There are no stupid questions – here’s your chance!

Hi there,

and thanks for visiting this blog! I put it up to give you the opportunity to ask questions, about Scientology, Scientologists and whatever you feel it related to that. If you are here to make statements or raise a fuss, you are violating the only rule this blog has. So please, don’t to it.

– Louanne

PS: 20 Feb 2009, the current thread became too long so I opened a new one here.

133 Comments

  1. #Comment by Confused on February 11, 2009 8:36 pm

    1) Super Power is not mentioned in the article link so I make a guess that you are talking about the two buildings in Tampa that are close to completion: The purpose of the Super Power building and the Fort Harrison buildings couldn’t be more different. One is a training place for a special Scientology service and the other one is a hotel/berthing/event space.

    2) Bunker? All I see are media assumptions and the usual “expert” making wild guesses but nothing about a bunker. It could be an underground garage, food space or vine cellar (after all it is a farm).

    – L

  2. Hi again Scientologists!

    I notice my previous questions haven’t been answered yet but it doesn’t look like either Pat or Louanne have been around to answer them in the last couple weeks. hopefully they’ll answer the previous ones and this one at the same time.

    My new question is about this news story:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490844,00.html

    My questions are:

    1) Why is the CoS undertaking another building project when the Super Powers building (sorry, not sure if has a proper name, that’s what I always see it referred to as) in Clearwater hasn’t been standing unfinished for years? Not to mention other Scientology buildings that seem to be incomplete. Wouldn’t it make more sense to finish projects with all available resources prior to undertaking new ones? The Super Power building in particular because it is incurring fines for every day it is not complete and how has years worth of fines levied against it.

    2) Why build another bunker at all? Isn’t there already one (or two)? I mean the bunkers and it’s contents are built to withstand nuclear war from what I’ve read. What is the point of building multiple? If the bunker’s purpose is to maintain Hubbard’s writings etc. isn’t nuclear war pretty much the worst that can happen? They’re already built to survive that. Why do it again, especialy when there are other projects that remain unfinished (the SP Building)?

  3. Hi!
    First, thanks for taking the time to read and reply all these comments.
    I will try to keep my questions short and to the point.

    I recently got interested in learning more about Scientology. I have visited the site, saw some videos, and got the dianetics book (which im starting to read). I also tried to get in touch with someone else who knew more than me on these subjects, unfortunately im living in South America and there arent many churches here (none close to where i live) so, i wanted to know if it is possible to learn it only from the books and tapes?

    second, could you point me to some source of information that could help me?
    Most sites end in specific discussions between members, and its quite hard for a newcomer to follow them, not to mention the degree of disorder you can find on them.

    Last, is there a way of chatting with scientologists to ask questions, doubts, etc?
    Well thats all…Thanks again.

  4. Mary Sue Hubbard is dead, sorry.

  5. does anyone of you good people know what happened to Mary Sue Hubbard?
    if i informed myself correctly on the internet by reliable and non reliable sources, she disconnected from Scn. was she also a SO member?
    does anyone know, if i got married in the SO, and my partner disconnects, would i be supposed to divorce him or would just a disconnection from him be enough? is there a Policy Letter that applies to that subject?

    thanks for your answers
    zara

  6. According to your blog entry about the RPF:
    “There are two ways an individual may embark on the RPF program A person may either request admission, or he may be assigned to the program for severe violation of the theological and ethical tenets held sacred by the Church.””

    What would happen if David Miscavige himself severly violated the theological and ethical tenets sacred by the Church?
    Is there anyone in the position, who could assignDavid Miscavige to the RPF or can David Miscavige just do whatever he wants?

  7. You see the RPF programme as something beneficial.
    Has David Miscavige ever been in the RPF himself?

  8. Ok hai ^^,
    my name is Booxy and it’s been a while since i had a religion, so i decided that because of recent events i could join a NEW religion.
    So ya, let’s just start off by getting a couple of things straight:
    I don’t do drugs!
    I know that you probably think that i do drugs, but i don’t actually and i don’t actually have ADD either, aahahahaha , which is funny to me :-D

  9. Hi Scientologists! I have returned after a few months with more questions. This whole thing is really quite interesting to watch unfold from the sidelines.

    My first questions are about this: On the Anonymous website (whyweprotest.net) they appear to have a recent email soliciting scientologists to donate so that the basic books can be donated to libraries around the US. Here are the questions:

    1) Have any of you recieved this email or been asked to make donations in the past month or so to help with this initative?

    2) I thought this was done months ago. Louanne and Pat have said as much in previous threads (and maybe this one) and other message boards/articles that all libraries around the US have recieved the books. I’m pretty sure there was even announcements made at various scientology events to that effect (I could be wrong on that point)Why are they soliciting for donations to get books into libraries if the libraries already have them? Or did they not complete the job yet?

    My next set of questions are in regards to the Scientologists who were running Second Chance in New Mexico (the Crimonon (sp?) program basically). News reports claim that they packed up and split owing a bunch of money to people and some claims bordering on fraud. I’m not really looking to debate the facts of the case as those aren’t all known yet, my questions are more general in terms of the aftermath.

    3) From my understanding Scientology has their own division that looks into crimes committed by Scientologists (Ethics people… sorry, I’m not totally up on terms. Basically those that make sure scientology is being run properly and no tech is being used improperly). Will they be looking at the actions of these scietologists and whether the tech was properly applied?

    4) Will any sort of action be taken by whatever division of scientology oversees licencing of Crimonon/second chance/Narconon to distance themselve from these people assuming it has been shown they acted unethically (ditching out on paying rent/utilities etc.) If it were my stuff being licenced I’d be pissed to be associated with people who may be facing criminal charges.

    5) According to news reports the Second Chance center took in female prisoners which was against their agreement with the state/county/city (i’m not sure which, some level of government). From a scientology standpoint, would this be seen as unethical (It has been said that L. Ron said to follow all the laws of the land that Scientology was operating in), or ethical because they are trying to help the greatest number of people, even if it means breaking the rules put upon them by the government.

    If you’re unfamiliar with the news story I’m refering to above you can probably just google “Second Chance + New Mexico” and catch up from there.

    Thank you and I look forward to your answers.

  10. i have a question, itll probably sound stupid to you because what i believe isnt what you believe but here here goes: why would you ever attempt to delete any posts made on this blog when in your faq you complain about other people taking away your right to free speech? “Free speech goes in two directions. Those who try to harm mine will be deleted.” youre basically closing off the other side of the road here…

  11. thanks Pat, i will do that..

  12. In reply to Zara

    Thank you for your honesty about your views on exchange. I see that you are trying to be responsible.

    In the ethics book there are ways to get recourse, including petition. You should take a look at that, as to how it relates to your cycle. You might be surprised at the help you can get to resolve things.

    Pat

  13. to continue, however it is a fact that i have not been informed of the consequences that occur if i decided to break the contract, not by scn or other sources. i was presented a rather idyllic contract that did not contain information of terms of leaving. /that gave an idea to me it is not a serious dedication (i was young)/therefore that could bring some upset on the leaving party and explains complaints of some ex members.

    i don’t want to indulge myself to blame others that i failed to inform myself about what happens when i break the contract. that is a lesson and life is one excellent teacher. from my reasoning the SO has right to claim the freeloader bill no matter how big it is. it is their price… i know it seems unfair yet, i joined willingly and used all the benefits i am now asked to refund. to bad for me. but money is just money – it comes and goes, not the worst thing that can happen to me in life.

    i did some thinking about children born in the SO. it is not right that they should also be treated same way as people that joined on their own will and then disconnected. those kids had no part in deciding where they would spend their lives. some of them may want to be something different than scientologists. they should not be given that notorious freeloader bill should they decide to leave.

    john, i probably have my own problems. i felt the same way as i was presented the debt (it was kind of a shock to me), but the more i thought about it, i realized it is my own problem i broke a contract i signed, my own problem i didn’t inform myself properly, my own problem. maybe i am strange, but that is how i honestly feel. and i feel i did my job while there responsibly and i gave my best, so if it is the money that lays on my chest, i would pay it to even the scores. that is how far i will go to set my mind on ease. i don’t want to upset readers by my posts, i am sorry if i did

  14. Zara,

    You wrote: “i worked and contributed to the SO as an exchange for food and shelter SO provided for me.”

    You worked for the SO in exchange for food and shelter? That doesn’t seem like a fair exchange to me. It would only be a fair exchange if you received something worth as much as what you gave. But you didn’t; you received something worth much less than what you gave. You received food and shelter worth $100 per week, when you gave labor worth $1000 per week. In other words, you received one-tenth as much as you gave. That doesn’t seem like a fair exchange at all.

    You wrote: “(you buy a book. any book. once you read it, you realize it sucks. you are disappointed. yet, you gave money for it)”

    That’s not the same. When you buy a book, you pay about $15 or so, which is equivalent to 1 hour of labor and not 50 hours of labor. If you don’t like the book, you just leave it on your shelf, and you don’t have a freeloader debt afterwards.

    You wrote: “i don’t need to be convinced what is a proper thing to do .. we all know well in our hearts what is right and what is wrong.”

    Zara, when did you start feeling that way in your heart? When did you start feeling that it’s right for you to give so much, in exchange for so little? When did you start feeling that it’s immoral if you don’t give and give and give to them? Did you start feeling that way after they told you so? After they told you about “fair exchange”, “out-exchange”, “freeloaders”, and so on?

    “we all know in our hearts what is right and what is wrong.”

    I feel in my heart that you are being taken advantage of. I feel it’s sad, because you seem like a nice and innocent person.

    Best wishes, Zara.

    John Friedman

  15. Hey zara, it’s cool, if you are happy and find the freeloader debt fair. I don’t want to invalidate you at all.
    But personally i don’t think it is a fair exchange, that you have to pay the cost for ALL the training and auditing that you received in the Sea Org, because at least a part of your work should have already acquitted a part of the cost for processing and training. Otherwise all your hard work did only count for the $50 per week, food and shelter and nothing else.

  16. i understand what you are saying in your posts, Truth, Kenny, J Friedman. and i could agree with all that from you point of view.

    it is pointless to engage in any further discussion about my private matters since i don’t need to be convinced what is a proper thing to do .. we all know well in our hearts what is right and what is wrong.

    so this is my viewpoint: i worked and contributed to the SO as an exchange for food and shelter SO provided for me. all the training and processing, courses and study are complementary as long as you are a member of the SO. once you cease to be one, you should pay for that as any other “public”. isn’t that fair???
    it is your misfortune if you feel you have no value of the tech and training aquired as you leave that group. you should still be responsible to pay for it.
    (you buy a book. any book. once you read it, you realize it sucks. you are disappointed. yet, you gave money for it)

  17. As you can see here http://www.vimeo.com/2907540 there are several ex sea org members, who protest against the abuses at gold base.
    Why would they all lie?

  18. Hello Zara.

    You wrote: “of course i needed to pay for the courses i did while i was in the SO.. and that is one fair exchange..”

    I don’t understand why it’s a fair exchange. I thought you had already paid for the courses you took while you were in the sea org, by your labor, in which case you’re paying a second time through your debt, which is not a “fair exchange”. Didn’t you already give 90+ hours per week of essentially free labor in order to pay for those courses? Doesn’t that imply that you already paid for them, and have no outstanding debt to scientology upon leaving the sea org? But if you do have a debt for the courses you took, then what was your labor paying for?

    You wrote: “it is the same in everyday life, at least it is so in my country. you have a job and your employer decides to improve your professional skills by giving you a scholarship and you graduate and continue to work there for some more time after which you decide to change your job. Your employer is then asking for a refund”

    But that’s not the same. You only pay once to your employer, either through debt or through unpaid labor, but not both.

    Zara, how long were you in the sea org, and how much debt were you left with at the end of it? And, how many hours of courses did you receive while in the sea org?

    John Friedman

  19. of course i needed to pay for the courses i did while i was in the SO.. and that is one fair exchange.. it is the same in everyday life, at least it is so in my country. you have a job and your employer decides to improve your professional skills by giving you a scholarship and you graduate and continue to work there for some more time after which you decide to change your job. Your employer is then asking for a refund for your scholarship since you no longer wish to work for him..

    it is not the worse thing that can happen to you, Truth. you pay it and continue along with your life with a clean heart. and i am talking here about the everyday life example.. not to say that he (your employer) can actually sue you legally if you fail to pay the refund

  20. @Comment by Truth on January 22, 2009 5:52 pm

    “Sea Org members are paid $50.00 a week. They work 90+ hours every week and see a very very rare day off.

    What Pat is trying to tell you Kenny is that Sea Org members get auditing in exchange for their extreme hard work. Yet what she fails to see is that Sea Org members don’t get very much auditing while there”

    I said training AND auditing. How many Sea Org members have you talked to arrive at this opinion? And the only ones, complaining, evidently, are those that weren’t in the Sea Org on the same terms as the rest of them. Had another agenda. The real ROTF LMAO here is that this is all very upfront. Sea Org members know before they join that it’s hard work, and still join. Do you have a problem with people working toward a dedicated single goal as a group? Seems so to me. You also put more stock in a MEST-oriented world (Matter, Energy, Space and Time) than in helping others. That’s why Sea Org members are unique. They aren’t afraid of hard work and will do whatever needs to be done to get the job done. That’s why their motto is:
    “Many are called. Few are chosen”

    You have no idea. You just read an anti-scientology site and don’t bother asking the actual people – the Sea Org members.

    “If a person decides to leave the Sea org, they are required to pay back (in money) everything they did in Scientology while there. Regardless of all the hard work for only $50.00 a week.”

    That $50.00 isn’t pay. It’s a spending allowance. Again, it’s all about the money with you.

    “Funny enough Hubbard makes it a point that exchange is paramount, yet Sea org members that leave not only leave with little to show for all their work but the leave with a huge debt.”

    No, Purpose is paramount. Who’s complaining about the debt? Why, gee, it’s those who left. Fancy that!

    Nothing funny about it. They knew that going in, dude. Why complain if they decide to leave?

    “The Sea Org doesn’t cover medical or dental unless it’s an emergency.

    Isn’t that true Pat?”

    Nope. That’s BS. I have friends in the Sea Org and know for a fact that is not true. What I find even more interesting is that the Sea Org members I know are healthy with only occasional need for Doctors. Again, you’re going off stuff from those who failed to make the grade and now choose to try to lessen the very group they failed. Interesting that you have chosen to champion them without finding out the “truth”.

    You really need to do your research better.

    Pat

  21. @Comment by Kenny on January 24, 2009 5:15 pm

    Thanks Pat, but my question was for zara and not for you.

    You’re welcome! Just wanted to point out that it’s already been answered so Zara can see what you’re trying to do here.

    Pat

  22. Thanks Pat, but my question was for zara and not for you.

  23. @ Comment by Truth on January 23, 2009 10:42 pm

    You’re stuck on money, it seems. It’s like I told Kenny. These Sea Org members are very dedicated individuals and love their life. Here comes you with your viewpoint garnered from someone who is not in that dedicated group anymore, and think that it’s all there is.

    If you really wanted truth, you’d talk to Sea Org members too and get a balanced view. You sure don’t have it.

    The Sea Org is not for those who can’t commit to that dedication. Who are you to say that they should be materialists like you, to be accepted by you?

    Pat

  24. @ Comment by utculcltzbvolgf7 on January 23, 2009 4:31 pm

    Do you have an actual question?

    Pat

  25. @ Comment by Kenny on January 24, 2009 10:57 am

    “Another question to zara:

    Do you have to pay a freeloader debt?”

    if she received any services while she was in, she would. Why wouldn’t she exchange for what she got? Are you trying to push your criminal viewpoint here? (By your own admission, you don’t believe in needing to exchange for those things you get. That’s criminal thinking)

    Pat

  26. @ Comment by Kenny on January 24, 2009 10:55 am

    “What exactly do you have to do, if you want to leave the SO via the proper route and not get declared SP?”

    Just ask and go through the steps on a routing form. Simple. That’s what is meant by “route out”. I answered this for you already, Kenny.

    Pat

  27. Another question to zara:
    Do you have to pay a freeloader debt?

  28. What exactly do you have to do, if you want to leave the SO via the proper route and not get declared SP?

  29. truth, there is a huge difference in our opinions.. what i wrote earlier is simply my experience in the SO.
    reasons i left the SO are private, however i must indicate that i did not leave because i did not want to be there.. as i said, i had some personal issues

    i am sorry Truth, but you are misleading people by telling them life in there is so terrible. for many of the SO members is good.
    *it is not true you don’t get medical attention if you request for it. that is not the fact.
    *it is not true you get declared as suppresive if you tell you wish to get out and do it so through the proper route (that should not be a problem to any one)

  30. # Comment by Truth on January 22, 2009 8:44 pm

    Zara, are you a Scientologist?

    zara: no, not now
    i was a member of the Sea org for a very short while.. still i have high hopes for Scn and would be very disappointed to discover it is only a beautiful make-believe

    to those concerned about the Sea Org:
    the Sea org is a good place to be.. when you are a part of the SO you don’t dwell over money and how much you get paid.. you are happy to work long hours.. you actually have a purpose and a goal which feels better than your new car, a new dress, skiing trip to Aspen.. and you feel so in your heart.
    if those things become relevant to you while being there, you are not cut out for it.. people who are up to it, don’t bother with finding answers they want to read and they certainly don’t have time to hang on the net
    children are highly valued in the SO. since most of them work in the CMO (commodores messengers) department, which is senior to the regular org, they are your superiors even though you may be fifty. they are considered responsible and able beings, and treated as adults and with respect (standard social graces amongst all). so, no harassment or abuse have i ever encountered while i was there. in fact, the atmosphere is bright, you can feel relaxed, there is no suppression of any kind directed to an individual. sometimes it can get stressed – but that depends solely on yourself and your ability to interact with others.. stress is a matter of a viewpoint
    so it is a good place to be
    the SO members know why they are there and are proud to be there

    what i wrote is what i saw. and that is true.

  31. Pat said:

    You have probably never had to be responsible for the survival of another or yourself on any scale, have you?

    You are is only getting the side of the people complaining that someone won’t talk to them, and you’re not looking at who created that situation, or the harm it created to the group dynamic. Liken that to the group of a husband with a wife and kids, who is responsible for providing food and warmth and survival for a family, just walking out the door because “he should be able to leave whenever he wants”. That concept really sucks, responsibility-wise, doesn’t it?”

    If this responsibility that you are talking about has to be forced with threats of SP declares and disconnection, then it is not true responsibility. It doesn’t speak for the Sea Org, if their members have to be forced to stay in the group with these drastic measures instead of developing a natural responsibility for their group, that makes them stay in the group on their own, because they believe in what they do and not, because they fear of getting declared and disconnected, when they leave.

  32. thank you for your reply Kenny and just to let you know that it is clear to me now what is the most correct source of information in the future. the author himself. i actually did not know how wiki works.. i feel really happy for clearing that out for me.. thank you
    it is sad to me how scientology is being trashed on the internet

  33. “Do you have an actual question or are you just trying to make a statement?”

    I am trying to find truth. YOU seem to be one, who has already made up his mind, not me.
    Anyway, i won’t comment on this topic any further.

  34. @ Comment by Kenny on January 22, 2009 5:49 am

    “1) False. Sea Org members are on a par with Missionaries. They get room and board and their training and processing. Priceless. They get paid alot!”

    How much do they get paid in money?

    Answered. What you’re not getting here is what Sea Org members receive is worth a great deal. It varies how much from person to person. Money is only a means of exchange. You can get paid in coin or services or goods. If you understand that, you’re one step up on economics. How much is irrelevant, Kenny. Pick another subject.

    What is all that training and processing really worth, if they can’t use it in their live, because they are bound to living and working in a compound without freedom?

    Ah, now I see. Scientology is an APPLIED religious philosophy. It is for use. It is used to help oneself and others become more themselves. You evidently haven’t experienced for yourself that it works, or you wouldn’t have this question. Sea Org members have experienced that, so they personally have no problem with the exchange they get.

    If they are so dedicated and work so much, they should get more in reward than just shelter, processing and training. Marc Headly was only paid $2000 per year.

    And how much did he receive in valuable training that he can use anywhere? You are really stuck on this money thing. You have NO idea about Scientology and what it does, and the benefits gained from it’s use. I know that right away, as soon as someone starts sniping about paying for service and books.

    The Church is rich, why doesn’t it grant their most dedicated members at least the minimum wage?

    The Church of Scientology is a not for profit organization. All funds go to the support of the Church and it’s many social betterment activities. No one individual benefits.

    That’s documented.

    We are very rich, but not in money. We have the technology that can bring spiritual freedom to mankind. That’s worth working for to many.

    The only ones I see having trouble with Sea Org member’s benefits are those who weren’t able to make the grade.

    What I am seeing now, Kenny is that you’re violating the only rule this forum has, and that is that this is not a place to come with your statements, when you have already made up your mind, so it doesn’t matter what I answer. Read the FAQ.

    Do you have an actual question or are you just trying to make a statement?

    Pat

  35. @ Comment by zara on January 22, 2009 9:02 am

    I thought that my position on Wikipedia is clear. ANYONE CAN WRITE ANYTHING and no, it is not from news sources. It’s any person who wants to take the time to write something and it sits there until someone challenges the cites, and it’s a favorite place for the critics, because of that.

    Wiki is late on the chain of people repeating what other people say as source instead of finding out for themselves. Go to source, Zara. Read some of his books. Read his bio. Decide for yourself if it’s true or not. In Scientology, what’s true for you is what you have personally observed to be true. That’s having personal integrity.

    The truth about LRH is here.

    http://www.lronhubbard.org

    i want to thank for your prompt response, although i did not understood the comment.
    my question is – are the data presented by wikipedia regarding the subject of Scn true?

    Are they?

  36. @zara:
    Wikipedia does not check facts itself. It only cites from news sources. So, if you want to know whether something on wikipedia is true or not, you should check the sources that it cites and see for yourself.

  37. i want to thank for your prompt response, although i did not understood the comment.
    my question is – are the data presented by wikipedia regarding the subject of Scn true?
    for example the whole article about his personality.. it seems untrue to me, but then if that was a lie, it should not be published on a public domain since it is wrong, deceiving and misleading.

    what is your opinion on wikipedia regarding to the subject of scn and LRH?

  38. “1) False. Sea Org members are on a par with Missionaries. They get room and board and their training and processing. Priceless. They get paid alot!”

    How much do they get paid in money?

    Answered. What you’re not getting here is what Sea Org members receive is worth a great deal. It varies how much from person to person. Money is only a means of exchange. You can get paid in coin or services or goods. If you understand that, you’re one step up on economics. How much is irrelevant, Kenny. Pick another subject.

    What is all that training and processing really worth, if they can’t use it in their live, because they are bound to living and working in a compound without freedom?
    If they are so dedicated and work so much, they should get more in reward than just shelter, processing and training. Marc Headly was only paid $2000 per year.
    The Church is rich, why doesn’t it grant their most dedicated members at least the minimum wage?
    In our economy It is very relevant whether you get paid in coin, goods or services. Only money is the universal good that you can trade for everything else.
    I won’t pick another subject, just because you are unable to defend your position with strong arguments.

  39. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Public_domain_and_the_Internet

    “Freely obtained does not mean free to republish

    These factors have reinforced the false notion that “freely obtained” means “public domain.” One could argue that the Internet is a publicly available domain, not licensed or controlled by any individual, company, or government; therefore, everything on the Internet is public domain. This specious argument ignores the fact that licensing rights are not dependent on the means of distribution or consumer acquisition. (If someone gives a person stolen merchandise, it is still stolen, even if the receiving party was not aware of it.) Chasing down copyright violations based on the idea that information is inherently free has become a primary focus of industries whose financial structure is based on their control of the distribution of such media.”

  40. “It is no more complex than the point that IF they are put up on the internet for download, they become public domain. Look it up.”

    No, they don’t become public domain, just because you put them on the internet.
    It is just another way to distribute them. The church can keep the books copyrighted, but distribute them online for free.
    Why don’t you want this?

  41. @ Comment by zara on January 21, 2009 8:47 pm

    Zara,

    Read the articles here:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info

    Look at this link also:
    http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part11/Chp35/index.html

    Wikipedia is a peer written web site. ANYONE can write ANYTHING there.

    Pat

  42. @ Comment by Kenny on January 21, 2009 7:58 am

    “1) False. Sea Org members are on a par with Missionaries. They get room and board and their training and processing. Priceless. They get paid alot!”

    How much do they get paid in money?

    Answered. What you’re not getting here is what Sea Org members receive is worth a great deal. It varies how much from person to person. Money is only a means of exchange. You can get paid in coin or services or goods. If you understand that, you’re one step up on economics. How much is irrelevant, Kenny. Pick another subject.

    “False. You will get declared without availing yourself of the standard leaving procedures, including finding and getting to face up to any areas where there were harmful acts of omission or commission. To leave without that means that you don’t want something found out about. Leaving by properly routing out is not considered a harmful act. That doesn’t mean that the group thinks it’s ok. If you (generic “you”) were there on the same terms as the rest and couldn’t pull the weight then you let everyone down. Don’t expect to be well-liked for doing it.”

    That means, if they don’t properly route out, their families, who are still Scientologists, won’t talk to them anymore, because they are SP. That’s not right in my opinion.

    So, who is responsible for that if they know the rules going in? (And they do, believe me. Don’t try to make this about the Church, when it was the person who “blew”)

    They should be free to leave whenever they want and however they want, without getting declared.

    You have probably never had to be responsible for the survival of another or yourself on any scale, have you?

    You are is only getting the side of the people complaining that someone won’t talk to them, and you’re not looking at who created that situation, or the harm it created to the group dynamic. Liken that to the group of a husband with a wife and kids, who is responsible for providing food and warmth and survival for a family, just walking out the door because “he should be able to leave whenever he wants”. That concept really sucks, responsibility-wise, doesn’t it?

    “Based on your question about the books, I could get the idea that you are one of those that thinks you can get something of value for nothing. I hope I’m wrong, Kenny.”

    You are NOT wrong.

    I see. Explains the attitude. No exchange is ok with you.

    You can already get the books for free in a library as you said.

    Exactly. So having them on the internet is a moot point.

    It is no more complex than the point that IF they are put up on the internet for download, they become public domain. Look it up.

    The problem you’re trying to solve is that you say they aren’t in the libraries in Germany and I say they are. Did you email LouAnne? She’ll point you to a library where they ARE.

    Pat

  43. does wikipedia contain false data regarding the subject of Scientology and personal data of LRH? could it be taken seriously?

    did LRH marry more than twice during his lifetime (as LRH)?

    are the affirmations (the admissions) posted by G Armstrong on the internet true? if those admissions are a hoax, does a similar document exist and with what purpose?

    is it true that LRH’s wife Marry Sue disconnected from the Church but remained married to LRH? is it true that she founded Guardian’s Office? (all data taken from wikipedia)

    i have noticed that several individuals (g armstrong, j atac, r dewolf and more) have thier websites where they spread lies to general public. my question is why are they allowed to misinform public? isn’t that against the law?

    thank you so much

  44. Next question:

    Does David Miscavige beat up staff members at gold base, as at least 4 exmembers claim?
    (Marc Headly, Jeff Hawkins, Chuck Beatty, Jesse Prince)

  45. “Yes, they are in German libraries, too. Tell LouAnne your city and she can give you the nearest church or library to check.”

    No, they are not! I’ve checked it myself already.

    “Copyright is copyright. The Religiious Technology Center owns them. By putting ANYTHING on the internet (the church doing it) would stop protecting the works that are being preserved. I’m sorry you don’t see that. Maybe you should look up what public domain means, then think about what that would do to the preservation of what works.

    You don’t understand the difference between “public domain” and “free”.
    I don’t say that the books should be given into the public domain, so that anyone can alter them. The church can KEEP its copyright for the books, but just distribute the books online without requesting money for it. Just like they have already made available parts of the “Scientology Handbook” online for free.
    The church could just put a donate button on their website, so that people can give how much they think the books are worth.

  46. “1) False. Sea Org members are on a par with Missionaries. They get room and board and their training and processing. Priceless. They get paid alot!”

    How much do they get paid in money?

    “False. You will get declared without availing yourself of the standard leaving procedures, including finding and getting to face up to any areas where there were harmful acts of omission or commission. To leave without that means that you don’t want something found out about. Leaving by properly routing out is not considered a harmful act. That doesn’t mean that the group thinks it’s ok. If you (generic “you”) were there on the same terms as the rest and couldn’t pull the weight then you let everyone down. Don’t expect to be well-liked for doing it.”

    That means, if they don’t properly route out, their families, who are still Scientologists, won’t talk to them anymore, because they are SP. That’s not right in my opinion.
    They should be free to leave whenever they want and however they want, without getting declared.

    “Based on your question about the books, I could get the idea that you are one of those that thinks you can get something of value for nothing. I hope I’m wrong, Kenny.”

    You are NOT wrong.
    You can already get the books for free in a library as you said.
    The most part of the internet is FREE. You can use google without paying anything. You can watch the videos on scientology.org without paying.
    Why can’t you get the basic books of L. Ron Hubbard for free on the internet? It certainly doesn’t cost any more to make these available online, than hosting the videos, that are currently on scientology.org. That doesn’t make sense.
    Especially if you think that the books are so beneficial for humanity. Why not use the best medium that exists in modern society to disseminate he books with maximal reach out for everyone?
    L. Ron Hubbard wrote the books and not the RTC. So if LRH would still be alive, i could understand that he would want a service in return for his work. But he is dead, so there is no reason, why these books shouldn’t be distributed online for free, so that everyone can benefit from these works.
    It would also help to better the image of the church, which is considered as a money hungry corporation by many people today.

  47. @Comment by Kenny on January 21, 2009 7:04 am

    Yes, they are in German libraries, too. Tell LouAnne your city and she can give you the nearest church or library to check.

    Copyright is copyright. The Religiious Technology Center owns them. By putting ANYTHING on the internet (the church doing it) would stop protecting the works that are being preserved. I’m sorry you don’t see that. Maybe you should look up what public domain means, then think about what that would do to the preservation of what works.

    Pat

  48. Dianetic and Scientology videos here:

    http://www.dianetics.org
    http://www.scientology.org

    Pat

  49. @Comment by John Friedman on January 20, 2009 6:08 am

    “7) Again, the answer to that is in the book Dianetics. And yes, I am not occluded by a subconcious (reactive) mind.”

    I don’t think you answered precisely the question which I asked. My original question was, “do clears have perfect recall”.

    I can’t answer for anyone else. I answered for me. I am no longer occluded in recalling my past. As one moves up the levels, realities can change, as more and more “case” (how one responds to the world around him by reason of those things that make him occluded and are capable of causing him to behave in non-survival directions) is handled. Doesn’t that mean “perfect recall” to you? That’s that person’s reality, maybe trying to use terms that you’d understand. I am right back to wondering why you don’t just read the books? All of these questions will be answered for you according to your own personal integrity. I don’t mind answering questions, but what happens in my own life is irrelevant to what you yourself can get out of it. What’s true for me, may not be true for Sam or Joe or Jack (:p or John). When people want to know what I got out of it personally that’s what I’m saying if I answer. Someone else may get more. It’s my reality and may not be real to you. There are videos on line (see links) where people share their successes. As an OT III, I got the end phenomena as stated on the Gradation and awareness chart. Freedom from overwhelm. What that entails may not fully communicate, but it’s what I have. There is so much available to you right now, that you should try to get some basic ideas from the books.

    And, John. If you audit and gain the state of Clear, I think you’ll want to stay connected to other Scientologists who share a reality, but you can always leave if you want.

    Pat

  50. Errata

    3) False. You WILL get declared if you “blow”, without availing yourself of the standard leaving procedures, including finding and getting to face up to any areas where there were harmful acts of omission or commission. To leave without that means that you don’t want something found out about. Leaving by properly routing out is not considered a harmful act. That doesn’t mean that the group thinks it’s ok. If you (generic “you”) were there on the same terms as the rest and couldn’t pull the weight then you let everyone down. Don’t expect to be well-liked for doing it.

    Pat

  51. @Comment by Kenny on January 21, 2009 3:11 am

    Are the following rumours about Sea Org members, who work at Gold base (Golden era productions in hemet california) true?
    As you say, these are rumors.

    1) False. Sea Org members are on a par with Missionaries. They get room and board and their training and processing. Priceless. They get paid alot!!

    2) I would say from around 75 to 100, with training time and meals figured in there. But, from a standpoint of being on a par with Missionaries or Peace corp, they have it easy. They are very dedicated and it appears that you’ve seen some stuff from those who weren’t able to do that. The Sea Org’s motto is “Many are called and few are chosen”. It’s always been very upfront on that fact, and the fact it’s hard work (with huge rewards). I find it interesting that there’s a furor over hard work and dedication.
    Don’t you?

    3) False. You will get declared without availing yourself of the standard leaving procedures, including finding and getting to face up to any areas where there were harmful acts of omission or commission. To leave without that means that you don’t want something found out about. Leaving by properly routing out is not considered a harmful act. That doesn’t mean that the group thinks it’s ok. If you (generic “you”) were there on the same terms as the rest and couldn’t pull the weight then you let everyone down. Don’t expect to be well-liked for doing it.

    4. Absolutely. Look at what I wrote earlier. When one receives benefits without exchange and leaves expecting not to have to pay for it (through fulfilling a staff contract, under which they received the benefits) then, Yes, they are considered Freeloaders. They evidently thought that they don’t have to exchange, if they are complaining about this. Based on your question about the books, I could get the idea that you are one of those that thinks you can get something of value for nothing. I hope I’m wrong, Kenny.

    5. False. It’s one of the rules in the Sea Org that there is no place for young children. It’s hard work. Those who wish to have a family can go to a lower organization for the time the children are growing and then return, or route out (properly) or have an abortion by personal choice, because they want to stay in and continue contributing. There is absolutely no policy in the Sea Org that requires abortion.

    If you would like an objective viewpoint on this, look at this study that was done
    http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/melton.htm

    Pat

  52. @Pat:
    The books are not available in any library, where i live. I live in Germany.

    If the Church would upload the books on their site, then you would always now that you get the real books, when you download them from their own site.
    There are also digital copyrights, that the church could use to ensure that the books don’t get altered and published under the same name.
    The church could still distribute printed books for those people, who prefer a real book in their hand over an online book.
    The books of every main religion are available online, too, without any danger that someone could put up an altered version of the bible or the quran and pretend it would be the original book.
    So, i don’t see any disadvantages with this idea, only advantages.

  53. @Comment by Kenny on January 21, 2009 3:28 am

    Why? You can get the real thing free in the libraries all over the world in (LouAnne will correct me if I’m wrong about the number) in over 20 different languages. No alterations complete with full glossaries and art work and easy to read fonts. Why would you want to degrade that?

    Not to mention the fact that they are copyrighted to keep the data pure. Putting them on the internet puts them into the public domain and opens the door for them to be distributed with lower quality and edits that leave out key terms, etc. I’ve seen what the “free” idea has already done to the ridiculous stuff being published there already as “Scientology”.

    Pat

  54. Why doesn’t the church put the basic books online for everyone to download for free?

  55. Are the following rumours about Sea Org members, who work at Gold base (Golden era productions in hemet california) true?
    1. They are often getting paid under minimum wage.
    2. They often have to work more than 100 hours per week and 7 days a week
    3. If they want to leave, they are getting declared SP and disconnected from their family members, who still work there.
    4. They are getting told, that they have to pay a “freeloader debt” if they want to leave the Sea Org.
    5. Female Sea Org members, who get pregnant are told to either have an abortion or leave the Sea Org

  56. Pat,

    Again, thanks for your informative reply.

    You wrote:

    “You say $100000 to go clear? I guess you didn’t get a chance to read the book Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. To train to audit it is around $90 for the course and $25 for the study materials. The Hubbard Dianetics Seminar is pre-requisite for $35. Get someone to come do it with you and you can co-audit each other to clear. You don’t need the course to do the auditing with someone. It is highly possible to go clear on Dianetics.

    Did your critic sites give you that information along with the cost of auditing?”

    No, it did not. The critical site I read, which listed scientology prices, did not give that information. Which was a serious omission. It appears that the critical site may not have presented a completely balanced picture of the monetary costs.

    Would you object to a person who co-audits up to clear, then leaves scientology and gives no further time or money to it? Would the church object if someone had the announced intention of doing that?

    On another topic, in response to my question of whether clears have perfect recall, you wrote:

    “7) Again, the answer to that is in the book Dianetics. And yes, I am not occluded by a subconcious (reactive) mind.”

    I don’t think you answered precisely the question which I asked. My original question was, “do clears have perfect recall”.

    However, now that we’re on the subject of levels and benefits. What level of scientologist are you? (I’m familiar with the terms Clear and OT I-VIII). What benefits have you received? On which level did you receive each of the benefits? How long did it take you to achieve each of the levels? Was your experience typical? How common are scientologists on various levels; by which I mean, do you estimate that most scientologists have already reached clear, etc.

    Thanks again,
    John

  57. Comment by John Friedman on January 18, 2009 11:34 am

    I see your point. It would be absurd for me to study calculus before learning algebra. But does scientology allow you to examine the materials for the higher levels even if you’re unprepared? If not, then it’s unlike the geometry example you gave. If I wanted to, I could buy books about calculus right now, regardless of my background or training.

    That’s not the point. The point is that you won’t understand it, and you know (I know that you know this, John) that people ridicule things they don’t understand. Why set it up? It won’t be real until you get there, whether it’s Nirvana or Geometry.

    6) If you wish to avail yourself of one on one spiritual counselling, it can be expensive. The critics don’t bring up that if you were at a Christian or Catholic Church, your 10% tithe over a lifetime is more than that, and you don’t get anything beyond a tax deduction and a good feeling that you helped your church survive.

    The cost of training a single auditor can be from an equivalent of 1 to 4 years of college (depending on how advanced the auditor needs to be). People are encouraged to learn to audit and co-audit with another. The gains are better that way. Not only do you have the technology behind the processes, but you get as good as you give in a co-audit scene. It’s awesome and I got much of my Pre-OT levels that way. It cost me the price of the courses. How much depends on which way you go on the gradation chart.

    You say $100000 to go clear? I guess you didn’t get a chance to read the book Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health. To train to audit it is around $90 for the course and $25 for the study materials. The Hubbard Dianetics Seminar is pre-requisite for $35. Get someone to come do it with you and you can co-audit each other to clear. You don’t need the course to do the auditing with someone. It is highly possible to go clear on Dianetics.

    Did your critic sites give you that information along with the cost of auditing?

    7) Again, the answer to that is in the book Dianetics. And yes, I am not occluded by a subconcious (reactive) mind.

    8) Through long experience, it was found that when others were allowed to alter the procedures they stopped working. Thus, the policy. it’s that simple. We want Scientology to keep working so we will hold that line strongly. Those who try to alter it, want it to stop working. Why? See my answer to #9

    9) http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part11/Chp35/index.html

    10) No. There is a solution. There is a way back.
    That is covered in the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics (in the library or any Church or Mission)

    I know of no other materials that one has to buy beyond his books and lectures that are part of his training up the gradation chart. No different from having to have one’s own texts in College although I’m sure that people borrow or trade to get them. Our purchases allow further dissemination all over the world. Having been in the Church, did you get a chance to look at the books? How much do you think the Dianetics book is worth, if you can clear someone with the data in it? Or The Problems of Work, that gives you the tools to handle work successfully? Or Self Analysis that let’s you do the processes that improves memory and raises a person’s ability to be happier in life? It goes on.

    Did you know that we as Scientologists have put the basic books of Dianetics and Scientology in almost every library on the planet? We want everyone to have that knowledge. You, yourself, right now can go to the library and get the 18 basic texts of Dianetics and Scientology and study them. Apply them. Help others. Help yourself. Without ever spending a dime, (except for gas or bus fare to get to the library).

    Did your critics tell you that?

    Pat

  58. Pat,

    Thanks for your polite and informative response.

    With regard to whether or not scientology is booming. Our observations are discrepant on that matter. As a result, I’ll have to wait until I see convincing evidence before I conclude anything about it, one way or the other.

    I have read one or two things on the net which concluded that scientology’s membership figures are grossly exaggerated, and that a more realistic estimate is below 100,000 active members. But reliable figures are impossible to come by.

    With regard to security checks. I’m glad to hear that scientologists are not subjected to them. I’m sure you’re aware of the rumors that they are.

    With regard to secrets. You wrote:

    “You get [OT materials] when you’re ready for it. It’s like giving geometry to kids who haven’t even started school yet. It’s just plain common sense.”

    I see your point. It would be absurd for me to study calculus before learning algebra. But does scientology allow you to examine the materials for the higher levels even if you’re unprepared? If not, then it’s unlike the geometry example you gave. If I wanted to, I could buy books about calculus right now, regardless of my background or training.

    I have a few more questions, if you don’t mind:

    6) Does it actually cost several hundred dollars per hour for auditing services? Does it actually cost more than $100,000 to become clear, and more than $300,000 to make it all the way up the bridge? If so, why does it cost that much? Does it seem like an excessive amount to you? As a comparison, classes and books on meditation cost considerably less than that. I realize that auditors must make a living; I’m only questioning the amount of money.

    7) When I visited a branch of scientology in San Francisco (near downtown) I was told that clear people have absolutely perfect recall. In fact, I was showed an illustration which compared the memory of a clear person to a series of photographs, one for each moment of his life. Do clear people really have perfect recall? If so, wouldn’t it be easy for them to demonstrate the fact, and so prove the critics wrong? Do you have perfect recall?

    8) Why is it necessary not to alter any of Hubbard’s teachings? Isn’t it possible for someone to improve upon what he wrote?

    9) Why do you think scientology has generated so much controversy and criticism? Do you think any of it is deserved? Why are there so many disgruntled ex-members?

    10) About suppressive persons. Is it true that SPs are suppressive from the beginning and cannot be reformed?

    I noticed that some people who were fairly high up in scientology (Jesse Prince and others) were declared suppressive after they left the church. Had they been suppressive all along? If so, why didn’t anyone in the church notice, especially since so many church members have taken a course in detecting suppressive persons?

    Furthermore, I read on faq.scientology.org that a suppressive person “cannot finish a cycle of action”. If so, how did any suppressives (like Jesse Prince) ever work their way so far up the bridge?

    …Also, with regard to this comment of yours:

    “The only ones complaining are those who aren’t Scientologists, and are probably right in the thick of publishing copyrighted works because they think that no one really owns anything. That’s the criminal mind at work. No exchange. Get something for nothing.”

    I certainly agree that it’s legitimate to charge money for books and materials (and for that matter, it’s legitimate to charge money for other intellectual output like creative works, software, advice, designs or blueprints, patents, music, art, and so on). I also think that the prices charged for Dianetics and Hubbard’s other books are reasonable. However, I’ve heard that there are additional materials a scientologist is supposed to buy on his way up the bridge. Do those books and materials cost more than a few hundred dollars?

    I realize that’s a lot of questions. Thanks again for your time and attention,

    John Friedman

  59. @Comment by John Friedman on January 18, 2009 12:56 am

    Pat and LuAnne,

    I have the following questions:

    1) Yep! It’s awesome! You should see some of the areas that are booming :)

    2) Nope. Not true. Find out who told you that and get the specifics like who what when and where and how many Scientologists this was done on.

    3) I didn’t. I asked him why he was going to the internet for answers when he could easily find out at his Church.

    4) Who? When?

    5) Nope. Not a secret. You get it when you’re ready for it. It’s like giving geometry to kids who haven’t even started school yet. It’s just plain common sense. Only the critics try to twist that into a reason to publicize what they think are “secrets” for no other reason than to make Scientology look un-understandable. We work very strongly with overcoming barriers to study and too steep a gradient is one of the key 3 barriers. The OT Levels are things that are done, not things we read. They are at the TOP of the gradation chart, and here you are, not even on the chart, wondering why you can’t see it.

    Scientologists have no problem with this. The only ones complaining are those who aren’t Scientologists, and are probably right in the thick of publishing copyrighted works because they think that no one really owns anything. That’s the criminal mind at work. No exchange. Get something for nothing. Gimme, Gimme, Gimme.

    Pat

  60. Pat and LuAnne,

    I have the following questions:

    1) Do you personally believe that scientology is undergoing explosive growth and is the fastest-growing religion, as was claimed? I ask this because I personally do not observe it. I worked on Sunset blvd for many years, near the scientology celebrity center. Even there, in a geographic center of scientology, I encountered few scientologists during my day-to-day affairs. That would be like going to Rome and not seeing any Catholics there. I realize this is anecdotal, but there seems to be some reason to doubt scientology’s membership claims.

    2) Does Scientology really have routine “security checks” for its members? Why? Isn’t it unusual for organizations other than militaries or intelligence agencies, to have routine security checks?

    3) Why did you suggest to a fellow scientologist here, that he should not look on the internet for information about scientology? Isn’t that restricting the amount of information he has available to him in making his decisions? Shouldn’t he consider both sides of any argument? Couldn’t he learn something from other sources as well? My concern here, is that a person might look only to scientology for information about whether scientology is a good idea.

    4) You called into question the motives of some questioners on this forum, rather than answering their questions. Isn’t that an example of an “ad hominem” fallacy? Isn’t that just avoiding the questions? (You can look up “ad hominem” fallacy in a logic textbook by Irving Copi, in the section called “informal reasoning”. It’s definitely stable data.)

    5) You mentioned above, that “EVERYTHING that we do is in the books. No secrets.” But are there really no secrets? What about the materials for the OT levels? If I went to my local Scientology branch and asked them for the materials given upon entry to OT 7, would they give them to me? If not, isn’t that a secret?

    …Let me anticipate a potential objection. I am not a “suppressive person”. Although my questions are obviously probing/critical questions, my reason for asking them is not suppression. In fact, my reason is to determine if scientology has answers to obvious objections. In so doing, I am not being “suppressive” but am engaging in basic critical thinking and critical questioning, or at least trying to do so.

    Thanks in advance for your response to my questions.

    John Friedman

  61. As a Scientologist you can hear from others how much time they took for this or that step in Scientology. Some take a week for one step, others a day and then there are people who take a month. From those people an average time could be calculated but this is in no way binding. Everyone has his or her individual speed in progressing on the path of Scientology. A level is completed once a certain defined results has been achieved and the person feels confident to have achieved it.

    – Louanne

  62. is progression through Scientology set at a fixed pace or can you progress as rapidly or slowly as you choose? like OT levels, is there a set time you have to remain at one before moving to another or is just dependent on the individual, and what constitutes completion of a level?

  63. ” Comment by ddele7 on December 8, 2008 10:04 pm
    who is Lou? Are you on Facebook? You’d be surprised how many staff members and Sea Org members are there. And many are my friends.”

    I guess you meant “where” is Lou? I am swamped with work right now and not that much around. But I agree with all Pat told you. Facebook, in my personal opinion, is a time trap… it costs too much time and brings nothing. But that’s just me. Enjoy your contacts. Let me know if there is something I am missing on Facebook.

    – L

  64. Comment by hollister on December 11, 2008 12:06 am

    I’m glad if we can give you information that documents the truth.

    I have a feeling that you don’t have all sides of that conversation. Do you think your friend may have left out something he said or did? Why don’t you ask your friend what he said and did (besides breaking an ashtrry) in addition to the breakage? I can’t give you an answer because there’s missing data. Once you have all the data, then come back and I’ll answer you as best I can.

    Here’s an example of what I mean
    Joey runs to his mother and tells her that his brother hit him. Mom punishes the brother and later finds out that Joey took his brother’s bat and tried to hit him with it, and in the ensueing scuffle to get it back, hit Joey’s nose. Smart moms would never act on one side of the story. Joey deliberately presented the story in such a way as to make Mom think he was victimized. Do you see what I mean?

    Pat

  65. hello. i love reading at this forum, it seems very intelligent and much more informative than almost any other. as a non CoS member, i always wondered, is everytime you get sick or something bad happens to you because of bad people around you? one of the few members i met accused my friend of being to blame when he broke an ashtray. he said that it broke because he was suppressive, not because the man himself had broken it. i agree that a bad attitude can bring alot of trouble to you, but something so small can’t really be karmic, right? was this member just misinformed?

  66. thanks.

    who is Lou? Are you on Facebook? You’d be surprised how many staff members and Sea Org members are there. And many are my friends.

  67. Got it. You’ll probably see this a lot more when you get into the initial chapters regarding the survival vs non-survival levels of the tone scale, but it appears to me that you are getting some entheta and trying to handle it, albeit incorrectly. Everything you need is in SOS and in the “What is Scientology” catechism section. Those really will handle the questions you get, Chris. Tell Lou that I gave permission to give you my email. I’ve done the basics (Books and Lectures) as well as the PTS/SP course, so I’m hatted on what you need, but I’d rather do it directly rather than on this website, ok?

    Pat

  68. well sometimes, i don’t know, it seems kinda awkward to ask those questions to people at the org.

    Im sure they have other things to worry about than these questions lol

    I did ask my Ethics Officer once. I don’t go about reading entheta online. I am an FSM so i am familiar when most of the rumors. And when you learn and study Ron’s life, these queries do come up from time to time.

    I have been in Scientologist since 2004, and I have done many Div 6 courses, and i am about to start S.O.S. Basics book course.

  69. Chris,

    I don’t get why you don’t get your information at your org rather than reading the internet about your religion.

    ARC,

    Pat

  70. Oh i see. Thanks!

    I heard the rumor about Mike Rinder from Wikipedia.

    Is any of Rons kids in the church? I heard once that Diana paid a visit to the New York Org before the grand reopening in 2004, when it had idea premesis.

  71. I wouldn’t have personal information of Sea Org members or past Sea Org members.

    On Pat Broeker however: he left the the Church of Scientology in the 1980s.

  72. Hello there! I hope you had a good holiday weekend.

    I am writing because i wanted to find out a bit more information on some of the higher ranking S.O. members who are in International Management.

    A while ago i wrote to you about a you tube video i saw with C.O.B. R.T.C. announcing LRH’s departure in 1986. In the video was a man named Pat Broeker who apparently lived with Ron in the past several years assisting him in his work. Whatever happened to him?

    And is it true that Mike Rinder blew from the church and is no longer a Scientologist?

    I would appreciate any help you could give. Thanks.

    ARC, Chris Deleon

  73. Hi Holly,

    Did you also read the site http://www.whatisscientology.org?

    Pat

  74. Holly, all I can see is that this document dated 6 March 1968 is declaring a couple of people as “suppressive persons” because they tried to mess up people (instead of helping them) by abuse of Scientology technology. As such they are not subject of Scientology ethics codes anymore, which means they have no Scientology-related rights. Abusing Scientology to harm others is a severe “crime” inside Scientology, given the purpose that Scientology is to be used to help others.

    I am aware of the sordid propaganda going along with such documents. In real life this Ethics Order means they have been kicked out of the organization because of a very bad deed and are now subject of criminal investigation to get their actions punished in secular courts (instead of sorting it out internally). I have seen this happening at other occasions when the action was so severe that no “nice sort-out talk” would help but solid court procedures were necessary to even it out.

    – Louanne

    PS: Did your research include this website: scientologymyths.info ?

  75. Hi – while researching scientology I came across the following document

    http://tinyurl.com/5btryq

    Can you tell me if this is authentic?

    And if so, could you explain its purpose and history to me?

  76. No, it isn’t familiar at all. If you are really interested in this concept, you’d examine all the data, and not just come here with an opinion looking for confirmation. Otherwise known as trolling. If you had actually read the source for this data in the book you’d see that it is not at all similar.

    Pat

  77. kal, no this does not look familiar.

    Did you read the text Pat was pointing out?

    – Louanne

  78. Look familiar?
    hmmmmmm……
    http://thinkinganddestiny.net/

  79. Ah. Got it!
    I highly recommend all scientologists and anons look into a Mr Harold W. Percival and see where hubbard borrowed a lot of his material from(and this guy didnt charge thousands of dollars either!)
    http://books.google.com/books?id=S3BXsFJ5aZYC&dq=Thinking+and+Destiny
    http://www.thewordfoundation.org/index.htm

    And guess what? he beat hubbard to the punch(1946)
    Now I think the picture is clear between Percival and Crowley where hubbard got the gist of his religion/spiritual ideas from.

  80. No I am not interested in all the extra “techs” but how or who he borrowed the 8 dynamics concept, its a very familiar one but I cant seem to place or find it.

  81. The best reference is the chapter on the 8 dynamics in the Introductory book Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought. You can find it in almost every library now. There is no clutter in the basic texts of Dianetics and Scientology. They are extremely well written principles that can be applied.

    Pat

  82. Hey Im wondering as to the origin/influence that scientology calls the eight dynamics?
    Also relating strictly to the 8 dyanmics, is there any reading/docs that go specifically into the 8 and but not the other clutter?

  83. Hi Louanne or any other scientologists that wish to answer I’m back with more questions. This time regarding the PTS/SP releationship descibed here:

    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH11_4.HTM

    Now through reading that and other stuff about PTS people by my understanding the underlying principle is negative things (illness/injury etc.) happen to PTS scientologists due to being exposed to a surpressive person. I’ve heard it described as “pulling it in”.

    My first question is at what point would it be considered that someone has been put into a PTS situation due to an SP?

    For example (to help clarify the question), if I were to stub my toe is it due to a PTS situation or is it just because I’m an idiot and walked into a coffee table? What about a fender bender? Or getting cancer? The above link makes it sound like it’s an all or nothing deal. Anything negative that happens to you was “pulled in” due to an SP influence.

    Now I highly doubt that’s the case. I can’t see a scientologist going “oh shit, I got a paper cut, better get auditted (or however you handle it) to find out what’s causing me to be PTS”. So is there a certain point at which it goes from simple mishap to “an SP is holding me back”? Or is that up to the individual scientologist where they can go “I think this incident was brought on by being PTS”?

    To follow up that question how do other Scientologists handle someone else being potentially PTS?

    What I mean by that is, one scientologist believes that only larger things ie: Cancer are caused due to a PTS/SP relationship (this is what they have taken away with them from studying the tech. “What’s true is what’s true to them” and all that stuff). Another scientologist believes that everything down to a paper cut/stubbed toe is caused by being PTS (an extreme example I know, but go with me on this).

    The first one breaks their finger doing something, lets say playing basketball. They see it as no big deal and not being PTS because they believe only the big things are caused by being PTS. However, the other scientologist who believes everything is a result of being PTS feels that the first is PTS because he broke his finger. How do they resolve that?

    My outsider understanding is that if a PTS person refuses to deal with their PTS status then they themselves can be declared an Surpressive Person. But if one truly believes they are not PTS but others do, how does that get resolved?

    I know my example is an extreme one (two people being at completely different ends of the spectrum) but if there is a gray area as to what is classified as being caused by being PTS doesn’t that open a window to a lot of conflict due to where various people feel the line is drawn? And couldn’t it potentially lead to a lot of fear of being considered PTS when you yourself don’t believe you are?

    Next question, regarding being a surpressive person. I’ve read various comments by scientologists but they don’t all seem to jive. Some say only scientologists (or former scientologists) can be SPs. Others say anyone can be a surpressive person.

    To quote a scientology website (I’ll throw the link up in a follow up post since we can only post 1 per message):

    “According to L. Ron Hubbard, a suppressive person is “a person who seeks to suppress, or squash, any betterment activity or group. A suppressive person suppresses other people in his vicinity. This is the person whose behaviour is calculated to be disastrous.” Well-known examples of such a personality are Napoleon and Hitler. Mr. Hubbard found that a suppressive person, also called antisocial personality, has definite antisocial attributes.”

    That quote says Napoleon & Hitler were supressive people. Obviously neither of them were scientologists.

    Now I understand the concept that only scientologists can be DECLARED SP’s. That makes sense. You’re not going to just send random people letters saying “Hey, you’re a dick!” However, the quote would imply that being a surpressive person in general isn’t just confined to Scientology. Would that be a correct assessment?

    My next question is, does a person need to be PTS to have a surpressive person act upon them? Going back to the Hitler example: Injury/Illness is caused by being PTS due to the influence of a surpressive person. However to say that Jews pulled in the holocaust because they failed to handle or disconnect from Hitler would be a horrible thing to say. However they suffered due to Hitler’s surpression. So were they PTS? If not who would be considered to be PTS to Hitler’s surpression? If nobody was PTS how can he be a surpressive person if he isn’t surpressing anyone (at least in the definition of surpressed person = PTS).

    Next question, who decides who is a surpressive person? Going back to Hitler, as much as what he did was horrible, in his mind what he was doing was right. From the above quote: “a person who seeks to suppress, or squash, any betterment activity or group.” That’s the definition of SP. Hilter believed his actions were a betterment activity and the Nazi’s a betterment group.

    Does society as a whole decide who an SP is? Does Scientology? Do the victors? Two groups who think they’re doing the right thing by beating the crap out of each other, which are the SPs? The ones that lose?

    To tie all these questions to current events, lets compare this to Anonymous vs. Scientology.

    First, the SP definition fits Anonymous perfectly from a Scientologist point of view. They’re trying to disrupt the actions of Scientology (the betterment group). So if they are the SP, who/what is the PTS which is pulling them in?

    If all bad things that happen are a result of an SP’s actions upon a PTS then that would imply that Scientology believes that someone/something pulled Anonymous in, right?

    Or is the correct assessment that Anonymous would be the PTS and the SPs would be what Anonymous refers to as the “Old Guard”?

    Now the other side of the coin, a government could be seen as a “betterment group”. Their job is to look after and protect their citizens. So in the case of Germany for example couldn’t Scientology be viewed as the SPs? They’re trying to push their agenda on the German government who has said no. I’m not picking a side, I’m just saying both sides think they are doing the right thing and both sides are attempting to surpress the other. Germany by saying no to Scientology (fighting against betterment from Scientology’s point of view). Scientology by not respecting the government’s decision and fighting against it (fighting against betterment from the Government’s POV).

    Another example: Psychiatry believes they’re trying to help. Scientology attempts to surpress psychiatry thus Scientologists are being a SP to psychiatrists.

    So that goes back to my previous question. Who decides whose a Surpressive Person? The above quote implies that it’s not just (former) Scientologists who are surpressive but just general people as well. If both sides feel that they are doing what is right for society but disagree with each other are either of them truly surpressive? They have the same goal, helping others and benefiting society, they just have different beliefs in how it is done.

  84. @ Comment by Josh on September 16, 2008 9:18 am

    “I looked at the Lisa McPherson page and it didn’t say. I had heard they people driving her skipped a hospital on the way to take her to a hospital with a Scientologist doctor. Is this true? And if so, why wouldn’t they take her to the first one if she was in such bad shape?”

    Didn’t say what? The people bringing her to the hospital testified unchallenged that they wanted to get her to the doctor who had been treating her case before. Like you would go to the specialist who knows whats up with you rather than to a brand new doctor who takes ages to get up to speed. It turned out to be a mistake but those who brought her to the hospital did not realize that she was in such trouble. The blood clot she died from had hooked into some vital artery from one moment to the other.

    – Louanne

  85. I looked at the Lisa McPherson page and it didn’t say. I had heard they people driving her skipped a hospital on the way to take her to a hospital with a Scientologist doctor. Is this true? And if so, why wouldn’t they take her to the first one if she was in such bad shape?

  86. thanks pat for your respsonse.

    :)

    I got that.

    I totally get what your trying to say.

    keep up the good work on the site!

  87. @Comment by Shii on August 26, 2008 12:19 am

    It has been called a few things in the evolution of the technology, Shii.

    All are valid. None have been cancelled. You’ll find as you read the basics that the wording of the dynamics isn’t the only thing that changes as the tech evolves.

    The point I was making is that I didn’t use that term. In Scientology, what is true is what you have personally observed. If you want to make it about sex only and making babies that’s your truth. My second is my whole family -husband, parents, cousins, kids, brothers and sisters, etc. – The family unit. I create on that too, and not with just sex (for my kids), as I create on ALL my dynamics, which one has to do in order to have optimum survival.

    Pat

  88. If you understand which definition applys in that context then it should become clearer for you.

    Well, the hint about which definition applies comes from the tech definition “making things for the future”. “Things” are not the same as “sexual activity”. They’re very different categories. “Any creativity” clearly includes music, art, and creative solutions to problems. “Sex and the family” is not a dynamic which includes those things.

    That it’s called the Creativity dynamic is not new.

    In fact it’s called the sex dynamic.

    Where in the definition I gave you does it say procreation?

    (a) is the sexual act itself: procreation.
    (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children

  89. Mover,

    “However, an author will always check their work. And when it comes to the tech, nothing would be more important.”

    If you have ever listened to LRH lecture, he continuously upgrades and advances the technology, as he researches all the way through to 1986 when he announced that it was done. He was incredibly able, and when he sent something to be published you can be sure it was exactly how he wanted it. He KNEW. So it wasn’t his work that needed to be checked but what happened to it after he sent it out, with editor alterations and typist errors. He was done with that cycle of action. He’d be off on the next congress or the next book or auditing someone on his next research cycle. I can’t believe that people would natter about that.

    Why isn’t it just possible that he had certainty and didn’t need to constantly second guess himself, which is self-invalidation. Is that what you think he should have done?

    If you want to answer questions here, feel free. LuAnne has already invited that. Let those who have the questions, ask them. If you have a question then ask it for yourself, not some other “other people believe” generality.

    Pat

  90. On second thought, Shii, I think I see what the problem is.

    Look up creativity

    You can look at it here:
    http://www.dictionary.reference.com/create
    Then the same link again using creativity.

    If you understand which definition applys in that context then it should become clearer for you.

    Pat

  91. @Comment by Shii on August 25, 2008 7:19 pm

    The Certainty Drills as authorization by the keeper of the marks and technology are done for all technical courses whether they are administrative, ethics or auditing technology. Kind of closes the door on incorrect applications don’t you think? I’ve done them. There’s no way to pass on a course unless you can apply data 100%. Too bad we didn’t have these sooner. The tech for this, by the way, is by LRH.

    “I only wonder… how would you guys know if there was squirreling within the CoS? Is there a specific action people can take if they don’t believe “any creativity” is equivalent to “procreation”? Can they get that stuff corrected?”

    I don’t understand. What’s to correct? That it’s called the Creativity dynamic is not new. Where in the definition I gave you does it say procreation? There’s part a and part b. Is there something in that that isn’t clear? How is that not Creativity? With or without sex.

    Pat

  92. As for LRH not reading the original books closely enough and other KSW matters that Miscavige says he has taken better care of than LRH, I don’t have any specific examples, so I will drop the point.

    I only wonder… how would you guys know if there was squirreling within the CoS? Is there a specific action people can take if they don’t believe “any creativity” is equivalent to “procreation”? Can they get that stuff corrected?

  93. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you guys hadn’t read the new definition of the Second Dynamic. Here it is, from http://www.scientology.org/religion/description/scientology/pg002-1.html

    The second dynamic is CREATIVITY. Creativity is making things for the future and the second dynamic includes any creativity. The second dynamic contains the family unit and the rearing of children as well as anything that can be categorized as a family activity. It also incidentally includes sex as a mechanism to compel future survival.

    Is any creativity sex?
    Is sex any creativity?

  94. @Comment by mover on August 25, 2008 4:25 am

    Look, evaluation is defined as “telling a pc what to think about his case”. Where did I do that?

    So, if you knew this why are you bringing it up? If you want to answer questions here feel free to do so. As I do with what is right for me. Thank you.

    Pat

  95. Ok Pat – thanks for the respnonse.

    I have not done all of my baiscs…1/4 of the way, and doing well thanks :)

    Good response, for the people who asked above.

    Now – just a further question – 1957 was his last book, why didnt he have time to check over the books, from then till the time of his death in 1986?

    Was it because he was working on auditing processes, building a church, OT material, his own writing, management. etc???

    I believe LRH gave wrote over 40 million words in his time, and to me, re-checking them would be close to impossible….right?

    Thanks

  96. pat.

    I got what you said. I dont think it was invalidative at all.

    Pat , I have not been listening to them. I dont listen to negative comments, at all. Infact, I always refer people to this site, if they have come across any negatives on the net, or if they want anything answered. (thats if they dont want to go into a church and ask for themselves)

    My questions, that i pick up – are my own thinking alone. I dont get them from people around me. So – infact, Pat – what you are doing now, is invalidating me. Which is not okay.

    I have seen the comments by shii and link on here earlier, and I dismissed a lot of what they were saying… in fact, a lot of it is low toned. But i also didnt agree with what was being answered, and what wasnt.

    i think it was very 1.1 of you to state ‘Sounds like someone doesn’t want people to have the books be as LRH intended them to begin with or there would be no complaints about these, right? ‘ In your response to Shii. That is a total evaluation for the person. Thats not okay.

    I think you must see, people come here for answers…You and your collegues have done an awesome job at setting this website up. I think it is a real credit to you and your collegues. You are obviously very aware, very sane beings.

    This is why it is important, not to negate. Because you can clear the air on things for scientologists and non-scientologists – the like.

    Pat you also said ‘ I’m talking about the actual LRH references in the PTS/SP course on how to deal with questions about Scientology and how to handle people who make negative statements about the Church and it’s staff or members, which you appear to have been reading or listening to.’

    Thanks for the evaluation.

    You can make a difference with this site – but please be careful of the above.

    Your more capable than that mate :) You should see it for what it is, and acknowledge someones questions, and give an answer.

    if your answer is to read the BLACK PR PL in the PTS/SP coursepack. Than fine, ill go over it again, and see what I come up with.

    But i dont think it will answer quesitons for non – scientologists.

    The quesiton is ‘Why didnt LRH notice the mistakes in the basics – while he was alive, for nearly 60 years’

    Its a simple question – just give it a go :)

    Thanks

  97. @Comment by mover on August 25, 2008 1:21 am

    Ok. I’m going to assume that you probably haven’t done your basics yet.

    Let’s do this:
    Wrote and Published Original Thesis – 1948
    Wrote and Published Dianetics: Evolution of a Science – April 1950
    Wrote and Published Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health – May 1950
    Gave Dianetics Lectures and Demonstrations (4 lectures) – Sept 1950
    Wrote and Published Science of Survival – June 1951
    Gave Science of Survival Lectures (4 lectures) – May to June 1951
    Gave Special Course in Human Evaluation (10 lectures) – August 1951
    Wrote and Published Self Analysis – August 1951
    Wrote and Published Advanced Procedures and Axioms – November 1951
    Gave Thought, Emotion and Effort Lectures (21 lectures) – October to December 1951
    Wrote and Published Handbook for Preclears – December 1951
    Gave the Life Continuum Lectures (10 Lectures) – December 1951
    Gave the Milestone One Lectures (22 Lectures) – March 1952
    Gave the Route to Infinity Lectures (7 Lectures) – May 1952
    Wrote and Published History of Man – July 1952
    Gave the Technique 88 Lectures (15 Lectures) – June to July 1952
    Wrote and Published Scientology 8 – 80 – November 1952
    Gave the Source of Life Energy Lectures (14 Lectures) – November 1952
    Gave the Command of Theta Lectures (10 Lectures) – November 1952
    Wrote and Published Scientology 8 – 8008 – December 1952
    Gave the Philadelphia Doctorate Course Lectures (76 Lectures) – December 1952 to Jan 1953
    Gave the Factors Lectures (18 Lectures) – March to April 1953
    Gave the International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists (15 Lectures) Sept 1953 to Oct 1953
    Gave 1st American Advanced Clinical Course (70 Lectures) – Oct to November 1953
    Gave 2nd American Advanced Clinical Course (67 Lectures) – Nov to Dec 1953
    Gave 3rd American Advanced Clinical Course (73 Lectures) – Jan to Feb 1954
    Gave 4th American Advanced Clinical Course (74 Lectures) – Feb to March 1954
    Gave 5th American Advanced Clinical Course (33 Lectures) – Mar to May 1954
    Gave 6th American Advanced Clinical Course (33 Lectures) – May to June 1954
    Gave the Universe Processes Lectures (14 Lectures) – June 1954
    Gave 7th American Advanced Clinical Course (74 Lectures) – Jun to July 1954
    Wrote and Published The Creation of Human Ability – July 1954
    Gave the Phoenix Lectures (42 Lectures) – Jul to Oct 1954
    Gave 8th American Advanced Clinical Course (26 Lectures) – Oct to Nov 1954
    Wrote and Published Dianetics 55! – Dec 1954
    Gave the Unification Congress (16 Lectures) – December 1954
    Gave the Elementary Straightwire Lectures (12 Lectures) – Nov to Dec 1954
    Gave 9th American Advanced Clinical Course (35 Lectures) – Dec 1954 to Jan 1955
    Gave the Axiom 51 Lectures (9 Lectures) – Mar to May 1955
    Gave the Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress (15 Lectures) – June 1955
    Gave the Four Postulates Lectures (6 Lectures) – Aug to Sept 1955
    Gave 4th London Advanced Clinical Course (50 Lectures) -Oct to Nov 1955
    Gave the Six Levels of Processing Lectures (6 Lectures) – Nov 1955
    Gave the Remedy of Havingness Lectures (17 Lectures) – Dec 1955 to Jan 1956
    Gave the Games Theory Lectures (9 Lectures) – Feb 1956
    Gave the Games Congress (13 Lectures) – Aug to Sept 1956
    Gave the Hubbard Professional Course (21 Lectures) – Aug 1956
    Wrote and Published Scientology: Fundamentals of Thought – Sept 1956
    Wrote and Published Problems of Work – Oct 1956

    The books here comprise those that were reissued in 2007 after being verified against the original transcripts and dictations. During those lectures and books he was writing he was auditing and researching. When would you have proof-read them?

    Pat

  98. @Comment by mover on August 25, 2008 1:04 am

    In all fairness, shii is totally capable of asking his/her own questions and may not appreciate you jumping into her communication cycle. Didn’t you say you were on TR’s and Objectives? What you did was invalidative of him/her, don’t you think?

    Haven’t you read those references yet? I’m talking about the actual LRH references in the PTS/SP course on how to deal with questions about Scientology and how to handle people who make negative statements about the Church and it’s staff or members, which you appear to have been reading or listening to. You may wish to do that before making another post here. Seriously, now … Have you done your basics? You should do that. It will answer your questions about Scientology.

    Pat

  99. let me re-post, i dont want to look like im trolling – cause im not. I want the right answers put up here, cause i know many scientologists come here, when in doubt, to get sane viewpoints.

    So the question is. Why wasnt the altered tech noticed for nealry 60 years, even by LRH himself, who was so adament on keeping tech in, and would have known there was tech out of place?

    I have been given answers before, like – “he was too busy” . etc

    I understand this.

    However, an author will always check their work. And when it comes to the tech, nothing would be more important.

    Can we get some harder evidence on this.

    Last thing I would like to say is, Well done to DM for bringing the books back to their original states. I think it definately has rejuvinated scientology to the way it should be.

  100. In all fairness… I think what shii was saying was –

    If the books were altered by publishers. etc – why didnt LRH correct this himself and realise this himself?

    i mean its all about KSW, and someone, somewhere within the church, should have noticed something wasn’t right with the tech in the books in the first place, right?

    I mean, i do believe DM has brought the books back to its original state.

    (no excuse for the books being changed around a few times in the 80’s also, i have seen books publish in 1987, such as ‘science of survival’ that have been totally changed from previous ‘science of survival’ books – its a co-incidence it happened one year after LRH died – could have been the publisher)

    But its very hard to believe that for nearly 60 years, it wasnt noticed. Even by LRH himself

  101. @Comment by Shii on August 24, 2008 10:44 am

    Here is the actual definition of the Second Dynamic from Scientology: A New Slant on Life

    “The urge toward existence as a sexual activity. This dynamic actually has two divisions. Second Dynamic (a) is the sexual act itself. And the Second Dynamic (b) is the family unit, including the rearing of children. This can be called the sex dynamic.”

    You evidently have been reading interpretations of the books rather than the books themselves. That’s what happens with verbal data. Things get altered.

    As for the books, you must have missed the event where DM showed where the original books were altered from LRH’s transcripts and dictations. ie Chapters out of order, editors deleting chapters completely, turning sub-paragraphs into chapters, etc.. They also corrected punctuation errors and typos. We actually got to see these at the event. Sounds like someone doesn’t want people to have the books be as LRH intended them to begin with or there would be no complaints about these, right?

    Pat

  102. Another quick question– if altering the tech causes failure and illness, then why did Miscavige issue new editions of every single Scientology book? Did LRH not read the books closely enough the first few times they were published? If miscommunicating the tech is so dangerous shouldn’t LRH have paid closer attention the first time he printed the books?

  103. Is it true that Miscavige squirreled the Second Dynamic?

    “THE SECOND DYNAMIC – is the urge toward existence as a sexual or bisexual activity.”

    Makes sense to me

  104. @Comment by mover on August 22, 2008 11:01 pm

    I didn’t mean just one HCO PL – the course has a whole section on this.

    Pat

  105. @Comment by veritas on August 22, 2008 10:30 pm
    >Thank you both for the links.

    Alright.

    Did you read Dianetics? Or Fundamentals of Thought? That’s Scientology.

    You really should read those, because you’re trying to compare something to it that have no similarity at all. EVERYTHING that we do is in the books. No secrets.

    Pat

  106. You should read the data on Black PR in the PTS/SP course. That’s what your DSA is applying.

    Pat

    I have mnay read the Black PR bulletin in the PTS/SP Course times, I’ll go over it again :)

    There are a few things I would like to clear up on my own observations however.

    I was hoping one of you guys could clear some of my concerns on the area.

  107. Thank you both for the links.

    IMO scientology operates as a counter/alternate freemasonic system.
    From studying with Crowley the mason is easy to see where he got his ‘progressing up the bridge'(substitute the mason ladder) and the OT(Ordo Templi orientis) levels are very similar to the degrees a freemason has to progress.
    That there are more than 33degrees is not known to much of the porchmasons kind of like most scientoligist didn’t know about Xenu(just like the true meaning of ‘the grand architect is occluded to the low level masons) or psychiatry being the ultimate evil and creating sex and such nonsense.

  108. @Comment by mover on August 22, 2008 11:18 am

    You should read the data on Black PR in the PTS/SP course. That’s what your DSA is applying.

    Pat

  109. fellow scientologist here from Australia.

    firstly, I just wanted to write, and say this site is excellent, and i constantly refer my friends to this site – if they have picked up any false information on scientology.

    Secondly, I have been reading this particular set of postings, and noticed the posts by ‘Link’ – I think its actually an invalidation not to answer Link, on his questions in regards to David Miscavige or the expansion of the church.

    I know he could be seen as trolling, but actually the questions he/she has been asking are actually questions that have surfaced amongst many scientologists i know.

    I think it is an important topic Link has brought up. As i was referred to a few articles on the net by friends and family about ‘abuses’ by DM at int base. There is no proof to back this up of course, but I asked the Dir of OSA here at AOSH ANZO – and I was given the same answer – ‘the orgs are expanding. etc and this shouldnt leave anyone to quesiton DM’s abilities’

    Well, thats true. I believe. But – it still doesn’t dismiss these claims of ‘abuse’ by DM from ex-sea org and ex-scientologists. I have read the ‘blow offs’ section and ‘justifications’ section in the ethics book. But I know from experience, that if something is consistent, than it provides evidence that is closer to the truth. A lot of these allegations have been fairly consistent over a 15 year period.

    Also – I would like to see the actual stats of the church being validated by evidence.

    LRH says – ‘What is true for you is what you have observed yourself.
    And when you lose that you have lost everything.’ – and there is a whole other part of that quote by LRH on personal integrity which is awesome.

    I think what Link was trying to point out, is what he or she has observed for themselves.

    I know the doubt formula in the ethics books says basically to choose the group who is more upstat. Which begs the question – does the church do these events and manufacture upstats to not create doubt amongst its followers?

    I would really like to see raw evidence of the above.

    Also, RTC constantly update bulletins, and saw they were instructions left from LRH to update them, but never show any communication by LRH on these supposed ‘updated’ bulletins. I would reallly love an answer about that, cause when I sent a letter to RTC, they answered it in a round about way, and never totally answered the question for me.

    I think these kind of things create doubt in the mind of scientologists…

    Also, I am currently doing a co-audit course – TRs and Obj, and notice that the co-audit room is becoming less and less busier over time. Also, I have been a part of that particular advanced org for a while and its never been that way. Its actually getting worse, and i see the distress on a lot of the staff members faces.

    But we still publicise upstats?

    If the church is really upstat, shouldnt a building that has been around since the early 90’s be bursting at the seems???

    And RTC publish states increase “3 fold” etc – but it goes back to personal integrity and what i observe….and i certainly have not observed this.

    If you think these questions, and what i have written are not suffice to be here – thats ok – but i think its important not to avoid these, and im sure a lot of scientologists come here and the internet to look similar queries up, and if you can answer the questions I have brought up above, and what Link provided – and give some stable datum on it – you’ll killing many birds with one stone, and clear a lot of doubt in the area.

    Cause i can tell you its not just myself that has these same questions. I know thats a massive generality. So, we’ll just say – I have this.

  110. @Comment by veritas on August 20, 2008 4:34 am
    >I got a question for Lou and or Pat-
    Can you recommend some good books on anti-psychiatry that dont deal with the drugs and DSM part, but rather the its use as a tool of governments for repression?

    Besides tons of data on this on the cchr.org site there is a book that stands out for it’s exposure of the role psychiatry plays in our justice system, and influencing government

    It’s downloadable here:

    http://whoresofthecourt.com/WotC%20Book.pdf

    Pat

  111. @ Comment by veritas on August 20, 2008 4:34 am

    I just saw they have the Museum films also on DVD:

    https://secure.cchr.org/store/index.php?cPath=21

    – Lou

  112. @ Comment by veritas on August 20, 2008 4:34 am

    “Can you recommend some good books on anti-psychiatry that dont deal with the drugs and DSM part, but rather the its use as a tool of governments for repression?”

    No, I am not so much in politics. Scanning over the book list on the CCHR site these two look like what you are looking for:

    Psychiatry: The Ultimate Betrayal
    The Myth of Mental Illness

    The full list is here:
    https://secure.cchr.org/store/index.php?cPath=24&cchr

    Otherwise, come visit the “Industry of Death” in Los Angeles some time and you’ll see plenty of that: http://www.cchr.org/psychiatry_an_industry_of_death_museum/

    – Lou

  113. @Comment by veritas on August 20, 2008 4:23 am

    “Scientology is organized a lot like the Freemasons I noticed.”

    Wow, that’s new. Initiation rites? Closed circle meeting as equivalent of religious practice (they don’t call it that way)? Not to be found in Scientology. I think due to the fact that the Freemasons keep their books confidential (and that is basically all of them) there is a lot of rumors about what might be in them. So how did your noticing come about?

    – Lou

  114. I got a question for Lou and or Pat-
    Can you recommend some good books on anti-psychiatry that dont deal with the drugs and DSM part, but rather the its use as a tool of governments for repression?

  115. Scientology is organized a lot like the Freemasons I noticed.

  116. >It couldn’t be more obvious that you are making statements instead of real questions.

    These might as well be rhetorical questions, but that doesn’t make them any less real or genuine questions. The answers couldn’t be more obvious as indicated by your refusal to answer.

    Pat, it’s no secret, I’m civilly opposed to some things that go on within the Church.

    Why do I come here to post occasionally? Because it’s a topic of relevant interest to me. I spent six years in a Scientology environment. They were some important years in my life and I have fond memories of people and different groups I was apart of. I feel kind of bad when I see my local Org back home get protested (I don’t feel the same way when I see PAC get protested). Just about everywhere I go from acting classes to movie sets, most of the people I meet don’t have a positive viewpoint of Scientology, which is unfortunate because they don’t really know much of the good stuff, which all gets overlooked in light of the bad stuff. When I see the South Park episode, Nip/Tuck, and Anonyous… it makes me glad that I’m not part of Scientology anymore. Even if I felt that it was a completely benevolent group that could help me, I’d be too embarrassed to be part of it. I know there must be a lot of Scientologists that feel bad because I took any kind of disagreement with or opposition to Scientology so personally when I was in it.

    Scientology doesn’t need to have a bad reputation.

    I don’t wish to see an end to Scientology, just a reformation because I believe it can be a potentially viable benevolent organization. But a reformation can’t happen until there is enough awareness among Scientologists that there ought to be a change within their group. The best way I can help create that is by speaking out and try to raise awareness. Most Scientologists probably won’t agree with me immediately if at all, but… at least I’ve planted some seeds.

    I don’t wish to become an Internet stalker. The last time I was here, it was becoming an obsession and I don’t want that to happen again.

    But before I leave, I just want to say to you Pat… the fact that you refuse to answer my rhetoric questions only serves to challenge your response regarding not having any doubts about David Miscavige’s leadership because of Scientology’s “unprecedented expansion.” Because what’s apparent to me is that you can’t honestly say that you’ve personally observed the population of Scientologists around you growing, which calls into question… do you HONESTLY, TRUTHFULLY HAVE NO DOUBTS that David Miscavige has been effective at leading Scientology into expansion?

    And some things you need to ask yourself…. is your purpose to help Scientology grow? Is it to be on David Miscavige’s side and defend him? Do these purposes align with each other?

    But I can’t answer those questions for you.

    There, I’ve said everything I wanted to say. Goodbye.

    Link

  117. @Comment by Link on August 14, 2008 9:53 pm

    It couldn’t be more obvious that you are making statements instead of real questions.

    I answered the question. I’m guessing that you’d rather I fell into your covertly hostile questions, which is why I call it a troll.

    I’m done with this. Goodbye

    Pat

  118. Comment by Pat

    >I answered your question about DM.

    Yes, you did. Thank you. And I asked more questions in response.

    My basic questions are…

    Do you personally observe a bigger Scientology population in your environment than there was when you first started?

    Is there a way for Scientologists to keep their top leader in check?

    I admit, my purpose for these questions is partly to get you to do some introspection, but also… I really just want to know…. what is the TRUEST answer for you?

    If you’ve had a different experience than me as far as observing the Orgs getting more populated, then by all means, say so, if that is what you’ve observed to be true. I won’t argue against that. I’ve already told you what I’ve personally observed about the population of Scientologists onlines. But, if the Emperor is parading around town displaying his new clothes, and everyone is saying, “Look at that nice beautiful new suit the Emperor has on!” and I say that I observe that the Emperor has no clothes, and you observe the same thing I observe, then I’m the wrong target for you to aim at. True? But if you truly do see that the Emperor is wearing clothes, then say so. I won’t dispute your observations.

    If there is a way for Scientologists to apply ethics and justice against David Miscavige if he screws up, then by all means, say so.

    That sounds fair, doesn’t it?

    Thank you for the information about trolls. I have good reason to keep a pseudonym. And yes, my social skills in real life are poor. :( It’s sad. :(

  119. @Comment by Ghost Bear on August 14, 2008 2:32 pm

    Hi, I was taking up this “Clam” thing on the blog a couple of months and put it on the blog. You find it here:

    http://www.scientologymyths.info/clams/

    – Louanne

  120. @Comment by Ghost Bear on August 14, 2008 2:32 pm

    Read Dianetics. That will give you the answers about engrams. Also, if you read History of Man then you would have distinguished between the GE track and the spiritual, right?

    Scientology is all about the spirit. You are a spiritual being in a body. When this body dies you continue to exist. Whether one goes on to get another body is up to the individual.

    Up until 100 – 200 years ago this was the Christian teachings as well. Around the time of Wundt, whose theories were that we were nothing but animals in meat bodies, the teachings changed and the idea of one life and one body were born.

    In Scientology, you apply the principles and if they work for you, they work for you. That’s your own personal integrity. If they don’t work for you they don’t. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work for others. It’s always a choice. No one is being required to convert or change beliefs. In fact, Scientology is not even faith based, because of this principle. We have God as the Creator. What God is, is up to each individual’s personal integrity. There is no statement on that one way or another.

    Pat

  121. I have just finished reading “A History of Man”. Understandably, I have some questions. Specifically, about the Clam Incident.

    What I don’t understand is how an engram from a clam manages to get to a human. I mean, we did not evolve from clams. Clams have stayed clams for millions of years, not evolving in any appreciable way. Same thing with crocodiles.

    Is there some sort of reincarnation belief in Scientology, and if so, what other dogma does the church teach? I’ve always been told it’s only about “self help”. Doesn’t this contradict those claims?

    Furthermore, if there is a reincarnation theory, why does Scientology claim it’s compatible with other faiths. Christianity says you are judged and either go to heaven or hell when you die (as do many other faiths). Wouldn’t this difference in belief mean that Scientology isn’t compatible with other religons?

  122. Link,

    I answered your question about DM. Now you’re trolling.

    I found a great definition of trolling online:

    “What Is A Troll?

    The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a question that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

    Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

    Why do trolls do it?

    I believe that most trolls are sad people, living their lonely lives vicariously through those they see as strong and successful.

    Disrupting a stable newsgroup gives the illusion of power, just as for a few, stalking a strong person allows them to think they are strong, too.

    For trolls, any response is ‘recognition’; they are unable to distinguish between irritation and admiration; their ego grows directly in proportion to the response, regardless of the form or content of that response.

    Trolls, rather surprisingly, dispute this, claiming that it’s a game or joke; this merely confirms the diagnosis; how sad do you have to be to find such mind-numbingly trivial timewasting to be funny?

    Remember that trolls are cowards; they’ll usually post just enough to get an argument going, then sit back and count the responses (Yes, that’s what they do!).

    How can troll posts be recognised?
    No Imagination – Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses’ groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
    Pedantic in the Extreme – Many trolls’ preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail – the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.

    False Identity – Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
    Crossposting – Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?

    Off-topic posting – Often genuine errors, but, if from an ‘outsider’ they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it’s a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
    Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll – or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.

    Missing The Point – Trolls rarely answer a direct question – they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle – so they develop a fine line in missing the point.

    Thick or Sad – Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls – rigged to always say “above 150″

    Who is at risk?
    Any newsgroup, bulletin board, forum or chatroom can attract trolls, but they don’t have the brains to attack nuclear physicists, and they are drawn to the quick response where sex, religion and race are found. Also, politics is easy prey.

    One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls and one regular, it didn’t have a chance – but it was stupid enough to persist until removed.

    When Should You Be Concerned?
    Usually, not, though fractured funny bones and occasional waves of nausea have been reported.

    When a troll become persistent and personal, you may need to consider the possibility that it has fermented into an Internet Stalker – equally pathetic, if not more so – but sometimes requiring weedkiller.

    Trolls – if they had brains, they just might be dangerous!”

    http://www.flayme.com/troll/

    Pat

  123. As for the Axioms… I’m POSITIVE I read that somewhere (just the thetan making a duplicate of itself part, not the “branching out” theory). Or maybe another Scientologist in another forum quoted that. I can’t remember.

    So, basically, there’s no way for Scientologists to keep their top leader or their top management in check?

    Curious, Pat…. back in the 80’s, when that exodus was going on and the watchdog committeee and finance police… assuming you’ve been a Scientologist for that long…

    How was that time period for you personally?

    Do you think history is likely to repeat itself when it’s time for Miscavige’s successor?

    >With our unprecedented expansion and gains I have no reason to question the RTC as to their Keeping Scientology Working and protecting the marks of Dianetics and Scientology.

    Have you ever had any doubts that Scientology is actually expanding? I know that the Church has been buying a lot of real estate, but…. are there actual bodies filling in that real estate?

    From my own experience, whenever I go to the CC today, it seems relatively more empty than it did when I was living there back in the 90’s. The Renaissance restaurant used to always be crowded! If you read Amy Allen’s story at ESK, she talks about how she worked up in HGB and learned about the Church’s stats internationally (number of new people doing services, completions, etc.) were steadily downtrending. Jeff Hawkins also made a post at OCMB talking about how at Int the stats are tallied up every week, they were gradually lowering, and when he was last in about three years ago, at the most, there were only between 20,000 to 30,000 bodies around the world coming into Orgs every week, either for course, auditing, an appointment, an event, etc. Also, he said that basically the only Org that was turning a profit was FLAG.

    Even when I was in Scientology back in the 90’s, my Scientology friends would tell me how much bigger (almost St. Hill size) our local Org was back in the 80’s. I’m under the impression that the Church basically reached its peak back during the 80’s, and then a lot of people left during the whole finance police/watchdog committee/David Mayo situation.

    When I was in Scientology, I was constantly hearing, “We are getting bigger, we are expanding, we are growing so much, etc.” I was always hearing that, but I wasn’t seeing it.

    Of course, I have no way of verifying that any of Jeff or Amy’s data is true. But… considering how easy it is for people who hear about Scientology to go on the Internet and read other people’s anecdotes as well as OT III, it would seem more logical to me that less people would be interested in trying out Scientology. And I don’t agree with the sayings, “Bad publicity is still good publicity” or “It doesn’t matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name right.”

    But Pat… I guess the question for me to ask you is…. over the years since you’ve started Scientology…. have you personally observed more and more people coming onto course, going up the Bridge, more new people starting in Scientology and staying in Scientology? Is your environment generally more crowded than it ever has been before?

  124. @Comment by Link on August 14, 2008 3:38 am

    Hello, Link

    No, I’ve never doubted that DM is an extremely capable exec. With our unprecedented expansion and gains I have no reason to question the RTC as to their Keeping Scientology Working and protecting the marks of Dianetics and Scientology.

    DM is still in his 40s. I think we have a long time before we have to look at replacements.

    Pat

  125. @Comment by Link on August 14, 2008 3:50 am
    >Pat, regarding Confused’s questions about thetans and population….

    >I believe LRH wrote in one of the Axioms that “A thetan can create a duplicate of itself.” I don’t have the Axioms handy, unfortunately. It’s only verbal data. If you have the reference, you may want to post the Axiom.

    >But… to me, that answered my question about how new thetans are created, sort of like “branching out.” Two thetans (one being a copy of the other) had the same time track a hundred years ago. Then when the copy was created, the copy went in a different direction than the original.

    You’re right about that being verbal data. The problem with that is that it leads to alteration of truths.

    The Axioms are in the book Creation of Human Ability. What you are repeating sounds like something someone formed their own understanding on from reading them, but there is no actual axiom that states that datum. As I told Confused, it is best to read it for yourself. All of the basic books are in the public libraries now.

    Pat

  126. @Comment by Libraesque on August 9, 2008 12:13 am

    In addition, I think that you are confusing ritual with legal. The legal is the license which is required, at least in the US. So it’s irrelevant which Church does the rite, it’s legal.

    Pat

  127. @Comment by Confused on August 6, 2008 7:50 pm

    Hi Confused,

    sorry that I missed your questions. I had a hectic week, but I see that Pat was answering you. Do you have any open questions on the Sea-Org/Thetans?

    “Thank you for responding to my question in the last thread regarding the FDNY and the whole Medal of Valor thing.”

    As a note, I saw that the site was corrected. It says now “911 Program Medal of Valor”. Hope that clarifies it.

    “To get back to something I asked about in the previous thread (Marvin Gaye as leader of Anonymous) it appears it is on the front page of this website: http://www.enturbulation.org now you should be able to see what I was referring to.”

    Seen it. Looks like someone fell for a fake photo.

    – Louanne

  128. @Comment by Libraesque on August 9, 2008 12:13 am

    That’s actually not true. Whether a Scientology Minister can perform a legal marriage or not is a matter of local laws. Scientology Ministers can marry people everywhere in the world but not in all countries such a marriage is legally binding. In a lot of countries marriages can only be performed by the government. In others religious ministers can do it. In Sweden for example Scientology marriages are legally binding since 2000. The same is true in South Africa, parts of Canada and other countries (I do not have a list, some clues are in this article). In countries with restrictive religious laws – like Russia – no other religion than the established churches (e.g. russian-orthodox) can perform legally binding marriages. For Russia and the rest of EU member states this might change soon as the European Court of Human Rights decided in 2007 that the Church of Scientology has been discriminated and has to be registered just as any other religion. In the US there are no such regulations at all, i.e. only the government can marry people, so that question does not exist here and is separate to a religion’s recognition as a bonafide religion.

    – Louanne

  129. I have a question. If scientology is a religion, how come if one of it’s….ministers (?) marries someone it isn’t considered legal????

  130. @Comment by Confused on August 6, 2008 8:24 pm

    >My basic understanding of what a Thetan is: It’s what others would refer to as a soul. The part of you that lives on beyond death. In Christianity the soul would rise into heaven at death, in Scientology the Thetan is reborn into another body. Scientologists also believe that the Thetan existed prior to life on earth and Thetans exist throughout the universe. It’s not that Scientologists believe in aliens as much as they believe all life in the universe is connected because they’re all Thetans. Is that a fair description of a Thetan considering I’m an outsider?

    Not exactly. It’s just very simple. You are your own soul. What that means in terms of the universe is up to you, as it is up to each individual Scientologist according to his own awareness.

    It’s not a new idea. In fact, that you are a body is the new idea (westernized teachings) starting 100-200 years ago.
    This idea is very prevalent in the eastern religions (Veda, Vedic Hymns, Buddhism, Tao, etc).

    >1) Is there a finite number of Thetans in the universe? If yes, there’ll be a related question shortly, if no, where do new Thetans come from? I’m assuming that Thetans aren’t popping out Thetan babies.

    Good question. I don’t know. I can only assume that there’s no shortage of thetans out there without bodies considering the fact that we go get a new body when this one gets too old.

    >2) Are the Thetans on Earth confined to Earth or can they be reborn into another body somewhere else in the universe? Follow up: If they can be reborn somewhere else in the universe how does that effect the Sea Org billion year contract?

    Well, consider this. Ethically, one would want to keep his word once given. It’s a basic precept for us. Your potential is unlimited. How far does your imagination take you?

    3) To combine the first two questions, with Earth’s population constantly growing where are new Thetans coming from? Does that mean that somewhere else there is a race dying out or being born without Thetans? We aren’t keeping a 1:1 death to birth ratio so we can’t really only be recycling Earths Thetans whose body dies off.

    I don’t see why not. How many people on the whole planet leave their bodies every day and want another one?

    3b) (to make the questions shorter), are their more Thetans wandering the Earth then there are people? That’s the only way I could see this working without causing another race to die out.

    No idea.

    4) What happens when the universe runs out of Thetans due to population growth (this is assuming a finite number of Thetans) do some people end up without Thetans? Are there people living now without Thetans?

    You have some good questions. I have my own thoughts about this but not something that I could easily explain. I read all the basic books of Scientology and from that, I believe I was able to form my own data. All of these are now in the public libraries free to read.

    5) Where did Thetans come from in the first place? IE: Christianity has the Adam & Even story for how humans came to be, some believe in evolution for human beings. What does Scientology say “gave birth” to Thetans?

    I believe the answers are something that you have to find out for yourself. The data is in the basic books of Dianetics and Scientology.

    Pat

  131. @Comment by Confused on August 6, 2008 7:50 pm

    >Lets start with the Sea Org/RPF question. To preface the question: I’ve read the critic stuff of it being a prison camp, I’ve read what you have up on this site. Hopefully you can clear up any misconceptions I have.

    >1) Is the RPF really all that voluntary when your home, job and soul (thetan) are dependant on you doing it?

    Completely. 100 %. The alternative is that they would no longer be able to be a part of the Sea Org, which is an elite group. The RPF is a second chance and the majority jump at the chance to redeem themselves. It’s hard work, but there’s also high rewards in getting to receive the spiritual handlings that will resolve the problem. How many jobs do that for people? These members are very dedicated. When they signed on they knew that this was going to be tough. I would have to give you a similarity here and that would be to missionaries who devote their whole lives forwarding what they believe in. I’m sure you’ve heard of some who were pretty dedicated. The Sea Org is like that. Not all can make that expectation. In the Sea Org, normal every day things like a home and food and uniforms and spending money for the occasional spree or movie are provided for. This allows the Sea Org member to have no distractions in his job. In exchange for that he gets training (spiritual, administrative and ethics technology) that enables him to be more effective and have knowledge that allows him to succeed. Once through a period of basic training where they get practical experience in dealing with hard work. It’s not for the “mamby pamby”. People in the Sea Org deserve a lot of respect for their dedication. It’s that fact alone that leads any ant-Scientology group or person to attack it.

    I think of all the neutral reports about Scientology the Censur report is very good.
    You can read it here:
    http://www.cesnur.org/2001/london2001/melton.htm

    Not everyone can cut it. Those are the one’s that left. There is a standard way to do that. I think that what you see on the anti-Scientology sites are those that left after receiving services as part of their contract, and now are upset that they have to exchange for them. The fact that they then talk about it on the anti sites just makes those who are still in the Sea Org or helping people’s jobs that much harder. I believe that is the intent of going on the sites and complaining.

    >2) Is it fair to enlist teens into Sea Org when they don’t fully understand the consiquences of their actions and could potentially lead to question 1.

    When you say “don’t fully understand the consequences of their action” I take it to mean that kids are viewed as somehow unable to be responsible beings. Let’s take an example: Joe at 16 goes to work at McDonalds. He’s expected to be there on time, be clean and do a good job. He gets rewarded with pay, educational benefits and promotions. He comes in dirty, has been smoking pot and gets kicked. Was that being a “kid” or was that being irresponsible?

    When you talk about the soul, you’re talking about you. You are the soul, you don’t have a soul. Your experiences span more than one lifetime. Your potential is unlimited. It was only in the last few hundred years that the concept of only one life and heaven and hell got introduced into Christian teachings. That is something that you should research. Compare an old (pre-1800s or so) bible with today’s version. Why would those who changed it want you to believe in a heaven or hell and only one life? I’ll leave you with that.

    Pat

  132. Ok, now Thetan questions. I’m going to try and avoid the OT3 stuff if I can.

    My basic understanding of what a Thetan is: It’s what others would refer to as a soul. The part of you that lives on beyond death. In Christianity the soul would rise into heaven at death, in Scientology the Thetan is reborn into another body. Scientologists also believe that the Thetan existed prior to life on earth and Thetans exist throughout the universe. It’s not that Scientologists believe in aliens as much as they believe all life in the universe is connected because they’re all Thetans. Is that a fair description of a Thetan considering I’m an outsider?

    Ok, now my questions, hopefully they can be answered:

    1) Is there a finite number of Thetans in the universe? If yes, there’ll be a related question shortly, if no, where do new Thetans come from? I’m assuming that Thetans aren’t popping out Thetan babies.

    2) Are the Thetans on Earth confined to Earth or can they be reborn into another body somewhere else in the universe? Follow up: If they can be reborn somewhere else in the universe how does that effect the Sea Org billion year contract?

    3) To combine the first two questions, with Earth’s population constantly growing where are new Thetans coming from? Does that mean that somewhere else there is a race dying out or being born without Thetans? We aren’t keeping a 1:1 death to birth ratio so we can’t really only be recycling Earths Thetans whose body dies off.

    3b) (to make the questions shorter), are their more Thetans wandering the Earth then there are people? That’s the only way I could see this working without causing another race to die out.

    4) What happens when the universe runs out of Thetans due to population growth (this is assuming a finite number of Thetans) do some people end up without Thetans? Are there people living now without Thetans?

    5) Where did Thetans come from in the first place? IE: Christianity has the Adam & Even story for how humans came to be, some believe in evolution for human beings. What does Scientology say “gave birth” to Thetans?

    Thanks for any answers you can give me.

  133. Hi Louanne,

    Thank you for responding to my question in the last thread regarding the FDNY and the whole Medal of Valor thing. I’ve been doing a lot of reading since then and I have a couple more questions. One regarding Sea Org/RPF and the other regarding Thetans. This might be a bit long though so I’ll probably end up breaking it up into two separate posts.

    Lets start with the Sea Org/RPF question. To preface the question: I’ve read the critic stuff of it being a prison camp, I’ve read what you have up on this site. Hopefully you can clear up any misconceptions I have.

    My understanding from what has been written by scientologists is RPF is voluntary and Sea Org members are sent there if they fall out of favor with Scientology (maybe that’s a poor choice of words but hopefully you get my drift). Sea Org members who are assigned to RPF but choose not to go are expelled from the Sea Org. Those who are expelled from Sea Org can not continue their Scientology studies until they have paid off their “freeloader debt” that they incured from the courses they took while in Sea Org but now have to pay for due to them breaking their contract. Is that somewhat an accurate (if simplified) understanding of how entry into the RPF works?

    Also from reading would it be safe to equate the RPF to a military boot camp? From reports of people being in it sounds like there’s a lot of running, heavy lifting, doing shit jobs etc. kind of like being put on kitchen duty in the military as disipline.

    If my understanding is correct, that’s still kind of scary to me. Maybe not “Oh My God, prison camp” scary that some of the critic sites make it out to be but scary none the less.

    Here’s my reasoning. From everything I’ve read Sea Org members live in Sea Org housing (burthing?), and have spent years working for Scientology. If they choose not to go to RPF they have in one swoop lost their home, their job, and if unable to pay the “freeloader debt” their soul (thetan). When I look at it like that it doesn’t really sound voluntary. If I were told I had to do something or risk losing my home, job and burn in hell forever that would be an amazing amount of pressure on me to do what was asked of me whether I wanted to or not.

    From your perspective am I wrong in anything I’ve said there? From everything I’ve read the closest thing I can compare getting kicked from the Sea Org to would be defrocking a priest (sorry for all the analogies, I’m just trying to equate Scientology things which I don’t understand, to things I do understand to help me better grasp what is being discussed). Where the priest ends up losing his job, home and his connection to God due to some action deemed highly inappropriate by the Catholic Church. Would that be a safe comparison?

    Like I said, that’s a scary thought. It’s even more scary when I read stories of teens joining Sea Org (Astra Woodcraft for example). Without getting into her story as I don’t think it’s important to the questions I’m asking beyond she was a teen in Sea Org and I can use her as an example, I sucked as making decisions as a teen. Most teens make poor decisions. They aren’t really all that mature regardless of what they think about themselves. Is it fair to them that they risk being homeless/without a job by making the choice to join Sea Org without truly understanding the conciquences of their actions? Does Sea Org still allow people under 18 to join?

    I guess through all that rambling and explanation my main questions are:

    1) Is the RPF really all that voluntary when your home, job and soul (thetan) are dependant on you doing it?

    2) Is it fair to enlist teens into Sea Org when they don’t fully understand the consiquences of their actions and could potentially lead to question 1.

    To get back to something I asked about in the previous thread (Marvin Gaye as leader of Anonymous) it appears it is on the front page of this website: http://www.enturbulation.org now you should be able to see what I was referring to.

    Thetan question coming shortly (and it’s a lot lighter in subject matter then these questions)


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

    Road Cross

    Raquel llora por sus hijos

    LOPBURI TEMPLES

    More Photos