What's new

Ask Kate your questions here...

Gadfly

Crusader
Could you give us some specific examples (I'm thinking as succinct as possible description of three or four such?) of those "several things" you disagreed with in the indie scientology ideas, and the contrasting/related version of those same ideas from CoS version that you found you liked better. Thanks in advance.

I LOVE a person who asks for SPECIFICS! :clap:

It causes one to descend from the airy heights of vague generalities and abstractions (which is what much of Scientology involves).

:thankyou:
 
Last edited:

kate8024

-deleted-
Kate, Forgive me if you've already answered this but are you actually a paid-up (as in IAS Membership) Member of the CofS or do you think of yourself as part of that group?

I haven't covered that in this thread but no, I'm not an IAS member. Bridge sales keeps trying to sell me on it and they send me stupid mailers all the time but I've told them I don't plan to join IAS. I don't believe the IAS's social programs to be effective and I don't believe that a significant portion of the membership dues even go to those programs. Their membership fees are also, imho, ridiculous. I'm not going to pay $5000 so I can get a fancy plastic card and discounts on things I will never buy.

In some ways I consider myself both outside and inside the CofS. For instance I generally feel comfortable enough around staff that I can sit down and have a conversation with them or even go to the Org's LRH-birthday event. When there are groups of them I hold my tongue quite a bit more than when in one-on-one conversation. While I certainly don't compare myself to Valentinus, in some ways I feel like I transplant (to Scientology) his idea of playing nice with the orthodoxy and participating in certain practices with them, while viewing a lot of the orthodox interpretation as being flawed and seeking personal understanding outside of the official church.

To say that its a binary either I'm a member or I'm not I think oversimplifies the situation unless ones uses a very specific criteria, like you did, that likely excludes some people that would more clearly be considered part of the group.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I haven't covered that in this thread but no, I'm not an IAS member. Bridge sales keeps trying to sell me on it and they send me stupid mailers all the time but I've told them I don't plan to join IAS. I don't believe the IAS's social programs to be effective and I don't believe that a significant portion of the membership dues even go to those programs. Their membership fees are also, imho, ridiculous. I'm not going to pay $5000 so I can get a fancy plastic card and discounts on things I will never buy.

In some ways I consider myself both outside and inside the CofS. For instance I generally feel comfortable enough around staff that I can sit down and have a conversation with them or even go to the Org's LRH-birthday event. When there are groups of them I hold my tongue quite a bit more than when in one-on-one conversation. While I certainly don't compare myself to Valentinus, in some ways I feel like I transplant (to Scientology) his idea of playing nice with the orthodoxy and participating in certain practices with them, while viewing a lot of the orthodox interpretation as being flawed and seeking personal understanding outside of the official church.

To say that its a binary either I'm a member or I'm not I think oversimplifies the situation unless ones uses a very specific criteria, like you did, that likely excludes some people that would more clearly be considered part of the group.

This mindset is rarely tolerated in the Church of Scientology. If you actually are doing so, as you claim, it is a fluke, and probably will not last much longer (unless you lie, deceive and PR THEM as to your true thoughts about these things).

KSW is very clear - every single member MUST come "on board", "same terms as the rest of us - live or die in the attempt".

Go find three or four staff and/or public and clearly tell them what you REALLY think about various things. See how long they then tolerate your little game of deception and untruthfulness (i.e. you MUST hold in and HIDE a great deal to remain BELOW their radar).
 
Last edited:

kate8024

-deleted-
Currently you are not an independant Scientologist because you are affiliated with the Cofs and you are not a CofS Scientologist because you are just being Mrs. Patty Cake.

Therefore, I still don't see how the term "Scientologist" refers to you. As for a different term, well I don't know if there is one. You seem to be a seeker of knowledge with an interest in many different areas of spirituality, not just Scientology, so why label yourself as anything in particular?

That's an interesting term I had not heard before and I thinks that somewhat of a fair assessment. To some extent I think there are some people here who think I apply that label to myself much more solidly than I actually do. I would imagine that its difficult to find a thread on here where I actually apply that label to myself and don't offer some degree of explanation of how its more complicated than just that simple label. As I mention in a different response, me using that label here was, in part, due to insistence by other members here that I stop lying to myself and start calling myself a Scientologist because I was obviously practicing Scientology.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If a person pays the IAS membership, and continues to do so, no matter what he or she calls him or herself, he or she is directly supporting and funding OSA, and the endless litany of obnoxious lawyers, attacks on innocent people, media lying, PR capers, intel capers, noisy investigations, deceit, manipulation, and on and on. The purpose of the IAS, no matter how they mince words, is to protect and defend CORPORATE SCIENTOLOGY! :yes:

Within the context of ALL Hubbard's instructions and orders, the "Scientology religion" IS "corporate Scientology". That is obvious and clear if one simply reads the lists of suppressive acts without bias. To Hubbard, he made it entirely clear that "Scientology" equaled "corporate Scientology" and "the Church of Scientology". Of course, many FZers and fringe types tend to ignore that fact.

If a person keeps up on the IAS membership, then whether this person is a "fringe dweller" or not is moot - he or she DIRECTLY funds the nastiest side of the subject and practices of Scientology. At some point ones purported ideas must align with behavior (hopefully, ideally).

Oh, that's right, the poor sucker didn't know anything about what OSA was "really doing" - that is ignorance by choice, which is a common state of many Scientologists (for example, they are ordered to, and then comply with NOT viewing and learning from any "critical entheta" on the Internet). This is self-imposed ignorance by coercion and by personal agreement to conform to the orders of the "authorities" (Hubturd, DM, INT management, Sea Org, policy, etc.).

This is also speculation about a person that isn't me because as I mention in another reply I have never been an IAS member. Sometimes I think posts like this can be harmful during these lets ask (person) a bunch of questions threads and derailments because there are some people that seem to always read it as being statements about the person rather than speculation about a theoretical situation. I think it would be pretty easy for someone to read the above and come away with the idea that I pay IAS dues and feign ignorance which isn't the case for me.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Do they let people stay on course if they don't join the IAS? I thought to be active, in anyway, it was required to be a current member. I'm not talking about buying a book but taking a course or receiving auditing or processing..I also assume if you don't buy an IAS membership you will get sent to ethics before you can do anything course or processing related to work on your case. I'm sure they will sell a book or lecture to anyone, IAS member or not.

That depends on the course. For extension courses, Dianetic auditing, (i think) the lower grades, the life improvement courses, etc. one doesn't have to be an IAS member. They do have to be an IAS member if they are doing any auditor training, are an FSM, are doing OT courses, are on staff, etc. There is certainly a push to get people to sign up for an IAS membership but its not mandatory.
 

NoName

A Girl Has No Name
That's an interesting term I had not heard before and I thinks that somewhat of a fair assessment. To some extent I think there are some people here who think I apply that label to myself much more solidly than I actually do. I would imagine that its difficult to find a thread on here where I actually apply that label to myself and don't offer some degree of explanation of how its more complicated than just that simple label. As I mention in a different response, me using that label here was, in part, due to insistence by other members here that I stop lying to myself and start calling myself a Scientologist because I was obviously practicing Scientology.

You haven't heard Mrs. Pattycake? Have you ever read KSW?

In my first reading, I imagined KSW to be somewhat tongue in cheek. But it isn't - it is very literal. Especially the part about them preferring you dead rather than incapable.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
This is also speculation about a person that isn't me because as I mention in another reply I have never been an IAS member. Sometimes I think posts like this can be harmful during these lets ask (person) a bunch of questions threads and derailments because there are some people that seem to always read it as being statements about the person rather than speculation about a theoretical situation. I think it would be pretty easy for someone to read the above and come away with the idea that I pay IAS dues and feign ignorance which isn't the case for me.

You are free to READ IN whatever you like. I NEVER said that.

I never read where you said you weren't an IAS member. I am glad to hear it! :clap:

I am not going to write what I write in anticipation of some dummy who falsely reads into my words what I am not saying. THAT is his or her problem. I am not responsible for the "dub-in" of every other human being. :no:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Oh believe me I use PaulsRobot a lot and I find it awesome!
Wonderful! May I quote you? (Like here.)


But your experience here, at least at this point, is inherently going to be vastly different than mine. Back when I was going through non-label phase I said almost word for word what you wrote should cover it, because I think you're right - that _should_ cover it. What I got in return though, from some members of this forum, was accusations of secretly being a Scientologist and lots of 'you should just admit you are Scientologist and stop lying to us and yourself'-type messages. Well I took their advice and this the result.

Why bother? Ignore them and be what you want to be. ESMB tolerates a very wide range of (civil) viewpoints.

Paul
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Then you are not a Scientologist and using that label only causes confusion and can be detrimental to those lurking who only see "I find Scientology useful" without the fact that this usefulness doesn't include the biggest parts of Scientology.

To the best of my knowledge I've only labeled myself that here in conjunction with some degree of explanation about how I use the terms. It being reduced simply down to Scientologist I think is happening largely because of people replying to my posts and asking me questions using only that label without the explanation and other people read that and assume that I use this term in the same way because they didn't get a chance to read the explanation I put along with it.

To me this is like saying "I'm a Christian but I don't believe Jesus was the messiah"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

To me this is like saying "I'm a Muslim but I don't think Mohammed was THE Prophet" LRH was was/is Source, how can you say his interpretation of his own writings were incorrect? He wrote it and all this shit has only been going down in the last 64yrs.. There is no question that he is Source.

Well if you want to view things the way the Church of Scientology tells you to be my guest, but I'd rather apply critical thinking and my own experience to the actual content rather than focusing on the guy on who wrote it and his intentions.

We can question who wrote the Koran and the Bible..but we have Hubbs on tape and video, this modern day. It's like saying my own interpretation of this post that I am writing is wrong at this minute is wrong. You might and others might interpret what I am writing to be not quite correct but I am the one writing it, there is no question it is my fingers on the keyboard. I am the author and Hubbard is the author of Scientology, he might have had assistance but he is the author.

Sure you have an intention of what you mean when you wrote it down - but what matters more to _me_: what you intended or how I interpret and use it? I personally believe its up to the reader to apply their own reasoning skills to what they read and incorporate it into their own life as they see fit, it's not up to the author to force exactly their intention on the reader. To just take everything as given would be to apply anti-intellectualism in my opinion.
 

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
I have not left the church. Outside of extension courses all of my Scientology practice has been outside of the church but to the extent that I've even been 'in', I'm still in.


Kate,

Why have you not left a church that allies itself with a virulently anti-semitic group, the Nation of Islam, that intimidates former members who would dare speak out, that killed Lisa McPherson and others, that imprison their own staff, that routinely and blithely break up families, that abandon their elderly staff to suffer and die, and leave families bankrupt? Does any of this concern you?

What could possibly keep you part of such an organization as this "church"? I do believe most certainly you are a Scientologist.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
If people actually came to "know themselves", along with abandoning ALL dogma (most or all of Scientology ideas in this case), there would actually be a "pure self" to be "true to". What most are "true to" is their limited and often convoluted belief system. A person (self) wrapped up in a belief system is not the same as a self FREE from a belief system. Scientology was designed to, and very well acts to wrap a person up in a complex web of IDEAS that actually block and hinder any awareness of "self". Scientology promises freedom and expanded awareness, while involvement with the subject often actually delivers and brings about the OPPOSITE!

This is, I believe, true of any dogmatic approach to religion. This is why I practice specifically the way I do. For me, to the extent that I use the label Scientologist, its a descriptive rather than prescriptive term. I don't believe anything because LRH told me to - the majority of my beliefs were developed pre-Scientology.
 

Veda

Sponsor
This is, I believe, true of any dogmatic approach to religion.

-snip-

Perhaps one of the things that's annoying about you, Kate, is that you keep affirming Hubbard's religion angle (and Hubbard's and Miscavige's religious cloaking), seemingly indifferent to its fraudulent nature, and indifferent to the fact that it allows so many good people, including children, to be harmed.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
* In general, to me Scientology is a mystical religious framework. Dianetics, "clear", "ot", etc. are to me more or less meaningless or useless concepts”.
Great, you are on your way Kate! Now that you have realized that these are “meaningless or useless concepts", all we have to do is wait until you stumble upon the realization that these concepts are the backbone of $cientology and the entire reason that I got in. Then connect the dots…

I realize that these things were important reasons many here got in and for many one of these things was even their 'stable datum' but this is simply not the case for me.

*
By the way, I like to add the $ because I don’t feel like they are worthy of my writing their name as they spell it. After all there is no real correct spelling as the flubster simply made up the word, just like I made up flubster. Maybe that makes me "the Son of Flubber" or Flubster.

I don't care how other people write these things. I find such things to be a bit too casual for my tastes but that's fine, it just means you won't see me using terms like that. I also don't call Taco Bell "Taco Hell" or other such things. Some people do and it can be mildly amusing (one of my favorites is "Miss Cabbage") but I don't find that such things fit with the way I talk or the way I write.

And shame on you for leading off with a term like “Schema Theory” which is a classic Flubster tactic for MUing somebody early on in the text so as to slide them into “aneten” with the resulting effect of reducing their ability to think through the rest of your text and more or less just assimilate it into their subconscious to be figured out later. That was part and parcel of hypnotizing people into blinded abeyance, like hitting them with handful of magic warlock powder to the face. You just knew no one would bother to look up the term due to general lack of interest in it didn't you, you little scamp! :)

You apparently buy into LRH's MU stuff a hell of a lot more than I do lol.

As this is a thread specifically to ask me questions all one would have to do is say "what do you mean there by Schema Theory?" if they are interested or ignore it if they are not. It is, however, the correct term to describe the thing I was trying to describe.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
Kate,
I know as I write this that you are still answering other questions but by the time you read this here is my question: Do you still consider yourself a Scientologist?
 
Last edited:

kate8024

-deleted-
Could you give us some specific examples (I'm thinking as succinct as possible description of three or four such?) of those "several things" you disagreed with in the indie scientology ideas, and the contrasting/related version of those same ideas from CoS version that you found you liked better. Thanks in advance.

Sure thing!

Some indie groups, from what I have seen, view Ron as Source to an even greater degree than the CofS does. I personally believe the material needs _a_lot_ of modification and when I look at the actual changes that were part of the GAT changes almost all of them look to me like improvements. Now I don't buy the evil transcriptionist story one bit but I think most of the changes to the materials themselves were a good thing. Every indie I have talked to about it is completely against the GAT changes. I think the GAT changes didn't go near far enough.

Some of the inde stuff out there is based on the Rons Org material which (based on what I've read of it so far) I completely don't connect with, it simply doesn't describe what I experience. On the other hand, I _love_ The Pilot's work - SuperScio is probably one of my favorite books ever.

I also believe that the official church does offer some services and products that are unique to them - for example I think that Bridge and Golden Era do really great work. If the church collapses I hope those divisions survive (as actual companies with real paid employees). Some idies I've spoken with believe that every division in the church is inherently evil by association and I don't completely agree.

Does that help answer your question?
 

Gadfly

Crusader
KSW is the first item to be read and star-rated on EVERY Scientology course. It clearly sets out Hubbard's absolutist and unbending demand for total conformity. There is no other way to read it, unless one is entirely out of touch with reality.

From KSW:

"WHAT I SAY IN THESE PAGES HAS ALWAYS BEEN TRUE, IT HOLDS TRUE TODAY, IT WILL STILL HOLD TRWE IN THE YEAR 2000 AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE FROM THERE ON OUT. NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE IN SCIENTOLOGY, ON STAFF OR NOT, THIS POLICY LETTER HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU". (capital text in original)

This is the foundation upon which Scientology is built. That you are unfamiliar with it or choose to ignore it, yet call yourself one of these "Scientologists" is hilarious. You claim to be somewhere "in Scientology", so WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU. Hubbard asserts/demands that it MUST.

Now, I could go through this policy sentence by sentence and delineate the ABSURDITIES Hubbard tosses out as "fact" (there are many), but that is not why I am citing this policy letter. Here is a typical example of what is expected of any "Scientologist":

"When somebody enrolls, consider he or she has joined up for the duration of the universe—never permit an "open-minded" approach. If they're going to quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they're aboard, and if they're aboard, they're here on the same terms as the rest of us—win or die in the attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. [...] Not one namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. [...] When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she'll win and we'll all win. [...] You're here so you're a Scientologist. [...] We'd rather have you dead than incapable."

First, the above is the quote for ""Mrs. Pattycake" - as usual it is derogatory about anyone who is NOT a dedicated Scientologist.

Hubbard's lectures and writings are filled with examples of how HE DEFINES a "Scientologist". It is hilariously absurd really, how some accept a certain bunch of Hubbard's definitions and labels, and then ignore others, when IN FACT, a key aspect of the subject itself is accepting it ALL just as it is, completely, with no additives, editing, picking and choosing, or deletions. That you have no idea about simple, basic Scientology texts and ideas is quite ridiculous for one who adopts the labels "Scientologist":

"We're not playing some minor game in Scientology. It isn't cute or something to do
for lack of something better.

The whole agonized future of this planet, every man, woman and child on it, and
your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here
and now with and in Scientology.

This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may
never again have another chance.

Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the
past. Don't muff it now because it seems unpleasant or unsocial to do Seven, Eight,
Nine and Ten.

Do them and we'll win."


The basis of Scientology, KSW, is SEVERE and entirely FANATICAL. It is wholly black or white, and there is no room for deviation. It allows for ZERO TOLERANCE. To the degree you deviate you are NOT any definition of any Scientologist as clearly defined by the creator of Scientology - Hubbard.

That you pretend to talk on and on about Scientology, and seem to know little or nothing about such things is funny/hilarious/sad. You are like a person who scratched the surface of some subject, who then grabs onto it hook-line-and-sinker, and then talks as if they actually know about the subject (when they don't). He or she picks little bits here and there, and CALLS it the "whole subject". It is so absurd really, and I suspect that is why one question your true purpose or agenda here. I have no clue, and I really don't care. But there are many aspects of your posts that send off warning bells.
 
Last edited:

Churchill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Kate,

Why have you not left a church that allies itself with a virulently anti-semitic group, the Nation of Islam, that intimidates former members who would dare speak out, that killed Lisa McPherson and others, that imprison their own staff, that routinely and blithely break up families, that abandon their elderly staff to suffer and die, and leave families bankrupt? Does any of this concern you?

What could possibly keep you part of such an organization as this "church"? I do believe most certainly you are a Scientologist.


I can understand your joining the Freezone, because they do not carry the outrageously immoral baggage of the Church.

Please explain to me how your moral compass ​operates, Kate.
 

Veda

Sponsor
This mindset is rarely tolerated in the Church of Scientology. If you actually are doing so, as you claim, it is a fluke, and probably will not last much longer (unless you lie, deceive and PR THEM as to your true thoughts about these things).

KSW is very clear - every single member MUST come "on board", "same terms as the rest of us - live or die in the attempt".

Go find three or four staff and/or public and clearly them what you REALLY think about various things. See how long they then tolerate your little game of deception and untruthfulness (i.e. you MUST hold in and HIDE a great deal to remain BELOW their radar).

K. is a nascent New Religious Movement scholar who affirms Scientology Inc. as a religion. Scientology Inc. loves that. She will be tolerated more than most.
 
Top