Got questions? Go ahead!

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 is 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

Advertisements

89 Comments

  1. Read the holy bible, my friend.

    • I have. How is that relevant to your buying false data about Dianetics, without ever reading the book?

      Pat

      • Oh, i did read Dianetics.
        It is just my interpretation of Dianetics that i told you.

      • Ah, interpretation. I get it now.

        Pat

  2. You should have cleared somatic for yourself rather than go on what someone else is feeding you. That’s the problem with not looking for yourself.

    From Miriam-Webster
    1 : of, relating to, or affecting the body especially as distinguished from the germplasm or the psyche

    Based on that your whole “interpretation” of what the Dianetics book said is incorrect.

    Why don’t you read the book, then compare that with the “interpretation” you received and accepted as true.

    Pat

  3. What Hubbard actually tried to do with Dianetics is removing the soul, which he redefined as the “reactive mind”.
    According to him the reactive mind is the source of all psychosomatic illnesses. “psyche” means soul.
    “soma” means body. So the true source of psychosomatic illnesses is of course the soul.
    Sometimes when your soul is hurt for some reason, for example when you are lovesick, this can also have an effect on the body. This would then be a psychosomatic illness.
    Hubbard also wrote that we have an analytical mind, which would in principle function flawlessly like a computer, if it weren’t for the reactive mind, which sometimes interferes with the analytical mind leading us to make irrational decisions.
    But the true reason for this seemingly irrational decisions, is of course that we have a soul.
    Hubbard thought, if he could remove the soul, then no one would get sick anymore and the analytical mind would take over. We would essentially become soulless roboters.
    The goal of Scientology is a world without insanity, criminality and wars.
    This goal would be achieved, if everyone would lose his soul and act like a roboter.

    Fortunately it is not possible to remove the soul from anyone.
    This is also the reason, why there are no true “clears”.

  4. @ Comment by Kenny on March 26, 2009 1:25 am

    “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
    Unless you have observed it
    And it is true according to your observation.
    That is all. ”

    “1. He is only referring to the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.”

    Yep.

    “2. He is only saying that these things in Scientology & Dianetics, which you haven’t observed for yourself, are not true FOR YOU.”

    Yes. Unless you’ve observed it for yourself, you don’t have to take it on faith. The test is to apply something and see if it works for you. Just don’t say it’s not true for me or that I’m lying when I tell you what’s true for me.

    But that doesn’t mean, that they couldn’t be true in an absolute sense, even though you haven’t observed them to be true yourself yet.

    Exactly. We’re agreed. It’s part of being able to learn. The first step would be to recognize that you don’t know all about it and can learn from the subject. This integrity is about our own truths. The biggest laugh that Scientologists have is that the critics keep making pronouncements about what Scientologists believe, like your comment about Louanne, as an example. It’s not up to discussion or debate. You either know it’s true or you don’t. What anyone says is irrelevant. That’s having personal integrity. So, again —— OT 3 is not a core belief of Scientology. That’s true for me. Just don’t call us a liar for having our own personal integrity about that.

    Pat

    • Errata: Near end of last paragraph should read “What anyone else says is irrelevant”

      Pat

  5. “. Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the core beliefs of Scientology. Nope.”?

    I see what you did there. Technically you are not lying, because you probably don’t see OT3 as a core belief of Scientology.
    It’s still dishonest.
    It would be more honest to simply tell it like it is. You are not doing Scientology by not telling the full truth.

  6. “. Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the core beliefs of Scientology. Nope.”?

    I see what you did there. Technically you are not lying, because you probably don’t see OT3 as a core belief of Scientology.
    It’s still dishonest.
    It would be more honest to simply tell it like it is. You are not doing Scientology by not telling the full truth.

    • If you had read the basic books like I asked you to do, you’d know how insulting you are to tell Scientologists that they don’t believe what they believe.

      You’re dishonest because you blindly follow what others say instead of finding out for yourself. That tells me that you are either unable to think for yourself (because you have been pounded for having your own ideas), or you are too lazy. You need to get your personal integrity in. What’s true is only true if you have PERSONALLY observed it to be true. Just because someone says “it’s this” or “it’s that” doesn’t make it true. About ANY subject. Only if you actually have experienced that for yourself.

      Come back when you’ve read some basic books.

      Pat

      • I have read some basic books already. I have read Dianetics- a modern science of mental health, science of survival and introduction into scientology ethics. I have also read the “What is Scientology” book.

        You haven’t correctly read what i wrote, because nowhere did i write what Scientologists believe or not believe.

      • I have read some basic books already. I have read Dianetics- a modern science of mental health, science of survival and introduction into scientology ethics. I have also read the “What is Scientology” book.

        Wonderful! What about Fundamentals of Thought or New Slant on Life? Those summarize the core beliefs.

        You haven’t correctly read what i wrote, because nowhere did i write what Scientologists believe or not believe.

        Here you did. Without ever having personally observed the scriptures of Scientology for yourself you are stating what we believe:

        Comment by Kenny on March 18, 2009 3:35 pm

        “. Xenu, Xemu or Zenu are not mentioned, part of or hidden in the core beliefs of Scientology. Nope.”?

        I see what you did there. Technically you are not lying, because you probably don’t see OT3 as a core belief of Scientology.
        It’s still dishonest.
        It would be more honest to simply tell it like it is. You are not doing Scientology by not telling the full truth.

        What you are saying that because Louanne stated that these names aren’t part of the core beliefs, is that she’s lying when you haven’t gotten studied what are factually stated as the core beliefs as outlined on
        http://www.scientology.org. You’re saying that what Scientologists have studied aren’t the core beliefs by stating that some other data on the internet is.

        Pat

      • Furthermore you didn’t understand the concept of personal integrity yourself.
        Hubbard didn’t say “What’s true is ONLY true if you have personally observed it to be true.” neither did he mean it.
        He just meant, that what you have observerd yourself is true. But that doesn’t mean, that there could be other things, which you don’t have observed for yourself, that could be true as well.

      • @Comment by Kenny on March 19, 2009 1:18 pm

        “furthermore you didn’t understand the concept of personal integrity yourself.
        Hubbard didn’t say “What’s true is ONLY true if you have personally observed it to be true.”

        Really? Let’s see:
        http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm

        “neither did he mean it.”

        Read the reference for yourself

        “He just meant, that what you have observerd yourself is true.”

        Yes, but there’s more to it. Read the link.

        “But that doesn’t mean, that there could be other things, which you don’t have observed for yourself, that could be true as well.”

        Read the link, Kenny

        Pat

      • “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
        Unless you have observed it
        And it is true according to your observation.
        That is all. ”

        1. He is only referring to the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology.
        2. He is only saying that these things in Scientology & Dianetics, which you haven’t observed for yourself, are not true FOR YOU.
        But that doesn’t mean, that they couldn’t be true in an absolute sense, even though you haven’t observed them to be true yourself yet.

  7. Why are all but two staff members fom Old St Hill declared suppressive? What have they done?
    See
    http://www.scientology-cult.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31&Itemid=94

    • Are you aware of how many people were staff at Saint Hill?

      This is BS

      Pat

      • No, how many?
        So why are the people on this list declared?

      • Kenny,

        You just stated that you read the Introduction to Scientology Ethics. Why do people get declared?

        Here’s some data I found about the number of staff at one point in time – so from 1960 to 2009 I can’t tell you how many have been staff.

        “The operation started with less than six staff and during its first quarter was turning over an average of L1,490 per week (at 1965 values). Growth in turnover and staff was very rapid. Within six months turnover had reached an average of L4,521 per week and staff were approaching the 200 mark. Over the next 12 months staff numbers levelled off at 250 ….”

        “There was a delivery staff of 50 Auditors. Twelve of these were ‘Review Auditors’ whose job it was to sort out any case that got bogged down.

        I can’t verify those figures but it seems right from what I remember.

        Pat

  8. Is it true that OSA is proliferating “viral books” to defame the Church’s critics?

    There is one “TORY MAGOO EATS BABIES” which she claims in her videos is an “OSA” thing they are “Running” on her:

    What do you make of that?

    • That you’re here to make a statement and not ask a valid question.

      If you knew what Scientology was or had even read some basic books from the library, you’d know exactly what kind of person says things like that about any group that helps people.

      Pat

  9. Perhaps “lower members” wasn’t the best choice of words. Yes, what I meant to say was entry level staff members. I understand that no job in the CoS is trivial or unimportant, and I’m not trying to demean anybody. I think it’s a perfectly valid question, though. I only ask because I’m looking into auditing as a career and can’t find a straight answer anywhere to how much money you could possibly make doing it. It’s one thing to be aggressive about money, but to not even look into how much money a job makes if you want to do it is pretty foolish, no? “How much money will this make me?” wasn’t the first question I asked myself when I decided I wanted to be an auditor, but it’s the only one I can’t seem to get a straight answer to, so that’s why I’m asking.

  10. I have a question for any auditors out there. How much money does the church pay “pro” auditors? I know the church doesn’t exactly pay it’s lower staff members well, but I would hope they would at least pay Class IV and up auditors enough money to at least live on.

    • Hi Meg,

      Seems more like a statement than a question, to me.

      Staff pay is based on the production of the entire staff. I’m not sure what you mean by “lower staff members”. There is no such thing. It’s disgusting to me to see people try to demean the staff’s hard work and dedication to a purpose by making how much one gets paid more important than spiritual freedom and an end to war and insanity.

      Pat

      • I’m going to take Meg’s question back a step since honestly I don’t really understand the various levels of auditors but she does bring a question to mind which has come up in my reading about scientology.

        What is the starting salary/hourly wage for an entry level staff member? What about higher levels? I’m not talking about specifics, just a range.

        For example, in the industry I work in entry level salary is ~$25,000. Buyers ~$30-50k, Managers ~$70k, VP ~$100k.

        I understand based on Pat’s comments that there may not be something set in stone and it could be based on performance of an org as a whole but then even on a pure 100% commission basis there should be some sort of benchmarks as to what they should be earning. For example, a car salesman working on 100% commission could make $25,000 if they sucked at it, $75,000 if they’re excellent at it so the benchmark would be around $50k.

        Granted this isn’t really a question on the theology of Scientology and more the operations but hopefully it will be answers. I am in no way trying to demean any of the staff’s work (as Pat mentioned above). I’m just curious as to the more mundane, earthly aspects of Scientology then the ecclisiastical ones.

      • It’s going to vary from org to org. More highly trained auditors make more. My only personal knowledge on pay for an upper level auditor in 1986 was $25 per hour. That data is from an auditor. In the orgs, I also know that for alot of staff pay is not as important as contributing and getting their training and processing as part of their exchange. Anyone who has no personal experience with training and auditing may not see that as a good exchange but staff do. You can’t get away from the spiritual aspect of Scientology, Meg, as that is why we audit. Not for material advances but for spiritual ones.

        Scientology deals with the spirit and how to improve our lives. Those who have advanced in their studies and processing do quite well in the finance side. Those who have other things going on like only being there to get personal gains don’t do so well.

        Pat

      • Thank you for answering my question Pat! And for the record, I’m not just in it for personal gains, not by a long shot. If I wanted to get rich I’d pick a different proffesion. I want to audit to help people, and that’s it, but I was honestly curious to how much money they made.

  11. I’d be curious about what Scientology book you read that you think contradicts what is true for me. But, after reading a Scientology book or doing a course and you still feel that’s true, then fine.

    Pat

    • I have observed how psych drugs cured my brother from a psychosis.

      • Good for him. Does he still take them?

  12. Hi Scientologists

    So I was looking over at the anon site (Whyweprotest) and I came across this news article which I would like your input on. Found here: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/02/23/child-abuse-brain.html

    The short version of the story is brains of suicide victims who dealt with severe child abuse had the gene that deals with stress not function properly which impeeded their ability to handle stress. The expression of the gene changed due to environment (child abuse) which lead to not being able handle stress as an adult, which may have been a contributing factor in their suicide.

    So my question is – how does this study (and potentially future studies) effect the CCHR/Scientology claim that mental illness has no physiological symptoms? The altering of gene expression would definately be a physiological symptom would it not? It would just be extremely difficult to test for short of cutting someone’s brain open.

    Now that it has been shown that trauma has a real physical effect which can influence psychological problems in the future how do you see Scientology approaching mental illnesses (including those that a gene link has not been found since one could be found in the future now that they know how/where to look)?

    Also, on a side note, isn’t this discovery pretty much like scientology’s description of an engram? Negative things happen to you in the past which has a direct physical effect on your body? I find that interesting.

    • @confused,
      thanks for the article :)
      but your interpretation “mental illness has no physiological symptoms” is just the opposite in Scientology beliefs. Just in Dianetics alone there are pages and pages of how the mind can cause physiological symptoms.

      The semantics is what do you define as “mental illness” vs physical illness in that there is physical damage present preventing normal mental behavior of the person

      If it is defined by DSM 4, CPT, ICD, or for that matter diagnoses AXIS 1 – 3 then Scientology would question those definitions/diagnosis in that to say “cause” vs “a solution” and the integrity and science behind the diagnosis as in an arbitrary AXIS 5 scale or GAF.

      I enjoyed this article in that as you state much of this is in Dianetics in that take abuse creates an engram or physical trace but an engram is a trace of cells, the cells being the source.

      Perhaps Pat or Lou could go more in depth.

    • L. Ron Hubbard evolved the “engram = cellular trace” theory in 1952 after he determined that it is hardly possible for all those memories that provenly exist to be stored in a “brain” or “cells”, plus that all body cells regenerate completely throughout every 7 years or so.

      But you are right, per “Dianetics” mental traumas do have physiological effects and vice versa.

      – Louanne

    • Whoa! False data, dude! Why don’t you go to the CCHR site and get the real facts instead of accepting second and third hand data.

      CCHR are the ones who have been bringing out the fact that so-called “mental illness” could be physiological.

      Still confused, aren’t you?

      Pat

      • I think we’re all saying the same thing here just in different ways. You (Pat & BradS) are saying that scientology/CCHR believe mental illness are in fact not mental but psysiological. I’m saying that most stuff considered mental illness is probably physiological but impossible to test for short of cutting people’s brains open.

        For example, CCHR/Scientology would not accept Schizophrenia as a diagnosis as it’s a mental one with no physiological proof to back it up but would accept something like Acute Intermittent Porphyria (rare genetic disease which causes seizures, audio/video hallucinations among other things) which can sometimes be confused with Schizophrenia but is in fact caused by a malfuctioning enzyme in the liver which causes hemoglobin to not form properly. Would that be a fair assessment?

      • The Church staff are not doctors. Who does the diagnosis is the doctor. The Church would accept that if it were relevant to the treatment of a parishioner. However, I think that you actually helped me make a point here, and that is that Acute Intermittent Porphyria is physical and not mental, and what CCHR is exposing is the tendency of the Psychiatric field to say it’s a mental illness when it’s a physical illness that is causing the problem. One is symptomatic and the other is diagnostic. Psychs are well known for not having physical tests done before prescribing psych drugs. Which would you rather have on your team?

        Pat

      • But psychiatrists, who prescribe drugs to treat a mental illness, obviously do believe that this illness results from underlying physiological conditions, which can be influenced with the drugs. Just, because they haven’t a physical test or don’t have the diagnostical tools to apply the test, doesn’t mean that there isn’t essentially a physiological condition, which is causing the mental illness.
        There are other illnesses, like migraine for example, which seldom get diagnosed by using physical tests either.
        What you write sounds, as if a distinction could be made between “mental” illnesses and physical illnesses. This distinction doesn’t exist. The attribute “mental” is merely signifying that it is an illness, which has an effect on the psyche of the patient.
        Psychiatry is a discipline of medicine, which is based on natural science. Natural science doesn’t make a distinction between the body and the spirit or mind. It assumes that the mind is essentially a product of the brain and all perceptions of a human.
        And this is essentially where it conflicts with Scientology’s beliefs, isn’t that so?

      • Kenny,

        It’s Thetan, Mind, Body. The 3 parts of man. You can see a video on this at http://www.Scientology.org

        Mental is not physical. Those are two very different things. I think that we’re running into the fixed idea that the mind is the body’s brain. It’s not. When you chemicalize (like my word?) a body, you’re not fixing any mental problems. Only masking them with the effects of the drug on the body.

        How is that a cure for a migraine that could be coming from food allergies or some other cause that a doctor could find?

        It’s obvious that you’re pro-drugs. Before you say anything else on this you really should watch the videos at CCHR.org. You’ve bought into the Drug companies hype.

        Psych drugs don’t cure mental illness by the Psych’s own admission (see Psychiatry: An Industry of Death documentary and Making a Killing DVD on CCHR.org). They can only mask the symptoms and cause the real underlying causes to be ignoring, often resulting in severe disability and even death.

        Pat

      • How can you be so sure, that the mind is not just a product of the brain functions and all your perceptions?
        I think it’s pretty clear, that physical brain damage can also damage your mind. There have been cases where the whole character of a person has changed as a result of a brain damage, while everything else stayed the same. Therefore there must be a direct correlation between brain and mind.
        Everything you perceive with your senses is translated into nerve impules, which influence the brain.
        So you can either influence your mind by taking substances, which have a direct biochemical impact on your brain or by changing/stimulating your perceptions in a certain way, this is what auditing does, seen on a very abstract level, and what also every other psycho therapy does.

      • Kenny, you’re not thinking these things through.

        Not for profit means that no income benefits an individual.

        That’s why BPI qualified as a “not for profit” entity and has passed through extensive scrutiny on this along with all the rest of the Churches and Organizations. What excess over cost to produce the books goes back to the organization. As Louanne points out, shipping 1000s of books worldwide and getting those facilities and printing machines costs millions.

        Pat

      • Kenny,

        There’s only one way for you to know this is true is to find out for yourself.

        Nothing in Scientology will ever be true for you unless you can personally observe it to be true. At that point, you’ll know. Insisting that something ISN”T true when you haven’t personally looked, is not the way to go about it. There are those who actually look and there are those who accept something because it came from an authority. Which are you?

        Pat

      • “Nothing in Scientology will ever be true for you unless you can personally observe it to be true.”

        What if what i observed to be true contradicts with what you observed to be true?

      • “What if what i observed to be true contradicts with what you observed to be true?”

        You would have to investigate then.

  13. What exactly do auditors write up during an auditing session and for what purpose do they keep these notes in the PC folder?

    Why can’t you get your PC folder back from the church, when you leave the church?

    • @kenny,
      ok two part answer here:
      Confidential materials are as explained before and what you said yourself you understood in terms of gradient learning. There is nothing much to say with that, if you do not agree with that concept that is fine but it does not merit or warrant the perceived “entrapment” or secrecy argument I hear. Now for the OT levels, I could only assume for this I will base upon my own auditing in that it is prep material for foundational purposes and then the solo questions but not dogma. Similar to Parsha to Gemara learning first and then the debating begins over what the sages sated in Gemara in Judaism. You would need the first part as the foundation to debate, thus you would need the pre-material in depth to know what to ask. Everything is exact in procedure in Scientology, that is part of the faith in believing one will find more about themselves. I am not an Auditor so i cannot say exactly what they write down other than the areas that were troubling or very profound. I have heard of from critics and apostates that their records were not given back. I would say if that there is no hope for returning or reconciling with the church to come back, that the person be able to get their records, but that is my opinion and I know a few people who are not apostates but have just drifted off in intensity as life gave them more responsibilities and less time as with many Catholics, Jews I know who begin to fade and not observe and not ask or have a record issue.

      • *corrected statement is that those whom I know have not asked for their records or had an issue with what was written down.

      • Ok, thanks for your answer.
        I have nothing against gradient learning. In fact, i think this gradient concept is nothing really special and naturally applied by everyone, who studies something. It’s so trivial, that it doesn’t even need extra mention.
        But i still fail to see, how this makes the strict confidentiality of any material necessary.
        In essence this must somehow boil down to some purely faith based argument, which is beyond any logic and reason.

      • of course, it comes down to faith. I could never use logic and scientific fact to specifically explain why Gemara has secrecy and kaballah, no way or any religious ritual or procedure for that matter. It would boil down to perhaps faith vs no faith argument.

      • thanks for the conversation. :)

    • I don’t think so, but you probably can insist that it is being destroyed. Which is a little stupid in case you ever plan to come back.

      – L

    • As an Auditor, I can answer this. A person is audited from a program written by a case supervisor. From what the auditor writes in the worksheets the case supervisor (cs) can tell if the person has attained the goal of the process and or the program. It’s the cs, who along with the auditor and many administrative personnel, help to get a person all the way through his program and up the levels properly so he gets the gains at the next step. The folder(s) are the person’s record of his whole progress up the bridge. If he has trouble then the folder is there to go back to and find out where the problem is. What’s in the folder becomes irrelevant if the person has dealt with what he’s concerned about.

      If someone had gotten off in a session that he had robbed a bank and was hiding out from the law, then blew and wanted his folder, that just tells me that he didn’t take responsibility for his crime and wants to make sure it’s not found out about. How would you like to live in constant fear? Having the folder isn’t going to make that fear go away.

      I personally wouldn’t want my own folder. I want my cs and auditor to take care of my auditing so I can just concentrate on going up the bridge.

      Pat

  14. Is it true that Scientologies stats are way down? I know that there’s no way the church has the 10 million members that it boasts about, but are we really that deep in trouble with membership? I’ve never been to an org so I don’t know, and I’m assuming you visit one regularly so you can tell me some facts about this situation. From your experience, is Scientology growing, staying the same, or are we in trouble?

    • “We” so I am to assume you are a Scientologist? All I can say is that with the missions and Orgs I have been to, I always see new faces and the old ones. Some visits there are a few around and other days it is a mad house. I do not pretend to know the numbers so I cannot say for sure, but I do know COS is buying more land for new missions and orgs, so I would assume…. growing.

      • I have also been told of “super orgs” going up in Texas.

      • The Churches and Missions I know (several in California) are pretty stable, i.e. you see the same people for years plus a regular occurrence of new faces which become “the same people you see for years”.

        Also, the Church has opened several new and huge buildings in the past 24 months all over the world and I heard there are about 10 more on the horizon for this year alone.

        – Louanne

    • Mandy,

      Who’s “we”? Just curious since you say you’ve never been to an org. In order to know the answer to this you need to go to one and ask to see the statistics.

      Pat

      • Ah ok, I was just asking because I’ve been hearing a lot of nasty rumors that membership is down (mostly rumors spread by anonymous and other Scientology haters) but then again, sort of ridiculous listening to rumors spread by people who have never set foot in an org!

      • To put things in perspective, I have followed the critics for a long time back even before LMT was started and they predicted the church would fall then and look at it now. I am sure there are ups and downs as with anything but I do know more orgs are going up.

      • Yeah, I figured the rumors were just the result of haters and critics talking out of their rear-ends as usual. Just wanted to make sure! Scientology must be doing pretty well if it can afford to put up new orgs in this atrocious economy!

  15. “Maybe at the point when fake-proof files can be created but I don’t think this will happen in the near future. ”

    That’s already possible. Ever heard of “hash functions”?
    It is possible to verify the authenticity of a digital document with hash codes.

    • sorry it would not allow me to reply to your reply :)

      @kenny, I have heard that a lot as in “why can’t we know” the best I can say beyond the gradient learning is that no one really knows until the person goes through the audit because it is about the individual and what they discover about themselves through auditing, one is given questions and material for the purposes here as “stimuli” but if material were given in advance couldn’t or wouldn’t that undermine that specific audit and perhaps void or prevent the person from finding out more about themselves had that not gained predetermined information? The truth is that auditing is extremely personal, no two are alike and therefore no one could tell you what to expect. Its not like having a dogma and thus having the ritual repetition but could be likened to perhaps confession of which is very personal and unpredictable; and if say material were part of the confession to help the individual remember specific sins as with Judaism during kol nidre for all the specific types of sin the same context would apply and answering your question, “we cannot tell you what is ahead, because we simply do not know.”

      • Are you sure that Hubbard considered the material that is given to you on OT3 just for the purpose of “stimuli” and not to be taken literally?
        If this is the case, then show me where in the literature Hubbard says this.

        I have read the whole material of OT3. The Xenu story is a part of this material. It is in Hubbard’s own handwriting and has the caption “Data”.
        Hubbard said in a lecture, that OT3 doesn’t deal with the first dynamic anymore but with the 4th dynamic.
        The Xenu story is actually the 4th dynamic engram and as such independent of the individual.
        The auditing on OT3 is done as solo auditing which deals with the consequences of this 4th dynamic engram: body thetans. Hubbard describes very precisely the different formations of body thetan clusters and how you can get rid of them.
        This auditing might be very personal and unpredictable, but this is independent of the actual materials.
        So, i see no reason, why this material should be confident. I have read it and nothing bad happened.

      • Nothing bad happened?

        You’ve been obsessing over it every since.

        The manner in which the Anti-Scientology haters have used it is similar to the infamous anti Masonic “Taxil Hoax”.

        It makes me think that it’s a miscontextualized piece of fictious–a hoax at best, albeit a successful one.

        TOm

      • Haven’t obsessed over it any more than a Scientologist, i guess.

      • @kenny
        Ok, the best way to explain is theoretical vs literal as you are framing everything stated or that you hear as literal a mistake also done by many against Judaism when they simply take words and assign their own meaning or truth and frame much to be literal. For example via Scientology, the Venus train lecture Hubbard gave, which was a joke via the laughing post the statement and in Judaism via the Talmud G_d turns a mountain upside down and puts it over the heads of the Jews to force the Jews to accept Torah but there are parallel stories as how the Jews came to accept Torah as well and all as to give a message but not in the literal, anyone not in the know or progression of learning would take it literally and thus screw up the whole belief. Judaism is rampant with such stories especially in its mysticism. So let me give my own experience in Scientology, I remember taking a course and had to think of a purple cat, the exercise is theory and I would hope no one taking the course would literally take cats to be purple. In scientology there are practical/literal and theoretical applications.
        Now as for OT, from what I know they are Solo Auditing, but nonetheless they are Auditing levels, not Book course levels as to learn the dogma of scientology. So scientology itself explains auditing in principle as to help “a person can improve his condition, only if he is allowed to find his own truths about himself.” Key words here are “his own truths” then “about himself” therefore auditing cannot be dogma as literal text belief. That would be impossible and yet have “his own truths.” Auditing – “Is the process of asking specifically worded questions designed to help you find and handle areas of distress.” Your areas basically, thus the “specifically worded questions designed…” If that does not answer your question, I do not know what will. Just in the Scientology brochure material, Auditors are accredited with being “extensively trained in both theory and practice over a period of years.” Again, theoretical vs literal.
        There are plenty of Space Operas rampant in lectures and literature in Scientology and IF Xenu is one of them, what makes that story any different than the others? Nothing other than IF what you say is true, it was selected to be the “specifically worded questions designed…” in OT III auditing and as in my courses and auditing, I would hope one knows what is theory in order to provoke critical thought or in depth discovery of one self vs taking it literally.
        Again you want to cling to things you do not have the foundation for and from apostates and there are many in Judaism as well who also did not bother to study Gemara and spew falsehoods about Talmudic learning and so on. The dogma of Scientology can be read for free from your public library and maybe one day electronically. Auditing is not dogma you have all you need to know in the Basic Books.

      • Ok, we have diverted a bit from the original topic, which was the confidentiality of the OT materials and for which reason these are held confidential.

        So the topic is now whether the OT material has to be taken literal or not.
        You say it hasn’t, because it is an auditing level and not a book course level.
        But OT3 consists of 2 parts.
        The first part is
        “Study of Section III Data”
        and the second part is
        “Auditing on OT3”.

        What do you do with the data in the first part? How do you understand it and what is its purpose?

    • That’s funny. You mean to tell me that you actually believe they couldn’t be hacked or altered?

      Pat

      • See, it’s easy. All the CoS has to do is to scan and upload the books on their site.
        If you want to make sure that you have the right book, then download it from their site and not from some other site.
        What’s to object?
        Oh, i know. Money :D
        Solution: Put a donate button up on the site and tell your followers that they should give as much as they think it’s worth.
        That’s fair exchange.

      • Kenny,

        You didn’t think that through. If money was a concern why are we donating hundreds of thousands of books to libraries all over the world?

        Pat

      • You donate $450 for one set of books, right?
        The church produces the books itself.
        Do you think one set is $450 in production cost?
        Maybe the church makes a profit from the donations for the library sets.

      • #Comment by Kenny on February 28, 2009 5:33 pm
        “You donate $450 for one set of books, right?”

        Correct.

        “The church produces the books itself.”

        Almost, Bridge Publications does (bridgepub.com).

        “Do you think one set is $450 in production cost?”

        No, it’s much less.

        “Maybe the church makes a profit from the donations for the library sets.”

        The Church, including BPI does indeed use the money saved by in-house printing to a) ship the books to the public libraries all over the world and b) increase the production capabilities of their printing lines. The new all-digital “print shop” (size: bigger than one football field) for production of the basic books of Scientology and Dianetics was featured in Publishers Weekly last year and presented at Church events. I heard rumors they doubled their capacities in the last six months. All-digital printing machines capable of printing ten thousands of books per day are huge and – surprise! – they cost money. Millions, probably.

  16. @Kenny, I know it is hard for many to grasp that the internet is not free and if unlawfully leaked is a violation of intellectual property. But see all of this is laughed at whether it be the music industry claiming copyright or Viacom or the movie industry or the software vendors trying to shut down sites like Pirate bay, I know laughable, I see the complaints run rampit on youtube.

    My personal opinion of the cruise vid if it were me, would be to leave it up and not care. The point is that over something misunderstood and the claim of censorship, anon attacked. I have been programming for a long time since the early 90’s and have dealt with the real Anon, in attempted hacks and know their reasoning behind the free net, not some Enturb anons or wannabe chan users idealizing the old guard Scientology critics.

  17. @Truthis
    What is wrong with litigation exactly, I follow many suits from Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Jews for varying degrees of critics to divisions, copyright and so on? Having church officials on occasion come out and shoot vid cams and photos (of which I do not agree with as I stated it feeds the machine) is hardly what would happen at a synagogue. Take mine for example, no paid security, the real cops and there is not much tolerance for some of the behavior i have seen at the protests I have seen.
    Oh and Bunker is not former Scientologist, he got involved via Minton in the days of LMT. LULZ, whether one is former SCI or not, the mask has nothing to do with protection, most protests I have been to, anon state the church already knows who they are and if the “danger” is sooooo great, vid after vid where the same anons or protesters go time and time again and some every two days and why, because no real harm ever comes of it, unless they are one of the anons that have perpetuated criminal act. The frequent flyer protests usually go because they know they will get to have fun talking with security and have the video camera battles and laughs, countless vids of this on youtube….. boring.

    As for Xenu/creation, I am Jewish and have taken a few courses and had some auditing, since G_d is not established and left to the individual, I found no real conflict thus far. I have gone in depth with this very topic last year on the forums here, just look the up.

    Now, for Xenu or Xemu whatever I do not know, but if the criticism is about paying to learn then you would not like many churches that I have been to where 10% income is requested and paycheck stubs verified. For Judaism almost every shul will not allow attendance during high holy days without a ticket which represents your annual contribution. Moreover, in Gemara and Kabbalah are not taught until a certain understanding is achieved, Mormons do the same for their levels. If Aliens are the criticism do you really give more credence to say demons or the devil or angels???? But going by the critics, Xenu came to be around 1967 some 14-15 years after the creation of Scientology, this causes major problems for critics even if true in that Xenu could not be scientology’s god nor worshiped or a major tenant of Scientology.

    • The Xenu related criticism is not just about paying to learn.
      For me it has more to do with the question, why exactly the OT levels have to be confidential at all and again with CoS abuse of copyrights for the purpose of keeping parts of their philosophy secret. This has pissed off people on the internet in the past, whose homes got raided, because they shared confidential Scientology material on the internet to analyse and criticize it. Today those OT levels are so widespread on the internet, that CoS doesn’t seem to bother anymore. But some years ago, they would try to shut down every website, that published these materials.

      I know the official answer has to do with learning on “gradients”.
      “You don’t jump into nuclear physics, when you are just beginning to learn physics” is an analogy i have heard from Scientologists.
      But i don’t see why a physics student shouldn’t be allowed at least to take a look at a book about nuclear physics, even when he wouldn’t be able to fully comprehend it yet.

  18. “To understand Anon you have to understand the main reason it all started which is in line with “internet freedom” directly related to the Tom Cruise vid which in many cases is complete disregard for copyright law or intellectual property and blurring the lines of “fair use.””

    This is laughable. CoS simply abused YouTube’s copyright system to censor information, that they didn’t want anyone to see, because it made them look bad.
    Or can you tell me another reason, why CoS didn’t want the video to be seen?

    • Out of context information and wrong audience. Cruise did the video for his Scientology friends, to be used in an internal event. Certainly this comes across ridiculous outside this frame. And certainly it was biased because only a couple of minutes were shown. Personally I don’t care.

  19. Can’t shut me up by banning the email accont guys, try again….lol.

    Brad,
    You know that the church litigats people for being critical As was done with Greg Housh. Who the church litigated because he was the one signing his name to get the cities log for permits. The charges were dropped because he didn’t do anything but protest.
    First Magoo and Bunker are not part of Anon…..lol. And the people the church has “outted” don’t need masks.
    Confront the facts!

    David,
    Xenu “doesn’t exist”. That is the offical bullshit line the church uses. You have to pay all the way up to OTIII before you can know about Xenu. And yes you are correct that they do not mix.

    • “Can’t shut me up by banning the email accont guys, try again….lol. ”

      Nobody is trying to shut you up. This blog has only one rule and you keep breaking it. How about being a social person and engage in listening, asking and getting answers, instead of making statements or being sooooo right about your personal viewpoint?!?

      – L

    • You mean that the Church actually stands up for it’s rights through the legal system?

      Yay!! That’s awesome!!

      Pat

  20. Thank you for collecting so much information on this site and scientologymyths.info. I can only imagine the work involved and the amount of time spent maintaining both sites.

    On scientologymyths.info I was reading about the Xenu story – and you describe it as scientology’s ‘creation myth’.

    My question is this: Scientology states that its an ‘applied religious philosophy’ and as such is compatible with religions – specifically Christianity. Scientology’s creation myth seems a direct contradiction to the creation myths of other religions, which would indicate that they are not in fact compatible.

    Is there an official Church of Scientology response to this? If not, what about you personally?

    Thank you in advance –

    • I am not aware of a specific official Church of Scientology response to this but here is the deal: In Scientology, no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith. That which is true for you is what you have observed to be true. Each individual discovers truth for himself through observation, self-awareness, and experience. Scientology increases spiritual awareness and provides practical tools to help others do better in life. The goals of Scientology – to attain the many higher states of existence available to man – and its basic doctrines (man is his own immortal soul and lives on after the death his body) are similar to many other religions. I have never been a very religious person (though raised Catholic) but I do know a lot of Scientologists who are Jewish, Buddhist and Christian and those I asked over the last couple of years tell me that Scientology increased their understanding of the religion tremendously and their respect for the Creator (a concept whose existence Scientology acknowledges as well) would have increased since they are Scientologists.

      The quote of Jean E. Rosenfeld (not a Scientologist) of an “origin myth” in Scientology (http://www.scientologymyths.info/aliens/what-is-zenu.php) is correct, though the story he is referring to does not touch the origin of the Universe or who or what created this all. There is no “Creation Myth” in Scientology, no doctrine on who or what created the Universe.

      Personally I do not believe that life just happened accidentally, neither do I believe that everything is controlled by one source. I think that this Universe with all its planets, Earth, Man etc. has been going on for a long, long time and that strong spirits (or just one) were at work to create worlds and civilizations out of basic material that has been there forever.

    • As Louanne said, there is no “creation myth” in Scientology. “Xenu” is not and never has had anything to do with our origins as spiritual beings. In other religions, “creation” involves how our bodies got created, and only in the last few centuries, the idea that you are a body is being promoted.

      If you need to compare us to any religion then the eastern religions such as the Veda or Tao teh King, or Buddhism are closer, because they have taught that we are spiritual beings for over 10000 years.

      Scientology is about you as a spiritual being, not a body so there is no “creation myth” for us. What God is, is up to each individual. What is true for us is only true if we personally observe it to be true, and especially not because someone else tries to say that’s what I or some other Scientologist believes. If you walk away from here with any idea of what we are, understand that, please. It’s only true for you if you personally observed it to work.

      Pat

  21. @Tom, the whole party line Anon have with masks is bunk for its main principle especially when many top “icons” for Anon like Bunker, Magoo, Smurf and others do not wear masks of any kind.
    To understand Anon you have to understand the main reason it all started which is in line with “internet freedom” directly related to the Tom Cruise vid which in many cases is complete disregard for copyright law or intellectual property and blurring the lines of “fair use.”
    I state the above, because before the Youtube Tom Cruise vid Anon are Anonymous after all, hackers and the like of which I having worked in computers most of my life have come across before. They simply are Anonymous and thus the mask to maintain anonymity or Halloween costumes, pope outfits, what have you. This then leads into the variety of lulz which is in part their motivation.
    Many of the protests now and the small groups that go out vs last march in many cases are in my opinion for the laughs, to be with friends and sing, dance and preform in some cases dumb pranks in front of a church that largely does not respond but I will admit at times feeds their attention in a manner that drives the Youtube vids for more laughs.

  22. that may be a good idea, for now many of the books are available in public libraries as far as i know and have seen locally

    it has been a while, wanted to say hello to everyone.
    @Lou, sent you a email.

    • Hi Brad,

      thanks fo the email and welcome back!

      I’ll get back to you!

      – Louanne

  23. Why doesn’t the Church of Scientology (or RTC or whoever is responsible) put the set of (i think 18) basic books, which build the basic theology of Scientology up on the internet for everyone to download for free?

    • Books are made available for free in libraries but to ensure a certain quality and that the texts are not changed or falsified (like a lot of this “internet Scientology” is already) the Church won’t agree to provide electronic copies of the data. Maybe at the point when fake-proof files can be created but I don’t think this will happen in the near future.

      – Louanne

  24. Why do Anonymous members claim to wear masks as protection from Scientologists?

    In multiple cities, Anonymous members have not been allowed to wear them in the first place. Is this proof enough that “Fair Game” is a myth?

    Tom Newton


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

    F

    E

    D

    More Photos