A new round of 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

This is an old thread. The new one is here: https://scientologymyths.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/got-questions-try-this/

Advertisements

236 Comments

  1. I am closing this thread shortly, too many monologues here. It will be preserved however.

    Thanks for participating in the conversation!

    – Louanne

  2. So you say by comparing the old books to the new books makes it so you know that the current set of books is correct. That doesn’t answer the question of HOW you know thay are correct.
    Did DM release copies of the recordings. any transcripts? No, just books. And everything he said was verbally accepted by every Scientologists that the current set of books is correct, even though the books had been fixed once before.

    Hubbard wrote KSW for a reason. So either Hubbard never fixed his own books or DM has squirreled them. If it was Hubbard not fixing his own incorrect books then Scientology has been nonexistant till 2007. Either way you look at it, you now have to simply have faith that the books are correct. There’s no “knowingness” that they are correct. And either way you look at it there’s something fundamentally wrong with what’s gone on with the books. I’m happy you have faith that the books are correct. But that is all you have.
    Hubbard never fixed his own books then writes KSW….interesting.
    I’m counting the days to the next release of changed materials.

  3. Truth wrote: “You have absolutely no idea if the books are in original content anymore.”

    It’s very simple — compare the originals to the new ones. I’ve done it, and I have a hard time seeing anything machiavellian in the updates. First, the changes make up perhaps .01% of the overall content. Most of the needed changes are obvious, particularly if you do a before/after comparison, and/or if you are familiar with the earlier requests that LRH made, published in LRH policy letters decades old.

    Here’s an example. In the book “Scientology: A New Slant on Life” — an introductory book on Scientology containing a collection of short essays and lectures by LRH — the opening essay is “Is it Possible to Be Happy?” Up until the new Basics Books, the very first line of this essay used to read: “A great many people wonder whether half of us even *exist* in this modern, rushing world”.

    In the new book, the line now reads: “A great many people wonder whether happiness even *exists* in this modern, rushing world”.

    Was this change done because it simply sounds better and/or makes more sense, in the publisher’s or DM’s opinion? No, as it turns out, this essay was actually from a public radio address that Ron gave in the 50s as part of a segment on Scientology — I believe it was in Phoenix in 1954. The older versions of the NSOL book had always been based on the *transcript* of this radio lecture — not on the original recording itself. When inspected closely, LRH’s actual original recording (scratchy and old as it was) said “…whether happiness even *exists* in this modern, rushing world”. And this of course made more sense than the original *transcribed* version — particularly in a new book introducing Scientology, in an essay titled “Is it Possible to Be Happy?”

    So in my view, these updates were long overdue and I’m glad to see that they were finally so meticulously done.

  4. I find it upsetting that people who want to audit, want to have a clear world, cannot work along side the church, but operate outside of it. Thank you for all the responses, they’ve given me some wonderful information to think about.

  5. Will,
    Freezoners are called Sqirrels in Scientology. They are the next “best” thing to an SP. No they are not allowed to do any Scientology at any of the “churches”.

  6. The real problem is Scientologists no longer look doesn’t listen. You guys simply believe whatever DM tells you to believe. You have absolutely no idea if the books are in original content anymore. They have now been changed at least twice. Now you are just going off of what you verbally hear from DM.
    Some much for KSW.

  7. Thanks for hosting this blog! This is just about the only place non-Scientologists can communicate with a member about the subject.

  8. Will wrote: “How is the churches Tech different than LRH’s original tech?”

    In my view, the Church’s tech (at least the basic books and congress lectures) are now about as close to LRH’s original tech (and subsequent wishes for improvements) as you can get. These are now based on the original group lectures and “transcription lectures” that LRH made to transcriptionists for a number of the books, minus various transcription errors and large-scale edits by others that earlier books suffered from.

    If anyone is truly interested in using the original tech that LRH wished for others to have … then these are the books and lectures that they should be using, IMHO.

  9. wgas wrote: “Seems like the pre 1986 versions of the tech should be the only valid stuff. Why did LRH depart his body when the tech was all messed up?”

    Apparently he felt confident that management would ultimately follow through on his wishes for the materials.

    Ron’s normal mode of working was to give the lecture/book into the recorder, and then move on to the next task. He then left the transcription, compilation and editing to others, sometimes leaving instructions behind shortly after and sometimes years after. While some projects over the years attempted to bring the basic books to the format that Ron wished, this most recent project was by far the largest and most extensive — involving literally going back to the original recorded media from the original book lecture and comparing it to the transcription to get the original raw data. This had never been done in earlier similar projects. In doing so, several transcription errors and heavy-handed editing by editors from the 50s were found. These were corrected and, then, using LRH’s subsequent notes and wishes, the books were re-formatted and re-published. The vast bulk of the content of course remained the same. But we now enjoy the books, I believe, in the form that LRH had always hoped.

    “How could Flag have called itself the mecca of technical perfection before the Golden Age of Tech was released? They couldn’t have been 100% perfect like they claimed.”

    They weren’t perfect, never will be. But they can always continue to strive to reach the “Ideal Scene”. The Golden Age of Tech was a major step forward in that goal.

  10. LRH, being an OT XV could instantaneously check all his writings and verify that they are correct – even all the way from Target 2 where he is at now, salvaging them beings.

    When I was a raw meat in the early 90’s it was frequently stated that the newly released versions of the books had just been thoroughly gone over and 100% verified as being on source.

    Seems like the pre 1986 versions of the tech should be the only valid stuff. Why did LRH depart his body when the tech was all messed up?

    How could Flag have called itself the mecca of technical perfection before the Golden Age of Tech was released? They couldn’t have been 100% perfect like they claimed.

  11. Hi, this is a great site, and I have just a few questions:
    What is the churches responce to The Free Zone, and it’s attempts to preserve the original work of LRH? How is the churches Tech different than LRH’s original tech? Also, can Free Zoner’s participate in church courses if they want to?

  12. Anonymous wrote: “Lake, when LRH talked about stuff like OT superpowers, creating universes etc. couldn’t it be that he just meant that these OT powers only apply to the universe in your own head?”

    Oh, indeed. Much of Scientology deals with becoming cause over one’s own universe (i.e. “the universe in your head”) — no question about it. The state of Clear was even defined at one time as “at cause over mental matter, energy, space and time”. But at the far end of the OT spectrum we have the theoretical state of full cause over actual MEST. And so it is not surprising to hear anecdotal stories from those at various points on the OT levels claiming to be experiencing some facet of this state.

    But not knowing how much you’ve studied of the subject, I would recommend reading the book “The Phoenix Lectures” (if you can find it in hardback at amazon or ebay) and then digging into the Scientology concept of “the three universes” as discussed in The Factors (touched upon in the book “Fundamentals of Thought” but also available online at the whatisscientology dot org site in the References section).

  13. brings up an interesting situation…
    what if one ot postulates rain, and another, sunshine?

  14. Lake, when LRH talked about stuff like OT superpowers, creating universes etc.
    couldn’t it be that he just meant that these OT powers only apply to the universe in your own head? You can create anything you want in your imagination.
    But if you want to have an effect on the MEST universe you have to play by the rules of the MEST universe, i.e. the laws of physics.

  15. You could personally test it right now, Mark. Read the books and try the data for yourself.

    Pat

  16. Yes, and I do hope that scientology presents a greater data set at some point. Believe it or not, I would love to see their claims validated. Ultimately, I would love to see a conclusive answer.

  17. mark wrote: “Indeed- to question, But we must also both agree that one cannot simply discount!”

    I do agree with that. I’ve always been a big believer in “putting things on the back burner” until one could give both sides of any subject a fair shake.

  18. Indeed- to question, But we must also both agree that one cannot simply discount!

  19. Mark wrote: “Note also that under the testing of a fellow scientologist, Swann’s record of success was far greater that under a more neutral testing environment.”

    Yes and no. Just prior to SRI in 1972, Swann was tested at the American Society for Psychical Research and had really startling results — at least according to those who conducted the testing. He was able, according to double-blind judging, to accurately see eight objects on a shelf several feet above and behind him, hidden from his view, in a controlled study. The study itself was designed and conducted by respected scientists and scholars — all non-Scientologists.

    Also, at SRI, the tests were co-conducted by another respected scientist Russell Targ — a non-Scientologist.

    But in fairness to your observation, I think it’s entirely correct to question both the neutrality of all the scientists involved as well as the apparent declining performance of Swann as the years progressed.

  20. Viewing: Jupiter. claimed it had rings very high inside the atmosphere (later, ‘very close within the atmosphere’) and made of crystals. Saw mountains.
    Analysis: Rings did exist, but are outside of the atmosphere and are made of dust, rather than ice crystals. There are some mountains, but Swann did not mention any of the 62 moons.

    Viewing: Moon. Swann claimed to have seen “Naked male workers working under bright lights on the moon, tall buildings, exotic machinery, and strange vehicles leaving tracks in the lunar dust”
    Analysis: Has not been verified nor disproven.

    That’s only two, but I would appreciate any additional information.

    The question has been raised as to role of scientology in Swann’s remote viewing development- or, more relevant, his PERCEPTION of the role of scientology.

    Please do note that Mr. Swann currently teaches remote viewing from his home and does not advocate or mandate scientology training or membership in any scientology organization. If he is using scientology methods, he is not acknowledging this, in clear violation of Hubbard’s direction.

    Lastly, please also note that Mr. Puthoff, who led SRI the experiment was also an “OT” level scientolgist. He, of course, chose Swann and Price, both fellow scientologists. Note also that under the testing of a fellow scientologist, Swann’s record of success was far greater that under a more neutral testing environment.

  21. The only difficulty we, then, would encounter is that we’re using an unproven theory (the abilities of Swann) as evidence for an unclaimed hypothesis (Hubbard’s OT powers)!

    However, for Swann’s alleged abilities to be considered evidence in favor of Hubbard, we would have to establish that he did in fact have such powers and that they were augmented by scientology- not just that he believed that to be the case.

    I must also note that Swann is an ex-member, which provides a sort of paradox (not really, but the word is more gentle than irony!), as this very blog has spoken quite critically of ex-members. But that’s neither here nor there, I suppose.

    I have seen, in Swann, compelling evidence to suggest that such powers are possible, but not enough to consider them to be verified scientific fact. For example, I cannot accept the “psychic detective” work as evidence, given the record. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to consider the three “wins”. To expand on the concept: FBI profilers that make such predictions on a regular basis! They predict, for instance, that the killer would “drive a small car” or “live with his mother”, etc- enough facts that they assist in the investigation and, frequently, apprehension of the criminal.

    Sadly, I don’t find enough information about Swann’s psychic detective work. However, we do know that Gerard Croiset and Peter Hurkos, with whom Swann worked, had previous experience dealing with crime and police work, in which they would have the potential to pick up profiling tactics (which, if course, are able to determine ‘clues’ based on visits to a crime scene)

    I would be interested to see a list of predictions/viewings by Swann outside of the SRI experiements. I was able to find a reference in his book “Penetration” about nude men working on machinery under the moon’s surface (which has not yet been verified by moon exploration), but I would be interested in seeing a list of his viewing results.

  22. bigdaddy wrote: “but u do agree that there is no record no evidence of lrh having ot powers… but u d also say is foolish to not believe he did?”

    bigdaddy, a “documented OT” (Swann) used LRH’s system for developing his OT abilities, then wrote a paper suggesting the use of this system as a method for others to develop theirs. It seems far more likely (to me) that LRH — the developer of these methods — had a first hand experience and understanding of the workability of these methods, and that’s how he was able to develop them. Wouldn’t it be far odder if he didn’t?

    “also are millions of claimed psychics… u can produce 2 as scientologists. ratio points to another factor.”

    You’re comparing an anecdotal group (“claimed psychics”) with a carefully controlled group (“tested OTs”). A fairer question/comparison would be: how did the abilities of the tested OTs compare with tested non-OTs? At the time of the testing at least, the two tested OTs (Pat Price in particular) were considered the best.

    But in my (and Scientology’s) view, *everyone* has potential OT abilities — they are innate. And even without Scientology, there *are* individuals in society who naturally have OT abilities of various degrees and kinds. The questions are: (a) does Scientology provide a paradigm and method which allows us to understand and develop them? and if so, (b) does Scientology improve a person’s ability to gain greater and greater control of his/her OT abilities?

  23. but u do agree that there is no record no evidence of lrh having ot powers… but u d also say is foolish to not believe he did?
    to believe w/out evidence?
    also are millions of claimed psychics… u can produce 2 as scientologists. ratio points to another factor.

  24. Mark wrote: “However, I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest that such things [psychic phenomena] are in any way augmented or improved by scientology.”

    Well, I guess that statement hinges on the word “credible”. My personal look at the raw data and the subject — including putting pre-conceived notions about Scientology aside and studying the subject on its own merits — was enough to convince me that it could and does indeed help develop OT abilities. I’ve experienced enough now, subjectively, to know that it does in fact help develop those abilities.

    Whether the objective data *alone* is enough for someone … I guess that’s a personal call. It wasn’t for me … it also took studying the subject in depth.

    “I do suggest that perhaps your desire to see something as true may cloud your critical thinking?”

    Has nothing to do with desire … has everything to do with taking a long, hard honest look. And not letting preconceptions — good or bad — cloud one’s judgement.

  25. Lake,

    First, please accept my statements with the respect given.

    And once again I maintain that one cannot completely discount the possibility of psychic pheonomemon. However, I have not seen any credible evidence to suggest that such things are in any way augmented or improved by scientology.

    For example, we’ve discussed the SRI experiments, which happened to inlude a few former scientologists. However, there was also similar experiments at Duke University in the 1930’s, which also demonstrated some possible successes, without the aid of scientology. Therefor, it remains impossible to guage the effectiveness of scientology on paranormal abilities, as the abilities appear to be demonstrated by scientologists an non-scientologists with comparible rates of statistical variance. I believe that this would lend creedence to the theory that such abilities, if they exist, are independant of scientology. (else one would expect to see higher or more statistically significant rates within the group than without.

    your statement “I think it would be foolish to think that Ron himself didn’t have any (OT powers)” a propensity towards accepting evidence of such things without adequet evidence. It would appear that you have agreed that evidence (for Hubbard’s abilities) does not exist, but feel that only a fool would believe that the powers themselves do not exist as well.

    Please don’t misinterpret my statement, but I do suggest that perhaps your desire to see something as true may cloud your critical thinking?

    Respectfully,
    Mark

  26. Anonymous wrote: “Ingo Swann said that he had these abilities already as a child.”

    I read his personal history, and I don’t recall him ever mentioning this. But I certainly could have missed it. Do you have a reference?

    In any event, this is true of many individuals … and in fact, this is also what often attracts a person to Scientology, as Scientology often affirms and provides a logical explanation for many of the experiences people are having (e.g. exteriorization, past life memories, etc.) as both adults and children. Further, Scientology proposes a brilliant and very unique framework to explain, understand and develop these abilities — exactly what Ingo Swann did.

    “He never said anywhere that OT helped him gain these abilities.”

    I believe the words that Puthoff used to describe Swann’s paper were “Ingo was there to present a paper on the Scientology paradigm as the model for DEVELOPING and EXPLORING paranormal abilities”. (Emphasis mine.) Swann — 22 yrs later — was still crediting and supporting Hubbard’s ideas and theories, which he felt had a “considerable” impact on him.

    Did you ever write to Ingo Swann then? Or hear back from him?

    “But please answer me this question: Why didn’t L. Ron Hubbard himself have any OT abilities?”

    I would say that Ron was much more interested in proving to others that *they* could develop OT abilities, than in proving that he himself had OT abilities. I think it would be foolish to think that Ron himself didn’t have any — but I guess in the final analysis, what really matters today is how workable/effective the OT levels are in bringing these abilities back to others.

  27. Indeed, my friend, and I suppose until we have a larger data set and verifiably controlled testing methods, we truly never will know! :) Until then, round and round we go, lol!

  28. “What I was saying that there are only two scientologists that have demonstrated -possible- scientific powers would seem to indicate coincidence more than correlation.”

    I guess we see coincidence and correlation very differently. As I said earlier, having a larger data set would certainly be wonderful … but fortunately or unfortunately, Scientology OTs come in various shapes and sizes, and in varying abilities of varying kinds. Further, most don’t live their lives to prove to the world that they are OTs. In fact, the general belief is that if one *did* (try to prove their OTness to the world), one wouldn’t remain OT very long. But perhaps we’ll have more Swanns and Prices in the days and years ahead. We’ll have to wait and see…

    “However, I do not see any evidence that his ‘powers’ were in any way augmented by scientology.”

    Well, we’re sort of going in a circle on this. As I covered in my last message, absent having done any before-and-after tests (i.e. before and after Scientology/OT levels), the only thing we can go on are the individuals’ statements themselves. And I’ve produced a document and a statement from Swann which seems to credit Scientology/Hubbard for being able to augment these abilities. I do see that you are providing “evidence” which tries to discredit Swann’s beliefs/experiences — and, well, what can I say? Not having been there during Ingo Swann’s experiences with UFOs, etc. — we are dealing with the typical subjective experience, not provable or unprovable. I guess in Swann’s defense, there are apparently plenty of distinguished individuals in science, government and industry who admit having had experiences with UFOs to one degree or another. The “Disclosure Project” of a few years back comes to mind.

    But in any event, I think the evidence that we *do* have seems to show that the OT levels and/or Scientology were seen as the catalyst for developing these OT abilities by the subjects (at least Swann) himself.

    “From 1959, the US had spy satellites in orbit that were well capable of the fidelity reported by Swann [actually, Price]. The information existed, and it as under these conditions that Mr. Swann was able to replicate this data.”

    The target was chosen by the CIA for that exact reason — this data was highly top-secret in 1972 and the CIA chose a target that they were absolutely convinced that no one, other than those with top-secret clearance, had access to. Price was a retired police officer — he (and the experimenters Puthoff and Targ) had zero chance of getting the data through normal means.

    “In a crime, there are few (often one) that know the details, and under these conditions, Mr. Swann had less success.”

    Actually, statistically, the chance of someone being able to even “correctly guess” enough clues to solve 3 out of 25 cases is *extremely* rare, near 0%. That Swann was able to determine enough details to accurately solve this in 1 out of 8 times, is statistically significant. Further, we may never know how close Swann was in the remaining 22 cases. That’s kind of the catch-22 in using these kinds of unsolved murders as evidence against or for psychic abilities. Other than getting it close to 100% right on the important clues, it leaves no room for being 80% or even 100% right on unimportant clues — even though the latter is as much evidence of psychic abilities as the former.

    But in any event Mark, I think we both agree that having more subjects (i.e. OTs) put through controlled experiments would certainly make the case much stronger. And as in all areas of science, experimental protocols and procedures can always be improved. I am glad to see you are open to the possibilities — and I have no problem at all with your skepticism.

  29. “In fact, the thing that would indicate that these abilities were independent of Scientology, would be determining whether they had these abilities prior to Scientology and/or doing the OT levels. If they didn’t, it would tend to indicate that Scientology and/or the OT levels resulted in them having these abilities.

    Ingo Swann said that he had these abilities already as a child. He never said anywhere that OT helped him gain these abilities.

    But please answer me this question:
    Why didn’t L. Ron Hubbard himself have any OT abilities? I

  30. Note: There are, most likely, mountains on Jupiter: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/io_mountains_010227-1.html

  31. “Why is that?”
    Here’s my point. According to scientology claims, there are currently, what is it, 8-10 million scientologists worldwide? And, census data and survey shows far less (what is it, 100,000 or so?). But either number is greater than 2. What I was saying that there are only two scientologists that have demonstrated -possible- scientific powers would seem to indicate coincidence more than correlation.

    But, in prudence, I am not (clearly, not) ruling out anything, from psychic powers to OT powers. However, I do not see any evidence that his ‘powers’ were in any way augmented by scientology. And while there is certainly sufficient evidence to -suggest’ that Swann had any sort of power, especially given the allegations of impropriety in the testing process, which can only be refuted by personal statements. Certainly, that doesn’t prove anything, but a logical and scientific mind is unable to merely accept this as proof without further verification.

    Case in point- during the same time period that Swann spoke positively about scientology methods and training, Swann was attempting to assist police in solving crimes using his alleged powers. By his own claims (which is why his statements are entirely relevant, as “his own claims” are dependent on his credibility or mental status- that’s why his alleged UFO attack may be indicative of a propensity to exaggerate) he attempted to solve 25 crimes, and was only able to “solve” 3 of them. That’s only a 12% success rate.

    I have seen the pictures. I can’t say, for sure, that they weren’t the result of actual remote viewing. Nor can I say for sure they were not. I’m not going to close my mind and claim to have an answer to that. Personally, I find it ‘less likely’ to be the result of actual remote viewing. Here’s why. From 1959, the US had spy satellites in orbit that were well capable of the fidelity reported by Swann. The information existed, and it as under these conditions that Mr. Swann was able to replicate this data. In a crime, there are few (often one) that know the details, and under these conditions, Mr. Swann had less success.

    where did you find your information on Jupiter? I briefly checked Jupiter on Wikipedia- could you provide a link with information supporting your statement? “These are the facts as known today. The Rings of Jupiter are not inside the atmosphere and rather than being made of crystal, Jupiter’s rings are formed by charged (dust) particles of various sizes. Most of these particles are very tiny (about 1 micrometre across).”

    Like I said, I am in no way claiming that these two individuals are “not” psychic, or scientology did “not” benefit them, I am merely claiming that the evidence available does not support this.

  32. Will the CoS allow Yael Lustgarten to see her parents, now after she lied for Miscavige to the SP Times to cover up his crimes?

  33. mark wrote: “The fact that these are the only two scientologists that you are able to present as having demonstrated powers would indicate that such things are indipendant of scientology.”

    Why is that?

    In fact, the thing that would indicate that these abilities were independent of Scientology, would be determining whether they had these abilities prior to Scientology and/or doing the OT levels. If they didn’t, it would tend to indicate that Scientology and/or the OT levels resulted in them having these abilities.

    The fact that there are only two Scientologists that have been tested (in a controlled environment) wouldn’t indicate anything about their abilities being independent of Scientology or not. Unless I’m missing something … (not that a larger sample wouldn’t of course be preferable.)

    “Some of his [Swann’s] statements…”

    If we want to remain focused on the discussion at hand, i.e. whether Scientology and/or the OT levels gave them these abilities, then statements about their religious and/or new-age beliefs are irrelavent.

    Ideally, we would have objective evidence that they did or did not have these abilities prior to Scientology. But since it is unlikely that they were tested in a controlled environment prior to doing the OT levels — as they were with Targ and Puthoff after doing the OT levels — it is unlikely that we’ll have any convincing before-and-after evidence.

    However, the next best thing we can hope for are statements from the individuals themselves which relate *directly* to their before-and-after abilities. Pat Price, sadly, died of a heart attack in the 70s. Ingo Swann is still alive and what we know so far is that (a) he wrote a paper in 1973 proposing Scientological methods as a way of developing and exploring paranormal functioning and (b) as recently as the mid-90s felt that he owed a considerable amount to Hubbard for the ideas and theories of Scientology.

    With regard to the testing of Price, you quoted the following:
    “In particular, the presence of sensory cues being available to the judges was noted”

    Did you see the pictures that Price drew? This has nothing to do with sensory cues being available to the judges — Price actually drew exact, detailed drawings of an area (and large industrial equipment) that the tester and testee had no way of knowing anything about. Don’t even worry about what the judges knew or didn’t know — go look at the drawings and judge for yourself. They really are quite remarkable.

    “[Swann] predicted that the rings would be close to to the surface (which was not the case)”

    Actually, it was the case. Jupiter’s rings are inside the crystallized atmospheric layers — much further in than Saturn’s rings for example.

    “that there would be mountains (there were not),”

    Actually, there are. It has since been acknowledged that Jupiter does indeed have a rocky, solid core several masses of Earth. When the Shoemaker-Levy 9 comets struck Jupiter in 1994, large solid mountainous craters became visible through the thick outer cloud layer.

    “Forgive my spelling errors :)”

    No worries whatsoever. :)

  34. Forgive my spelling errors :)

  35. “Can you at least concede that Scientology *might* have brought out these abilities in these guys?”
    Yes, absolutely and without reservation.
    However, how can we prove that scientology didn’t hinder their abilities. In either case, we certainly cannot. However, let’s assume for a second that both of the individuals that you’ve listed have actual psychic powers. The fact that these are the only two scientologists that you are able to present as having demonstrated powers would indicate that such things are indipendant of scientology. Else, you would expect to see other scientologists with these abilities.

    Of course, one of the other subjects was Uri Geller, so take that for what it’s worth ;)

    I am understandably skeptical. For example, consider, please, this snippet from wikipedia: “Several external researchers expressed concerns about the reliability of the judging process. Independent examination of some of the sketches and transcripts from the viewing process revealed flaws in the original procedures and analyses. In particular, the presence of sensory cues being available to the judges was noted[22]. A lengthy exchange ensued, with the external researchers finally concluding that the failure of Puthoff and Targ to address their concerns meant that the claim of remote viewing “can no longer be regarded as falling within the scientific domain”[23][24].”

    and also this quote from a book on the subject: “Details and transcripts of the SRI remote viewing experiments themselves were found to be edited and even unobtainable”
    The Psychology of the Psychic by David Marks and Richard Kamman

    Therefor, much like the rest of the scientific community, I can’t consider these to be “controlled scientific experiments”, and certainly can’t accept them as fact in light of the poorly implimented study.

    Specifically, regarding Mr. Swann, I can agree that he had some success in certain situations. For instance, he did indeed note rings around jupiter, with a fair degree of accuracy. Some errors were made, of course. For instance, he predicted that the rings would be close to to the surface (which was not the case), that there would be crystals (there were not), that there would be mountains (there were not), and did not note the moons. But, he was correct that there were rings, which I would consider unlikely- so he does get credit for that. He was less successful in psychic detective work. Swann reported that out of the twenty-five criminal cases he worked between 1972-1979 twenty-two were “flops” and three were successes.

    Some of his statements (which may include his three successes), however, would be best taken with a grain of salt. As an example: “n his 1998 autobiography Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy, Swann describes his work with individuals in the U.S. government who study extraterrestrials, his remote viewing of a secret E.T. base on the dark side of the moon and his “shocking” experience with a sexy scantily dressed female E.T. in a Los Angeles supermarket. He concludes that extraterrestrials are living on earth in humanoid bodies. A friend warns him that there are many extraterrestrials, that many are “bio-androids”, and that they are aware their only foes on earth are psychics. While Swann and an individual known as “Mr. Axelrod” are secretly watching a UFO appear and suck up the water of a lake, they are discovered and attacked by the UFO. Swann is injured but is dragged to safety by his colleagues” (wikipedia)

    Can’t find much on price, but I will research.

  36. mark said: “we can only present our beliefs as anything resembling proof!”

    We’re not just talking beliefs, Mark. How do you explain the OT abilities of Ingo Swann and Pat Price? These weren’t just random anecdotes. These were controlled scientific experiments.

    Can you at least concede that Scientology *might* have brought out these abilities in these guys?

  37. It would seem that we’re at am impasse, my friend, where we can only present our beliefs as anything resembling proof!

    You clearly, as do millions of others, believe in ESP and past lives. I, in all honesty, can’t say for sure that such things are not “real”. Of course, if can’t be proven that such things are (or, at least has not yet).

    That’s the difficulty with “proving” religion and the paranormal- it’s entirely impossible to isolate certain factors.

    I must, however, disagree that scientology “embraces” the scientific method. But that’s my opinion based on the nature of science and the lack of peer review.

    Again, a pair of opinions based on my own observations :)

  38. gilljoer wrote: “That’s why scientology can never be real-world verified, and will never try- it can’t be called science.”

    I think underlying principals can eventually be verified. I think past lives, if given the same resources that other areas of science get, could be verified — if only through a pre-ponderance of evidence. I also think the same thing could be said of exteriorization or at least “extra sensory perception”.

    I realise that these wouldn’t “prove that Scientology works”, but they would at least provide evidence for some pretty fundamental principals of Scientology.

    For actual proof of workability, I guess I’m still waiting for someone to provide a plausible explanation for the abilities of OTs Ingo Swann and Pat Price. As it stands, the only logical explanation is that Scientology and the OT levels allowed them to develop and bring out these innate abilities that we all apparently have.

  39. Anonymous wrote: “Either prove that tech wasn’t correctly applied in the case of Lisa McPherson or stop calling the tech infallible and ‘science’.”

    See my message to Mark. Further, I don’t call the tech infallible or “science”. Scientology is imperfect, but workable. Further, Scientology is *senior* to the scientific method as it both embraces it but also expands upon it.

    Finally, I think it’s pretty clear that mistakes were made with Lisa McPherson — if only because she wasn’t being given necessary medical care when it was clearly required. A system should have been in place between the Church and area hospitals, so that a Scientologist’s wishes with regard to psychiatric treatment would have been respected while she was at the hospital. Once Lisa was in good enough shape, she could have come back to the Church to address any remaining spiritual distress.

  40. Mark wrote: “So it is indeed possible that the tech was applied as designed, but she still perished?”

    No offense Mark, but you really need to better understand Scientology and the tech before we can have an intelligent conversation about it. I don’t mean this as a slam, but you simply don’t know enough about the subject to be able to honestly debate it.

    “I may then follow that it is, at least, a possibility that proper medical care would have succeeded where the tech, possibly, failed?”

    Getting proper medical care is PART of the tech. Seeing a medical doctor, and ruling out any actual physical ailment that can be treated with proven medical means, is a pre-requisite — or minimally an adjunct — to getting auditing.

  41. only difference is that its based on observed results, not new age scientific testing. Anyone who does scientology can make a decision that it didnt work for them and sue the church, but a person who really worked it out and did it after LRH tech hasnt failed, yet.

    what do you consider to be “new aged scientific testing”? Because, to me, trying to consider something science without documenting your methods, eliminating the variables and allowing others to demonstrate and repeat the test in a neutral, unbiased setting is rather new age, at best.
    That’s why scientology can never be real-world verified, and will never try- it can’t be called science.

  42. Either prove that tech wasn’t correctly applied in the case of Lisa McPherson or stop calling the tech infallible and “science”.

  43. Lisa McPherson attested on clear, but went psychotic afterwards. The tech failed on her. If you claim that it failed just because it wasn’t correctly applied you have to prove it.

  44. That is true, scientology is workable, that was the only point, thats why Hubbard can call his work “science”. only difference is that its based on observed results, not new age scientific testing. Anyone who does scientology can make a decision that it didnt work for them and sue the church, but a person who really worked it out and did it after LRH tech hasnt failed, yet.

  45. So it is indeed possible that the tech was applied as designed, but she still perished? I may then follow that it is, at least, a possibility that proper medical care would have succeeded where the tech, possibly, failed?

  46. “do you consider the tech to be infallible?”

    I don’t think Scientology — or the tech — are perfect. Neither did LRH. Similarly, I don’t think the scientific method is perfect. But as systems to achieve an end, I think they both are workable.

  47. Is it possible at all, Lake, that the tech can be applied to the “T” to a receptive recipient, and still fail? or do you consider the tech to be infallible?

  48. “So the tech failed anyway.”

    Certainly application of the tech failed.

  49. “without qualified medical/psychiatric care was a period of decline, rather than healing.”

    First, I don’t think Lisa, or any Scientologist, would be interested in psychiatric care. But clearly, mistakes were made in not bringing her to a non-psychiatric doctor, or a hospital (which respected Lisa’s wishes) sooner. So basically, the Church needed a pre-established protocol with area hospitals which would have respected Scientologists’ wishes, on religious grounds, for no psychiatric treatment.

    According to an article in the sptimes.com in June 2000 at least , Flag implemented such a protocol and also established a policy of keeping a licensed doctor on staff at all times.

  50. “The introspection rundown was never administered.”

    Yes, i meant the New Life Rundown (L11).
    This and although she also had attained the state of clear, she went psychotic. So the tech failed anyway.

  51. There, that’s better. It didn’t work as of yesterday, or since my last post, but I’m cerrtainly glad to be posting again.

  52. let’s see if I can post again. If you can read this, it worked! :)
    Back in the saddle- maybe I’ll stick around ;)

  53. May be, but I can post under this name, but not my actual name.
    With no links, of course- I did try that.
    That’s why I left in the first place, when some of my comments were deleted after some particularly poignant comments.
    Anywho, clearly whatever was done didn’t work, and those (what? 17?) days without qualified medical/psychiatric care was a period of decline, rather than healing. I mean, sadly, she did pass away.
    Regarding Ingo Swann- he made those comments over a decade ago, but I can find nothing from a more recent period. Regardless, like he, I believe that management is the real problem, although I do have concerns about some other matters.
    -Mark

  54. Hi Mark, There’ve been far more inflammatory posts than yours — I doubt Louanne is blocking you. I wasn’t able to post anything with a link in it. So if yours had a link, that might have been the problem.

  55. All,
    It’s Mark. I believe that my username has been banned from the site. Or, Louanne is censoring all posts. So I don’t know if my comment will get through.
    If so, Hi Louanne.
    Anywho, my comments are being selectively deleted and rarely posted, so I suppose that means that I am no longer welcome here.
    No matter, but I will miss chatting with you, Lake.
    Maybe another time, a truly neutral place.
    -Mark

  56. “The introspection rundown clearly failed”

    The introspection rundown was never administered.

  57. Here from Louanne’s website:

    Immediate Cause:Pulmonary Thromboembolus

    Other significant conditions:
    Psychosis

    The introspection rundown clearly failed to cure her psychosis, so don’t blame Psychiatry for Hubbard’s fail tech.

  58. Here from Louanne’s website:

    Immediate Cause:Pulmonary Thromboembolus

    Other significant conditions:
    Psychosis

    Scientology’s introspection rundown clearly failed to cure her psychosis, so don’t blame for Hubbard’s fail tech.

  59. Also she didn’t die of a brain aneurism.
    According the coroner’s report by Joan Wood she died of a Thrombo-embolism on the left pulmonary artery caused by “bed rest and severe dehydration”.

  60. Pat, she died in the care of the Church of Scientology and NOT in the care of the hospital or psychiatrists. Stop blaming psychiatry for Scientology’s own faults.

  61. “Anonymous (related to a question about Lisa McPherson): “That’s also the reason why they took her [Lisa] out of the hospital, after she had the car accident and was mentally unstable.”

    The mentally unstable part was determined without any tests. She was injured. Good for her on not letting them misdiagnose her like that. She had enough going for her even after an accident to know that treatment with drugs would have been harmful for her, considering that she died of a brain aneurism.

    Pat

  62. Here’s a snippet I found written by Ingo Swann in 1996:

    “What mattered to me, as in all things I’ve studied, was what I got from Hubbard’s ideas, concepts and theories — and which was considerable, and none of which I’m ashamed of or regret in anyway.”

    I found it at the website I mentioned in the earlier message above (chapter 24).

  63. “I will send Ingo Swann an email to ask him what he thinks about the OT levels.”

    Sounds good. And if he does respond, please post both your question(s) and his responses verbatim if you would.

  64. I will send Ingo Swann an email to ask him what he thinks about the OT levels. We’ll see…

  65. A few loose ends …

    Mark: “If I may ask a personal question, are you OT or Clear?”

    Let’s just say that I’m well along the Scientology path.

    wgas: “Why has New OTVIII Geir Isene publicly announced he’s leaving the Church of Scientology?”

    He’s a guy that loves Scientology and has disagreements with management. In a related note, I do wish that the St Pete Times had given Miscavige a chance to respond to his accusers. The treatment, by any measure, was unfair by the Times. The accusations were highly inflammatory, and allowing the accused to respond before publishing would have been the fair thing to do.

    Anonymous (related to a question about Lisa McPherson): “That’s also the reason why they took her [Lisa] out of the hospital, after she had the car accident and was mentally unstable.”

    Actually, she chose to go to the Church instead of going to a psychiatrist — something I (and probably most Scientologists) would choose to do if we were in similar circumstances. I don’t hate all psychiatrists, but I’d be pretty pissed at any hospital or psychiatrist that wouldn’t respect my wishes in that particular circumstance.

  66. “For instance, Dr. Stevenson’s research, while providing anectotal and unverifiable corroboration for reincarnation, was not able to completely eliminate outside veriables, although he made noble efforts.”

    Mark, his research went well beyond “anecdotal and unverifiable corroboration”. If you’re truly interested in getting to the bottom, scientifically, of past lives — explored in a truly dispassionate, scientific way — I would suggest studying this man’s work. I would begin by getting one or more of the following books: “20 Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation”, “Unlearned Language: New Cases in Xenoglossy”, and “Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect”.

    Stevenson’s research has been the most thorough and complete research — in a purely scientific sense — into this field. He studied hundreds of cases. Further, he stated that there were hundreds if not thousands of cases that went unresearched, simply because of the lack of time and money.

    “Another flaw in his reasearch was the trust that he placed in key players, such as the interpreter he used in India.”

    This is a bit of a red herring. Stevenson himself pointed out the flaw in the Introduction to his book “Twenty Cases Suggetive of Reincarnation”. He states “I have detected some discrepancies attributable to errors of translation, but am confident such errors affect a small and insignificant group of all the items of the cases” Indeed, Stevenson himself knew several languages, used several interpreters and studied cases from all over the world. From wikipedia: “Stevenson traveled extensively to conduct field research into reincarnation and investigated cases in Africa, Alaska, Europe, India and both North and South America, logging around 55,000 miles a year between 1966 and 1971.”

    Finally, quite often both tape recorders and hand-written notes were used by Stevenson himself and his assistants.

  67. “[Ingo Swann] left Scientology because he was disappointed by the OT levels.”

    Not from what I can tell, Anonymous. The following is from Hal Puthoff, researcher at SRI who worked with Swann:

    “A further view of Swann the researcher, as opposed to Swann the subject, was provided by the First International Congress on Psychotronic Research, held in Prague, Czechoslavakia, which Ingo and I attended together in July, 1973. I was there to present a summary of the SRI work, while Ingo was there to present a paper on the Scientology paradigm as the model for developing and exploring paranormal abilities” (Hal Puthoff, “Mind Reach”, pg. 42, republished 2004 [orig pub 1979]).

    The paper that Swann wrote and presented was titled “Scientological Techniques: A Modern Paradigm for the Exploration of Consciousness and Psychic Integration”.

  68. Yeah, but Ingo Swann claims that he already had these psychic abilities as a child, before he joined Scientology. They have nothing to do with the OT levles and in fact he later left Scientology, because he was disappointed by the OT levels.

  69. It looks like adding links runs into trouble on this board, so I’ll spell out the *dots* and see if this works. Here are some links related to the above tests:

    OVERVIEW
    www dot biomindsuperpowers dot com / Pages / CIA-InitiatedRV dot html

    JUPITER
    www dot biomindsuperpowers dot com / Pages / 1973JupiterRVProbe dot html

  70. While any test’s protocols can always be improved, I haven’t seen a convincing argument from any of the critics that provides a compelling explanation for the above results (of Swann’s and Prices). The critics have tried (and they should), but in my view, they’ve either given weak counter arguments or they’ve had to resort to snide ad hominem in order to convince others.

    (End)

  71. In another test, Pat Price (another Scientology OT) was able to see a top secret base in the Soviet Union — being given only the longitude and latitude — while exteriorized. He accurately described and drew the area and equipment in detail. And this was done at a time when there were no means for him to have had normal access to this level of detail, from behind the iron curtain. I don’t think any level of “guessing” could have produced the level of detail that he was able to produce.

    (cont’d)

  72. “Some did participate, many decades ago, in a study that has been widely shown to be flawed.”

    I think the research — if looked at in a completely unbiased, dispassionate way — was quite convincing. I also think if you step back, look at the raw data of those tests, it’s pretty hard to ignore the results.

    In one test, Ingo Swann (Scientology OT) accurately saw and described Jupiter’s rings while exeriorized, at a time (1973) when science had no idea that Jupiter had rings — and six years before the NASA space probes confirmed it (1979). Swann was laughed at for years for even *suggesting* that another planet besides Saturn could have rings.

    (cont’d)


  73. How come Scientologists passed up several hospitals while Lisa was fighting for her life? Why didn’t they take her to the first hospital”

    Because they wanted to take her to a hospital, where a Scientologists worked on staff.
    Scientologists have an irrational paranoia of psychiatrists and they feared that Lisa would be treated by a psychiatrist, if they brought her to another hospital instead. That’s also the reason why they took her out of the hospital, after she had the car accident and was mentally unstable. They didn’t want her to get treatment by a psychiatrist.
    Scientologists irrational fear of psychology and psychiatry is rooted in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, who claimed that the psychologists and psychiatrists are the cause of crime:

    “THE CAUSE OF CRIME
    They say poverty makes crime. They say if one improved education there would
    be less crime. They say if one cured the lot of the underprivileged one would have
    solved crime.
    All these “remedies” have proven blatantly false.
    In very poor countries there is little crime. The “improving” education, it was
    tailored to “social reform,” not teaching skills. And it is a total failure. The fact that
    rewarding the underprivileged has simply wrecked schools and neighborhoods and
    cost billions is missing.
    So who is “they”? The psychologist and psychiatrist, of course. These were their
    crackpot remedies for crime. And it’s wrecked a civilization.
    So what IS the cause of crime? The treatment, of course! Electric shocks,
    behavior modification, abuse of the soul. These are the causes of crime. There would
    be no criminals at all if the psychs had not begun to oppress beings into vengeance
    against society.
    There’s only one remedy for crime—get rid of the psychs! They are causing it!
    Ah yes, it’s true on cases and cases of research on criminals. And what’s it all go
    back to? The psychs!
    Their brutality and heartlessness is renowned.
    The data is rolling in. Any more you pick up off a criminal or anyone, send it in.
    On crime we have an epidemic running on this planet. The wrong causes psychs
    assign for crime plus their own “treatments” make them a deadly virus.
    The psychs should not be let to get away with “treatment” which amounts to
    criminal acts, mayhem and murder. They are not above the law. In fact, there are no
    laws at all which protect them, for what sane society would sanction crime against its
    citizens even as science? They should be handled like any other criminals. They are at
    best dramatizing psychotics and dangerous, but more dangerous to society at large
    than the psychotics they keep in their offices and loony bins because they lie and are
    treacherous. Why the government funds them I do not know. They are the last ones
    that should be let loose to handle children.
    L. RON HUBBARD
    Founder

    HCO BULLETIN OF 6 MAY 1982

  74. Is there a limit to the size of the messages here? I tried posting a long response (twice) to a couple of Mark’s posts, and I haven’t seen it yet.

    If this shows up, I’ll try breaking it up into smaller pieces.

  75. Why has New OTVIII Geir Isene publicly announced he’s leaving the Church of Scientology?

  76. How come Scientologists passed up several hospitals while Lisa was fighting for her life? Why didn’t they take her to the first hospital

  77. “So I would maintain that a subjective perception of a particular experience cannot be offered as evidence to any other person other than the self.”

    Not sure which message of mine you were responding to, but I don’t believe I ever made this claim.

  78. understood about the timeframe. Im the meantime, I suppose we must keep our conversation within the scope of this blog, out of respect for Louanne’s virtual real estate.

    If I may ask a personal question, are you OT or Clear?

  79. “It seems that some individual OTs are willing to be put to the test. So, yes, I think it’s possible.”

    Some did participate, many decades ago, in a study that has been widely shown to be flawed. I would follow with great interest if any OT were to allow their claims to be verified by an unbiased and disciplined individual or organization.

  80. Yes, but once again it’s entirely subjective, and one is not able to speak to the experiences of others. For instance, you or I cannot claim that someone else’s experiences would -feel- a certain way without claiming that certain experiences are universal and, as thus, not subjective.

    Realize that it’s very human tp pursue what it is that is safe, pleasurable and/or acceptable. In your scenario, you have people pursuing a deteriment while feeling it is pleasuerable.

    So I would maintain that a subjective perception of a particular experience cannot be offered as evidence to any other person other than the self.

  81. “But if one were incorrect, could the progression not ‘feel’ the same?”

    Oddly, no. When one has experienced the clarity that I mentioned earlier, the feeling of irrational fear from paranoia is markedly different than rational fear from real threat. One can also do a check+balance on oneself by using the tone scale (aka chart of human evaluation).

  82. I missed this one. “do you believe ‘they’ will ever be able to demonstrate or prove such things?”

    It seems that some individual OTs are willing to be put to the test. So, yes, I think it’s possible.

    Regarding the invitation to discuss elsewhere, Mark — thank you and as much as I’d like to, I’m afraid time is too limited on my end for now. But let me know which blogs you were thinking of, and if time allows in the future, I’ll try to drop in.

  83. “is there anything that an OT can do that can be objectively and verifiably demonstrated or proven?”

    I think SRI (and their 1980s followup studies) are probably the best we’ve got so far.

  84. “However, if there are claims that are able to be verified, it would be prudent to do so. For example, the cause over MEST.”

    I agree. And we already know that some OTs have participated in remote viewing and other psi-related experiments. I’ve seen some on these messages board state that they’ve felt ready to be tested. There’s a willingness by some to do so. Others feel that being tested violates their personal integrity and will perhaps diminish those abilities.

    I know the Church’s interest is in proving it to the individual, on a one-on-one basis.

  85. But if one were incorrect, could the progression not “feel” the same?

    As an example, a man believes that he is being followed by the CIA. He begins to hear voices that lead him to confirm his beliefs. As he becomes more paranoid, he sees people that he had not noted before, and believes that they are there to cause him harm. Lastly, he becomes convinced that his conversations are being recorded.

    As it is subjective, he has the same sensations, but would be considered to be “devolving”, in a sense.

    Now, although not unique to Scientology, I would agree that there is value in confronting one’s fears or past traumas, although I say that from a psychology student background perspective.

    So, to re-address a previous point- in your opinion, is there anything that an OT can do that can be objectively and verifiably demonstrated or proven?

  86. “how would one tell the difference, other than a subjective belief that they have accepted and changed their previously held beliefs?”

    It’s a progression. We each know that we are unique. And we each know inherently that our past … our experiences … make us unique. Some of us were born with fears. Others born with unexplained skills and proclivities. Drawn to certain places. Resistant or inspired by certain things.

    Scientology brings about a series of “aha moments” in one … these can’t be scientifically measured or proven. Sometimes they rush in in waves. And one finds oneself at a whole new level of understanding and clarity. This is the progression. And it’s a subjective reality that only the person himself can experience.

  87. I don’t hate that, but I also don’t agree with it. :) But our opinions seem to differ. Science, of course, does not deal in the subjective as it is outside of the realm of science- that is what can be addressed using the scientific method. The subjective is traditionally left to philopsophy or psychology.

    However, if scientology claims only to improve the way the individual FEELS, then that is subjective and also inarguable, and in the same realm as any other self-help group, which is what you describe.

    However, if there are claims that are able to be verified, it would be prudent to do so. For example, the cause over MEST.

  88. “It follows, then, that we would not consider scientology to be a science in the strictest accepted defintion of the term?”

    Oh, of course Scientology isn’t a science in the strictest sense of the word. But that’s because (you’re going to hate this) Scientology is *senior* to science. It embraces science … but it also embraces and addresses subjective realities that science usually ends up having to punt.

    Further, unlike psychology and psychiatry, Scientology doesn’t feel the need to prove itself — and thus need approval from — the scientific community. Scientology considers that proving itself to the individual is far more valuable and important.

    I know this is attacked as “being convenient” and a “cop out”. But really, when your goal is to improve the individual … isn’t it ultimately the individual that should be consulted for how improved (or not) he is?

  89. No, Scientology accepts that one can have “false memories” or to use the proper Scientologese, to be “dubbing in” one’s past life (or this life) memories.

    how would one tell the difference, other than a subjective belief that they have accepted and changed their previously held beliefs?

  90. I enjoy speaking with you, Lake, but we are far outside of the scope of this forum while talking about general past life research!
    Perhaps, if you frequent another relevant forum, we may continue this conversation there and avoid filling this particular blog?

    To bring it full circle- I would agree, from a scientific perspective, that you cannot conclusively discount the possibility of past lives or oobe’s. However, because of their very nature, it is also something that will surely never be proven conclusively.

    You and I would surely agree that scientology is attempting to prove or excercise these beliefs- do you believe ‘they’ will ever be able to demonstrate or prove such things?

  91. “In other words, if you accept subjective experiences to be absolute truth, can you also accept ‘any’ claimed experience as ‘true’?”

    No, Scientology accepts that one can have “false memories” or to use the proper Scientologese, to be “dubbing in” one’s past life (or this life) memories.

    The theory goes that as one advances in clarity and objective, dispassionate observation and acceptance of one’s current life and one’s past (including good and bad actions done by and to others), one’s ability to see things more clearly and accurately becomes realized.

    And so, what were perhaps self-serving conclusions or attempts at denying the truth in the past, become replaced with an acceptance of responsibility and an ease and desire to see all of life as it really is and really was.

    This is all done in an (auditing) environment in which there is no evaluation and invalidation from the auditor. One comes to one’s own conclusions.

  92. “Must also point out that the problem with past life research, and exteriorization research is that it lends itself entirely to the situation, culture and beliefs of the researcher.”

    Same thing could be said back in the day of “evolution research”. No one ever actually took a video of “evolution taking place” and yet there was such a preponderence of evidence (bone fragments, carbon dating, etc.), that it became pretty clear that evolution did/does in fact take place.

    I believe the same thing could happen with exteriorization and past life research. Main problems today are (a) stigma and (b) funding. Few researchers want to risk their reputations, and there’s very little funding for what are seen as fringe studies such as this.

    “As an armchair scientist, I accept the possibility of reincarnation and remote viewing. However, I have not yet seen compelling or verifiable evidence to support such a fact.”

    For remote viewing / exteriorization, best I’ve been able to find is in the SRI and follow-on PEAR experiments. Both Puthoff and Targ are accomplished scientists and did a good job documenting their original research in the book “Mind Reach”. Targ isn’t a Scientologist and Puthoff doesn’t appear to be in the Church any longer — so it’s unlikely that their motives are to push a particular religion. But in any event, the work has been repeated by the PEAR group and now ICRL. It’s compelling. At least compelling enough for me to study related subjects (such as Scientology) further.

    With regard to Randi, of course the subjects “claimed” these abilities. How else does one find out about them? Come on, Randi approaches this whole subject in the least scientific way possible. He assumes accomplished scientists are purposely defrauding everyone, and attempts to create an environment where people are afraid to even replicate the experiments. That’s not science, that’s theatre and FUD.

    With regard to the past life work, that’s even tougher than exteriorization research. Doing it through hypnosis or auditing … oy vey … how do you unquestionably *prove* that the person never went to that little town in Ireland … or didn’t accidentally learn German as a little girl … or these days didn’t “look it up on the Internet.” When one thinks it through, its very very difficult to come up with a highly credible scenario. Probably the best way to continue this research is to use the same method Stevenson used … approach children/families after purely random, organic, after-the-fact past life memories surfaced. And do your best to record and corroborate what was “remembered” … ruling out fraud and other scenarios where ever possible.

    Further, all these subjects are tough to study scientifically in today’s culture and environment. Unless you get a renowned, highly respected doctor or scientist to get behind the research, the likes of Penn+Teller or Randi-followers harass the living shit out of them. And even in the case of somewhat renowned and respected scientisits/doctors working in this field, the extremist skeptics will do everything possible to destroy their reputations. And they generally could care less how good the underlying science was.

  93. While waiting eagerly for your further comments, I would like to consider some of your previous statements.

    You ask of actual truth that is subjective. That is a rather esoteric concept. Past memories, oobe’s, aha moments- they may very well be also true, but not strictly because we observed them.

    The belief that one should consider something to be true solely because they experienced it can be a dangerous philosophy. Is exteriorzation (sp?) true because an individual believes that it happened to them? Only if there are actually voices in the psychotic’s head that tells them to set fires.

    In other words, if you accept subjective experiences to be absolute truth, can you also accept ‘any’ claimed experience as ‘true’?

    This, of course, implies a truth of worth, rather than the standby of “if it’s true for you, it’s true”. That is pleasant, but of little value to any other than the psychotic, addict or adherent.

  94. Indeed, much appreciated.

    Do we agree, then, that the only proof offered in favor of scientology claims are entirely subjective?

    It follows, then, that we would not consider scientology to be a science in the strictest accepted defintion of the term?

  95. “Subjectivity, when attempting to pursue the rigors of scientific analysis (as per your first thread) is not only impossible, but a detriment.”

    It is indeed true. We are taught from our earliest days … and rightfully so … that allowing subjectivity to enter into the world of objective observation, and science, will be a detriment. Proven time and again.

    But what of actual Truth that is subjective? That wisp of an accurate memory from a long forgotten time. Those out-of-body experiences in operating rooms? That brief — or long lasting — moment of clarity. Those Aha! moments in life. Do we simply chalk all of them up to delusion?

    My point is not to say that Scientology is a “science” or “scientific”. My point is to say that Scientology embraces the “applied objective philosophy” of the scientific method but expands upon the scientific method in order to allow an individual to determine truth in subjective experiences. Scientology is an “applied *subjective* philosophy”.

    But I know that the real interest here is determining, scientifically, objectively, if all this stuff is real. So I’ll jump to your next message, Mark, to get into the real meat of it.

  96. Too bad you can’t prove one OT ability.

    That puts you in the same category as any other sham.

  97. Must also point out that the problem with past life research, and exteriorization research is that it lends itself entirely to the situation, culture and beliefs of the researcher.

    For instance, Dr. Stevenson’s research, while providing anectotal and unverifiable corroboration for reincarnation, was not able to completely eliminate outside veriables, although he made noble efforts. Another flaw in his reasearch was the trust that he placed in key players, such as the interpreter he used in India. His book publisher pulled out of the deal after finding that the interpreter had lied about unspecified matters, but Stevenson still used his interpretations!

    Indeed, Stevenson provided suggestion that reincarnation was plausible (a possibility that cannot be scientifically eliminated), but was certainly not conclusive in any case.

    You will also note that some scientologists (most or all of which later left the flock) were engaged in the stanford experiments. However, so were many others. In reality, the participants were chosen much in the same way the Amazing Randi chooses his study participants- not because they DEMONSTRATE remote sensing abilities, but because they CLAIM remote sensing abilities.

    These studies, however, have been widely rejected due to multiple flaws in research, as a sole individual was the determining factor in the accuracy of ths studies, and the methodology was never made available for peer review.

    As an armchair scientist, I accept the possibility of reincarnation and remote viewing. However, I have not yet seen compelling or verifiable evidence to support such a fact.

    I would be very open to seeing a scientologist demonstrate such a knowledge or ability in a scientific setting.

  98. I kept saying that I’d come back to this site when someone is able to form a rational argument. Thanks Lake!

    You’re crossing into dangerous waters, Lake. I’m assuming that you’ve wordcleared “subjective” (taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias), so one can see that subjectivity is the antithesis of real science! Subjectivity, when attempting to pursue the rigors of scientific analysis (as per your first thread) is not only impossible, but a detriment.

    It’s much like the thirsty dog. You give a thirsty dog a hot bowl of water. Finding it unpleasant to drink, the frustrated dog is confused and angry and barks at the water- as dogs do. After a short period, the dog tries the water, he finds that it has cools, and determines that barking has cooled the water.

    Similarly, when ones allows subjective bias to color their perceptions, they are unable to act as an impartial observer, and may not be called to objectively determine any universal truth. Therefor, the scientologist that claims that the “tech” worked for them must also consider to be valid the statements of those that claim that psychiatric care or trepanning worked for them.

    In short, one may consider scientology to be a subjective belief system, but cannot reasonably consider it to be a science.

    However, if one considers it to be true for them, and feels that the fact is sufficient evidence for them alone, they must see that they are unable to make a universal claim as to its effectiveness, and also unable to judge those that found equally effective means of self-realization elsewhere, be it self-help, psychiatric care or alcohol!

    -Mark

  99. “u are still talking subjective based, tho- not real science.”

    That’s the beauty of Scientology, bigdaddy. Scientology has done for subjective truths today, what the scientific method did for objective truths 500 years ago.

    Scientology is in fact an expansion — and embrace — of the scientific method to also include subjective truth.

    Whereas the scientific method continues to give us clarity, understanding and potential control of the physical universe, Scientology now gives us these same things in each of our own universes.

  100. u are still talking subjective based, tho- not real science.

    in psuedoscience, u will almost always confirm ur expectation.

  101. “Sorry dude, but you can’t do any serious research in an environment, that doesn’t allow for falsification.”

    Actually, Anonymous, in Scientology one is encouraged from the very beginning to not take LRH’s word for it, but to observe for oneself and come to one’s own conclusions. That includes whether or not the tech always works. This is expected at every step of the way. This is different, of course, than working for the Church and being expected to practice the technology in a standard, consistent way — which is where KSW largely comes in.

    I think you are getting confused between standards/consistency in application — and determining for oneself whether or not the tech works.

  102. “One could also argue that the Church — on a daily basis — provides an environment for individuals to do their own personal research.”

    Sorry dude, but you can’t do any serious research in an environment, that doesn’t allow for falsification. Per KSW doctrine the tech is assumed to be flawless and to always work, when correctly applied. Should the promised end phenomenon not be attained, then it is automatically assumed that the fault lies within the incorrect application and not the tech itself.

    This is 100 % contrary to real research. If you are only allowed to verify that the tech works, but not allowed to falsifly it, the result will always be the same: For some small percentage it might work, which will be publically announced in the form of “success stories” and fully attributed to the tech itself instead of considering possible side factors which might have contributed as well. For the rest it might not work, which will of course never be mentioned anywhere.
    This leads to the illusion that the tech always works. You could achieve the same results with ANY tech (praying, wonder healing, astrology, etc.)
    It’s always the same.

  103. Howdy all.

    Just read through the thread and thought I’d give some thoughts/observations. I’ve been in Scientology for a few decades, and have also tried to keep up with both sides of the debate over the years.

    The original crux of the thread was: why don’t OTs and/or the Church prove OT powers or reincarnation?

    Actually, if you’ve heard of studies in “remote viewing” (aka exteriorization) and the various government/military studies of psychic abilities in the 70s and 80s, dig a little deeper and you’ll find that Scientology OTs were largely responsible for conducting and participating in at least the early research of what came to be called “remote viewing”. Some remarkable results were obtained from those. Google and Wiki on Pat Price, Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff and SRI (Stanford Research Institute). The research continues to this day at ICRL (formerly PEAR [Princeton]) and elsewhere.

    Research in this field draws debates from both sides of course, but I think ultimately, the results are compelling enough to conclude that psi/OT phenomena are real and further research is needed.

    With reincarnation, probably the best scientific work to date was done by the late Dr. Ian Stevenson in the 60s and early 70s. His painstaking research of children 3-6 yrs old who accurately remember pieces of their former lives does, in my view, begin the process of corroborating much of what LRH was studying and observing some years earlier.

    And so to the original question: why doesn’t the Church or OTs prove OT powers and reincarnation? Short answer: some OTs have provided compelling evidence for exteriorization / remote viewing. Others, largely outside of Scientology, have tackled the subject of reincarnation in as much of a scientific and controlled setting as the nature of past-life memories provides. One could also argue that the Church — on a daily basis — provides an environment for individuals to do their own personal research.

    And personally, I think this was LRH’s goal — to come up with a methodology and environment that allowed individuals to prove the phenomena (of past lives and exteriorization) to themselves. And so his work centered on that.

    And I think the Church’s primary goal is to continue providing such an environment.

  104. but it would all be so easy too prove!!!
    ‘there is a symbol on the roof can u see it?”
    ‘this man is in a coma can u wake him’
    but they will not do it. they will not ever offer proof of what they claim.
    (trying better english for pat lol)

  105. 12 million? u r generous lol

  106. If just 1,000,000 out of 12,000,000 Scientologists pays to go up the Bridge to Total Freedom

    360,000 x 1,000,000 = 360,000,000,000

    I think that is Three Hundred and Sixty BILLION Dollars

    For all that money you still don’t have any magical powers. You can imagine you are leaving your body through exteriorization but you can’t prove it.

    No OT’s are any more at cause over MEST than reasonable able Wogs.

    Scientology organizations don’t function any more smoothly than Wog organizations.

  107. Actually its around 360k. Well spent =)

  108. No need to analyze the handwriting……
    The page was authenticated by Helena Kobrin, lawyer for Religious Technology Center, in a letter sent to Carnegie Mellon’s legal counsel on January 24, 1997
    Also, the sworn testimony of Warren McShane, president of Religious Technology Center, in civil action no. 95-B-2143, Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T.Net, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado acknowledged and confirmed.
    It’s all in the Court records.

  109. lol, i guess once you’ve completed OT3 and seen the Xenu story for yourself you won’t call it “nonsense” anymore, because you will be too weak to admit of having spent 300k for nonsense, like the other OTs.

  110. Thats the plan.

  111. DeathereX, then pay your 300k bucks for OT3 and see for yourself.

  112. What we know about the xenu story is only a short recording of L Ron Hubbard talking nonsense. The document provided is not evidence, if thats OT material I suppose you got to be an expert on handwriting to actually be able to read it.

    This is the answer for you: There IS a recording of L Ron Hubbard talking about xenu/xemu, but we dont know if that is a real story or plain science fiction told by hubbard on a congress as a joke or whatever. You wont get further than that.

  113. @Comment by Anonymous on August 3, 2009 6:41 pm

    You know, Anon, you might be on to something. Take, for instance, the sea org uniforms. LRH chose them to honor the sea heritage of the CoS. They have a deliberate sea theme for that reason. Point being- they echo LRH’s history, interests and preferences.

    Look at the new uniforms: http://tinyurl.com/newuniforms

    They completely reject the previous style, instead preferring capes and a more modern design. Maybe this is a sign of what you were referring to?

    _FR

  114. lol, good luck, Troll. You won’t get an answer to that one :) We’ve gone down that path before.

  115. Hello, Louanne!
    Long time reader, first time writer :)
    I am anxiously looking forward to seeing your answers, now that you are back…
    I am very eager to hear how it is that you can hide behind this digital mask, while saying such terrible things about those that do it real life. At least they’re getting fresh air while they’re doing it! :)

  116. rpf? I kid, I kid :)
    who are u calling a troll? ur insult is not clear.
    why are u so angry?

  117. Hi Everybody,

    looks like the trolls having a good time here. Sorry for my absence, will return shortly. Check this out in the meantime: http://www.freedommag.org

    – L

  118. error- ignore the phrase “Guess that”

  119. hmm- interesting point, anon. Guess that

  120. The whole Scientology technology is copyrighted and trademarked. Religious technology center (RTC) and the church of spiritual technology (CST) own these copyrights and trademarks. David Miscavige is the sole person, who is in control of both.
    => David Miscavige owns Scientology.

  121. Anon- dox?

  122. David Miscavige is actually the legal OWNER of the whole Scientology technology.
    You can’t get rid of him without getting rid of Scientology.
    lol, ur totally screwed!

  123. well, they do offer compelling proof.
    Pat says “no”. Louanne says “nope”. how can you argue with that, when all you have to compare it with are audio recordings made by hubbard, notes written by hubbard, and copyright claims/court dox in which the cos confirms that the writings belong to them?
    seriously, though, watch the tommy davis/cnn interview. when asked about xenu, he says “I’ve never heard of that”. Right. The spokesman of scientology never heard of that very common and well known story. Either he’s very sheltered and had never been asked that question, or he gave the same answer that you hear time and time again.
    That’s kind of sad, really.
    _FR

  124. all, she cannot anser u. even if she did no, she cannot answer. u are wasting you time. read back, she cannot answer most questions, like about why she stays anonymous but hates others that do the same, or why she is in a hate group. again, read back and see how many times she does ignore questions.

  125. OTIII is about Xenu. Maybe you aren’t OTIII yet Pat.

    Look. Xenu. In LRH’s own handwriting.

  126. Tommy Davis said that the church wouldn’t be here without David Miscavige.
    That’s true, because LRH did such a poor job with Scientology, that it couldn’t have survived on its own merits.
    LRH is dead, go and worship Miscavige now!

  127. There is no xenu story. We’ve been through this before.

    Read my “lips”. There is no xenu story. I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

    Pat

  128. David Miscavige is more important to Scientologists than Scientology itself.
    Prove me wrong.

  129. Now, Pat, that’s not exactly truthful. There is indeed a Xenu story- from Hubbard’s lips and in his hand. One can debate about whether or not it was a fictional story, a movie plot or a secret teaching, but to say that it does not exist is indicative of your training progress, wherein the story changes from “I’ve heard of it” to “It doesn’t exist” or “Does that sound silly to you?”
    Here’s what it comes down to: Hubbard wrote a great deal of things. Some were published, and some were not. However, it has long since been established that there are indeed secret teachings within the CoS- how is it unthinkable that this is not one of them? Are you high enough to be privy to these teachings, and can truly confirm for yourself that they do not exist?
    I don’t mean to in any way assert the point, but it is quite frustrating. I have eagerly awaited answers to questions asked of you but ignored, and seem to only see responses (and, sadly, condescension) to questions not directed to you.
    I suppose it’s my own problem- I was looking forward to seeing you answer Mr. Smith, after he answered your question!
    But, I digress, and repeat- what do you believe is the true source of Hubbard’s recorded statements and written documentation?
    _FR

  130. Scientology isn’t about Xenu. Scientology is the technology that allows us to become more ourselves and returns us to native state as beings. There is no Xenu story. One of these days someone is going to read a book by L Ron Hubbard and actually find out what Scientology is. It’s amazing (I know, I’ve said it before) to me what people try to tell us what we believe.

    Pat

  131. Scientology is about applying the technology to your life and following a very precise definition “What is true is what YOU have observed to be true” Do you think I would just “believe” some story? Auditing is magical, pure magic, and it cannot really be discussed, it shouldn’t and was never intended for other purpose than individual observation.

  132. Comments are OFF elsewhere where I’d rather have posted it.

    There is no reason for the silly Xenu story to be confidential.

    Scientologists lie about Xenu’s existence.

  133. I don’t know if you would know the answer to this, or if it’s “public” information, but do you have any idea what these symbols mean? I know they’re trademarked, but do you know why they’re used in this manner?

    Mr. Smith

  134. Not really a question, wgas…
    We’ve all seen that- what is it that you’re trying to do here?

  135. It’s true about XENU.

    Listen to it in LRH’s own voice

  136. Vlad I can only guarantee you with a 100% certainty that you can communicate here. And if you were declared suppressive you wouldnt just get bumped from the church and lose all your friends, you would be given a way to handle the situation, so either you have been unfairly treated which you should have taken to the RTC (Religious technology center) who is in charge of the orgs and that they apply standard tech, OR you are lying about this happening, or perhaps twisted the facts, well that I can not observe, but I can listen.
    Do you have anything specific you want to communicate about?

  137. Hi

    Last year the local DSA called me up and told me that I was declared Suppressive. I was never sent a goldenrod. All my friends at the org stopped talking to me. Are you allowed to communicate with me here?

  138. I must point out, since Pat brought up the issue, that the FDA wisely errs on the side of caution when there is the slightest risk of harm.
    For example, FDA Docket number 2006P-0390, Jan 3, 2008, serves to “Order the Church of Scientology to clearly disclose the potential health hazards inherent in the use of the E-meter and Scientology’s practice of “auditing””
    And reaffirms the requirement to place FDA warning labels on each device which, while mandated since 1971, has not occured on a wide scale, as I’m sure we can all agree.
    Originally, in a ruling by the Federal District Judge Gesell 333 F. Supp. 357; 1971 U.S. Dist, it was ruled that all E-meters “should bear a prominent notice printed in or permanently affixed to each item or such literature, stating that the device known as a Hubbard Electrometer, or E-meter, used in auditing, has been condemned by a United States District Court on the grounds that the literature of Dianetics and Scientology contains false and misleading claims of a medical or scientific nature and that the E-meter has no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease, nor is it medically or scientifically capable of improving any bodily function”.
    (a somewhat watered down version was affixed to devices for a period, but I have heard this is no longer the case- any insight?)
    I DO NOT believe that the e-meter is a harmful device, although the FDA has mandated warnings for the devices.
    For this reason, FDA warnings on certain drugs (both medical ans psychiatric) must be interpreted with the same liberties.
    just my 2cents.
    -Gill

  139. “Are you aware that almost every SSRI now has black box warnings from the FDA? It’s not just my opinion. Have you looked at the side effects? Have you looked into the physical and mental consequences of illegal drugs and psych drugs? Please do your own research. I’ve done mine.”

    As have I.
    For starters, it is true that “every” SSRI has a warning from the FDA. And for good reason. It is effective for most, but for a very small percentage, it is risky. For most, there are no negative effects, but it is certainly good practice to warn all users about potential risks.
    This is so because this class of drug, referred to as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, can potentially interact poorly with some patients- a side effect which is detectable and reversible. And, it only effects a specific range of patients with existing conditions.
    However, please consider the following warning: “have been associated with severe adverse reactions, including gastrointestinal distress (burning pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating, cramping, and diarrhea) and mild to severe liver damage. Less common, but more serious (in some cases life-threatening), reactions include liver injury, myopathy (muscle disease), maculopathy of the eyes (injury to the eyes resulting in decreased vision), coagulopathy (increased bleeding problems), cytopenia (decreases in cell types in the blood), hypotensive myocardial ischemia (heart injury caused by too low blood pressure), and metabolic acidosis (increases in the acidity of the blood and urine)”
    This is from the FDA on Niacin.
    Now, I’m not defending psychiatry. In fact, I’m quite impressed that you got me doing it! :)
    I never said that I believe it’s perfect, in any way.
    But you used SSRI’s as the example. There are many more types of psychiatric medicines. Some are newer, and have side effects. Some are predictable and well understood. Like early medical technology, which has several thousand years of a head start, psychiatric medicine is improving. For example, shock therapies and cocaine were once thought to have very positive effects. This is no longer the case.
    So, lot of talk for not defending psychiatry, but I don’t believe that it’s “evil” or “bad” in any way- but that medicine must advance. LIkewise, I don’t believe that all “psychs” are bad or evil. Are some? yes, without a doubt. But not solely because they’re psychs. There are bad cops, bad doctors, bad teachers, bad anons and bad scientologists. People define the role, not the other way around.

    And I’ve already agreed that illegal drugs are not to be used.

  140. My point exactly, Pat!
    I do believe, as it would seem do you, that one does not need to experience something in order to recognize its flaws. Just as I do not need to jump off a cliff to know that it’s dangerous, you don’t need to try drugs in order to know that they are bad for you. So we do, then, agree that one can form an opinion WITHOUT needing to experience it for themselves.
    Now, there is the variable of personal prejudice. For example, a regular drug user (depending on the user and the drug) would say that it is a -good- thing to be using, while a police officer may tell them that it is a -bad- thing.
    In this context, you, the scientologist, would claim that the church of scientology is altogether good. And while I would not go so far as to say that the cos is bad, I would advocate significant reform.
    But, given our previous analogy, we can assume that my point is as valid as yours, based on our own experiences, and that it is not necessary to “become” the other in order to have a valid opinion.
    _FR

  141. I missed Mark’s answer. Thanks for reposting that for me.

    Based on your logic, one would need to jump off the cliff and die to know that jumping off the cliff is bad.

    Are you aware that almost every SSRI now has black box warnings from the FDA? It’s not just my opinion. Have you looked at the side effects? Have you looked into the physical and mental consequences of illegal drugs and psych drugs? Please do your own research. I’ve done mine.

    Pat

  142. Based on your answer, Pat, I can assume that you have never used psychiatric or illegal drugs. I can also assume that you have never protested wearing masks and the like.

    My question is, you have told me and others that we must experience things for ourselves in order to form a justifiable opinion on them. My question is- how can you say that drugs are bad, and that anonymous is full of criminals, if you have never tried either?

    How is it that you know that these things are “bad”?

    Please don’t think that I don’t care about you as a person. Believe it or not, I do care. Granted, you and I aren’t hugging and sending birthday cards, but a discussion does not mean that I don’t care.

  143. Pat,
    On 12 July, he had answered your question. He said: “Like most of the world. I believe that psychiatric drugs can be useful, if used properly. They can also be abused or given incorrectly. That is wrong, but the fault of the individual, not the whole mental health profession or the medical technology.

    I’m not going to get into Mr. Hubbard’s understanding and training in medical technology, but I will note that sometimes ailments can be scientifically evaluated, and the cure can be scientifically verified. There’s no black box, it can be observed, documented and repeated, which is the hallmark of science.

    I believe that the use of anything illegal is a crime, and do not support crime.”

    He had answered your question and asked you if you had ever used psychiatric or illegal drugs.

    So I do believe that he has answered your question with that. I would assume that your answer is a given, however.

  144. Giljoer,

    Mark asked me what I thought about drugs (illegal or psych) and I told him. I then asked for a turn-about on the questions and that was to find out what HE thought about them. Isn’t that an exchange of ideas? Isn’t it one-sided to expect me to answer only and not get to ask about something that is not interpreting tech?

    Pat

  145. Please note that not reading, discussing and experiencing an experience does not disqualify one from discussing it. Unless… how long have you and Louanne been drug addicted members of ‘anonymous’? Have you been a member at all?

    I am referring to books on the questions “what does this mean?”

    Why on earth would you ask a Scientologist (again, I’m going to assume something here, and that is that you know that Scientologists are very much into being ethical) if he or she has ever protested? That strikes me as insulting and non-sequiter (means it doesn’t follow sense-wise from a prior conversation) You say friends but I don’t feel that to be true due to the slurs. You haven’t given me any reason to think that you actually care about me as a person, or are worthy of my trust. There is actually policy (Verbal Tech) that is very specific about not giving “interpretations” or opinions about what LRH meant when he wrote or said something. It’s very clear that the data is in the books, and if someone wants to understand Scientology, they’ll read the book, or the referred chapter, etc.. If I’ve changed it’s toward having more determination to see that people get the original data rather than someones spin on the tech or policy. It’s those interpretations that have caused so much confusion. I want you to have the true data. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with it. Just get it from the source. If you’re not willing to do that, then what’s the point of asking? Lead a Scientologist into verbally interpreting the tech, or that you want knowledge? If the latter, then you shouldn’t have any problem looking at the source reference on a question about what LRH meant.

    Pat

  146. Pat,
    I actually am treating you like I would like to be treated.
    I, personally, value stimulating exchange and occasional discussion. But, I hope that, like FR said- we’re all friends here, even if we don’t always agree.
    Anywho, I’ve read some of your older postings, Pat, in which you frequently discussed, debated and fully answered questions. you’re very intelligent, and I know that you have a wealth of knowledge, opinions and beliefs. What had changed since last year (2008) that you’re less willing to discuss them? It’s my loss, because I really do enjoy reading your work.
    Gill

  147. Pat,
    Although things can get heated sometimes, of course, I think that we’re all friends here. At least, that’s how I feel. And friends do sometimes go “head to head”.
    I can understand that you do not want to answer scientology-based questions, and I believe that was gill’s last point- that he is not expecting, nor asking, for you to discuss anything scientology-related. Fair ’nuff.
    I do think that the last question that he asked would not be found in any book. Namely, if you had engaged in recreational or psychiatric drug usage, or protested against scientology. I would imagine that it’s a very easy ‘no’ answer, though- would that be accurate?
    _FR

  148. Giljoer,

    When I don’t understand something I read I check for words that I don’t understand in the text. It handles it for me. I don’t rely on others’ “think” or “spin” to figure out what something means. So, when someone comes here and wants something explained it’s just telling me that you’re too lazy to look for yourself. You’d rather be told what to think. This is very different from asking “Why did you do this or why did you do that?” Instead, what I am seeing in the last week or so is “will someone please tell me what this means?” Stop asking me to do your thinking for you. I am going to assume that your reading comprehension is fairly good. But then, sometimes that gets me in trouble. (Assuming). I know that you are basically good. Try treating me the way you want to be treated.

    Pat

  149. So, then, if you don’t want to deal with answers that require explanations, then I really don’t understand what you hope to accomplish here.

    But, I can assume that this means that your answers, in the future, would be limited to page numbers and book titles. Is that true?

    It’s a shame, because I was hoping to hear if you had ever used drugs or protested at a scientology center. (although that is not asking you to explain anything, least of all scientology… so perhaps you’re able to answer that one?)

  150. “Scientology is not explained. It’s studied, and applied. If you don’t get what the words mean you should look them up in the dictionary. It’s either true for you or it isn’t.”

    Exactly.

    Pat

  151. 1. If you are making a critical comment about anything about Scientology or a Scientologist, you are here to make a statement, and don’t belong here.

    How does Louanne define “critical”? Is it as “characterized by careful evaluation and judgment”? I, and others, are here to sincerely ask questions. I realize that there are difficult questions, but I am sure that Louanne will let us know when she feels that her rules have been violated, although I am sure that she appreciates your efforts.

    2. If you would actually like to talk to a real Scientologist, who is willing to point you to answers, then you’re in the right place. Scientology means “knowing how to know”. We learn by studying the research of LRH and make up our own minds whether it’s a workable thing or not, as well as the docs that Louanne has taken a great care to offer you, in the attempt to clear up some of the altered data you’re coming here to clarify.

    Exactly- that’s why I’m here- to talk to a real scientologist. Now, clearly you and Louanne digress on this point. To you, it would seem that “point you to answers”, means share book titles. But that’s an assignment for the reader, and would generally limit visitors to a very small number of questions, depending on the length of the book and courses. Louanne, however, seems to point one to answers, not titles. In other words, while both methods are technically valid, Louanne is seen as a more thorough source. No offense meant- just an observation.

    Please note that not reading, discussing and experiencing an experience does not disqualify one from discussing it. Unless… how long have you and Louanne been drug addicted members of ‘anonymous’? Have you been a member at all?

  152. Pat-
    the concept of the site is that one may ask questions and receive straight answers. That’s basically the title of the thread.

    If you don’t want to debate, that’s fine, not a problem. If you wish only to refer me to “source”, duly noted. But continuing to reply and ask me (or any of us) questions, can only invite reply. In fact, you keep accusing Mark of not answering your question, but that would require a reply and a continuation of the discussion.

    Do you want your questions answered or ignored? It really seems to vary.

    (and I really can’t find a question that he didn’t answer… could you repeat it? Maybe I can entice him back)

  153. Pat,
    That assumption is not accurate.

    When I asked about RS-45, and when you were asked before about an item on a site that you referred us to, you said

    “Scientology is not explained. It’s studied, and applied. If you don’t get what the words mean you should look them up in the dictionary. It’s either true for you or it isn’t.”

    It would seem that an item that requires an explaination is outside of your scope. For example, you were asked what RS-45 means, in the context of the video, and gave the above answer.

    So the quote was not taken out of context. It was provided in context, in an interview video starring Mr. Hubbard. The question was what do you know about the context? What does it mean in context?

    Now, what is very relevant here, given your comments, have you ever taken illegal drugs or psychiatric drugs? It’s not an accusation, but a question that could be easily answered, without explaination, if you prefer.

    Gill

  154. Pat… If this isn’t a debate forum, then why are you waiting for an answer back :))

    Definitions:
    Answer: a spoken or written reply or response to a question, request, letter, etc.
    Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:

    A series of questions and answers, as in which you and others on this thread had engaged, would be a debate, or a discussion. A discussion/debate works like this: I ask you a question- you answer, you ask a question and I answer back.

    If it’s one sided, that can be a series of questions, if that’s what you’d prefer, but would require the definition of who is permitted to ask the questions and who will be answering them.

    You still aren’t getting it. We don’t debate Scientology. Period

    Pat

  155. Maybe there is some confusion by what is meant by statements vs questions

    1. If you are making a critical comment about anything about Scientology or a Scientologist, you are here to make a statement, and don’t belong here.

    2. If you would actually like to talk to a real Scientologist, who is willing to point you to answers, then you’re in the right place. Scientology means “knowing how to know”. We learn by studying the research of LRH and make up our own minds whether it’s a workable thing or not, as well as the docs that Louanne has taken a great care to offer you, in the attempt to clear up some of the altered data you’re coming here to clarify.

    The answers to your questions for the most part are in the books, where these “quotes” are pulled from. What isn’t in the books, because it deals with stuff that the anti-Scientologists are repeating, 20 to 30th hand with alterations from one to the next, is very likely to be found in scientologymyths.info. Why should I give verbal data or repeat what’s already written for you to read, when you get a full understanding from the text? Don’t you want the actual data from the source of it?

    Pat

  156. Giljoer,

    I don’t know what you mean by “ask questions that require an explanation”

    I’m going to assume that you meant “answer questions…”

    What you’re asking for is my understanding of a quote which is often taken out of context. The question itself in many cases is assuming the answer when it’s asked (a leading question).

    The whole anti-scientology campaign has made a strong effort to take these quotes out of context and throw in their own verbal data to further alter the truth of what is actually in the books. I absolutely WILL NOT sit here and type out a whole book where the quotes come from, when the original text is so easily available. When someone keeps insisting on verbal data, it just tells me they’d rather take others’ opinions rather than find out for oneself. That’s my reason. It’s obvious that this is unpopular with the current posters, but that’s too bad. I’m going to continue to insist that you go to source.

    If Louanne wishes to give her view on this that’s fine.

    Pat

  157. Pat,
    perhaps the defintitions were unclear. You had said:

    @Comment by gilljoer on July 16, 2009 8:45 am

    Pat… If this isn’t a debate forum, then why are you waiting for an answer back :))

    Definitions:
    Answer: a spoken or written reply or response to a question, request, letter, etc.
    Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:

    A series of questions and answers, as in which you and others on this thread had engaged, would be a debate, or a discussion. A discussion/debate works like this: I ask you a question- you answer, you ask a question and I answer back.

    If it’s one sided, that can be a series of questions, if that’s what you’d prefer, but would require the definition of who is permitted to ask the questions and who will be answering them.

    the RS-45 question seems to set the precedence that it is your preference not to ask questions that require an explanation. Would this be correct? Could you please help define which types of questions you will answer? I only ask, so that I could better understand how to engage you within your comfort zone. (believe it or not, I care about that. If you’re uncomfortable, I will not press you.)

  158. Yes, Pat, no one will ever deny that you do not refer people to source, and I wish you the best of luck.

    in the meantime, please do consider an answer from you, Pat, not someone else, at some point. I would be sincerely interested in your own thoughts, not the thoughts that others had given you. That’s actually not an insult, if it sounds like one. But I believe that you have unique and individual thoughts, and I hope to someday here some more of them.

    Perhaps starting with the anonymous thread…

    (sincerely asked) Do you have thoughts of your own that are not just “see source”? I do truly believe that showing your ability to think and reason (which I am sure you possess) would be a great endorsement, rather than reinforce the stereotype that scientologists are unable to share thoughts of their own, but will only refer someone to books or centers. I don’t believe that to be true, but showing otherwise will be far more effective in getting people actually interested in your beliefs.

    I’m being sincere here- the people that would oppose your thoughts, Pat, believe that scientologists have trouble holding their own in a conversation. I do believe that you can prove that wrong.

  159. FallRoot.

    Thanks. I’m pleased to know that you recognize that I refer people to source.

    Pat

  160. Rad=Read

    or new slang, one or the other.

  161. Pat,
    You’ve repeated these same answers time and time again. Same thing, nothing new.

    “Rad a book” “visit the site” etc

    But, when you really examine it, there’s no depth to the answers. I’m not even sure why you bother to define “answer”, since you never seem to provide any- you just refer to another location.

    Perfect example is your answer at 8:48, where you refer someone (me?) to a site, and then when a question is brought up about content that you’ve provided, you refuse to answer it! So, even if I take your advice and take a class, or whatever, can I expect the same answer from other graduates of the communications course?

    I’m not trying to be funny here, Pat, but I’ve realized that there’s really no communicating with you. Tell you what- this is Louanne’s site. If Louanne is not up for the debate (which she is, at least, able to handle), then she can tell me (us) so. Otherwise, unless you’re an admin, I don’t think it’s your call to tell me to, in essence, “stop talking” or threaten censorship. Not how the ‘net works. But, out of respect to her site, I’ll let Louanne take care of herself. Near as I can tell, you and I are both guests here, but I’m not the one telling you that you don’t have the right to answer and ask questions.

    So, I think I’ll stick with Lou. She’s a little more up to speed on conversation, and I feel like I can at least engage her in conversation. You’ve accomplished your task- I heard the commercial, but I’m just not interested in buying or borrowing a book just so you’ll address my questions. That’s controlling, and not how the game is played.

    Still curious about your reply to the anonymous thread…

    So, Pat, when you say you answered Mark’s question… it’s a little disturbing that you feel that to be true. Although I would love to hear how it is that you know drugs are bad… have you tried them?

    no, withdrawn- I know the answer.

    _F

  162. Mark,

    I answered your question.

    Please answer mine.

    Pat

  163. @Comment by Fallroot on July 15, 2009 9:35 pm

    Pat-
    This is a serious question, please do not misjudge-
    have you visited a site that is not operated by scientology in the last year?
    Also, did you see the question listed in in the anonymous thread? I would be curious to see your reply.
    _F

    Since I handle IT I am all over the internet. I go where I need to go to get answers and data. I love google. Unfortunately, I also see the false data that is being spread about my religion. I’ve been in Scientology almost 38 years and was on staff for a portion of that. I am not an admin on this site. I am a Scientologist who cares about whether people go free, spiritually. Including you. However, I also don’t tolerate someone breaking the rules. Louanne has a great site here and due to the fact that she offers documentation she is a target for those who are devoting their lives to see Scientology fail. This is not a debate forum about Scientology (as stated in the fact). If you start making comments or attack, then you will get deleted. It’s the policy here and if you want to spin it as “censorship” because you broke the only rule she has then fine. You’re entitled to your opinion.

    Have you ever looked at the youtube vids from the ex-pharmaceutical company rep? In there she actually testifies that people have been hired to create sites that are designed to find ways to spin anti-scientology propaganda. Scientolgists see that as a good sign that vested interests are pulling out the stops to create a false picture. We know we’re making progress. I always ask people to look for themselves. Read a book, talk to a Scientologist. Find out first hand how the spin works there.

    Pat

  164. @Comment by gilljoer on July 16, 2009 8:45 am

    Pat… If this isn’t a debate forum, then why are you waiting for an answer back :))

    Definitions:
    Answer: a spoken or written reply or response to a question, request, letter, etc.
    Debate: a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints:

    Anywho, perhaps this will be more acceptable:

    I would like to address the myth of RS-45.

    This 1968 (?) documentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI#t=10m00s discusses a letter in which RS-45 is recommended. Could you please explain what this refers to (I am not assuming that it advocates violence)?

    Here’s what I told Fallroot when he asked me to “explain”.

    Scientology is not explained. It’s studied, and applied. If you don’t get what the words mean you should look them up in the dictionary. It’s either true for you or it isn’t.

    R2-45 is defined in the book “Creation of Human Ability” on page 179. Find out for yourself what he means :) – It’s in libraries all over the world in at least 15 languages.

    Pat

  165. @ Comment by Fallroot on July 15, 2009 9:54 pm

    I visited the link to that you provided. This is the link that you provided, please note that.

    Yeah, ok. good!

    “On that page, under definitions, it defines an “OT”, as “a being who is knowingly and willingly cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time.” and, later, “personal immortality containing full awareness, memory and ablity of a spirit independant of the flesh. In scientology, this has been attained.””

    Could you please explain to me what it is that this means?

    _F”

    No. Scientology is not explained. It’s studied, and applied. If you don’t get what the words mean you should look them up in the dictionary. It’s either true for you or it isn’t.

    http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm

    Pat

  166. Pat… If this isn’t a debate forum, then why are you waiting for an answer back :))

    Anywho, perhaps this will be more acceptable:

    I would like to address the myth of RS-45.

    This 1968 (?) documentary at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI#t=10m00s discusses a letter in which RS-45 is recommended. Could you please explain what this refers to (I am not assuming that it advocates violence)?

    Thank you,
    Gill

  167. Pat,

    I visited the link to that you provided. This is the link that you provided, please note that.

    On that page, under definitions, it defines an “OT”, as “a being who is knowingly and willingly cause over life, thought, matter, energy, space and time.” and, later, “personal immortality containing full awareness, memory and ablity of a spirit independant of the flesh. In scientology, this has been attained.”

    Could you please explain to me what it is that this means?

    _F

  168. Pat-
    another serious question- are you some sort of admin on this site, or just here for your own reasons?
    _F

  169. Pat-
    This is a serious question, please do not misjudge-
    have you visited a site that is not operated by scientology in the last year?
    Also, did you see the question listed in in the anonymous thread? I would be curious to see your reply.
    _F

  170. “So what “Fair Game” did happen to those “poor Anonymous” cowards when they were identified? Tell me. I know the ones that got arrested and jailed/fined, but I guess you are not talking about the justice system catching up with their criminal deeds, right?”

    You’re putting words in my mouth, methinks- unless you know something that I don’t know? I never said they were fair gamed. My point is that, right or wrong, scientology has a REPUTATION of committing fair game, and would cause concern.
    Ignore for a second our opinions- you believe fair game does not still occur. I believe that it does. We have the same data, but we have reached the same conclusion. The difference is that no one has ever, nor have many people, accused psychologists of such a thing. Furthermore, you would surely agree that at one time, a fair game order did exist. Like I said, could you agree that there is at least a legitimate connection between scientology and fair game? I would imagine that many are afraid of it happening again.
    And no, I’m not talking about the justice system, I was talking about the impression of fair game. If crimes occur, people should be held accountable. Show me some evidence of ANYONE in a mask committing a significant crime against scientology. (let’s not get pedantic here and go with jaywalking, permits, etc)

    “You are comparing apples and oranges here. Those Anonymous I see here in Los Angeles are trying not to be identified because a) someone could get them for harassment (which I experienced myself, so don’t tell me it does not exist) or other violations of other people’s rights and b) I guess it is more fun wearing a scary masks when you are yelling obscenities and personal insult at religious minorities. When Anon was “new” I was curious about these people, but during the last year I realized what a bunch of dumb cowards these guys are. There is no attempt to talk, convince or even protest anything. The only reason for those raids is to intimidate and harass Scientologists.”

    You’re making an assumption. Again, for this to be true, you would have to know for a fact why they wear masks. All you have is your prejudiced opinion.
    Do some people in masks do “bad” things? yes, some have.
    Do some psychiatrists take advantage of payments? yes, some have.
    Have some scientolgists committed fair game…. ?
    Again, please realize that you’re making assumptions without all the data. How can you believe that you know the intentions of each and every one?

    “So what is your viewpoint about the DDOS attacks against church websites? And about trashing up the internet with fake “Scientology news”, biased and unfounded accusations and online computer games that give you points for killing Scientologists?”

    So, a) you’re not denying that what you’re doing is censorship and b) you’re comparing your censorship to those actions that you’ve listed?
    Anywho, a DDOS attack is a crime and should be punished accordingly. If you have any evidence that it is linked to anyone in particular, I highly recommend that you tell the police. Do you have evidence that links a particular group to that crime? Do you accuse “anonymous”? the psychiatrists?
    I’ll keep my viewpoint to myself about the fake scientology news, because the majority scientology news that I see are listed by you and a handful of others and on sites that allow you to post your own news for free! But at any given time, do a news search for the word “scientology”. In fact, right now, the first results are pro-scientology pieces by Linda W. on the American Chronicle, a free news service that lets you write your own news! The rest aside from what’s self-published, is usually from reputable news sources and negative. Not familiar with the game you’re referring to, but I would not approve of such a thing.
    the irony is that I was talking about free speech- but only one of the items that you referred to was an actual crime that is not protected by free speech! The other items that you mention are free speech, which only supports the point that you would seek to censor such things as well, since you used them as examples!

    Like what?
    How could I know, you didn’t archive those, you deleted them :)
    Mark archived it, maybe he’ll chime in or post it elsewhere. Mark?
    But I do remember you deleting the evidence that the site was performing poorly, but you kept your statistics claiming that the site was doing well. That certainly seems suspicious.

    See, when you started censoring, closing threads and (apparently filtering comments), you changed the rules, Louanne. Not any stated rule, but the de factor rule. And once communication was limited, things changed. Fair or not, it happened.

  171. Here’s the link for the chart
    http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part02/Chp06/pg0181_1.html

    Pat

  172. Just as an added note, when was the last time that one of youse guys has actually looked at the Classification, Gradation and Awareness Chart? In there are awareness characteristics for each level. Someone please look and tell me what is the awareness characteristic needed for someone to come to a Scientology org for help?

    Also, Mark, you still haven’t answered my question.

    As Louanned has pointed out (again), this is not a debate forum, but a place to ask questions. Louanne has spent many many hours looking up stuff that can answer questions. I see some comments still occuring and some complaining about deletions. I guess you forgot to read the FAQ.

    Pat

  173. #Comment by Jack Mehoffer on July 14, 2009 10:25 pm

    Hi Jack,

    “I believe using high pressure to get money from someone is contradictory to also having the philosophy of “Think for Yourself”.”

    I can understand why you think that. But you are lacking personal observation then. If you see someone in trouble and you know what could help him, you would insist in that person checking out the solution, right?

    “You can offer someone a service you have available and let them decide without coercion.”

    Absolutely. I very much agree with you on that.

    “The CoS uses high pressure to extract very large sums of money from people.”

    Bullshit. May I invite you to come see real life?

    “I remember reading some dissemination scale patter etc. (maybe someone knows specifics better).”

    It’s called the DEI scale. It says if you want to convince somebody you have to stay interested in that person and not back off.

    “The data specifically said NOT to let the prospect decide for themself.”

    Wrong.

    “Not to take no for an answer. YOU WERE TO DECIDE THEY WERE GOING TO SIGN UP FOR THE SERVICE.”

    Wrong again. Gosh, why do I answer you on all this hear-say crap?!

    “Sorry, I know it’s hard. I lost my Bridge to Total Freedom.”

    Impossible.

    “The truth was more important though because that’s all that matters.”

    Yep. Truth is good. Get some.

    – Louanne

  174. “#Comment by FallRoot on July 14, 2009 7:09 pm
    >>The mask is a vital difference. CCHR protesters see no need to hide their identifies and be fully responsible for what they are doing. Otherwise, both are protests, I guess.
    >figured that might be the answer. CCHR protesters do not have a fear of retribution from psychiatrists. psychiatrists have never had a policy (even if it was “rescinded”) saying that it was okay to do horrible things to enemies. psychiatrists do not have a reputation (deserved or no) of fair game. no one has ever been harassed, yelled at or violated at a cchr protest.

    So what “Fair Game” did happen to those “poor Anonymous” cowards when they were identified? Tell me. I know the ones that got arrested and jailed/fined, but I guess you are not talking about the justice system catching up with their criminal deeds, right?

    “So ask why they need to wear masks, and why someone opposing “the greatest emeny of mankind” isn’t afraid. Reason is- they know psychs won’t get revenge.”

    You are comparing apples and oranges here. Those Anonymous I see here in Los Angeles are trying not to be identified because a) someone could get them for harassment (which I experienced myself, so don’t tell me it does not exist) or other violations of other people’s rights and b) I guess it is more fun wearing a scary masks when you are yelling obscenities and personal insult at religious minorities. When Anon was “new” I was curious about these people, but during the last year I realized what a bunch of dumb cowards these guys are. There is no attempt to talk, convince or even protest anything. The only reason for those raids is to intimidate and harass Scientologists.

    “Anyways, I’m with Mark on this one. No censorship, not on my beloved ‘net.”

    So what is your viewpoint about the DDOS attacks against church websites? And about trashing up the internet with fake “Scientology news”, biased and unfounded accusations and online computer games that give you points for killing Scientologists?

    >Some things shouldn’t be said, of course, but the things you censored were strategic.

    Like what?

    – L

  175. Louanne,

    I believe using high pressure to get money from someone is contradictory to also having the philosophy of “Think for Yourself”. You can offer someone a service you have available and let them decide without coercion. The CoS uses high pressure to extract very large sums of money from people.

    I remember reading some dissemination scale patter etc. (maybe someone knows specifics better). The data specifically said NOT to let the prospect decide for themself. Not to take no for an answer. YOU WERE TO DECIDE THEY WERE GOING TO SIGN UP FOR THE SERVICE.

    Louanne & Pat. Realize that Scientology & the Church of Scientology are well known to the public at large world wide. The Church has a serious image problem with the public which is not going to go away with the Churches tactics.

    Your only chance is to prove your SUPER POWERS if you ever want to Clear the Planet.

    Unfortunately no Scientologist has any SUPER POWERS and no Scientologist will EVER have any.

    It wouldn’t be a crime to display your OT powers if you were a FREE BEING. Imagine the flood of raw meat through the doors. You’d never have to run another commercial again.

    Ever wonder why no Scientologist has ever gone out ethics and accidently won a million dollars from James Randi by simply demonstrating EXTERIORIZATION WILL FULL PERCEPTIONS?

    Sorry, I know it’s hard. I lost my Bridge to Total Freedom. The truth was more important though because that’s all that matters.

    The truth is that no Scientologist has any Super Powers or any abilities that a Raw Meat Wog can’t have.

    Use skepticism if you want to attempt to know truth.

    Jack

  176. The mask is a vital difference. CCHR protesters see no need to hide their identifies and be fully responsible for what they are doing. Otherwise, both are protests, I guess.

    -figured that might be the answer. CCHR protesters do not have a fear of retribution from psychiatrists. psychiatrists have never had a policy (even if it was “rescinded”) saying that it was okay to do horrible things to enemies. psychiatrists do not have a reputation (deserved or no) of fair game. no one has ever been harassed, yelled at or violated at a cchr protest.

    So ask why they need to wear masks, and why someone opposing “the greatest emeny of mankind” isn’t afraid. Reason is- they know psychs won’t get revenge.

    Anyways, I’m with Mark on this one. No censorship, not on my beloved ‘net. Some things shouldn’t be said, of course, but the things you censored were strategic.

    later.

    _F

  177. “# Comment by mark tomles on July 14, 2009 6:51 pm
    No.”

    Absolutely. You can’t assume that you post in every comment section on this blog and I spend hours catching up every day? Won’t work.

    “Censorship = fail. Too many comments deleted, although I’m fortunate that I backed up the comments section of the blog so I can at least recall what was said.”

    Very good. I am always happy to read your posts (but please keep them short).

    “Once you started controlling the conversation, Louanne, by deleting relevant comments, this ceased to be a fair debate, and became a situation in which you manipulated honest debate.”

    There is your misunderstanding. I am not debating. I am honestly interested in your questions and viewpoints and I do spend a lot of time finding answers or making sense of things. But the moment this blog turns into a debate club it has exceeded its purpose and becomes unusable. There are plenty of forums that provide the technology to run an orderly debate, a comment section in a blog post does not.

    “Perhaps we can meet again on neutral ground.”

    Actually you owe me an answer about your sister on that other neutral ground. Or did I miss it?

    – L

  178. ” Comment by gilljoer on July 14, 2009 10:59 am
    So I have no crimes, and I have never abused substances… yet I oppose the CoS. I wonder how they would explain that, since the official claim would be that I should have them…Gill”

    Must be genetic then (just kidding).

    – L

  179. # Comment by Jack Mehoffer on July 14, 2009 9:57 am
    “Hello Louanne & Pat,
    Could you reconcile the Scientologists slogan of “Think for Yourself” with the Scientologists practice of hard selling & high pressure.
    Thank You”

    You mean “hard sell”, I guess, defined as “caring for the person” by L. Ron Hubbard?

    In any case, everyone is responsible to “Think for Yourself” (herself), under strain or not.

    – L

  180. # Comment by FallRoot on July 13, 2009 12:01 am
    @Louanne-
    regarding protests- I was referring to the CoS (CCHR) protest at the American Psychiatric Association Conference. Aside from masks, what is the difference between a CCHR protest and an anon protest?
    _Fallroot”

    The mask is a vital difference. CCHR protesters see no need to hide their identifies and be fully responsible for what they are doing. Otherwise, both are protests, I guess.

    – L

  181. # Comment by Anonymous on July 12, 2009 4:48 pm
    Why did you turn off the comments for your “news about anonymous” posting?
    I would like to comment.”

    Sorry, default setting. I turned them on now.

    – L

  182. No.

    Censorship = fail. Too many comments deleted, although I’m fortunate that I backed up the comments section of the blog so I can at least recall what was said.

    Once you started controlling the conversation, Louanne, by deleting relevant comments, this ceased to be a fair debate, and became a situation in which you manipulated honest debate.

    Perhaps we can meet again on neutral ground.

    Mark

  183. I relocated here to be available for questions and closed the other comment threads.

    Sorry, but I am just me and I don’t have the time to go through dozens of article comments every day. Please bear with me and repeat your concern or question, in case I missed it.

    – Louanne

  184. Heck, I can do you one better, Fallroot-
    I’ve never used any drug stronger than aspirin- never even had a need for antibiotics. Never (knowingly!) committed a crime- I don’t speed, I don’t jaywalk. I live my life right, and I set a good example for my children (not saying anyone here does not, but setting up my point.)
    So I have no crimes, and I have never abused substances… yet I oppose the CoS. I wonder how they would explain that, since the official claim would be that I should have them…
    Gill

  185. Jack,
    perhaps you could elaborate on that question a bit, to make sure that it’s understood?
    Do you have any examples (such as mailings or youtube videos) demonstrating what you’re referring to?
    Gill

  186. Hello Louanne & Pat,

    Could you reconcile the Scientologists slogan of “Think for Yourself” with the Scientologists practice of hard selling & high pressure.

    Thank You

  187. @Mark
    Interesting question, your last.
    Me, I’ve never used illegal drugs, never touched a drop of alcohol, never smoked a cigarette… I wonder if I would be expected to try these things in order to be able to comment on them, or to “decide for myself” that they’re harmful?
    _F

  188. @Anonymous-
    I noticed the same. Not sure why comments were disabled. I had wanted to share this link (http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/13623) here, about how Anonymous is able to help fight for Iranian independence using their inherent safety mechanisms.
    Louanne- within the confines of this thread, surely you would agree that this is a good thing from a group you had previously demonized?

    @Pat-
    Doesn’t look to me like BG is violating the rules. It’s not a loaded question if it can have a real answer and allow for further discussion. He is asking if you believe that a scientologist can overcome matter, energy, space and time. Is that possible?

    @Louanne-
    regarding protests- I was referring to the CoS (CCHR) protest at the American Psychiatric Association Conference. Aside from masks, what is the difference between a CCHR protest and an anon protest?

    _Fallroot

  189. As a courtesy, which I hope will be returned, I will repeat my last question for you, Pat.

    “How do YOU know that drugs, legal and illegal are “wrong” and “bad”? Have you tried them yourself, that you would know this to be true? Or have you merely accepted what you were told. Only two options here- have you tried drugs (left out: or are you basing your beliefs on something you have been told)?”

  190. which?

    that’s fair, because you still owe me some answers as well.

    Trying to waylay me? It’s okay, luckily, we can always refer back :)

  191. Mark,

    You didn’t answer my questions

    Pat

  192. lol!
    pot, ketlle, black :)

    Now I’m dying to see if you can answer my above variation on the question :)

  193. @ Comment by BigDadda on July 12, 2009 9:46 am

    Okay, Pat- So, then, u agree that scientology cannot be proven? U agree that the skills that are claimed by scientologists can never be demonstrated?

    Where exactly did I use those words? I say one thing and you come back trying to alter my communication. I’m not going to change my answers just because you can’t deal with them.

    “That works for me, too. I’m not a scientologist, but I can walk through walls and can fly, if I want to. But I can’t do it while anyone’s watching.”

    You can? Awesome! Enjoy.

    Pat

  194. @ Comment by mark tomles on July 12, 2009 11:36 am

    Well, to be fair, _F, the questions can come rapid fire sometimes. Thank you for the summary- I’m sure that we can look forward to these answers. I had just given up on some of these :)

    I do hope that we can keep this civil, all. This forum is not R/L

    They were answered. Check again.

    Pat

  195. Is it your position that a high-level Scientologist has no measurable advantage over a non-scientologist?

    To clarify- eliminating the variable of innate ability, personal connections, apperance and other beneficial factors, you’re saying that there is nothing that a high-level OTVIII can do that an average non-Scientologist cannot do, particularly in elements that cannot be explained by the above eliminated annotated items?

    Please correct me if I’m mistaken.

    Thanks,
    Mark

  196. Comment by bigdaddy on July 12, 2009 7:02 pm

    can any of you answer a simple question???

    “can mot overcome mest?” ???????

    You think that someone said a Scientologist or LRH couldn’t handle MEST? Not sure that’s what you’re asking but if it is, then I did answer you. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it wasn’t answered. You’re giving me the strong impression that you’re only here to make statements and try to twist words to mean something not said. That will get you barred, so if you have a real question that isn’t trying to lead to only what you want to hear (called a leading question) then ask. Otherwise, you’re violating the only rule this forum has.

    Pat

    Where was that, if so?

    Pat

  197. can any of you answer a simple question???

    can a scientologist, to include lrh, can mot overcome mest?

  198. @Comment by bigdaddy on July 12, 2009 5:06 pm

    No, you’re saying that. She didn’t. Scientology deals with the spiritual being and increases abilities in handling life.

    Life consists of 8 divisions defined here:
    http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH2.HTM

    Pat

  199. so u would say that the scientologist, to include lrh, can mot overcome mest? is that accurate?

  200. Why did you turn off the comments for your “news about anonymous” posting?
    I would like to comment.

  201. # Comment by FallRoot on July 12, 2009 10:21 am

    “I feel like I need to step in and donate a little bit of time and help us remember about questions that have been unanswered.”

    Thanks for keeping a tally on all these questions. Appreciated!

    “1. “do you mean to say that it can only be “demonstrated” to the individually, effectively when “no one’s watching”?””

    If “it” is referring to spiritual advancement the answer is “yes”. The Scientology “Bridge” however shows certain very well defined results that are being reached after each bigger advancement step ( http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/the-bridge.php , right column).

    These steps are reached and confirmed as reached by the individual as well as objectively, every day, all over the world. Fact.

    “2. “Is it a scientifically sound method that can fulfill all of the claims, or is it a belief system with no measurable advantage to give to the masses?””

    A belief system is a subjective matter, i.e. it is a very personal thing. How do you measure “happiness”? Or “lack of unhappiness”? Or” degree of insight in the secrets of life”? Won’t work.

    “3. “I mean, if one person walked through a wall, most of the world would convert to Sci on the spot, then the planet would suddenly be clear- no crime and all that. Isn’t that what they say they want to do?””

    Nope. Scientologists are definitely not trying to walk through walls. You seem to mix up spiritual abilities and the physical universe. Walls and bodies belong to the latter and the spiritual being (that’s you, per Scientology doctrine) belongs to the former.

    “4. “you said that you said “I said to quit asking us to prove something that is spiritual. ”Where is it that you had said this?””

    I have not searched who could have said this where. But this would be moot anyway. See 3. above.

    5. can Scientology be demonstrated, scientifically?”

    Aspects of it could be, IMHO, like “how are Scientologists doing in life since they are Scientologists” could be objectively determined. But for what?

    “6. “Or do you mean to say that it can only be “demonstrated” to the individually, effectively when “no one’s watching”?” (was asked more than once, at least 6 or more times, and will not make this list again)”

    Er, isn’t that the same as No 1 above?

    “7. “Please define which groups you’re referring to, saying that psychiatric drugs, in their entirety, are harmful?””

    Tricky, but only because the term “psychiatric drugs” is very wobbly. In the past 10 years the FDA put a sh*tload of black box warnings on the most common prescription drugs for “mental treatment”. But this psychiatry stuff is not my topic. This discussion could be moved over here: cchr.org (they have a new documentary online that addresses this question as well).

    “8. “How do you know you are not mocking up your past lives? How do you tell the difference between a facsimile and a mock up?” (was answered with a question, and a book recommendation)”

    I answered that. “I don’t” was the answer to the first one and “there is none” was the answer to the second question. The question is essentially discussing Scientology philosophy and again trying to use objective measures for subjective realities (i.e. what is true for someone, personally). Apples and oranges.

    “9. “Could you tell me any abilities that an OT has that a non Scientologist doesn’t?””

    A Scientologist, OT or not, has learned the Scientology view of life and how to deal with a variety of challenges in life. Scientology includes practical training e.g. in communication skills or how help others to overcome problems in life, starting from drug addiction, reading/writing problems, disorganization etc etc. What he or she does with that knowledge is a variable and usually a question of personal ethics.

    “10. “Why doesn’t Church of Scientology use the resources it has to prove reincarnation and use it to help rewrite history?” (kind of an answer… answer was “don’t ask me that”. half a point?)”

    Scientology does not deal with reincarnation. You are not “re-born”. You – the spiritual being – cannot die. The subject of “past lives” is irrelevant in Scientology when it comes to the content of those impressions. Also, past live impressions/memories are only being dealt with in an auditing session and only for one reason: Auditing works better if you are taking past lives into account. I can attest to that.

    I guess this is a good time to add a definition for those who do not know what auditing is (http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/auditing.php):

    The exact definition of auditing is: The action of asking a person a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that question and acknowledging him for that answer. See also: Video “What is Auditing?” on Youtube (click here).

    And here is what L. Ron Hubbard had to say about the above (as an example):

    “Can an auditor obtain a swift recovery by auditing the current lifetime only? I used the most modern of techniques – 1952 – and did a standard auditing address to the current lifetime of each one. I obtained mediocre results, partial recoveries, slight betterment in attitude. Then I audited each case addressing only past track, prior to this lifetime. The results were swift and spectacular.” (History of Man (1952), page 4)

    – Louanne

  202. If I may add a question to the list:
    I’ve heard the CoS perspective of protests agais the CoS… How do you feel about protests BY the CoS, which are designed to harm or otherwise disparage a particular group?

    • FallRoot,

      what protests are you referring to? Church members are protesting against drug abuse and to raise awareness about the harmful effects of drugs, also against human rights abuses and sometimes – locally – against discrimination and unequal treatment of Scientology members (usually in Third-World-Countries like Germany… (just kidding!)).

      – L

  203. Well, to be fair, _F, the questions can come rapid fire sometimes. Thank you for the summary- I’m sure that we can look forward to these answers. I had just given up on some of these :)

    I do hope that we can keep this civil, all. This forum is not R/L

  204. I feel like I need to step in and donate a little bit of time and help us remember about questions that have been unanswered.

    Now, looks like Gill, Mark, and BigDadda have answered all questions, so I have nothing for them. DOn’t know about some of the other posters, but they seem to have moved on

    Pat and louanne- allow me to help:

    (making the assumption that you can address questions originally meant for the other. questions are in reverse chronological order)

    1. “do you mean to say that it can only be “demonstrated” to the individually, effectively when “no one’s watching”?”

    2. “Is it a scientifically sound method that can fulfill all of the claims, or is it a belief system with no measurable advantage to give to the masses?”

    3. “I mean, if one person walked through a wall, most of the world would convert to Sci on the spot, then the planet would suddenly be clear- no crime and all that. Isn’t that what they say they want to do?”

    4. “you said that you said “I said to quit asking us to prove something that is spiritual. ”Where is it that you had said this?”

    5. can Scientology be demonstrated, scientifically?”

    6. “Or do you mean to say that it can only be “demonstrated” to the individually, effectively when “no one’s watching”?” (was asked more than once, at least 6 or more times, and will not make this list again)

    7. “Please define which groups you’re referring to, saying that psychiatric drugs, in their entirety, are harmful?”

    8. “How do you know you are not mocking up your past lives? How do you tell the difference between a facsimile and a mock up?” (was answered with a question, and a book recommendation)

    9. “Could you tell me any abilities that an OT has that a non Scientologist doesn’t?”

    10. “Why doesn’t Church of Scientology use the resources it has to prove reincarnation and use it to help rewrite history?” (kind of an answer… answer was “don’t ask me that”. half a point?)

    So that’s 30 posts, 10 unanswered questions, all by the group that claims the superior communications skills. But, in all fairness, the questions have been repeated to make things a little bit easier.

    _FallRoot

  205. BG-
    don’t get yourself frustrated, my friend. Try talking to Louanne when she gets back, she’s a little bit more open to discussion.

    Pat,
    he’s not asking “what Scientologists have to say about personal abilities”, he’s asking IF they are able to demonstrate, not say. Can they DO, more so than SAY? A simple yes or no would suffice- can any scientologist, anywhere in the world, demonstrate any of the claimed behaviors.

    Thanks for the answer, Pat- and for the follow up.
    How do YOU know that drugs, legal and illegal are “wrong” and “bad”? Have you tried them yourself, that you would know this to be true? Or have you merely accepted what you were told. Only two options here- have you tried drugs?

    Now, please don’t get insulting (thinly veiled as it may be)- you came to me, here.

    Now, you’ve tried to judo the question on me. It’s not related, but I am more than happy to answer all questions.
    Like most of the world. I believe that psychiatric drugs can be useful, if used properly. They can also be abused or given incorrectly. That is wrong, but the fault of the individual, not the whole mental health profession or the medical technology.

    I’m not going to get into Mr. Hubbard’s understanding and training in medical technology, but I will note that sometimes ailments can be scientifically evaluated, and the cure can be scientifically verified. There’s no black box, it can be observed, documented and repeated, which is the hallmark of science.

    I believe that the use of anything illegal is a crime, and do not support crime.

    Now, you were saying?

  206. Okay, Pat- So, then, u agree that scientology cannot be proven? U agree that the skills that are claimed by scientologists can never be demonstrated?
    That works for me, too. I’m not a scientologist, but I can walk through walls and can fly, if I want to. But I can’t do it while anyone’s watching.

    See the parallel?

    So— can u answer a very direct question: why are scientologists unable to ever show their advanced abilities? Or, once again, are these advanced avilities ONLY true to them…?

    Paty line =/= source. U have not yet given an ansewer that’s not given to yu. and I can and do claim non -answers… u seem to fear direct questions and can only repeat thte same line. Don’t understand why ur here, then,but u keep avoiding the answers.

  207. @ Comment by BigDadda on July 12, 2009 12:03 am

    What is true in Scientology is only true if you have personally observed it to be true. That’s scientific. Science comes from the Latin root SCIO – “to know” or “truth”. It won’t do any good to claim “non-answers” just because you can’t seem to grasp what that means for you in the way of personal integrity. It’s either true for you or it isn’t. If it’s not true for you that you’re a spiritual being whose potential is unlimited, that’s fine. That’s not true for you. It isn’t going to matter what Scientologists have to say about personal abilities. It still won’t be true for you.

    By saying that I give “party line” you’re saying that I’m applying source. Thank you. Good to know that’s recognized in this forum.

    Pat

  208. @ Comment by mark tomles on July 11, 2009 11:42 pm

    you had said, earlier, “It certainly can be demonstrated, scientifically”… my question is how so? Or do you mean to say that it can only be “demonstrated” to the individually, effectively when “no one’s watching”?

    What’s true is only true for you if you have personally observed it to be true.

    If you can’t get that then you are glib.

    You didn’t answer my question about the drugs.

    Pat

  209. Mark,

    You gotta have mercy here, mahan. She can’t answer your questions, or most of them anyways. Notice she can answer the party line, no problem-o. See how she lit up when you brought up pharma? You’re this close to getting called a pharma employee here, trust me.

    Fact is that scientology, and all of the “advanced” tricks that it can grant the member, cannot be independanly proven. The irony is that if it worked the way that they claim it did, this would be easy to do, and put us all to shame! I mean, if one person walked through a wall, most of the world would convert to Sci on the spot, then the planet would suddenly be clear- no crime and all that. Isn’t that what they say they want to do? And all it would take is scientific proof.

    Now… If’n it’s -only- something spiritual and NOT scientific, like Pat here reversed herslef on, then what’s really left? If you take out all of the “more advanced” personal development portions, you just have a belief system (I won’t mention you-know-who) that can’t really do what’s been claimed.

    I just wonder which answer will come out. Is it a scientifically sound method that can fulfill all of the claims, or is it a belief system with no measurable advantage to give to the masses?

    Guess we’ll see.

    BG

  210. addition to last:

    you said that you said “I said to quit asking us to prove something that is spiritual. ”

    Where is it that you had said this?

    Mark

  211. Pat- we’re making progress!

    you had said, earlier, “It certainly can be demonstrated, scientifically”… my question is how so? Or do you mean to say that it can only be “demonstrated” to the individually, effectively when “no one’s watching”?

    I’m not being glib- don’t get me wrong. But anything that can not be observed, recorded and repeated cannot be considered science by any definition. So, again, can Scientology be demonstrated, scientifically?

    Next- you say that drugs, legal and illegal are harmful. How do you know this to be true?

    Please define which groups you’re referring to, saying that psychiatric drugs, in their entirety, are harmful?

    We’re getting there!
    Mark

  212. @ Comment by mark tomles on July 10, 2009 11:46 pm

    Pat, This is a related question, and please bear with me. It IS related to the conversation at hand.

    Do you believe that psychiatric drugs are harmful or beneficial?

    Easy. Harmful. Haven’t you been following the news? Scientology isn’t the only group to think these are harmful.

    Do you believe that illegal drugs are harmful or beneficial?
    Easy. Harmful.

    Question for you – Do you think that psychiatric drugs are harmful? What about illegal drugs?

    Pat

    Looking forward to your reply,
    – mark

  213. Twisting again. I said to quit asking us to prove something that is spiritual. BIG difference.

    Pat

  214. Pat, This is a related question, and please bear with me. It IS related to the conversation at hand.

    Do you believe that psychiatric drugs are harmful or beneficial?

    Do you believe that illegal drugs are harmful or beneficial?

    Looking forward to your reply,
    – mark

  215. “You’re asking if what I have personally experienced is real for you. That is one great big huge insult, because there is no way for you to be in my universe to see what I see or feel or perceive.”

    Pat, it was a very clear question, and certainly no offense was meant. I can’t be in your universe, and certainly wouldn’t want to invade it. My question was, is it possible? I’m not asking you to do it. I’m not asking anyone to do it. My question is could it be done.

    “huh? Well, I hope that you are because that’s what you just got. Now quit trying to invalidate Scientologists’ personal experiences, by insisting that we prove them. The ONLY way to find out for yourself is to read and apply the technology. If you’re not willing to be scientific and find out empirically, you’ll never know.”

    Now, Pat, we’ve had this conversation before. This is a blog about Scientology questions, and a thread called “A new round of questions? Go ahead!” Yet, you’re basically telling me to stop asking questions. Why are you even here, if not to answer questions?
    Again, if you want to actually discuss, please reread my question- I never asked you to prove them, I asked if it’s possible. Is that a question you can answer?

  216. @ Comment by mark tomles on July 8, 2009 7:28 pm

    “Theoretically, could you, or any other practicing scientologist, demonstrate advanced abilities in a way that was observable, reproducible and verifiable?”

    You’re asking if what I have personally experienced is real for you. That is one great big huge insult, because there is no way for you to be in my universe to see what I see or feel or perceive.

    “I am sincerely interested in your thoughts.”

    huh? Well, I hope that you are because that’s what you just got. Now quit trying to invalidate Scientologists’ personal experiences, by insisting that we prove them. The ONLY way to find out for yourself is to read and apply the technology. If you’re not willing to be scientific and find out empirically, you’ll never know.

    Pat

  217. @ Comment by skeptical on July 7, 2009 2:56 pm

    “Hi,

    How do you know you are not mocking up your past lives?

    How do you tell the difference between a facsimile and a mock up?”

    The best way to improve memory and increase certainty of one’s own memories is to get auditing.

    Here’s something you can do on your own that can be very beneficial!

    Go to the Library and check out Self Analysis by L Ron Hubbard. Follow the steps as laid out in the book.

    The key here is to find out for yourself because no one else can tell you if what you recall or remember is a mock up or a real memory. You have to know for yourself.

    Pat

  218. # Comment by mark tomles on July 8, 2009 8:51 pm
    New Question:
    This quote has been attributed to Hubbard:
    “For example, if you hear a wife saying how the husband beats her every day, look under her pillow for the bat that she uses because sure as the devil, if she is saying that the yellow ball has hit the red ball, notice that the red ball had to hit the yellow ball first.”

    In context ( http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH9_4.HTM ) it means that to solve a partnership or marriage you will have to get the violations of the agreed upon moral code (whatever that partnership’s modus operandi is, http://www.scientologyhandbook.org/SH13_1A.HTM ) from both parties, not only from one side. Or in short: Don’t be tricked by the loud complaints but have a look on both sides.

    – L

  219. New Question:

    This quote has been attributed to Hubbard:

    “For example, if you hear a wife saying how the husband beats her every day, look under her pillow for the bat that she uses because sure as the devil, if she is saying that the yellow ball has hit the red ball, notice that the red ball had to hit the yellow ball first. ”

    What does this mean?

    Thanks,
    Mark

  220. Hello, Pat!
    Please consider the following:

    “Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Within the context you have provided, this would not necessarily fulfill the established and accepted scientific method because it is not demonstratable.

    Theoretically, could you, or any other practicing scientologist, demonstrate advanced abilities in a way that was observable, reproducible and verifiable?

    I am sincerely interested in your thoughts.

    Mark

  221. @Comment by mark tomles on July 4, 2009 2:20 pm

    It certainly can be demonstrated, scientifically. That by reading the books and applying the data, if it works as stated, you just proved it empirically. Go for it!

    Pat

  222. Hi,

    How do you know you are not mocking up your past lives?

    How do you tell the difference between a facsimile and a mock up?

    Thanks

  223. Thank you for your answers! Not to throw to much of a spanner in the works but I don’t agree too much with either definition of cult OR religion but to be honest I dont think this is the place to debate the definition of a cult OR religion. Thank you for your insightful answers with regards to Scientology.

    Your sincerely

    Barrysprout

  224. #Comment by Anonymous on July 6, 2009 5:16 pm
    “I heard that CoS will be releasing OT9 and OT10 soon.
    If Hubbard wrote them, why didn’t he release them when he was alive?”

    L. Ron Hubbard wrote OT Levels up to OT XV. You can check the Bridge which shows them (http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/the-bridge.php ). Every Church and Mission has this chart on display. Hubbard left instructions when to release the individual levels above OT VIII, and for OT IX and X those instructions include that the Church needs to be set up to deliver these levels first. I heard this is soon to be the case.

    – L

  225. # Comment by barrysprout on July 5, 2009 4:18 pm
    Couple of questions. I do apologize in advance that they are very hard ones but I think that they will be helpful in the long term.
    1) How do you define a religion?
    2) How would you define a cult?
    3) On what basis do you state that the church of Scientology is a religion?
    4) On what basis would you say that the church of Scientology is not a cult?
    Please don’t think that these are loaded questions written with a hidden agenda in mind they are merely questions that I would like answered from a Scientology point of view.”

    1) Wikipedia has a great definition which I fully support (at least the intro paragraph):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
    “A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.”

    2) Again Wikipedia has it pretty right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
    Cult definitions coined from 1920 onward[1] refer to a cohesive social group and their devotional beliefs or practices, which the surrounding population considers to be outside of mainstream cultures. The surrounding population may be as small as a neighborhood, or as large as the community of nations. They gratify curiosity about, take action against, or ignore a group, depending on its reputed similarity to cults previously reported by mass media.

    The spelling c-u-l-t has at least nine defined meanings[2] divided among positive, negative, and neutral connotations:

    * Positive: In common or popular usage, “cult” has a positive connotation for fan groups of art, music, writing, fiction,[3] and fashion devotees (see Cult following). “Cult” also has a positive connotation when used in the original and classic sense of veneration by any group of worshipers, though this meaning is usually applied to groups known from antiquity, including historic cults of the major religions (see Cult (religious practice)).

    * Negative: Also in common or popular usage, “cult” has a negative connotation for new religious, extreme political, questionable therapeutic, and pyramidal business groups.[4] Theological cults also have a negative connotation as defined by fundamentalist Christians to include both new and major religion groups.[5] For these reasons, most, if not all, non-fan groups that are called cults reject this label.

    * Neutral: In twentieth century and some current scientific usage, “cult” is a technical term with a neutral connotation[6] (see Sociology of religion). Neutral usage of “cult” in sociological science has been partly replaced by the phrase new religious movement (NRM) – but not entirely: because not all sociologically-defined cults are new or religious, there was a formal objection to the term-replacing campaign as “politics of representation”,[7] and ultimately the public didn’t accept the replacement term.[8]

    3) Per definition under 1) above, Scientology is clearly a religion. It had all of this: “A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner’s experiences of life through reference to a higher power, God or gods, or ultimate truth.”

    4) Scientology is not a cult because:
    – it does not fall under the “positive definition” of a cult because this one is outdated and not in use anymore today.
    – it does not fall under the “neutral definition” of a cult because that was used for the older religious movements and Scientology is not “old” in that sense. Scientology is a New Religious Movement (NRM) though.
    – finally it does not fall under the “negative definitions” of cult as the negative connotation (secretive, exclusive etc) has no footing in Scientology practice.

    In 2009 “cult” is normally used as a derogatory term solely for the purpose of invalidation and separation of the members of the group so branded from the rest of society (it is not the members themselves but the society that discriminates them and makes them a target of invalidation. The use of “cult” is part of this).

    Hope it helps.

    – L

  226. I heard that CoS will be releasing OT9 and OT10 soon.
    If Hubbard wrote them, why didn’t he release them when he was alive?

  227. http://www.whatisscientology.org
    http://www.scientology.org

    The Scientology view

    Pat

  228. Couple of questions. I do apologize in advance that they are very hard ones but I think that they will be helpful in the long term.

    1) How do you define a religion?
    2) How would you define a cult?
    3) On what basis do you state that the church of Scientology is a religion?
    4) On what basis would you say that the church of Scientology is not a cult?

    Please don’t think that these are loaded questions written with a hidden agenda in mind they are merely questions that I would like answered from a Scientology point of view.

  229. Pat,
    Please understand that I ask this question with sincerity. I realize that, on the ‘net, sometimes it can be hard to tell.
    Isn’t this a little bit like the kid in “Mystery Men” who could turn invisible, as long as no one was already watching?
    In other words, are you saying that the powers that are claimed for higher-level Scientologists do exist, but no one else (except, perhaps, in the claims of other Scientologists) can ever observe them? Is there anything that can be reliably demonstrated, per the scientific method?
    Thanks for considering my questions!
    Mark

  230. We are right back to that point about personal integrity. What is true for me is true for me and what is true for you is true for you. Our potential is unlimited. We are individuals and aren’t part of some cookie cutter mold that all have the same things or abilities. What I observe is that you have depended on others to do your observing for you. Therefore, it isn’t your own knowledge and leaves you with questions that can only be answered with truth for you if you can do some personal observing. Get a book from the library – Scientology – Fundamentals of Thought or Scientology: A New Slant on Life by L Ron Hubbard could probably take you a ways on that road for personal truths. It is either true for you or it isn’t.

    You can also see what the basics are here:
    http://www.scientology.org

    Pat

  231. Hi,

    Could you tell me any abilities that an OT has that a non Scientologist doesn’t?

    Thanks

  232. Why doesn’t Church of Scientology use the resources it has to prove reincarnation and use it to help rewrite history?

    If you don’t know what I’m talking about, see the question in detail here:
    http://curious.org/journal/?p=2289

    • curious,

      It’s called personal integrity. What’s true for me in Scientology is true because I observed it and saw it was true. What’s true for anyone else is only true if they themselves have personally observed it to be true.

      That’s a basic instruction for learning about life through the Scientology books.

      What you’re asking is proof that I (or another Scientologist) have personally observed something and found it true for us. Ain’t gonna happen. That’s an insult on my beliefs and personal reality about life.

      http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_4.htm

      Pat

  233. […] Try it out here. […]


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

    Walpole St Peter, Norfolk

    IMG_4749

    Borgund Stave Church Norway.

    More Photos