientologyMyth site notes. Perhaps the article was written by Ron. So it came from the horse’s mouth. Even better.
But I think in the end, so what? LRH studied many many subjects in his development of Dianetics and Scientology. If Scientology is indeed “an organization of the pertinencies which are mutually held true by all men in all times”, then it surely would have been a lack of research on Ron’s part not to have at least investigated “magick” and taken from it, if anything, what he found useful and workable. In my view, at least from a cursory view of “magick”, I just don’t see that he took that much, that wasn’t already in eastern philosophy.
Marge: not sure if you’ve stopped READING GlossLip as opposed to just COMMENTING there, but Off The Bridge did see your response to his/her three questions and has posted his/her thoughts about it.
http://glosslip.com/2008/02/26/children-of-scientology-have-history-of-abuse/#comment-26613
Thanks for the heads-up, NotQuiteAnonymous. As I said, I’m done with glosslip. If OtB or you would like to respond to my comments above, I’d be happy to engage in a rational conversation here.
Then why the story about LRH being on a mission to break up the OTO ? Paints him as some sort of hero or liberator.
The courts findings on Allied ent were that LRH left town w/ $$ from the business the he and JWP shared. (and Betty too) Jack was awarded damages in a court of law but recovered little of his money back. Perhaps participating in the Babalyon working was too weird even for LRH and he felt the need to leave. But when you are found guilty in court for taking that which is not yours ,that earns you the title if a theif.
The main thing I observe is that the guy had a checkered past all through his years but is reveared as some sort of savior. Blows me away how some of the vids show homage to his image as almost God-like.
But would also not want to discount that a person such as this could write and ogrinize something that could enlighten so many. Diainetics seems to be lodgical and one could use it for self help. But the stories,secrets, bullshit? cmon ,,it was all unessary.
I was going to make a point here but have to go on call now . Surely this argument over this guy and his past will never settle or die ,, just a little scary as to what it has become.
more later…
Ed wrote: “The main thing I observe is that the guy had a checkered past all through his years but is reveared as some sort of savior.”
Oddly, his “past” was not described as checkered by anyone, until he developed Dianetics and Scientology. In fact, he was a well-known, popular author.
For whatever bizarre reason, history has shown us time and time again that some people really really hate it when someone starts a religion. And suddenly we see all sorts of “stories” appear, when before there were none.
I doubt Ron saw much value in “black magick”. I think it is entirely feasible that Ron was sent in to break it up. He had been an intelligence officer, and the fact that he was a well-known sci-fi author in that crowd (along with Heinlein and van Vogt) made him fit right in.
Further, the court didn’t “side with Parsons”. The assets were split. Ron ended up with the boat, and Parson’s ended up with the cash.
I doubt he did either. or he’d perhaps stayed within that circle a little longer.
And I must apologies for my earlier post and its spelling errors, lol Was about 10 mins out of bed and having coffee not yet awake. I cannott see too well and in the mornings it is worse.So please forgive.
As far as the checkered past it is I that describes it that way. The man went to and did alot of strange things . It is not everyday that one sets out to assist in bringing fourth an avatar of the apocalypse. Ever read up on the babalyon working and what was involved?
very interesting ritual that Ron participated in. He was Jack’s right hand man,,his scribe (not the leading role as in my earlier post) and nor was it w/ Betty at all
Marjorie Cammeron was the “vessel” for this moonchild that they were attempting to create.
Either way Ron was a facinating man . The good and bad things he had done. But now in the present day his legacy lives on under severe controversy. To understand the man one must know where he comes from . The church seems to not want to admit that he did anything wrong in his life and paintsd him as a saint (more or less) When anyone brings fourth his colorful past they are met w/ extreme oppisition… Sometimes people make bad choices while learning about life and in the thick of it.That does not make one a total nutjob by any means.
I have never read anything about Ron’s state of mind upon leaving the OTO and Jack. Could it be that it just creeped him out that bad? And if the Navy did send him there to break up a “black magic” ring ,, why the Navy ??in the first place.I’d think that the F.B.I or some other agency would be more apt to take on that task. Plus there is no evidence to support this at all. No FOIA docs? Plenty on Ron himself,, and Jack for that matter. But surely there would be “somthing” to credit that story.
If LRH were alive today would he praise the way things are or shake his head in disbelief that so many got him wrong,, missed his point
“hey,I’m just trying to help”
I’ve read both sides and both are to the extreme . And further more I do try looking at the big picture w/ alot of empathy. Robert Plant said it best
“and it makes me wonder”
But I no more believe the Zenu story than those freaky Raelians and Rael who proclaims himself a prophet.
For a laugh or two go over to their main site and look at the vid for their seminars.
He says…
“If you were wanting to meet w/ Jesus or Budda,, I am sorry but it is too late. But w/ me ,,you still can”. I just want one of those cool white jumpsuits that he wears ,lol
Back to my point though
Scientology seems to be built on a shakey foundation at best and now will forever have to play clean-up for this I’m afraid. .Sucessful? surely but w/ a price. Do you think that this will ever go away for them?Will Scientology ever stabalize itself ? There is alot of good that comes from helping people.But at the price that they are asking for that help I must go the “self help” route.
BTW body thetens are no more than your conscience mind in my POV and mine has saved me from doing some really stupid thing in the past ,, and hopefully in the future too.
Ed wrote: “I’ve read both sides and both are to the extreme.”
Well, the only way to get to the bottom of all this is to put aside what either side says, and just go to the horse’s mouth. LRH was more than willing to admit mistakes throughout his life. He freely brings up his horrible grades at GWU, various run-ins in the Navy, and many other things that are painted as “discovered by the critics”.
And in the end, most Scientologists don’t really care about LRH’s life, etc. I mean its fascinating and a curiosa, but to most Scientologists, it’s whether Scientology works. And thats the test of whether they join and/or stay in Scientology or not.
“If OtB or you would like to respond to my comments above, I’d be happy to engage in a rational conversation here.”
In other words, you refuse to respond unless I post the copypasta here. Don’t make me do this. I *hate* copypasta. But if you insist, and with my apologies to Lu, here goes.
From Off the Bridge, at 8:57 PM 27 Feb 2008:
“well, maybe I threw caution to the wind, I went and saw Marge’s response on that site, did not post so I dunno if they got my address from a hit or not. I want to be completely unbiased.
Over there she was much more open and willing with information and I am very thankful for that. She did make one valid point. The point about other faiths and children and it made me think about monks in China. The kids live a tough life….saw it on Fight Quest, no chairs when they eat, and they only eat rice. Rigorous training all day, meager quarters. Removing time the religion has existed from the equation is it so different? I am saying she makes a good point. What it really does is make me wonder…if Chinese monks brought that system to America would we attack it the same way?
Now, the big difference as I see it…in China, those kids can leave at any second of the day. From the report, your children cannot. And sorry, I think thats when this goes into the realm of abuse. Also, the Chinese monks are transparent…like I said, I saw this on Fight Quest. If your religion ever wants to make it, you have to have transparency, which leads back to the ‘what are you hiding?’ question.
Her answer to my first question however was a throw away. I know we are innocent until proven guilty, but accusations lead to trial where that is put to the test. Accusations is the stage it is in now.
She also compares Catholic security to that of CoS. I have to differ with her though. They have security to provide public safety, it seems CoS has it to keep people in, and to attack, I’m sorry Marge, there are just too many cases. She also claimed that the video of the kid on inquiry was told to do it as a covert operation against the church to destroy or take it over. So that takes the argument back to I say this they say that. The point is, the audio tape speaks for itself. She also goes on to say she would deff report abuses to the authorities.
Marge, I know you’ve gotten slack here, but thank you for answering questions in a responsible way, even if not here. Yes, I’m afraid to post anything there. I’ve heard to many horror stories.
Honestly Marge, with this much accusation against your church, I have to say, Scientology has to open its doors and just show the world this is what we’ve been hiding! If the church doesn’t, then it just looks worse and worse and worse.
Like I said Anons, please don’t hate on me or Marge and co. I was trying to be unbiased with those questions and how I handled them….I hope it worked, and yes, thanks to both sides of the argument I get it more now.”
And, because I’m feeling generous, here’s a two-for-one deal on responses.
From Anon, Anon, My Boyfriend’s Back!, at 10:50 PM 28 Feb 2008:
“OTB in regards to the valid point Marge made, some counterpoints:
A. China is mostly a third world country where a large majority live in similar conditions. This would be more the rule than the exception in China when compared to the populace as a whole.
B. Chinese monastic orders have been around for centuries and thus have a very rich histories and traditions that date back to before Tang/Song dynasty when chairs were first introduced. Chinese, much like the Japanese, used to sit on the floor while they ate.
C. Monks live a humble life devoid of the creature comforts western society takes for granted. The treatment is essentially the same across the board in those Monastic orders. For example, you won’t see the head of the order going on vacations with celebrities and making their homes in mansions.
D. Yes, they are subject to extensive training and study that many would consider grueling, however, this is a personal journey of discipline and enlightenment that, as you said, any young monk-in-training can depart from of his own volition.
How these points translate into arguments against the CoS are as follows:
A. The country where these allegations stem from (the US) is not a third world country but is, in fact, by definition, a first world country and the conditions described in these allegations are and exception and not the rule.
B. The CoS does not have this history of tradition where these allegations are concerned. Even if they did, the laws governing the land in which it operates criminalizes them.
C. Dave Miscavige and other top tier CoS execs do not live the squalid lives detailed in the allegations. Much the opposite and far from humble.
D. It really goes unspoken that, if a foreign child in America who either doesn’t or can’t speak English, doesn’t have papers identifying them, is under 24/7 surveillance, and has no one to turn to cannot leave the CoS of their own volition.
This could go on forever, but, in my opinion, comparing the children of a Chinese Monastic order and the children of an American CoS is more like apples and oranges.”
“Whoa”
[From repost from NotQuiteAnonymous]
OtB wrote: “She did make one valid point. The point about other faiths and children and it made me think about monks in China.”
Well, then you should also have thought about the children of devoutly Catholic parents. And the children of devoutly religious Amish. And the children of devoutly religious Christian Scientists. And the children of devoutly religious Orthodox Jews.
Every single religion out there could be sensationalized and made to look horrible against children. It is especially easy to do to the newer ones, as their unfamiliarity makes them easy targets.
“if Chinese monks brought that system to America would we attack it the same way?”
They have been brought to the US. They are called Buddhist monasteries. They exist all over the US.
“Now, the big difference as I see it…in China, those kids can leave at any second of the day.”
In the US, it’s called “running away”. When the kids get caught, they get sent back to their parents. If their parents run a devoutly Catholic household or live in an Amish community or are in the Sea Org or are in a Buddhist monastery, then the kids still get returned to the parents. And if the parents are “out of town” for religious purposes, then it’s the parents job to pre-arrange for childcare and/or guardianship for their children.
“Accusations is the stage it is in now.”
No, sensationalism and FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) is the stage that it’s in right now. When we get beyond the point where an “Anonymous” person gives a generalized “tip”, then we’ll be at the point where actual accusations can be followed up on and taken seriously.
“I have to differ with her though. They have security to provide public safety, it seems CoS has it to keep people in, and to attack”
That’s kinda funny because Scientology has been literally under attack by “Anonymous” for a few weeks now, against their websites, phone and fax systems. And phone threats have been made. And “white powder” mysteriously showed up at Scientology churches shortly after Anonymous attacks began. In recent years past, people have gone to jail for making bomb threats against Scientology churches.
And you really think that Scientologists don’t feel the need for security for safety reasons?
“She also claimed that the video of the kid on inquiry was told to do it as a covert operation against the church to destroy or take it over.”
You threw me on this one. I think you better go back and re-read my response. I didn’t say anything even remotely similar to this.
“Scientology has to open its doors”
Doors are always open. Policies are broadly published. You need to simply refuse to believe the FUD, hook.line.sinker.
“C. Dave Miscavige and other top tier CoS execs do not live the squalid lives detailed in the allegations. Much the opposite and far from humble.”
Please provide your source. According to the IRS’s intensive investigation into Scientology and its leadership, Miscavige’s quarters are very humble. And just as Richard Gere is friends with and has spent much publicized time with the Dalai Lama, I see nothing wrong with Tom Cruise being friends with and spending time with David Miscavige.
“D. It really goes unspoken that, if a foreign child in America who either doesn’t or can’t speak English, doesn’t have papers identifying them, is under 24/7 surveillance, and has no one to turn to cannot leave the CoS of their own volition.”
“Has no one to turn to?” Who says? It is every parent’s responsibility (and right) to choose and provide the childcare and guardianship of their choosing.
This whole thing is bordering on the ridiculous.
@Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 12:24 am
On CoS “legal tactics” you said: Source is Exhibit G from the Fishman Declaration, a magazine article written by Hubbard.
A magazine article by Hubbard, exactly. I dug a bit and I actually found it. Here is what this is about: In 1955 Dianetics and Scientology went in full swing and there were several groups building up practicing their “own brew” of Scientology practices. Which, as you will remember, can be harmful of done the wrong way or mixed with
screwed up ideas. Hubbard was confronted with this and for this specific circumstances instructed his lawyers to stop this wildfire of idiocy with injunctions. No word about “critics” and nothing in the full article mentions anything do be done to “critics”. The article’s main issue is to present a new (and first) membership organization for Scientologists (called HASI). Also, being a magazine article in 1955 it never became policy of the Church nor a guideline for any other situation later on. The link you provided goes to an outright anti-Scientology page whose creator - nicely in alignment with the rest of the propaganda there - has left out the correct time and circumstances of the quote. Sorry, but you have been mislead.
On ex-members. “Also, objectively, just because they seem to be fanatics is not a reason to disbelieve them. So why should I believe either side over the other?”
I would expect nobody to blindly believe either side. Any heated discussion has lies or at leaste exaggerations in it. That is inherent of emotional talks. But I expect you to make up your mind equally and that means that you can’t just concentrate of evaluating
one sided data. In this sense, welcome to this blog again, and I am happy that you are here.
A thought on critics who are neither ex-members nor in any profession dealing with religion, theology etc: Mark Bunker for example is a provocateur and has never been anything else but that, hiding being his camera. I don’t know what his beef if and when
it comes to his personal motivation he gets pretty vague. Well, whatever he thinks is in for him, I doubt he will get it that way. But as mentioned earlier I am not into “criticising the critics” but into allegations about Scientology. I just want to give you an idea to chew on.
- Lu
Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 12:57 am
“Certainly some aspects of Criminon, Narconon, and Applied Scholastics can be scientifically tested. They profess to get people off drugs or increase their learning ability. Are there any non-first-party references showing such things?”
There are. Testimonies galore of those who got rehabilitated, off drugs or who got rid of their learning problems by a program which uses Hubbard’s technology. And there are studies as well in the various areas. I remember having read or glanced through a couple of them. That will be quite some digging. What program are you into? Criminon, Narconon, Applied Scholastics?
- Lu
@Comment by Ed on February 27, 2008 3:29 am
Sorry it took me so long to come back to your question on Hubbard’s contact to Aleister Crowley. Your statement is basically a long list of allegations so I had some trouble actually finding a question, and then it turned out to be a rhetorical one. Anyway, here we go:
The statement of Hubbard you quote is made in 1952. It is ironical and you understand it that way if you actually listen to the tape and then not only to that one half-sentence but actually to the whole section. I thought I had seen the full quote in Wikipedia but when I checked today someone had taken it out, too much truth, you know (I LOVE Wikipedia, playground of propagandists of all kinds).
Aside from that, take the time in which he makes this statement. He is doing a public lecture in a time when Crowley was persona non grata in most British circles and in a time when the US Government would consider someone a security threat if he would be “a friend” of Crowley. Why would Hubbard put himself in such a position? He wouldn’t. But even if that would be the case. In the remaining lecture that day Hubbard discards a lot of what Crowley had to say, to prove him wrong. As you yourself point out, Hubbard and Crowley most likely never met and if so, wouldn’t be fond of each other because Hubbard damaged Crowleys group. Again, as so often with this allegations, it is only based on fragmentary quotes nicely misinterpreted. That’s called propaganda.
- Lu
Hello! I have a couple pretty simple questions, I hope you can answer them.
What does the eight pointed Scientology cross represent?
In order to practice Scientology, does one have to believe in reincarnation?
Could two people interested in Scientology practice the religion in their own home, without the support of a congregation?
What parts of Scientology must be accepted on faith, and what parts were found through scientific research by Hubbard? Are Hubbard’s studies released anywhere that I can access?
Thanks in advance!
@Comment by soruw on February 29, 2008 11:11 pm
“What does the eight pointed Scientology cross represent?”
Eight dynamics, that is urges to survive. I have updated the definition for it on the ScientologyMyths.info website, so you can get the complete picture and I just added a definition for the Scientology Cross on the page.
“In order to practice Scientology, does one have to believe in reincarnation?”
Reincarnation is a definite system and is not part of Scientology. It is a fact that unless one begins to handle problems built up in past lives, he doesn’t progress. Past lives is not a dogma in Scientology, but generally Scientologists, during their auditing, experience a past life and then know for themselves that they have lived before.
(more details here: http://www.scientology.org/religion/catechism/pg011.html)
“Could two people interested in Scientology practice the religion in their own home, without the support of a congregation?”
To an extent. You need to be trained in Scientology to properly practice all of it. The training is done in Churches of Scientology or Scientology Missions. Sure you can practice at home. If you however practice auditing outside of a Church (which is possible) it however is smart to hook up with professional auditors in a church or other group to make sure that any mistakes are caught and corrected.
“What parts of Scientology must be accepted on faith, and what parts were found through scientific research by Hubbard? Are Hubbard’s studies released anywhere that I can access?”
Wow, on the first part: It is possible to sort this out but quite some work. You can however find out yourself by studying what is called the “Basics” in Scientology. That is the research track of L. Ron Hubbard, his lectures and books which led to Scientology in its final form. The “Basics” cover 18 books and 280 lectures in chronological order (more here: http://www.goldenageofknowledge.net). If you don’t want to buy them: Ask your local public or university library. There are regular library donation drives to make these materials available to everyone. Each Church of Scientology also has a library with all those materials available for study in a reading room.
- Lu
Thanks for the speedy reply. But I have more! Always more, unfortunately.
Does the unevenness of the 8 points represent anything? Why did Hubbard choose a modified Christian cross?
How have Christians dealt with the idea of reincarnation? Do many just stop on the bridge?
I have read some of the Basics, but I haven’t been able to find Hubbard’s actual research. From what I’ve read, these are just his conclusions based on the research. I want the actual research. It is very important for me to be able to look at the hard numbers that support Hubbard’s claims. I am always skeptical of news articles that conclude such and such study proves this or that, and so I always try to read the research reports with which the article supports its claim.
So I know it’s probably been over 50 years since Hubbard did this research, and his experiments may be hard to come by, but I’d really appreciate some more information.
If you don’t mind I’d like to ask a personal question, I think it may answer my question better. What parts of your religion do you accept on faith alone, and what parts do you feel are general truth that should be accepted by everyone, no matter what faith?
Hi, I have a similar question as soruw.
I asked an OTVII about the resemblance of the Scientology cross and the Christian one. She told me about the 8 dynamics and that the cross was a much older symbol, than Christianity. To my knowledge, the Latin Cross was first used as a Christian symbol. Only crosses with equal length of the 4 sides were used before.
If this is indeed the stance on the Scientology symbol(latin cross around for much longer), do you know of any cultures or groups who used it?
If you disagree with this, do you believe that the Scientology cross was influenced by the OTO crossed out cross(Aleister Crowleys) or the Rosy cross, since Hubbard was briefly involved with both the Rosicrucians and OTO?
I checked the website & FAQ, not very thuroughly I confess, but I was wondering what the official explanation was for L Ron having gained all of this divine info?
Was it that he was inspired, son of god, genius, or what?
Thanks!
PS - also why does everything cost so dang much? Even yoga classes cost only 12 pounds/class (source: very hasty googling)
>There are. Testimonies galore of those who got rehabilitated, off drugs or who got rid of their learning problems by a program which uses Hubbard’s technology. And there are studies as well in the various areas. I remember having read or glanced through a couple of them. That will be quite some digging. What program are you into? Criminon, Narconon, Applied Scholastics?
Any of them. Testimonies are inherently unscientific, and from what I’ve seen, they tend to read like press releases. I’m looking for independent surveys of the results.
Narconon claims to have a 70% success rate, but I can’t back that up. I found a Swedish study from 1983 that shows a 23% graduation rate and a 7% success rate. I found a Spanish study from the mid-80s that the CoS uses to claim a 78% success rate, but closer evaluation shows a success rate of 33% to 43%, with many very questionable numbers all over. Other surveys have similar numbers and similarly questionable math and methods of obtaining a final success percentage. The sampling method and sample size is also not enough to extrapolate to program results, as far as I’ve seen.
I can’t find as much information about Criminon, and Applied Scholastics is a different field altogether, so let’s focus on Narconon for now.
You are very brave to make a website like this. While I disagree with some of your views, I do respect that you give “the other side of the story,” so to speak.
Alright,
I’d like to hear your responses to other EX-Scientologists views about Scientology and specifically Disconnection. Please don’t reply with the standard “Disconnection is not enforced” company line. That schtick’s got whiskers. It’s implied right in the churchs list of high crimes.
- Leaving is a crime (marking you an SP)
- Associating with SPs is a crime
And thanks for talking
http://www.exscientologykids.com/
@Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 1:25 am
“I’d like to hear your responses to other EX-Scientologists views about Scientology and specifically Disconnection. Please don’t reply with the standard “Disconnection is not enforced” company line. That schtick’s got whiskers. It’s implied right in the churchs list of high crimes.”
Just answered it elsewhere. I should do an article on ScientologyMyths.info. Until then, here is the list:
http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/open-questions/#comment-1087
http://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/welcome-to-the-scientology-myths-forum/#comment-85
http://www.scientologymyths.info/scientology/docs/frank-flinn.htm (Apple/CTRL-F “disconnection”).
The “company line” (I think it’s “party line”
is here:
http://faq.scientology.org/page40.htm
- Lou
No… it’s a company
Too harsh? just my opinion.
People get their SP cancelled? I did know that. That’s as long as people still want in the org. I’m talking about people who want nothing more to do with the org, but still want to be in contact with their family. I’m talking about the pressure to divorce a declared mate.
@Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 6:20 am
“I’m talking about the pressure to divorce a declared mate.”
Nice theory, sounds horrible. But let’s check the details. Give me an example?
I mean, you know that Scientology is pretty easy, except if you are trying to destroy it. Then and only then you find yourself in trouble. Or if you are engaged in criminal acts AND not wanting to correct the wrong.
- Lou
Apologies, finger slipped on the enter key.
What if it was only one person and it was a Q&A session? For example, you ask a question, we supply an answer, then you get to follow up question to which we answer.
Then we switch. Four posts per question, two from each side.
I think the enturbulation.org admins would be up for something like this, and limiting to one poster. It’d be up to you and the other person to follow the rules.
Is it true that Mike Rinder has left Scientology?
Thanks!
Lou, a bit of a different question for you.
It’s been recorded on videos numerous times that Scientology recruiters claim that Scientology is compatible with all major religons. Is that the church’s offical stance?
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 5:57 pm
“What if it was only one person and it was a Q&A session? For example, you ask a question, we supply an answer, then you get to follow up question to which we answer.”
Sounds fun, though I would have to think hard what to ask you guys. I haven’t heard back from either cheeseburger (chz brg) or anyone else who wanted to check with the entubulation.org. What’s the deal now?
- Lou
@Comment by Con on March 7, 2008 7:27 pm
“Is it true that Mike Rinder has left Scientology?”
That would be hard to believe but I honestly don’t know.
- Lou
@Comment by ARC_Break on March 7, 2008 10:01 pm
“It’s been recorded on videos numerous times that Scientology recruiters claim that Scientology is compatible with all major religons. Is that the church’s offical stance?”
“Scientology recruiters”, eh? So your question is whether one has to leave his/her denomination once he/she becomes a member of the Church of Scientology.
The official answer is this:
“Nearly all religions share a belief in helping man live a better life. In Scientology, this concept is expressed as one of the aims of the Church, which is to achieve a world without insanity, war and crime.
While Scientology has much in common with other religions in this regard, particularly in terms of its basic religious concepts and its outreach into the community with social reform programs, the most valuable asset that Scientology has to offer is a wealth of technology which brings about greater spiritual awareness.
Unlike some religions which believe that man is intrinsically evil, Scientology believes man is basically good. The Scientology religion offers practical tools one can use to better oneself and others. Some religions offer salvation in the hereafter, while Scientology offers certainty of eternal salvation now.
Scientology makes it possible for any religion to attain its goals and is therefore a religion of religions.”
So I wouldn’t call this “compatible” but certainly Scientology helps to understand one’s first religion better. What’s being said to “show” incompatibility however is false. Here is what I usually read as an argument why one cannot be active in another religion at the same time:
“HCO Policy Letter 15 December 1965R Issue I revised 25 July 1987, STUDENT’S GUIDE TO ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. Guideline “#14. Do not engage in any rite, ceremony, or any similar religious treatment or mental therapy while on course without the express permission of the Director of Training.”
What this means is obvious (to me at least): Participation in rites, ceremonies, religious treatment change the body and spiritual condition of people, Scientology practices also change spiritual conditions. To archive maximum (and pleasant) results from Scientology it cannot be mixed with something else. So while being trained in Scientology practices (”while on course”, above) the one overseeing the training (Director of Training) should know what else you are doing and go over with you whether this can prolong or sabotage your Scientology training. Simple. An extreme example would be someone on a fasting period trying to get through auditor training. Almost impossible. So fast first, train later or vice versa, to get the most out of both.
- Lou
PS: There is a whole study about “The Relationship Between Scientology
and Other Religions”, by a Japanese scholar, here: http://www.bonafidescientology.org/Append/08/index.htm .
the reason you have not heard from me is because you insulted my integrity with the slander known “whats your take on anonymous”.
how dare you assert that im consorting with terrorists simply by protesting against a midget with control issues (david miscavige)?
you have terms offered by an upstanding Anon on the table… take them cause your earlier argument as reminded by ARC break (which you deleted) is false, and im honestly surprised you did not realize that even making the argument was folly this is on the internet without posting restrictions…. what made you think it would NOT get flooded….
oh, thats right, they only teach you how to get lied to so you don’t believe the truth when its put in your face…..
1984 bitch, orwell.
read, do
One thing I’m curious about is your page about Xe nu.
You state that Scientologists don’t worship Xe nu. I haven’t seen any claims that they do; he seems to be more analogous to the Christian serpent and OT III seems to be thematically similar to Genesis (how evil entered the world). Of course Christians don’t worship the serpent/Devil any more then Scientologists worship Xe nu, but they are both key figures in the religious histories of the two churches.
I suppose I’m curious why you chose to phrase that the way you did.
@@Comment by CHZ BRGR on March 9, 2008 2:59 am
“the reason you have not heard from me is because you insulted my integrity with the slander known “whats your take on anonymous”.”
ORLY? You expect me to like your opinions and at the same time you go whining for mama if my own ones don’t suit you? C’mon, you must be kidding.
“how dare you assert that im consorting with terrorists simply by protesting against a midget with control issues (david miscavige)?”
As an Anonymous you are supporting incitement and commitment of crime. And I will stick to this until Anonymous shows some responsibility to get their criminal members under control. I have not seen any such thing. At all.
“oh, thats right, they only teach you how to get lied to so you don’t believe the truth when its put in your face…..”
WTF?
“1984 bitch, orwell.”
WTF?
- Lou
Sorry, another question…
I’ve been reading Dianetics. It’s interesting. LRH loved to go into graphic detail about the pre-frontal lobotomy, which of course is a grotesque surgery which has been rightfully discontinued.
However, I’m curious of your opinion of modern psychosurgery. In particular, one method that uses a metal needle to burn away a small region (a few millimeters across) to prevent epilepsy. Hubbard never denied (in Dianetics) that the brain wasn’t some kind of electrical circuit. Therefore, it seems like the removal of a non-functioning mechanism would not violate the spirit of Dianetics. This is reinforced by the church allowing Magoo to take medication for her epilepsy.
(Not interested in a dead agent file on Magoo, unless you have three doctors reports that she doesn’t actually have epilepsy.)
Additionally, the procedure requires the patient to be conscious and generally in a good mood (thus, ‘conscious’ within the Hubbard definition as well) so the patient can give accurate feedback to the sensations of the probe. Thus (again according to Dianetics) the procedure would not cause the formation of an engram.
What do you think of this kind of procedure?
@Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:28 am
You comment on my “Alien” page. I chose the wording like this to truthfully show that this and other “galactic” stories do not have as much importance to Scientologists as is given to them by Scientology critics. I am asking for tolerance here, because discussing or worse - ridiculing and distorting - the beliefs of Scientologists is religious intolerance.
Honestly, I think the only reason this whole story is so widespread on the internet and cooked up by the same critics over and over is to introvert and back off Scientologists. And those who have not reached a certain level in Scientology might introvert and back off because they agree that Scientology scriptures have to be studied in the right sequence. Certainly this is practical for those who have nothing to discuss and are just parrots of anti-Scientology propaganda without any understanding of Scientology.
- Lou
“I am asking for tolerance here, because discussing … the beliefs of Scientologists is religious intolerance.”
I do hope that you phrased this incorrectly. I am Catholic and thus I disagree with Scientology (the notion of reincarnation is enough to ensure that), but I do not agree that discussing religious beliefs is in itself intolerant. Although I may disagree with the tenets of your church, I can fully tolerate your right to believe them.
@Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:40 am
“However, I’m curious of your opinion of modern psychosurgery.”
If there are results I support it. If there is a lot of PR and marketing and no results, like with treatments such as electric shocks, I don’t. I am not familiar though with the treatment of epilepsy by surgery. If there is a proven area in the brain which can be identified as the CAUSE for epileptic fits then I would think there are methods to heal or “switch off” this section. Are there?
“(Not interested in a dead agent file on Magoo, unless you have three doctors reports that she doesn’t actually have epilepsy.)”
Got it. I am not giving out “dead agent files” and attacking critics is not my game. But I think she would reject being called mentally ill (as “psychosurgery” suggests).
“Additionally, the procedure requires the patient to be conscious and generally in a good mood (thus, ‘conscious’ within the Hubbard definition as well) so the patient can give accurate feedback to the sensations of the probe. Thus (again according to Dianetics) the procedure would not cause the formation of an engram.”
Hard to believe that no pain killers would be used for this type of surgery. I took pain killers once and felt very “conscious” and “in good mood” watching my wound bleeding along. Dianetics defines an engram as “a memory recording of an experience containing pain, unconsciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival.”. Killing the pain with drugs does not mean that it is not there. The pain sensation is just chemically suppressed.
“What do you think of this kind of procedure?”
I have not enough information to support or reject it. From what you say and from what I looked up by now I would say - my opinion - that such procedure results in an engram for sure (which is not a problem as it can be run out with Dianetics afterwards). On its value I am pretty sceptical, just because it is very hard to find any results from psychosurgery/neurosurgey.
- Lou
@Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 3:59 am
>>“I am asking for tolerance here, because discussing … the beliefs of Scientologists is religious intolerance.”
>I do hope that you phrased this incorrectly.
No, but incomplete. Some of the scriptures of Scientology are confidential. Insisting on discussing them with Scientologists who do not know them (yet) because they agreed to follow the belief system of Scientology is religious intolerance. It is an attempt to make them violate their agreement with the Church and their religion. Anti-Scientology critics know that and that is the sole reason why they print this stuff on flyers, on caps, T-shirts etc.
There are Catholic monasteries whose members have vowed not to talk (vow of silence). Would you go there and make it a game to get them to talk? There are section in the Kabbalah which are not meant to be discussed, confidential and kept that way by religious agreement. Would you go and read these scriptures on a PA system?
“Although I may disagree with the tenets of your church, I can fully tolerate your right to believe them.”
Thank you.
- Lou
“If there is a proven area in the brain which can be identified as the CAUSE for epileptic fits then I would think there are methods to heal or “switch off” this section. Are there?”
Epilepsy is a “hardware” defect, wherein a small segment of the brain becomes hyperactive and disrupts the functionality of the rest of the brain. This segment varies from patient to patient, so there is no one area which generically causes epilepsy. You can’t exactly go in there and sort out the neurons mechanically without damaging the surrounding tissue, or shut them off (short of removal) without shutting off the rest of the brain.
I am aware that Scientologists believe that that nearly all conditions are “software” defects caused by the reactive mind. However, epilepsy can be tracked by EEG and MRI and the defective segment localized; so this condition is legitimately an issue of the physical tissue of the brain. (Thus, Magoo isn’t mentally ill, she is /neurologically/ ill.)
Regarding the drugs used:
The only painkiller used is a topical disinfectant and analgesic which numbs the skin of the scalp. The only sensation that reaches the brain is one of pressure. No alteration of consciousness as there is with an injection.
As to the effectiveness of psychosurgery, there are plenty of studies that have been published on various methods. I read a few when I was investigating my own condition; as a younger child I was (incorrectly) diagnosed with mild epilepsy. I wasn’t given any drugs, and the symptoms disappeared on their own as I entered puberty.
@Comment by Tony Meman on March 9, 2008 4:34 am
“I am aware that Scientologists believe that that nearly all conditions are “software” defects caused by the reactive mind. However, epilepsy can be tracked by EEG and MRI and the defective segment localized; so this condition is legitimately an issue of the physical tissue of the brain. (Thus, Magoo isn’t mentally ill, she is /neurologically/ ill.)”
Any psychosomatic illness can be registered one way or the other. Per Dianetics, someone with an engram demanding him to break his bones shows a very obvious and measurable “hardware damage”. But the cause still was a mental, unconscious command to hurt himself. The latter is what Dianetics addresses, not the hardware part… Same with epilepsy. IF caused by mental problems, the cause for epileptic fits would not be in the brain but only happening there, triggered off by a mental problem. My opinion here is that your version and my version are possible, i.e. hardware defect and software problem.
“Regarding the drugs used:
The only painkiller used is a topical disinfectant and analgesic which numbs the skin of the scalp. The only sensation that reaches the brain is one of pressure. No alteration of consciousness as there is with an injection.”
One could take a patient and use Dianetics to determine whether this procedure is stored as an engram or not. But it does not matter much. If such surgery would be in the way of someone trying to reach Clear the engram would show up and can be moved out of the way. If not, it would not become an issue. Somehow, but this is an emotional thing, I think that it should not be necessary in the 21st Century to open somebody’s head to clip off parts of the brain. Anyway, just opinion.
“As to the effectiveness of psychosurgery, there are plenty of studies that have been published on various methods. I read a few when I was investigating my own condition; as a younger child I was (incorrectly) diagnosed with mild epilepsy. I wasn’t given any drugs, and the symptoms disappeared on their own as I entered puberty.”
Hm. What’s your theory then why you had symptoms at all?
- Lou
“My opinion here is that your version and my version are possible, i.e. hardware defect and software problem. ”
Perhaps I’m questioning one of your articles of faith here. I really have difficulty imagining an engram that would result in epilepsy. I have even more trouble in coming up with one that is common enough that it would result in such similar symptoms experienced by tens of thousands of people. However, I’ve seen malfunctioning electronic circuits, and it’s very easy to make an analogy between epilepsy and, say, a TV with a distorted picture.
“This is another thing I’m curious about. Scientology claims that most (about 70%, according to Dianetics) of illnesses are psychosomatic. However, if an illness can be traced to a mechanical cause and treated by mechanical means… does it really matter? I mean, if psychoactive drugs have a net positive effect (they do), then why oppose them?
As an analogy: A vaccination for polio can cause a child to develop polio. However, children can also develop polio if noone is vaccinated. Far more children develop polio without vaccinations then with vaccinations. Thus, we vaccinate children for polio, even though we know that some will become ill as a result.
Similarly, people on medication commit suicide, but people with untreated depression also commit suicide. People on medication commit suicide at a lower rate. Granted, this is an excellent reason to be careful and well educated about drug use. I very much agree with Scientologists at least that far. Why, then, use drug suicides as a reason to ban them completely?
“I think that it should not be necessary in the 21st Century to open somebody’s head to clip off parts of the brain.”
I agree with you that it is a very disturbing thought, and one that should be taken with extreme gravity. I can only say that I’ve worked with and cared for a number of people with very serious