I said a whole lot more than "it's a cult...it's mean" in my opening post and in later ones.
I'd been wanting to discuss the thetans in small bodies theory/statement for a very long time now. Because I see the occasional reference to it by other contributors and thought it could be the basis of an interesting thread.
It's an interesting statement and what's even more interesting to me is the way it struck those who heard/read it.
I don't get what the big deal is.
From other spiritual models, spirits (aka "thetans") occupy EVERY type of body - cats, dogs, turtles, frogs, hamsters, trees, bushes, algae, and even inanimate objects like rocks and turds.
What makes Hubbard's application so abusive is not simply the idea that a child is a "thetan in a small body", which is like DUH if you think you are fundamentally a spirit, but that this "thetan" is some BIG BEING, with all sorts of "past track knowledge", and who
should be able to do any task given to it, because this thetan
has done it all already anyway in previous lives. THAT makes it crazy.
The idea by itself, "a child is a thetan in a small body", may be sort of true. BUT, by itself it means nothing really, and would not lead to abuse.
There are other people who think pretty much the same thing and who treat children lovingly and with great care.
You have to
add in the ideas that "we are on a mission to save Mankind", that "we have ONLY this final chance to do so", that "we need every able being onboard NOW", and endless related nonsense along with this one idea for the abuse of children to appear in Scientology. This idea must be viewed as it manifests in the full nutty Scientology context, especially as in the Sea Org.
And, this abuse was primarily in the paramilitary Sea Org, that specifically adhered to the maxim that "we are here helping for 3rd and 4th dynamic reasons alone", and "you SHOULD NOT BE HERE IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS FOR THE 1st or 2nd dynamic". I remember reading stuff just like that when doing Proct 0, 1 and 2 and while on the EPF.
Trying to put children into the same environment as the purposes and actions of the Sea Org was destined to fail. That is why Hubbard's statements and statements issued at various SO bases about it have been so schizophrenic regarding children.
When I first read the SO ED that was released saying that the Sea Org was NOT a place to bring up children, and that parents with young children would be sent out to Class IV orgs, it made total sense within the context of everything else Hubbard had said about the Sea Org earlier. Understand here, it was consistent - not necessarily sane, decent or sensible.
The top concern of the Sea Org, as clearly stated in MANY LRH policies and issues, is to "get the job done" regarding the 3rd and 4th dynamic. He clearly states that you should NOT be there if you have concerns/desires/interest for the 1st and 2nd dynamics. Now, it matters little that what he says is nuts, but he did say what he said. I could see how they would push for abortions in such an environment. Who would want to have a child in an environment that tells you that you can't have a second dynamic in that environment? :confused2:
I remember hearing people talk about abortions in the Sea Org, and how it was "the greatest good for our mission of clearing the planet", "because taking care of children is a distraction to the cause". I never thought along those terms and I had children in the Sea Org, and even though they were under 6 years of age, nobody tried to send us away to a Class IV org (as was done with some others). The application of this stuff was very irrregular and haphazard. For instance if you were a NOTs auditor, and Flag needed more NOTs auditors, they would recruit a single mom with 2 young children. I think in some way they looked at kids in the Sea Org as an "unwanted but necessarily counter-intention".
Maybe Hubbard started out with the idea that the Sea Org should be ONLY for dedicated
adults. But then, when all the chldren started appearing, he adapted, and then wrote all the crazy stuff about the Cadet Org and having children behave as adults. I remember reading somewhere where Hubbard said that the purpose of the Cadet Org was to
groom the future Sea Org executives and leaders of the future. That did't turn out to well did it Ron?
The concept of "spirits in little bodies" actually always made sense to me. But, I placed stress on the qualifier - "in little bodes", because THAT fact meant that I would treat them FAR differently than if they had a "grown up body". I NEVER much cared for Hubbard's book on the Second Dynamic, read it only once early on, never referred to it when I had children, and NEVER thought or behaved along the lines that a child should be treated like and forced to act like an adult. THAT IS NONSENSE, and yes,
some people do that who are/were involved with Scientology.
I doubt most public Scientologists or even Class IV org staff treated their children with ANY of Hubbard's nutty recommendations for the Sea Org, and they still viewed them lovingly, as "spirits in little bodies". Granted, being on staff in a Class IV org has its own unique pressures that can NOT be good for children.
But the basic reason why the kids get a raw deal is NOT primarily due to this single notion that "a child is a thetan in a small body". One has to embrace the BIG picture, and take into account the much larger context involved here.
