That is the most interesting point on this thread. The baby boomers, who were around at the time of Hubbard are the lifeblood of Scientology. Will their death mark the end of Scientology? A very interesting question and an intelligent interpretation of the expression 'outlive it's founder.'
You've made a good point here. Scientology was a child of the 50's, 60's and 70's and it held attraction for the generation just before the baby boomers and also the baby boomers. The generations after the boomers, such as the millenials don't seem to be attracted much to scientology except for the fact that it has in it a lot of big name celebrities. Other than the celebrity thing, younger people seem to regard Scientology as passe and out of date. As the baby boomer generation continues to age and begins dying off, that could signal an end for scn.
I don't. Scientology isn't imperfect because it wasn't finished. It is imperfect on its own merits.
It was designed to make money, it did that under Hubbard and it was a growing religion, even in spite of well funded attacks from governments and the medical profession. Who ever said it was perfect? No one has ever said that or even suggested it. Even Hubbard said only that it was a workable system, not a perfect system.
True. He has adapted. But none of these adaptations address the real problems killing Scientology. The refund stats aren't what's killing Scientology. Disconnection, constant regging, the internet, the press, the demoralizing startovers (GATII, redoing OTVII and OTVIII, redos of the basics etc. He hasn't adapted to the real problems in a realistic way.
You've got to look at what his major goal is. DM's major goal seems to be to amass a huge amount of money and to wield power over people. He seems to want to be a world class billionaire who is taken seriously. He does not really want to run a successful main stream religion which nurtures it's parishioners and holds barbecues, has Bingo nights and things of that nature. He looks down on those activities as being degraded and humanoid. He has adapted with new means of making even more money than LRH ever did, despite a dwindling membership. If you don't like the descriptive "intelligent" then call him "resourceful".
Expensive fixtures require expensive maintenance. If the orgs are insolvent, they will depreciate. Some of the ideal orgs have depreciated due to a lack of maintenance. These do not address the major threats to the survival of Scientology.
I cannot see the ideal orgs saving Scientology.
Of course they are not going to save scientology, but they are going to make a lot of money for COS and ultimately make DM a billionaire if he remains COB for a long enough time. Your points about maintenance do have merit. The deteriorating fixtures do lower values but not enough to prevent huge sums of money from being made. Let's say the parishioners purchase a $10 million building and spend $5 million on nice fixtures. COS then assumes ownership of a $15 million property and owns it free and clear. They can then mortgage the building and draw $10 million or more and do whatever they want with that money. The Org pays COS to rent back the building which the org's parishioners paid for. That rent can be used to pay the mortgage and tax payments on the building.
This is a very intricate and clever system which DM has devised - I don't thing you are sufficiently aware of how clever it is and how this all works! Let's go 12 years into the future and say the building has doubled in value from $10 million to $20 million but the fixtures have not been kept up so their value might have shrunk to $1 milliion or maybe they are even a liability with a negative worth. Had the fixtures been kept up, the building with fixtures might be worth $30 million but maybe the deteriorating fixtures have reduced this to $20 milliion. Still COS's portfolio grows, the have the option to refinance the building and pull out more money. They have the ability to raise the rent and if they cash out and sell the make a huge profit.
DM has not handled the internet. DM knew about the internet in the 90s with the work of the old guard. Arnie Lerma blew the lid on OTIII back then. Even after 2008, Tommy Davis was still denying the Xenu story. It took almost 20 years for David Miscavige to learn that he could not play hide the ball with Scientology's secrets. Even after the advent of Anonymous, when it could have occurred to him, he waited until journalists had repeatedly talked about this publicly before he conceded defeat.
As to telling people not to look at entheta, that is hardly new in Scientology.
The internet cannot be handled, it is a big thorn in his side. No one ever side that he can "handle" it. No one, not even a Steve Jobs, an Elon Musk, or a Bill Gates can handle the internet. DM does what he can. Damage occurs and he attempts to mitigate the damage with his Private Investigators and his army of high priced attorneys. A major effort is made to cover up the damages or have them mitigated by court decisions. DM is puts up a hard fight but with more and more abuses coming to light it seems to me that he is finally starting to lose ground.
As to the Superbowl ads, the fact that he doesn't realize that those ads probably did more damage to the brand indicates he is stupid. Anyone who responded to those ads by googling them would be in for a big surprise. Did he think people were going to flood the orgs? Seriously.
There is no proof that the ads did more damage than good. You have nothing to back that up. With the viewership the Super Bowl has plus the fact that most people have barely heard about scientology, it is likely that the ads stirred up some response. Maybe some people will go to an Org and buy intro services or maybe they won't. Expensive ads watched by tens of millions of people usually generate some positive interest or improve the image of one's "brand". In the case of scientology, neither you nor I have the slightest inkling of what kind of results they got from those ads.
Doing the same thing you have done previously over and over again is not adaptation.
It is one of the symptoms of stupidity.
Doing the same thing over and over is not adaptation but if each time it is done, it brings in money and causes more services to be delivered then it should still be done. Continuing a successful action is evidence of intelligence. Adaptation occurs in the reformatting and repackaging phases, making the same products look different so people think they are getting something new when they are not. It requires some sort of intelligence to dupe one's parishioners in this manner; in fact, the parishioner not only pay for the new reformatted materials but they will fight even harder to defend DM and don't realize that they have been duped. If you don't call this an exhibition of intelligence then use the word "cunning" instead.
I am probably conflating wisdom a little with intelligence, but not benevolence and kindness. I don't think the Vatican is being benevolent in adapting. I think they are acting out of self interest.