Open questions

Hi there,

New questions go here. If you miss something, let me know.

– Lou

(Last updated 6 March 2008. Thread closed.)

68 Comments

  1. @Comment by anmn on March 3, 2008 5:29 am

    >>>“I have heard no positive things about Scientology’s schools that aren’t sourced from Scientology or the schools themselves.”
    >>Then you haven’t looked very hard.
    >>cnn.com …
    >Nothing in that article is about schools or schooling. Only an (ostensibly) independent, after-hours tutoring center.

    Dunno what happened to Lake (who I believe said the above), but this article is about the study technology of Hubbard, as used in private schools (“Scientology schools”, which is not correct, it should be rather “Hubbard schools”).

    >>Yes, the various Church periodicals list how many people successfully complete particular levels. In most cases, names are provided. These would be your source.
    >Is there any way I can get a copy of these periodicals, or see summaries of such numbers across churches and the organization? Hopefully in a more verifiable form than other official numbers like membership?

    Check you local library. Usually those magazines get stored there. But be warned, this would be quite some work, just because each church and each mission has its own magazine.

    >>[The RPF] is not for “members” as a whole but for Sea Org members and only for specific purposes.
    >You’re right, many of my listed objections only applied to staff or Sea Org. Public members taking courses apparently don’t see much of that stuff.

    Nice spin. In 2008 Scientology has it’s forth generation of members. Most of those old Scientology families have a son or a daughter on staff or in the Sea Org. I personally know several families with two generations (for example mother and daughter, or grandmother and her grown-up grandson) on staff. A caring Scientology parish usually knows what’s going on inside and outside their church.

    – Lou

  2. @Comment by Tim on February 29, 2008 11:50 pm

    Hi Tim, I guess you won’t find this easily but at least you can’t complain I didn’t answer…!

    exscnkids: I got in contact with Kendra, to no avail really. It’s all their opinion and sure they have a right to voice one. So do I. Mine is that I have found nothing new on their site, just old war stories which got brushed up a little.

    disconnection: This does not change my viewpoint on disconnection, as already gone over earlier.

    “The listed reasons for the declaration of a person as an SP, as well as the Disconnection policy in practice?”

    This is conditional and not automatic. Preceding an SP declare people sit down, check facts, interrogate people and usually the concerned person (if available, which is not always the case). Show me one who got SP declared automatically and based on mere theory, as this site tries to make you believe. I am sure you did not know that there are plenty of people each year whose SP declare gets canceled? Expulsion from the church is the hardest penalty possible in Scientology.

    – Lou

  3. @Comment by ARC_Break on March 6, 2008 7:48 pm

    ““The entirety of Roman Catholicism – the devil, all of this sort of thing – that is all part of R6. Practically anything you think of. ….”

    Source? Sounds like the fake “anti-Christ ” HCO PL I’ve seen floating around.

    – Lou

  4. @Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 9:21 pm

    “dear random member of scientology”

    Looks like I am the only one around these days.

    “Your family loves you”

    I know.

    What’s the point here?

    – Lou

  5. @Comment by Puddintame on March 7, 2008 3:27 am

    “exscientologykids are firsthand accounts from inside the church. Enjoy reading it. I did.”

    I read it. A hell of a lot of opinion, girly type of yee-ha, nice to read but not very challenging, intellectually. I even had some email correspondence with one of the girls. Everyone is entitled to have his/her own opinion. No matter how screwed up.

    – Lou

  6. Catch 22

    exscientologykids are firsthand accounts from inside the church. Enjoy reading it. I did.

    Your “drop-out circus ” remark may be just your opinion, but it’s also the Co$’s main defense against ex-members testimony.

    – Members cannot/would not reveal such information
    – These “ex-members” cannot be reliable because they aren’t members anymore.

    There are too many corroborating accounts of Ex-members for their collective story to be false.

    note:
    I have seen a copypasta for one of the final questions in some of the interviews. The original interviews may have not included that question or it was a standard answer for anyone who couldn’t think of anything. Sort of a unifying message from ex-members to current ones. I wouldn’t write off this site just for that.

  7. @Hostile:
    So what’s your take on Hubbard wanting to break up families, desensetize people and eventually have them believe that after reading a certain amount of material and paying a certain amount of money, that they’d be almost immune to disease, disorders, bad thoughts and have mind powers like in the matrix?

    Hostile, you have to remember that not every single scientologist is at the very top. It’s quite possible that Lou is in fact not at OTVI or OTV where it’s revealed that you can avoid becoming sick by using the power of your mind. This is true by the way.

    @Lou:
    Wow, these @ things work well. I’ll have to use them so people can figure out when they are being talked to. Good idea.

    Anyways, what I’d like to talk to you abouit is being straightforward. I’m not talking about you specifically, but rather, the church.

    You said in a previous post that scriptures in the later sessions are meaningless unless you have the prerequisite knowledge to use it. I can understand this. You can’t really take Grade 12 math until you’ve taken Grade 11 math.

    What concerns me is that there is no transparency to the scriptures. If they aren’t going to hurt or help the individual, why are they “hidden” from members?

    You can understand my skeptical view can you not? Because it seems to me that the OT levels are actually a bait and switch. Lower members are told one thing and then the truth is revealed afer they’ve been in a while.

    If you don’t believe me, all you have to do is look to Hubbard’s writings which say that hearing about Xe nu could in fact give you pneumonia. And that most will die.

    Obviously this isn’t true. Because Anonymous wouldn’t be standing if it were. :D

    So, my question is this (and you didn’t really answer it the last time I asked). Why do you feel the church hides these scriptures from the public?

  8. @Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 9:48 pm

    >so what’s your take on Hubbard wanting to break up families, desensetize people and eventually have them believe that after reading a certain amount of material and paying a certain amount of money, that they’d be almost immune to disease, disorders, bad thoughts and have mind powers like in the matrix?

    Never heard of it. Check your sources.

    – Lou

  9. @Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 10:32 pm

    “also, lou, how would you feel if I posted all of the ot 3 documents somewhere on here?”

    Sigh…there goes the agreement. What for? These docs are all over the internet. My view on this is on the site and I won’t go into another discussion and I would delete them just as other statements and overlong quotes.

    >so what’s your opinion on having to pay the church thousands and thousands of dollars to view these documents, when I can easily access them for free (again, for educational purposes)

    I didn’t. Reading some sheets of paper does not replace going up the Bridge to that point. It can take years, especially if you are not retired or so. The prices thrown around are the most expensive route you can take and you might spend 15 years or more on it. Some people spend more on cigarettes in the same time frame. Anyway, most Scientologists don’t do it that way, see my earlier post. And get a clue about what Scientology is and does, please.

    – Lou

    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/how-much-does-scientology-cost/
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/scriptures/

  10. @Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 9:58 pm

    >This message was brought to you for the letter F, it stands for
    >Family (the people who still love you)
    >Friends (the ones who want to see you again)
    >Fun (Its fun to belong to a religion that is free)
    >Falaffel (a good food)

    True in all points (Falafel, I say here). Mark the date! This is the day we were on the same page, for a bit.

    – Lou

  11. also, lou, how would you feel if I posted all of the ot 3 documents somewhere on here? I’m protected by fair use in terms of educational purposes (of course you reserve the right to remove them from the site, but I’m just letting you know I’m unsuable)

    so what’s your opinion on having to pay the church thousands and thousands of dollars to view these documents, when I can easily access them for free (again, for educational purposes)

  12. alright, I’m fine with that.

    This message was brought to you for the letter F, it stands for
    Family (the people who still love you)
    Friends (the ones who want to see you again)
    Fun (Its fun to belong to a religion that is free)
    Falaffel (a good food)

  13. Move from other thread:

    @Comment by Hostile on March 6, 2008 9:48 pm

    speaking of making everyone on the planet ot clear, doesn’t that sound sort of (I hate to say it, but) Fascist/Holocaustish? I don’t mean to say that you intend on putting us in concentration camps and not feeding us, eventually killing us, but I mean that it sounds like that statement is like wanting to start a religious war (jihad).

    now Hubbard started to write Dyanetics in 1949, shortly after world war II, which was primarily about a certain man named Hitler wanting to start his own certain organisation called being a Nazi, but first had to kill all of the people who didn’t agree with him

    Of course, hubbard’s belief of converting everyone to scientology sounds astonishingly similar to hitler’s attempt to convert everyone to naziism.

    of course, all religions want this, but they never say it publically. it’s just assumed and forgotten.

    so what’s your take on Hubbard wanting to break up families, desensetize people and eventually have them believe that after reading a certain amount of material and paying a certain amount of money, that they’d be almost immune to disease, disorders, bad thoughts and have mind powers like in the matrix?

  14. dear random member of scientology,

    Your family loves you

    (also, since anonymous will be presnent at L Ron’s birthday, (Mar 15) is it okay if we bring cake? (ieven if for ourselves because we need permits to serve cake at events)

  15. @Comment by Elial on March 6, 2008 4:39 pm

    “What goes through your head when you read about operation freakout? Where is your outrage? How can you feel good about being a part of an organization that, at one point, advocated blackmail?”

    Freakout was a bad action, illegal even. That’s what I think. I think it was criminal and I am happy that those people who did it are not in any position in the Church of Scientology right now. But it also shows that whoever wants to discredit Scientology has to dig very deep (30 years and more backwards) to find something worthwhile mentioning. Actually Operation Freakout is strengthening my certainty that Scientology is capable of correction and that those people heading it right now (being the ones who sacked the above Freakout culprits and others of that kind) are capable of keeping the organization clean from illegal acts.

    – Lou

  16. Lu, Lou, Lake or T:

    “The entirety of Roman Catholicism – the devil, all of this sort of thing – that is all part of R6. Practically anything you think of. All modern theaters, in actual fact, are built with the exact symbols shown for them in R6. They even have the symbol on the boxes on the side of the theater. They have preserved those to this day and so they are indelible. They’re not quite right. But they still know that there’s supposed to be a design on those boxes at the side of the audience to the left and right and so on. There’s supposed to be a certain gold, gilt design over there. And they still put it there.”

    I’ve been leafing through documents on the internet and I’d like to know if this quote is in fact valid (L Ron wrote it) and if it is what does it mean?

    This was taken from a site that used this quote for educational purposes (from what I read).

    Thanks,

  17. Hi Lu, hope you’re well.
    Would be very interested to know what you think of exscientologykids.org, do you deny that, for instance, Kendra Wiseman’s parents are no longer permitted to have contact with her? If not, do you think that this is okay?
    I know you don’t see individual scientologists as separate from the organisation of scientology as a whole, so you feel that posters attacking CoS management and the treatment of members are attacking the members themselves. I want to say that I, and many others, do see you as separate, Lu. I know you are just a human being sat in front of a computer screen right now, same as me. I don’t think you are a bad person, I know you are probably getting tired of all this by now, you seem to be becoming increasingly impatient and I can understand. I hope you can take more time for yourself and not worry too much about accounting for the actions of others. You aren’t the one being criticised. I’m Catholic, and when it came out about all the appaling abuse of children in the church I never felt personally attacked, and I never felt like I had to answer for the crimes of others. Lisa Mcpherson, Disconnection, children in the RPF, this isn’t your burden to carry Lu, you shouldn’t forget that.
    Take care.

  18. >“I have heard no positive things about Scientology’s schools that aren’t sourced from Scientology or the schools themselves.”
    >Then you haven’t looked very hard.
    >cnn.com …

    Nothing in that article is about schools or schooling. Only an (ostensibly) independent, after-hours tutoring center.

    >Yes, the various Church periodicals list how many people successfully complete particular levels. In most cases, names are provided. These would be your source.

    Is there any way I can get a copy of these periodicals, or see summaries of such numbers across churches and the organization? Hopefully in a more verifiable form than other official numbers like membership?

    >And if you decide that the “scientific method” isn’t for you, you’re always welcome to leave the fold and go back to alchemy — as long as you don’t hurt anyone (the scientists might object).

    This is just ridiculous. Perhaps the scientific method isn’t the best example, since it’s so simple and so old. But science, in general, is always seeking out better methods. But If you can find a process simpler, or easier, or more effective than the scientific method, publish it! Use it! If it works, it will be adopted.

    I’ve seen this same argument against Randi’s million dollar prize. Psychologists, doctors, and other scientists would LOVE to see Scientology tech work. If touch assists truly healed people, if rundowns actually had a chance of removing toxins from the body better than normal methods, you would see them used. It would make for more effective medical procedures and grant better insight into how the body works. People will be skeptical at first, sure, but if the tech really works, it would prevail. And it hasn’t prevailed, outside of Scientology and Scientology front organizations.

    >[The RPF] is not for “members” as a whole but for Sea Org members and only for specific purposes.

    You’re right, many of my listed objections only applied to staff or Sea Org. Public members taking courses apparently don’t see much of that stuff.

    >Seems to be a place with a lot of copypasta organized by I-don’t-know in the name of three members of the drop-out circus

    You’re getting more and more ridiculous as this site goes on. So much for finding answers if you’re going in with that attitude.

  19. @Comment by Tim on February 29, 2008 11:50 pm

    I have seen the page this morning (hard to overlook) but did not get to read it yet in full. Seems to be a place with a lot of copypasta organized by I-don’t-know in the name of three members of the drop-out circus (am I too harsh with this? Anyway, just speaking my mind). Give me a bit to read it and challenge my sources.

    – Lu

  20. (Hi Tim, two links trigger the spam filter. I changed them so your comment went through. – Lu)

    Hey Lu,

    It’s been a while since I last checked this place, and wow has it boomed. The other commenters seem to be addressing most of the issues that I’ve had in mind, so I’m really just here to bring your attention to a new website that’s gone up on the Internet today:

    http://www.exscientologykids .com/

    Established and run by Jenna Miscavige Hill, Kendra Wiseman and Astra Woodcraft. You’re already familiar with Miss Hill, I believe; I don’t know about the other two. The site contains testimonials from young people raised in Scientology who’ve left since then, as well as information on aspects of the CoS that they know of/have experienced.

    In particular, I’d like to draw your attention to this section, since it certainly caught mine:

    http://www.exscientologykids. com/disconnection.html

    What do you think of the claims on that page? The listed reasons for the declaration of a person as an SP, as well as the Disconnection policy in practice?

  21. @Comment by Lake on February 28, 2008 7:58 pm

    Thanks for taking some of the questions and answering them. I might add one thing here:

    @ Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 4:10 am
    >>“-Members may be declared SPs or given RPF time if they question the writings or actions of current or former leaders.”

    >Scientologists are encouraged to question, investigate, use and otherwise fully explore everything written by Ron, Church management and/or any Scientologist. No one gets declared SP for doing so, or kicked out, etc.

    Anmn, please read the RPF section on ScientologyMyths.info. This program is not for “members” as a whole but for Sea Org members and only for specific purposes. I know it is tempting to use it to confuse pictures with “camps” of various kinds. This however is not real life. Read it:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/rehabilitation-project-force/

    – Lu

  22. @Comment by lurker on February 28, 2008 6:35 pm

    “Then who deleted it, if you didn’t read it?”

    I deleted it, but it was on the forum for a couple of hours before that. It was just a rant about how there are two Scientology technologies. The real one and the right one or something like that. Anyway, is lacked a question.

    – Lu

  23. @Comment by YetAnotherAnon on February 28, 2008 10:09 am

    “I’m sorry, since when it it “spam” to announce that RTC is squirreling LRH tech? Are you afraid Scientologists will read this statement?”

    I am sorry for you. You obviously have a literacy issue.

    But here again is the link to the FAQ:
    https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/faq/

    Rants go here.

    – Lu

  24. @Comment by Anonymous on February 28, 2008 12:12 am

    (Lisa McPherson)

    “Okay, if it was false and a fake, why did it take the medical examiner five years to file the death certificate you have posted which clearly shows a date of death as Dec 5, 1995 and date signed as Feb 16, 2000?”

    You don’t know much about this case, do you? That is the final and valid document on this case, so why should I bother otherwise.

    – Lu

  25. @Comment by CZGrey on February 26, 2008 11:19 pm

    “we sincerely hope that if there is no other forum to head to for it, that you will take coming to Enturb into consideration.”

    Thank you. Any word back from the Admins? I am checking out software
    (or rather trying to get a grasp on forum software…) which I could
    put on scientologymyths.info. Maybe that would be a solution?

    – Lu

  26. anmn wrote: “Absolutely, medicine and the medical profession would survive if hospitals vanished. They would hardly feel a dent. Whoever is left would rebuild instantly and pick up where the last group left off.”

    Ditto with Scientology. And how does this make your earlier statement logical or sequitur?

    “True, but not without bounds. For example, general schooling is compulsory for minors in the US”

    And Scientology parents fully support general schooling and education. Whether the parents choose a public school, a private school, home school, etc., is entirely up to the parents.

    “I have heard no positive things about Scientology’s schools that aren’t sourced from Scientology or the schools themselves.”

    Then you haven’t looked very hard.
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/31/christian.scientology/index.html?iref=newssearch
    ” At Kennedy’s C. L. Kennedy Center, free tutoring based on Hubbard’s ‘study tech’ philosophies is provided to dozens of children and some adults. Kennedy’s daughter, Jimirra, is one of the instructors. She said ‘study tech’ and the Scientology orientation classes she attended helped her graduate from high school and become a poised woman.

    “Though Jimirra Kennedy insists she does not ascribe to the religious side of Scientology, she still considers herself, at least in part, Scientologist. ‘We say this all the time and I know my father says this, but I am like a Pentecostal Scientologist, that’s what we are.'”

    “So, you can leave, but it’s a high crime to say that you’re leaving.”

    No, that would be ridiculous. First of all, we are talking about WORKING for the Church. Not just being a Scientologist. As a matter of practice, if you are working for the Church and then wish to leave, you obviously need to tell your ecclesiastical superiors as well as the Scientology equivalent of HR, aka HCO. And from there, a program for your departure is put together, which usually includes finding someone else to take over your duties prior to your departure. Again, this is so routine, it is remarkable that it’s even considered an issue.

    “And if someone you know is an SP, and won’t be quiet, it is a high crime to not disconnect from them.”

    Each individual situation is different, and the Church would always prefer to see its members solve differences amicably with anyone. Including suspected SPs.

    On the other hand, it is very true that if someone is formally declared an SP by the Church (as an unfortunate, last resort), it is against Church policy for Scientologists to remain connected to them. This is particularly true for Church staff, as they are the people caring for the spiritual affairs of the Church’s parishioners.

    “Do you have a source for any of these numbers?”

    Yes, the various Church periodicals list how many people successfully complete particular levels. In most cases, names are provided. These would be your source.

    “Logically, I suppose you could question the tech, but not venture into any other way of doing things.”

    That’s right. As an analogy, when you’re being trained to be a scientist, you’re free to question the scientific method all you want. But when you’re actually applying the scientific method as a practicing scientist, people expect you to use standard “scientific method” procedures.

    And if you decide that the “scientific method” isn’t for you, you’re always welcome to leave the fold and go back to alchemy — as long as you don’t hurt anyone (the scientists might object).

  27. >Q: “Even if all hospitals were to vanish tomorrow, medicine would still survive.”

    Strawman. Absolutely, medicine and the medical profession would survive if hospitals vanished. They would hardly feel a dent. Whoever is left would rebuild instantly and pick up where the last group left off.

    >I believe parents and families decide how to raise their children,

    True, but not without bounds. For example, general schooling is compulsory for minors in the US, and I have heard no positive things about Scientology’s schools that aren’t sourced from Scientology or the schools themselves. And I have looked.

    Lu, you’re probably going to want to make a new post about exscientologykids.com , because their words on many of these matters are far weightier than mine.

    >My claim is that information mentioned during auditing is NEVER revealed or used to blackmail people or prevent them from leaving.

    Affadavit of Jesse Prince. Specifically, item 23. http://www.xe nu-directory.net/documents/prince19990820.html

    >>“-Members are coerced into ‘disconnecting’ from family and friends on the outside.”
    >This has been fully covered here on ScientologyMyths already.

    Maybe, but here’s more. From LRH’s “Introduction to Scientology Ethics”:

    “Here are the HIGH crimes …

    “167) Failure to handle or disavow and disconnect from a person demonstrably guilty of suppressive acts.
    “215) Informing fellow staff members and others that one is leaving staff.
    “230) It is a high crime to publicy depart Scientology.”

    So, you can leave, but it’s a high crime to say that you’re leaving. And if someone you know is an SP, and won’t be quiet, it is a high crime to not disconnect from them.

    >the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of satisfied members of Scientology.
    >And I would say that the tens of thousands that are currently on the upper Scientology levels would disagree with you.

    Do you have a source for any of these numbers?

    >Scientologists are encouraged to question, investigate, use and otherwise fully explore everything written by Ron, Church management and/or any Scientologist. No one gets declared SP for doing so, or kicked out, etc.

    More of LRH’s high crimes:

    “188) Not knowing [the technology] is correct.”

    Wouldn’t that mean questioning the tech?

    The rest of the KSW points are similar, as are a few others, below. Logically, I suppose you could question the tech, but not venture into any other way of doing things.

    Similarly:
    “258) Attempting to undermine or advising or encouraging or condoning the abandonment or reduction of use of the full technology of locating and handling overts, evil purposes, destructive intentions and nonsurvival considerations.”

  28. lurker wrote: “Then who deleted it, if you didn’t read it?”

    lurker, I don’t moderate this board. I was responding to YetAnotherAnon’s (YAA’s) follow-up statement about RTC supposedly squirreling LRH tech.

  29. @ Comment by anmn on February 27, 2008 4:10 am
    “Are you saying you would stop believing in the tech if there was no central authority controlling it?”

    Boy, I’ve seen some non-sequitur responses before, but that one takes the cake.

    EXAMPLE:
    Q: “Even if all hospitals were to vanish tomorrow, medicine would still survive.”
    A: “It takes trained, skilled people to make medicine work”
    Q: “Are you saying you would stop believing in medicine if the AMA vanished?”

    And this is logically connected, how?

    Re: Jenna “What about the lack of schooling, or the disconnection policy she mentions? Do you believe those are right?”

    I believe parents and families decide how to raise their children, and its their choice as to which religion to belong to. Or none. If the Mormoms want to send their kids to Mormon school and not let them drink alcohol or coffee, it’s their right. If Orthodox Jews and the Amish want to practice shunning and raise their kids in a way that they deem appropriate, it’s their right. If Catholics want to symbolically eat the blood and flesh of Christ each week, that’s their right too.

    If Scientology Sea Org parents want to raise their families according to the precepts of the Sea Org and Scientology, they have every right also.

    No one is forcing you, amnm, to become a Scientologist. If it’s not for you, then don’t join. No one is forcing any Scientologist to become or remain a Scientologist (or a Sea Org member). And if they do join the Sea Org and change their mind, they have the option of leaving. Many, many have taken this option, and they remain active and happy Scientologists to this day.

    With regard to Tory Christman, for every Tory there are thousands of very happy and satisfied Scientologists on the upper levels in Scientology. If or when they run into problems or issues, their fellow Scientologists are more than willing to work with them and help them as best they can.

    I’m sorry Scientology didn’t work for Tory. It is, however, working for practically everyone else.

    “-Information mentioned during auditing is kept to blackmail people out of leaving.”

    This is the typical “prove a negative”. Prove you didn’t do it. My claim is that information mentioned during auditing is NEVER revealed or used to blackmail people or prevent them from leaving. My proof are the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of satisfied members of Scientology.

    If this ever was done, it was done in complete violation of the policies of Scientology. On the other hand, if a person’s illegal or embarrassing actions are part of the public record, or were made known outside of auditing, then the Church and auditors are not to blame, the individual is.

    “-Members are told they will have an accident or commit suicide if they leave.”

    After all these years in Scientology, I have never once been told that I will have an accident or commit suicide if I leave Scientology. My choice to be involved in Scientology has ALWAYS been entirely self-determined, simply because it is an incredible philosophy and system. If there are former members who make this claim, then they clearly never really *got* Scientology.

    Further, other religions describe very dire results if one turns away from the faith. Even if Scientology were doing this, it would not be unusual in the world of religion.

    “-Members are coerced into ‘disconnecting’ from family and friends on the outside.”

    This has been fully covered here on ScientologyMyths already.

    “-Members are promised that true happiness, perfect health, and control over the universe await at the upper levels, …”

    I would dispute the word “promised” and the use of “perfect health”, but in any event, this general idea is true of any religion, even if not until the afterlife, or after may lifetimes. In Scientology, one can indeed achieve true happiness and spiritual freedom in this lifetime. Your sources are the thousands of individuals who state this every day while doing the Scientology upper levels.

    “…with a total cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

    Which, over an adult lifetime, comes out to be about 10% or so of ones income. Which is in line with what most religions request. Further, the Scientology donations, though fixed, are not required to continue to be a member of the Church of Scientology or call oneself a Scientologist. This has also been further addressed at the main ScientologyMyths site under the $cientology link.

    “… None of the promises hold true.”

    And I would say that the tens of thousands that are currently on the upper Scientology levels would disagree with you.

    “-Members may be declared SPs or given RPF time if they question the writings or actions of current or former leaders.”

    Scientologists are encouraged to question, investigate, use and otherwise fully explore everything written by Ron, Church management and/or any Scientologist. No one gets declared SP for doing so, or kicked out, etc.

    While it is true that if one chooses to WORK for the Church, particularly the Sea Org, the expectations are different. This is a choice a person makes. Frankly, this is not uncommon within the world of Churches, or even public service. Expectations are different for priests, rabbis and our elected officials. And as with other groups, if a Sea Org or staff member wishes to leave and remain active and on good terms with the Church, Scientology provides clearly defined steps and provisions to do so.

  30. “I didn’t see your original posting YAA, so I won’t comment on whether it was spam or not.”

    Then who deleted it, if you didn’t read it?

  31. @Comment by Anonymous on February 28, 2008 12:12 am

    “Okay, if it was false and a fake, why did it take the medical examiner five years to file the death certificate”

    Because once all the evidence from the country’s leading medical examiners came in, the Chief Medical Examiner (Woods) updated the death certificate to reflect her “scientific, medical and ethical opinions”.

    When the prosecution claimed that it was “all from pressure from the Church”, Woods categorically denied this and said she felt no more pressure from the Church than she felt from the prosecution.
    Source: http://www.sptimes.com/News/061400/TampaBay/Scientology_leader_wa.shtml

  32. YetAnotherAnon wrote: “I’m sorry, since when it it ‘spam’ to announce that RTC is squirreling LRH tech?”

    I didn’t see your original posting YAA, so I won’t comment on whether it was spam or not.

    But I did want to give you my reaction to your claim that RTC is squirrelling by updating the Scientology Basic Books.

    My first reaction to getting these books updated was: Finally! This was so long overdue. As a bit of background, I’ve been a Scientologist for over 25 years, and consider myself a Scientologist solely and only because of those basic books that were published in the 1970s. So I loved the old ones. In fact, they changed my life. But in all honesty, there were many, many obvious typographical and editorial errors. These books were being updated over the years (through the 80s particularly), and I started seeing improvements. The 1980s versions that came out looked pretty good — most of the typos seemed to have been fixed.

    The fact that RTC through the 1990s and early 2000s, as part of this Basic Books project, then went back to the original transcripts for these books, was very compelling. It explained a lot in terms of the corrections they made. This is particularly true when one considers the quality of recordings and likely editorial liberties people were taking in those earlier years. Further, regarding whether Ron went back and read his published books, it is well-known that Ron had a pretty heavy work-load. It was in fact his work pattern to do the basic research, record/write it up, and then leave it for others to assemble, publish and disseminate it.

    Here’s one example. The book “New Slant on Life”. This book is a compilation of essays and recorded lectures by Ron. In the opening chapter “Is It Possible to be Happy?” (a transcript of a recorded radio lecture), in the opening paragraph and sentence, RTC caught a pretty glaring error that had eluded all editors before, most likely because it could only have been caught if you went back to the original tape of the LRH lecture — which apparently had not been done until this latest set of revisions. Here’s what they found:

    1965 edition (first printing): “A great many people wonder whether half of us even *exist* in this modern, rushing world.”

    1972 edition: “A great many people wonder whether half of us even *exist* in this modern, rushing world.”

    1988 edition: “A great many people wonder whether half of us even *exist* in this modern, rushing world.”

    2007 edition (new Basic Books version): “A great many people wonder whether or not happiness even exists in this modern, rushing world.”

    To me, the simplest explanation is that this was a mis-transcription of the original lecture. This latest 2007 version clearly makes much more contextual sense than the earlier versions. In fact, when I first read this book in the early 80s, I remember thinking about this chapter — “well the chapter makes sense … except for that opening line. Where did that come from?” It just didn’t seem like something that Ron would open his most basic, introductory book with. Especially considering how down-to-earth the rest of the chapter was.

    So it certainly seems obvious that the earlier editors missed it.

    That the RTC team went back and diligently and painstakingly caught errors like this (and other even larger ones), seems very plausible. Coupled with the idea that it wasn’t Ron’s style to go back and review every one of his published works, but instead would leave the compilation, edits and publishing to others, seems to confirm that RTC is not only NOT “squirreling”, but is in fact doing everything they can to give us what Ron intended.

  33. I’m sorry, since when it it “spam” to announce that RTC is squirreling LRH tech? Are you afraid Scientologists will read this statement?

  34. @Comment by Lu on February 26, 2008 3:35 am

    Okay, if it was false and a fake, why did it take the medical examiner five years to file the death certificate you have posted which clearly shows a date of death as Dec 5, 1995 and date signed as Feb 16, 2000?

    Here’s the link, left unclickable as you mentioned this will engage the spam filter:

  35. @Comment by YetAnotherAnon on February 27, 2008 10:17 am

    Deleted. Read the FAQ. Spammers stay out.

    – Lu

  36. >>Even if the Church of Scientology were to vanish tomorrow, Scientology and Dianetics would survive.
    >Not in a workable form. The people to keep it in shape and effective would not be there. Ideas cannot survive without individuals forwarding them.

    Are you saying you would stop believing in the tech if there was no central authority controlling it?

    >But now, years later, somebody must have dug [Jenna] out and made her complain about things she did cause herself originally.

    You’re right, she did leave years ago, and spoke out recently when the new Tom Cruise book landed.

    Why would it necessarily be someone making her complain? What reason do you have for believing she did not speak out on her own volition?

    And did you even watch the interview? You’re picking on the smallest things. She was born into the Church and grew up away from her parents, and rarely saw them, an allegation I’ve heard from others as well. Or are you saying that was her choice as well?

    What about the lack of schooling, or the disconnection policy she mentions? Do you believe those are right?

    >Tory has never worked for the church. She says herself that she was a volunteer with no insight in internal administrative proceedings.

    Source? She also claims to have been in Sea Org, OT VII, and staff. Here’s a bit of her website: torymagoo.org/totally.htm

    Can you show me how OSA has changed since she worked there?

    >Poor Tory should get a life instead of loudly celebrating each time she managed to harm her former friends. It makes her sour and unhappy in the long run. This is my personal opinion.

    Really? Source? Because I’ve been watching her youtube channel at youtube.com/torymagoo44 and I see none of that. I see her celebrating Anonymous’s actions, and celebrating news of people leaving the Church.

    >Now, you will have to come out of generalities and give me some examples for “the same story”.

    Here are a few of the consistent allegations I’ve heard:
    -Information mentioned during auditing is kept to blackmail people out of leaving.
    -Members are told they will have an accident or commit suicide if they leave.
    -Members are coerced into “disconnecting” from family and friends on the outside.
    -Members are promised that true happiness, perfect health, and control over the universe await at the upper levels, with a total cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. None of the promises hold true.
    -Members may be declared SPs or given RPF time if they question the writings or actions of current or former leaders.

    >I have seen organizers at work to create the hype and recruit for Anonymous out of the *chan boards.

    Getting people involved is important. When a local, temporary leader is needed, one emerges. But there is no command structure.

    >>Anonymous is the name of a group of people who post on certain message boards without usernames.
    >Thanks. Don’t you believe that this definition has changed?

    Yes, which is why I wrote the rest of that paragraph. Anonymous now includes those who joined this movement from many different communities.

    One last thing — I know you don’t want to answer personal questions, but can you at least tell me if you are in the US or not? After listening to Gerry Ryan in Ireland I think the CoS might be very different in and out of this country.

  37. @Comment by anmn on February 25, 2008 5:09 am

    >>Your actions are targeted to destroy the basis of the religious life of many, many people and that is wrong.
    >Even if the Church of Scientology were to vanish tomorrow, Scientology and Dianetics would survive.

    Not in a workable form. The people to keep it in shape and effective would not be there. Ideas cannot survive without individuals forwarding them.

    >Anonymous does not seek the destruction of a religion. This is not about beliefs.

    Yes, I am sure you are not (yet) burning books but still that is a propaganda message. If you really honestly believe this you didn’t get far in Logic 1, sorry. There is not group without people. There is no organization without members.

    >>It’s a circus of “ex-members” which hasn’t changed the program nor the performers in 15 years.
    >What about Jenna Miscavige, who left the church last month? There’s an Inside Edition interview with her on Youtube if you haven’t seen it yet.

    Good point, I totally forgot about Jenna! She is complaining that she decided not to see her family when she was a member of the Sea Organization (I guess you know what that is?), a religious order inside Scientology which follows much stricter rules than any other Scientologist does. Jenna has agreed to those ethical rules and then did not want to follow them. As a result she left the Sea Organization several years ago. I am sure some people were happy to see her leave. She could have become a normal Scientology member but chose not to. Ok. But now, years later, somebody must have dug her out and made her complain about things she did cause herself originally. I don’t know what’s in for her on that.

    >What about Tory Christman, who left in 2000? She talked about working in OSA and setting up fake newsgroup accounts that >were used to spam alt.religion.scientology.

    Tory has never worked for the church. She says herself that she was a volunteer with no insight in internal administrative proceedings. Which does not prevent her from inventing such “insight” for the public. What she did was wrong and what she was asked to do was wrong as well. So? Has it been corrected since? Yes, it has. Poor Tory should get a life instead of loudly celebrating each time she managed to harm her former friends. It makes her sour and unhappy in the long run. This is my personal opinion. I am not into “criticising critics” and I think it is a waste of time to deal with those who think to have to settle an old score.

    >Where is the line between “they keep repeating the same old lies” and “every one of them confirms the same story”?

    A good definition for “pattern” is: “Anything repeated in a predictable combination.” In the 1960s and early 1970s there had been church branches whose staff went criminal and got punished accordingly. That’s old stuff, never occured again hence no “pattern” here. Now, you will have to come out of generalities and give me some examples for “the same story”.

    >>First of all I can’t even talk to “Anonymous” because their actual leaders won’t dare to show up here.
    >Anonymous has no leaders. Anyone claiming to represent Anonymous should not be trusted. You are currently speaking to Anonymous, and this is as much as you can expect. What would it take for you to believe that?

    For the past, that is impossible. I have seen organizers at work to create the hype and recruit for Anonymous out of the *chan boards. That’s over and there is nothing you can do to prove that wrong. I believe you saying that there are “no leaders”. That just means you are not aware of it. For the future it would take that I see that anonymous “members” make up their own mind and at least attempt to understand the “other side”. Sure it would be great if the aggression towards Scientologists and our churches would turn into something more constructive, but I do not really expect that yet.

    >>Now, what is Anonymous then?
    >Anonymous is the name of a group of people who post on certain message boards without usernames.

    Thanks. Don’t you believe that this definition has changed?

    – Lu

  38. @ Lu.

    No I don’t participate in that sort of harrassment. I will be protesting, but that is because I believe what I’m doing is right, just as you believe what you are doing is right. I would argue though that many critics of scientology get lambasted and litigated, but that’s from personal observation and it may not have anything to do with the actual phrase of SP at all.

    as to the issue with the forum, none of us is sure if there is another forum where you would be more comfortable. We could see about setting it up on one of the Ex-scientologist forums and linking to there, but I think you might have problems with that as well. and No I won’t laugh because of your interpretation of the word enturbulation in your faith. I will say that despite the name it’s probably one of the more calmer sites and you’d interact with a great deal of rational thinkers… although you would have to deal with the irational as well possibly. but that’s the way it occurs online. I’m sure chzbrgr is looking into it as well. But we sincerely hope that if there is no other forum to head to for it, that you will take coming to Enturb into consideration.

  39. @Comment by CZGrey on February 26, 2008 9:12 pm

    “I think you’ve gone to a mistaken conclusion regarding the site Enturbulation.org … Now, I am quite certain you will not take up that offer, because your own statements prove that your bias is more towards the “pro” side of your faith and beliefs which for some reason keeps you unable from dealing with every member as an actual individual with their own thoughts and opinions instead of “Suppressive Persons” out to bring down the beliefs of said CoS.”

    Ehm..I am a Scientologist. It’s kinda natural that I have a certain viewpoint about attacks on my chosen religion, isn’t it.. Please get straight on what is a “Suppressive Person” in Scientology (here for example). You seem to think that critic=SP but this is not true at all. I don’t think that there are many SPs calling themselves “Anonymous”.

    “I’d also like to take this moment to point one very important thing out to you. Just about everything you accuse the group “Anonymous” of, from being gullible but well intentioned “brainwashed zombies” led by a group of liars, to their various actions such as protesting being “hate speech” and “Oppression”, are the very same things Your leaders have been accused of.”

    Yeah, funny, isn’t it. I am getting to know Anonymous better every week, so I disagree with the picture of “brainwashed zombies”. I still think that most Anonymouses would be better off to clean their ranks of those advocating violence and stirring up hate crimes. There are too many of those. It’s hard to take “you” – as an individual – serious that way.

    “I’m not funded by anybody, I’m merely speaking my mind. And before you say I’m one sided and other such things, I will freely admit that I have never read Dianetics or taken any such course in Scientology as you state to have.”

    Neither am I (funded) but can we agree that it can’t harm to inform oneself from primary sources rather than second- and third-hand information. A lot of what I saw on the internet – even new, 2008 sites – is distorted or has deliberately given a spin against Scientology.

    “But just because I don’t read the Koran or participate in Islam, doesn’t mean I can’t understand that religion . The same goes for various branches of Christianity and Buddhism.”

    Agreed. But you are also not harassing islamists or christians with prank calls or threats (or do you?).

    “Please, do consider coming to enturbulation.org and starting up a thread for discourse. If you are truly worried about being ganged up, talk to the forum administrator or one of the mods and see if you can’t reach some sort of compromise and accomodation.”

    I would like to. Somebody else was proposing this and I really would like to join some kind of forum. My reservations are here:

    Comment by Lu on February 26, 2008 9:06 pm

    @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

  40. @Comment by I can haz chz burger on February 25, 2008 12:56 pm

    ‘DESCRIPTION OF ANONYMOUS AS PUT BY SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR.”

    Great stuff! I get a better idea about Anonymous every day thanks!

    – Lu

  41. @Comment by chzbrgr on February 26, 2008 1:41 pm

    “I am still waiting on your answer to my other questions”

    If you are the same as “chz brgr again” you find the answers above.

    “what is your opinion on miscavige slowly phasing out scriptures from the “curriculum” as it were”

    Give me an example. I am not aware of this.

    – Lu

  42. @Comment by Anonymous on February 26, 2008 5:50 pm

    “We mean you nor any other scientologist any harm, we wish you no discomfort during any of our efforts, and we appreciate the olive branch that you’ve extended out to us in the effort of both sides reaching a better understanding of one another.”

    I heard that before, but your activities show the contrary. Olive branch, that’s a funny picture. Ok, I am ready.

    “You say the organization of scientology is the same as its members but yet you talk about the leaders of Anonymous, a group that is comprised of nothing but its “members”.”

    So, what’s the problem? I as a Scientologist am attacked for things somebody else, long dead sometimes, is accused of having done. I take the duty to correct such people if I can still reach them and to find out what exactly happened.

    Anonymous members have a duty to get their fellows to stop doing criminal acts, behave like cyber-terrorists and bigots. If you can’t do that you are just a bunch of lemmings following the call of a handful of crims and you will be exposed and fall together with them. Legal proceedings are expensive in any country and you will have to prove at some point that you did not cover up criminal activities, even it you did not push the button yourself. Your cause is harmed by having criminals in your ranks, period. You better get this under control.

    – Lu

  43. I think you’ve gone to a mistaken conclusion regarding the site Enturbulation.org . If you really want to convince the folk there that what they are doing is wrong, we would be happy to accomodate you in a group discussion. This not to say you won’t be picked at, but then again everyone in these threads is picked at to some degree. However their words are taken as information and digested. It would not be a 50:1 gang up, although you will find us very much on the “con” side of Scientology, as no one from scientology will deign to have an actual civilized discourse with us, instead dismissing everything that we’ve said as the rantings of a misguided group of “pathetic computer nerds” or “cyber terrorists”, and furthermore deride the information we find online as “False” or “Forged”. We truly have no actual leaders, but if you wish to make a statement to prove it to the contrary then that site would be the place to do so.

    Now, I am quite certain you will not take up that offer, because your own statements prove that your bias is more towards the “pro” side of your faith and beliefs which for some reason keeps you unable from dealing with every member as an actual individual with their own thoughts and opinions instead of “Suppressive Persons” out to bring down the beliefs of said CoS.

    I’d also like to take this moment to point one very important thing out to you. Just about everything you accuse the group “Anonymous” of, from being gullible but well intentioned “brainwashed zombies” led by a group of liars, to their various actions such as protesting being “hate speech” and “Oppression”, are the very same things Your leaders have been accused of. I find it ironic that what Anonymous does NOT accuse you of, being the corporate shill of some shadowy group of drug pushers and psychiatrists, is the one thing you all seem so certain to be true.

    I’m not funded by anybody, I’m merely speaking my mind. And before you say I’m one sided and other such things, I will freely admit that I have never read Dianetics or taken any such course in Scientology as you state to have. But just because I don’t read the Koran or participate in Islam, doesn’t mean I can’t understand that religion . The same goes for various branches of Christianity and Buddhism. I’m not prevented from learning the total truth of any of these religions by looking up information online, reading news, or talking to their members. I don’t have a problem with your beliefs, but the gripe i do have is that your members seem to keenly feel that if I don’t read the book or take the courses I will never understand… but that’s a personal dealing and has no real bearing on the current offer. Please, do consider coming to enturbulation.org and starting up a thread for discourse. If you are truly worried about being ganged up, talk to the forum administrator or one of the mods and see if you can’t reach some sort of compromise and accomodation. I hope to see you there.

  44. You say the organization of scientology is the same as its members but yet you talk about the leaders of Anonymous, a group that is comprised of nothing but its “members”. What we mean by the organization of scientology is its leaders, the ones who control its policies and the ones responsible for the violations that we’re speaking out against. Anonymous however, is a group of individuals with no leadership, we’re only united by common interests, in this case the abuses of the organization of scientology on its members, its former members, and its critics. Nobody tells us what to do, we just do what we personally decide is something that needs to change.

    Yes, we have been pranksters in the past, and we probably will be again in the future, but for once we’re putting our efforts towards something that we truly believe to be a just cause. We mean you nor any other scientologist any harm, we wish you no discomfort during any of our efforts, and we appreciate the olive branch that you’ve extended out to us in the effort of both sides reaching a better understanding of one another. Please, try to listen and understand us a little better.

  45. I believe any logical unbiased person, put to the task of judging whether its a false document would require PROOF…….that means that you would need to furnish the original….which you have not….and if you did would most likely be impossible to verify as the original document….so that argument is now nlllified….let it not be mentoned again…

    I am still waiting on your answer to my other questions

    also….what is your opinion on miscavige slowly phasing out scriptures from the “curriculum” as it were

  46. @Comment by Anonymous on February 26, 2008 2:39 am

    “Hey Lu, I really like how you whitewash this board so thoroughly. This must take a lot work maintain ban lists and the like.”

    What are you talking about? WordPress has a spam filter and I enforce the FAQ. I have no lists or the like and I am not interested in white-washing, contrary to you who tries to use this section for some nice “black-washing”.

    “Anywho, I thought I’d ask why you don’t link to Lisa McPherson’s first death certificate in the interest of intellectual honesty.”

    It was false and a fake. Why would I be interested in to open a “forged documents” section on this blog? Listen, Anon, I am willing to take up anything but I don’t agree to slimy comments or pages of derogatory statements. I think that truth – at least a balanced view – can be presented without spin. This however requires that none of the participants has been hired by a marketing company to push a hidden agenda. I am not. Are you?

    – Lu

  47. Hey Lu, I really like how you whitewash this board so thoroughly. This must take a lot work maintain ban lists and the like. Anywho, I thought I’d ask why you don’t link to Lisa McPherson’s first death certificate in the interest of intellectual honesty. Then if you could take us through the process by which the Church of Scientology’s lawyers managed to get it changed five years later, it would make for a rollicking good blog post.

  48. oh dear Lu, you asked for quite a mouthfull… I don’t have the link to he site however I have the thesis (saved it to show to my uncle that yes other intelligent people are online :P)…here goes.

    DESCRIPTION OF ANONYMOUS AS PUT BY SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR.

    They’re trolls yes, but oddly enough they are trolls for trolls. They get off on “cleansing the internet of faggotry” which is to say, in more PC terms, making life a living hell for drama queens, trolls, whackjobs, antention whores, and essentially anyone who prefers to broadcast their idiocy throughout the internet. They’ve even gone after obvious internet pedophiles (Even though they largely treat pedophilia as a joke). Such individuals are generally ripe for responding to any poke and prod they get. Such reactionary responses are refered to as “lulz” by members of Anon. Sucessfully driving said people off the internet altogether is what Anon sees as a “victory.” Victories are rare, but they do happen. That’s not to say everyone who winds up dealing with Anon had it coming (Although, judging from most of the raids I’ve seen, most of them did.)- there have been some well meaning people who found themselves in the crossfire between Anonymous and its target. It also seems that many of Anon strive to achieve a kind of amorality. Nothing is sacred. Nothing is intrinsically good or bad. They want to be a grand equalizing force- a force for “chaotic neutrality” where both the good and the bad can become targets if they get out of hand in their view. Contrary to popular belief, they aren’t just a bunch of 15-year-olds with nothing better to do either. I’m sure most of them are of that demographic, but I’ve met people much older than 15 talk about Anonymous. Even a a few military men, as scary as that is.

    There’s no real organizaiton to Anon. Basically anyone can call themselves Anonymous and act on behalf of Anonymous. Essentially, it’s the same set up as the Church of Discord. Everyone’s a pope on their own say so, etc. etc. In fact, one could make an argument that they truely are Discord fully realized at least within the realms of the internet.

    Anonymous operates primarily from Encyclopedia Dramatica and the Chan boards- not just 4chan, but all of them. Upon diving into their little culture (if the word can be used to describe it) one may find it racist and sexist to the extreme. But the truth is that every demorgraphic, religion (including atheism), gender, and orientation is treated with the same amount of nastiness. It is a side effect of their march towards being “Chaotic Neutral.” No one is better or worse than anything else.

    As Jimboa pointed out, there are also those who take it far into the extreme and into “The Joker” territory. But again, the set up is that any nutjob that wants to be “Anonymous” can be Anonymous. Some are genuine psychos and others are mischievous, but otherwise harmless.

    Well, I’m going to stop lest I continue making myself sound like an uber-geek. I’m sure alot of people will look at this and say, “but alot of that stuff are just memes that you’re taking too seriously.” and that may be true, but then again it’s all too easy to start believing your own nonsense. And while some of this stuff may have started out as funny memes, over time, some of it has become actual (unofficial) policy- or at least so it seems from my perspective.

  49. >Your actions are targeted to destroy the basis of the religious life of many, many people and that is wrong.

    Even if the Church of Scientology were to vanish tomorrow, Scientology and Dianetics would survive.

    Anonymous does not seek the destruction of a religion. This is not about beliefs.

    >It’s a circus of “ex-members” which hasn’t changed the program nor the performers in 15 years.

    What about Jenna Miscavige, who left the church last month? There’s an Inside Edition interview with her on Youtube if you haven’t seen it yet.

    What about Tory Christman, who left in 2000? She talked about working in OSA and setting up fake newsgroup accounts that were used to spam alt.religion.scientology.

    Where is the line between “they keep repeating the same old lies” and “every one of them confirms the same story”?

    >First of all I can’t even talk to “Anonymous” because their actual leaders won’t dare to show up here.

    Anonymous has no leaders. Anyone claiming to represent Anonymous should not be trusted. You are currently speaking to Anonymous, and this is as much as you can expect. What would it take for you to believe that?

    >Now, what is Anonymous then?

    Anonymous is the name of a group of people who post on certain message boards without usernames. Threads move at crazy speed; memes rise and fall; sometimes causes emerge. If it’s a cause with potential for good or hilarity, Anonymous gets behind it. Sometimes these causes do good, sometimes they are negative. This time they are drawing a lot of disparate internet communites together because the cause is one that many can get behind.

  50. @Comment by NotQuiteAnonymous on February 22, 2008 9:00 pm

    >>”You are trying to mix two things which don’t mix. A Scientologist can be seen, felt, he bleeds, he talks. A member of “Anonymous” is meant to be an “ill wind”, masked, unidentified, a sick concept executed by some criminals for the harm of others.”

    >”I can’t see or feel YOU. Does that mean you’re not a Scientologist? What crimes have you committed that make you afraid to reveal your true identity?”

    I got a position in space, and this is right here on this blog. I am not floating around and I am responsible for what I say and what I do. We also can meet for a coffee, if you want. Send me an email.

    >>“Because nothing like this ever happened again in more than 30 years.”
    >They came from people who don’t understand Anonymous, and the only people who don’t understand Anonymous are members of the Church of Scientology.

    Ok, I am committed to understand this scene and what’s happening right now. Wanna help me doing so. Now, what is Anonymous then?

    – Lu

  51. @Comment by chz brgr again on February 25, 2008 3:39 am

    “would a psychiatrist be allowed to interview a member of sea org or RPF worker with unbiased, randomly selected non scientologist lawyer (paper, rock, scissors anyone?)?”

    Scientologists don’t like to be used as guinea pigs, you can be sure of that… .But I have seen such interviews or talks happen, in the frame of a study or something similar (like the one about the RPF). Any specifics?

    – Lu

  52. would a psychiatrist be allowed to interview a member of sea org or RPF worker with unbiased, randomly selected non scientologist lawyer (paper, rock, scissors anyone?)?

    not like I can plan this, i’m just curious

  53. @Comment by DrewSmith on February 22, 2008 8:33 pm

    “So what do you think of the re-releasing of the old tech for the low price of $5000. Thats quite a lot for about 10 or so books and however many lectures on cd.”

    There is no “old tech”. There is Scientology technology, read: theory and practice, and that has evolved from 1948 to the 1980s. But the basic system and theory is contained in 298 lectures and 18 books which are being sold for less than $3,000, if you want them in one bundle (all books hardcover and the CDs with glossary and full transcripts). I think it is great that all these materials are now available in durable form and I studied a lot of them already. The application of modern typesetting rules alone makes reading much better and easier.

    Tthese materials are the “Basics”, i.e. what every Scientologist will study sooner or later. It takes a bit to study all of it so each book or lecture series is sold separately as well, is made available in the library of each church, and “Basics” packages have been donated to ten thousands of public libraries in 15 languages. There are donation drives ongoing since last summer to get more of these materials in public libraries (the price to donate a package is even lower). All these books and lectures are produced in 15 languages and most of the books in more than 50 languages.

    “What do you know of RPF?”

    I have visited one once but I have never done the training there. It’s a place where members of the Scientology religious order called “Sea Organization” (not normal members) can go voluntarily and work on a correction program, that is to study and practice Scientology a big part of the day and to do physical work during some hours. A troup of scholars went to see various RPFs all over the world and interviewed dozens of participants before, during and after their programs. Some did not finish it, others did. It makes an interesting reading and is on the ScientologyMyths site about the RPF here.

    – Lu

  54. @Comment by Paula on February 22, 2008 7:31 am

    “A serious question here, Lu. If you are a church, whom do you worship?”

    Scientologists do not worship a specific God but think of God as an infinity. This has been subject to many expertises and scholarly investigations. One of them, called “The Object of Worship in Scientology” by a University Professor of Religious Studies can be found here: http://www.theta.com/goodman/kliever2.htm

    He says there: “Scientology clearly belongs among those religions whose worship is directed to an Absolute Reality that transcends the natural order and human existence while sustaining and fulfilling both. As noted above, the ultimate goal of the religious life in Scientology is survival ‘through a Supreme Being’ or ‘as Infinity.’ “

    For me, the most important activity which could be called “worshipping” (and this has nothing to do with bending forward and stammering some words) is auditing, the practice in Scientology to reach higher levels of consciousness and truth.

    “You see, I have a severe problem with a group masquerading as a religion without a moral code of ethics.”

    That just means you have not studied nor looked at Scientology at all. Try http://www.whatisscientology.org and http://www.scientologyreligion.org . The Moral and Ethics Codes of Scientology have been published on these sites more than 10 years ago and they ARE valid.

    “There is only one reference to sin that I can find and that is a quote by L. Ron Hubbard’s son who died of suicide.”

    Scientology does not have a Christian heritage nor the idea of “sin”. A “sin” in the sense of a bad deed is called an “overt”. An overt act is defined as:

    OVERT ACT
    1. an overt act is not just injuring someone or something; an overt act is an act of omission or commission which does the least good for the least number of dynamics or the most harm to the greatest number of dynamics.
    2 . an intentionally committed harmful act committed in an effort to resolve a problem.
    3. that thing which you do which you aren’t willing to have happen to you.
    “Dynamics” in the context of definition 1 above are one or more of “eight urges (drives, impulses) in life. These are urges for survival as or through (1) self, (2) sex and family, (3) groups, (4) all mankind, (5) living things (plants and animals), (6) the material universe, (7) spirits, and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being.”

    I just saw that I did not put the definition for overt/overt act on the site and will do so today. Thanks for the hint!

    – Lu

  55. @Comment by Anonimka on February 22, 2008 7:29 am

    “Why do you discount the testimony of ex-Scientologists in your FAQ by calling them apostates and casting aspersions on their stories by saying that they cannot be trusted, and then proceed to tell us that you heard from such and such a person that Anonymous threatened them?”

    I did not “hear” that people were threatened by Anonymous, I documented it. Court- and waterproof. And I hope that you request proof from ex-Scientologists for their horror stories and be as critical with them than with me. There are much more Scientologists than former Scientologists, or people who decided that their way is not Scientology and only a handful come up with the same allegations over and over again. It’s a circus of “ex-members” which hasn’t changed the program nor the performers in 15 years. Which is my opinion and observation. Always the same faces and the same stories.

    Honestly, I do not discount complaints of members or former members about bad conditions or unsolved problems. I think such complaints can be taken up and injustice and bad conditions can be remedied. Church members all over the world have done a lot of right and wrong in the past 60 years. Mistakes and bad deeds happened and have been tackled and corrected. I am sure there are more mistakes which need to be taken up and I don’t expect anybody to be super-perfect. But the way to go about this is in personal communication and in mediation. Not by yelling slogans or spreading hear-say and lies.

    “What if I told you that I knew people that had been threatened by Scientologists? How would you respond to that?”

    Try it.

    – Lu

  56. @Comment by chz brgr again on February 25, 2008 1:47 am

    “I read that you got alot of spam…. there is a spam filter technology called a “captcha” In whick you must prove by inteligent response whether you are a human or scripted program.”

    WordPress has something called Akismet and it is pretty good against spam-spam, meaning viagra promotion and anything like that. It does not work well with senseful looking comments which are just garble. Anyway, after I posted my protest it the spamming went down to almost nothing, so obviously there is a human reader behind it.

    “oh…one last note, what about a site additions and suggestions forum?”

    Good idea, worth a try. I put a page here on the blog called “Suggestions” (on top of the logo). It may be a bit hard to find but let’s see what’s coming in.

    – Lu

  57. @Comment by anmn on February 25, 2008 1:41 am

    “An organization is much more than the sum of its parts. Organizations like corporations and charities are legal entities that can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued.”

    Yes, but it is done by people who agree on certain policies and behavior and who forward certain purposes. Any member of this organization subscribes to that.

    “If someone sues my company, it’s not an action against me, nor any other single employee. If my company goes bankrupt, I am not necessarily ruined.”

    No, you would just be without work, safety and your creation of months or years has been smashed in pieces. But this does not compare to Churches of Scientology. Members of a Church of Scientology contribute by taking various tasks, they organize events, sell books, hold lectures, raise donations or get trained as auditors to help people. They train as volunteer ministers to be able to help others for free. Your actions are targeted to destroy the basis of the religious life of many, many people and that is wrong.

    “If anything, this movement is against those who control the organization – those who implement and enforce certain policies, those who initiate certain programs and operations.”

    I heard that. Don’t lie to yourself. Active church members, “staff”, are the most industrious and dedicated people I have ever seen. They work long hours for not a lot of money and they do it because it creates a safe and convenient space for all Scientologists to go to and to study and practice Scientology. Certainly those who want to destroy the Scientology religion would want to destroy the people the organization rests on.

    – Lu

  58. @Comment by Deek on February 22, 2008 2:22 am
    “I am curious how the actions of Anonymous have hampered the freedom of expression of Scientologists. Would you please share how the actions of that group have violated your ability to express yourself?”

    Anonymous is an issue of free speech, censorship and freedom of expression. First of all I can’t even talk to “Anonymous” because their actual leaders won’t dare to show up here. So the source of false information clogging the Internet is hiding away instead of standing “his man” and answer up on tricky issues. These special guys know they are lying and while I am kinda expected to stand the rain of derogatory and outright false information spread on the internet they probably laugh their ass off and let the child soldiers do their work. That’s the current situation.

    Then, and this is even worse, “Anonymous” is actively censoring the web, trying with Googlebombs, DDOS attacks and loads of cookie-cutter websites to drown websites of “the other side”, i.e. the Church. That is not my personal free speech, if you take it literally, but it is information which I think should be available to anyone. “Anonymous” prevents people from finding it and that is done intentionally.

    There is a different way to prevent people from finding information about Scientology and that is propaganda, the repositioning of Scientologists as “victims” of the “evil Church”. Nothing is further from the truth but this behavior and campaign is targeted to ridicule Scientologists and make them into second-class citizens. The big joke of using EFG masks against Scientology is that the true “Anonymous” was fighting a repressive government who ruled the life of all citizens. His followers were repressed people. Anonymous today tries to be this repressive government and tries to repress the lifes of Scientologists into either leaving the church or at least feeling bad about their choice of religion, even if they are not at the receiving end of anthrax scares, bomb threats or other harassment. This intolerance and blind hate restricts freedom of expression of every Scientologist and is wrong. Scientologists are a religious minority, each of them very much engaged in social programs all over the world. They are many and the amount of good being done by Scientologists every day will not cease because of some blind haters following the call of their dictator. But it is an unnecessary fight and it draws bystanders who are just out for some excitement into a criminal organization. Just wake up and smell the coffee.

    – Lu

  59. I read that you got alot of spam…. there is a spam filter technology called a “captcha” In whick you must prove by inteligent response whether you are a human or scripted program. also… i suggest you post logged IPs of spammers to disuade them (check to see if thats legal first.

    oh…one last note, what about a site additions and suggestions forum?

    sorry about the spelling…beer is my alibi

  60. >You make a mistake thinking “the organization” and “members” are different.

    No, an organization is much more than the sum of its parts. Organizations like corporations and charities are legal entities that can own property, enter into contracts, sue and be sued. If someone sues my company, it’s not an action against me, nor any other single employee. If my company goes bankrupt, I am not necessarily ruined.

    If anything, this movement is against those who control the organization – those who implement and enforce certain policies, those who initiate certain programs and operations.

  61. @Comment by Basque on February 24, 2008 1:54 pm

    “I’d just like to say that this movement criticising the practices of the Church of Scientology is not born of hatred, but concern for members.”

    You make a mistake thinking “the organization” and “members” are different. The organization consists of its members. If you are attacking “the church” you are attacking the very place built and maintained by Scientology members. And they won’t let you and fight back. This “war” is so unnecessary.

    I am not at all feeling attacked by questions but I cannot allow this place to become filled with statements and spam-like repostings. I am sure you understand this. This blog has the purpose to answer questions about Scientology and is not an advertisement place for either side.

    Have a nice weekend (for what is left of it).

    – Lu

  62. @Comment by Basque on February 24, 2008 1:54 pm

    “I’d just like to say that this movement criticising the practices of the Church of Scientology is not born of hatred, but concern for members.”

    You make a mistake thinking “the organization” and “members” are different. The organization consists of its members. If you are attacking “the church” you are attacking the very place built and maintained by Scientology members. And they won’t let you and fight back. This “war” is so unnecessary.

    I am not at all feeling attacked by questions but I cannot allow this place to become filled with statements and spam-like repostings. I am sure you understand this. This blog has the purpose to answer questions about Scientology and is not an advertisement place for either side.

    Have a nice weekend (for what is left of it).

    – Lu

  63. @Comment by Anonymous on February 24, 2008 11:10 am

    “There are people in anonymous who care for you and will make sure that you are looked after and protected you if you decide to leave Scientology.”

    Does that mean you care sh** about me right now? Don’t worry, I can take care for myself and always did.

    – Lu

  64. I’m glad you’re in contact with your family, I know it can sometimes be difficult, especially if they have reservations about the Church, it doesn’t look like you have that problem, which is great.
    I think you’ve got enough questions on your plate without me weighing in! I’m glad you feel free and are happy in your belief system, I don’t think anyone here would want to take that from you. I could understand if you feel attacked by the sheer number of questions here but I think people are just interested to hear your take on things, seeing as you have shown a remarkable willingness to engage with everyone. I’d just like to say that this movement criticising the practices of the Church of Scientology is not born of hatred, but concern for members. As someone has already said, please don’t think people are attacking you, what is being criticised is the organisational structure of the Church, and the way its members and critics are treated. I hope you’re having a lovely weekend.

  65. 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 :P

  66. Hey Lu, Anonymous here. Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading your blog and comments. There are people in anonymous who care for you and will make sure that you are looked after and protected you if you decide to leave Scientology. Take care and have a good day! :-)

  67. @Comment by basque on February 23, 2008 3:00 pm

    Thank you. I am doing the best I can. Unfortunately what passes as “the policies” of my church here on the internet is awfully distorted and I have even seen outright fakes. So here I am to say something about this and I am happy that you found this place. What do you want to know?

    – Lu

    PS: I do have a family that loves me, a few of them are Scientologists, others are not, but that does not bother either of us. That would be just another myth spread with the purpose to actually destroy family relations.

  68. Hi Lu,
    wanted to say that it’s really impressive to see you dealing with all this criticism head on. I certainly don’t agree with the policies of your church, and would very much like for you to be able to be with people who love you and are not trying to extort money from you very soon. However, I think it takes some doing for you to be openly addressing these very difficult questions. Take care of yourself, I’m sure you have a family that loves you.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos