What's new

Independent Reformed Church of Scientology incorporated in California

Wilbur

Patron Meritorious
Why would I deny the benefits I got from those procedures and disciplines just because of Hubbard's association? I benefited from them, and that's all that matters to me.
No, you don't seem to understand the unwritten rule of this board: you have to denigrate everything Hubbard, regardless of what you did or did not get out of it. To do otherwise is to subject yourself to fair-game treatment for not toeing the party line.

It's funny, I thought I left party lines behind when I left Scientology. But apparently the world is full of them....
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
The Independent Reformed Church of Scientology addresses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
<snippity snip snip>
Tsk, tsk. The slippery slope. They're making changes to tech/policy that's not tenable and finding some "Source reference" that supports it. Anyone who got Comm Ev'd or RPF'd for out-2D stuff knows that that 2D PL she quoted held zero weight in the real Scienoverse and was for PR purposes only.

I'll repeat my conclusion from Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss)

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?
(That essay was originally written in 2010 for Freezone consumption.)

Paul
 
Last edited:

Voodoo

Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow
No, you don't seem to understand the unwritten rule of this board: you have to denigrate everything Hubbard, regardless of what you did or did not get out of it. To do otherwise is to subject yourself to fair-game treatment for not toeing the party line.

It's funny, I thought I left party lines behind when I left Scientology. But apparently the world is full of them....
Yeah, I know. I discovered pretty quickly that there's a mixed bag in here, from never-ins to strident Hubbard devotees. With a mix that wide, someone's going to disagree with you, no matter where you stand.

I don't let it worry me. As long as I'm not here promoting the cult I figure I'll be just fine.
 

Voodoo

Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow
...to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since?
What "good stuff" has been developed since 1982?
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Yeah, I know. I discovered pretty quickly that there's a mixed bag in here, from never-ins to [bcolor=#ffff00]strident Hubbard devotees[/bcolor]. With a mix that wide, someone's going to disagree with you, no matter where you stand.

I don't let it worry me. As long as I'm not here promoting the cult I figure I'll be just fine.

strident Hubbard devotees

:omg: What? Where?
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Tsk, tsk. The slippery slope. They're making changes to tech/policy that's not tenable and finding some "Source reference" that supports it. Anyone who got Comm Ev'd or RPF'd for out-2D stuff knows that that 2D PL she quoted held zero weight in the real Scienoverse and was for PR purposes only.

I'll repeat my conclusion from Standard Tech (Hooray!) and Squirrel Tech (boo hiss)

It seems to me that Hubbard originated tech good and bad, and others originated tech good and bad, and what is generally considered “Standard Tech” is pretty much simply the good tech, whatever its source. That being the case, to worship good tech developed prior to 1982 ONLY is very short-sighted, Luddite even. What about all the good stuff developed in the 28 years since? And good stuff buried by Hubbard for various reasons? And good stuff still to be developed in the years to come?
(That essay was originally written in 2010 for Freezone consumption.)

Paul

Dullodfart -- You state, "Anyone who got Comm Ev'd or RPF'd for out-2D stuff knows that that 2D PL she quoted held zero weight in the real Scienoverse and was for PR purposes only."

Is it possible that the Independent Reformed Church of Scientology, as a separate and independent organization that is interpreting the scriptures and tech of Scientology in their own way, will in fact give controlling weight the 2D PL Lana quoted and not treat the PL as being for PR purposes only?

Why should the IRCS be bound by the Church of Scientology International[s interpretation of Scientology scriptures and tech?

As I said above, my personal view is that IF the Independent Reformed Church of Scientology (IRCS) both honestly adopts AND in fact honestly performs a policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, then that is their policy. The analogy I would make would be to Christian denominations that have adopted and in fact perform the policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (e.g., they perform gay marriages and have gay clergy) despite what might be said in the Bible.

In other words, IF the IRCS honestly interprets Hubbard's revocation of 2D rules as amounting to the adoption of a policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, AND honestly performs such policy by not in fact discriminating in any way, then that's their policy. I'm certainly not going to tell them they are misinterpreting their own scriptures and are required to discriminate against LGBTQ people.
 

Karakorum

supressively reasonable
Guys... are you seriously trying to make sense of scientology's sex-related texts? These have been self-contradictory nonsense at least since the 80s.

Example:

  • There's the famous "Pain&Sex" HCOB, where sex is described as an invented tool of degradation brought about by destructive creatures who want to keep you small beings.
  • 4.0 Tone stupidity description says: "Sexual interest high, but often sublimated to creative thought."
  • 3.5 Tone stupidity states: "High interest in opposite sex"
There you go. Tone scale says sex is good, HCOB from 82 says sex is entirely bad. Go figure.:cuckoo:

Trying to make a coherent point based on LRH on this matter is like trying to push a square peg through a round hole (pun intended).
 

Veda

Sponsor
Tsk, tsk. The slippery slope. They're making changes to tech/policy that's not tenable and finding some "Source reference" that supports it. Anyone who got Comm Ev'd or RPF'd for out-2D stuff knows that that 2D PL she quoted held zero weight in the real Scienoverse and was for PR purposes only.

-snip-
I don't think they can tell the difference between the real and the PR, or can they? Are they just playing dumb with Hubbard's "scriptures"? just like their cousin organization, Scientology Inc., does?
_______________
Just for laughs

Link to Standard Security Check circa 1961 (second one down in the link), and several other Security Checks of 1961:

http://www.religio.de/books/kaufman/isd-5i.htm

A small sampling of some of the Sec Check questions:

Have you ever had anything to do with pornography?

Have you ever practiced homosexuality?

Have you ever exhibited yourself sexually?

Have you ever practiced sodomy?

Have you ever made a practice of having sex with a member of your own sex?

Do you collect sexual objects?

Have you ever practiced masturbation?

l_ron_hubbard_dianetics.jpg

Have you ever had any unkind thoughts about L. Ron Hubbard?

_________​


A happy scene from the "good old days."​

ArmstrongWedding.jpg

Circa late 1960s.
The cult leader's child and adolescent female slave-servants (a.k.a. Commodore's Messengers) dressed for a double wedding.
(Pat Broeker and Gerry Armstrong were the grooms.)
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
The Independent Reformed Church of Scientology (IRCS) announces that due to a technical error the messages of over 40 people who reached out through the contact form were not received and as a result they did not receive a response. The technical problem has now been resolved and submissions through the contact form have been tested and are now working. The IRCS asks that those who reached out to please do so again.

The IRCS can also be reached via e-mail at: [email protected]

See https://scientologyreformed.org

embedding

https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2019/05/27/technical-screw-up/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

By Lana

I was alerted by a dear friend in Texas that two individuals had reached out to the Independent Reformed Church of Scientology in recent times and not received an answer.

I went searching and found, to my horror, a technical glitch that has resulted is every single contact form filled out not reaching us. Further investigation found that more than 40 people had reached out and not received a response.

Oh boy. The picture above communicates how I feel about this. I am horrified.

Apologies don’t seem really to suffice.

The technical problem has now been resolved and submissions through the contact form have been tested repeatedly and are now working.

I am hoping that resilient thetans out there who were keen to reach out can do so again — and if you want to express your upset about the silence you initially received. Go for it. I deserve it. Sigh

And on another note — as requests and communications have been coming in to the [email protected] email, we have been working out how to best get people serviced. If there is a former DTS, D of P, Board I/C or Tech Sec that would like to help coordinate preclears/pre-OTs and auditors, we have a project position needing to be filled. This is very much a part time activity that can be done from anywhere on the planet, as long as you have email, internet access, a good comm level, and a love for getting people into session and providing great service.

So… apologies to the 40+ people who wrote in.

Could you originate again so we can receive and respond?

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
Last edited:
Top