iScientology.org - A new home for Independent Scientology?

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'll be back tomorrow..I have a ton of thoughts but I'm just not up to it now..just being honest, you WILL start to feel that about me.

My snarky side says..it hard to follow words like hypothecated quantum psychological paradigm but in reality I'm tired ..not of y'all or anything..just ready to not think so hard for a little...forgive me and alllllll my questions but I'll be right back in the morning.:blowkiss:
Thank you for hanging out with me, Smiles!
Missy
 
LOL. Understood but just the same...Relax! It's just words. I spent my formative years as a Catholic Altar Boy. I'm very familiar with The Confessional as a practice.

In the post you quoted, I'm simply answering your question; in scientology there is a procedure known as a Confessional, the procedure is exactly the same as the procedure known as a Sec Check, the primary difference being that when delivered as a scientology Confessional the Auditor actually does give the PC a scientological form of Absolution at the end of the Confessional ( in Confessional Procedure it's called Forgiveness). I forgot to mention the brief period in scio-time when Sec Checking was re-named "Integrity Processing".

It's all the same/similar thing and, oddly enough, almost any scientologist who has been audited on O/W tech will have most likely experienced some sense of relief at having "told all" to an Auditor. When it's used as a procedure to benefit the PC it seems to work just fine. People generally do feel better for having confessed their sins.

Scientology and Hubbard's obsession with finding out what the PC has done wrong is, of course, one of the many places where things went way off the rails. There's actually a Hubbard-penned issue called "O/W, a Limited Theory" (or something like that) where he talks about the inadvisability of pushing this stuff too far. As with many things he said/wrote, scientologists have some difficulty reconciling these contradictory things.

For whatever it's worth, which may not be anything, at the beginning of sec checking the sec checker says "I am not auditing you". When I had sec checks it was said with enough intention that I understood I was not to be under any illusion that it was an auditing session. I don't know how periodic sec checks for those on OT levels were done at that time or if they were done at all, but later they became necessary frequently AFAIK. This may have helped blur the lines between sec checks and auditing. I understand that the actual procedures after the "start" signal may be the same whether its a sec check or 'confessional/integrity processing'. And, as has been pointed out I think, files with sec checks and files with 'confessional auditing' may be passed around from tech div to ethics department and to GO/OSA.
So I guess there was meant to be a difference between the two when it suited hubbard's immediate purposes, confused by the fact that when it suited hubbard and staff members, they could be 'merged' -for want of a better word.

I think the first 'jo burg' was a sec check and then became a 'rundown' for "integrity processing'.
Wiki: "The Johannesburg (also known as "Joburg") Security Check was described by Hubbard as "the roughest security check in Scientology"..."
I had one, which was not done through ethics but as part of an "integrity processing" program. I can't remember if they said "I am not auditing you" or not. I can remember them saying that for something, but I think it was something much lighter than Jo Burg.


Ok, Now I have found this:

Ref:
HCOB 30 Nov. 78R Rev. 10.11.87 CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE
This is the Johannesburg Confessional list further amplified by myself. This is the roughest Confessional list in Scientology. We will call it the “Joburg Confessional.” It does not necessarily replace other Confessional lists but it is probably the most thorough one we have now.
In reprinting this form, use legal length and double space everything except directions.
JOBURG CONFESSIONAL LIST
Name of Person__________ Date__________
Name of Security Checker__________
DIRECTIONS: Follow the full procedure as given in HCOB 30 Nov. 78R, CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE.
The following statement should be read or quoted to the person receiving this Confessional list, when it is being done as an HCO Confessional:
“I am not auditing you. We are about to begin an HCO Confessional. We are not moralists. We are able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot guarantee you that matters revealed in this list will be held forever secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any...
."


(my underline "when it is being done as an HCO confessional"
Conclusion = sec checks and confessionals were/are a confused area for some.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
For whatever it's worth, which may not be anything, at the beginning of sec checking the sec checker says "I am not auditing you". When I had sec checks it was said with enough intention that I understood I was not to be under any illusion that it was an auditing session. I don't know how periodic sec checks for those on OT levels were done at that time or if they were done at all, but later they became necessary frequently AFAIK. This may have helped blur the lines between sec checks and auditing. I understand that the actual procedures after the "start" signal may be the same whether its a sec check or 'confessional/integrity processing'. And, as has been pointed out I think, files with sec checks and files with 'confessional auditing' may be passed around from tech div to ethics department and to GO/OSA.
So I guess there was meant to be a difference between the two when it suited hubbard's immediate purposes, confused by the fact that when it suited hubbard and staff members, they could be 'merged' -for want of a better word.

I think the first 'jo burg' was a sec check and then became a 'rundown' for "integrity processing'.
Wiki: "The Johannesburg (also known as "Joburg") Security Check was described by Hubbard as "the roughest security check in Scientology"..."
I had one, which was not done through ethics but as part of an "integrity processing" program. I can't remember if they said "I am not auditing you" or not. I can remember them saying that for something, but I think it was something much lighter than Jo Burg.


Ok, Now I have found this:

Ref:
HCOB 30 Nov. 78R Rev. 10.11.87 CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE
This is the Johannesburg Confessional list further amplified by myself. This is the roughest Confessional list in Scientology. We will call it the “Joburg Confessional.” It does not necessarily replace other Confessional lists but it is probably the most thorough one we have now.
In reprinting this form, use legal length and double space everything except directions.
JOBURG CONFESSIONAL LIST
Name of Person__________ Date__________
Name of Security Checker__________
DIRECTIONS: Follow the full procedure as given in HCOB 30 Nov. 78R, CONFESSIONAL PROCEDURE.
The following statement should be read or quoted to the person receiving this Confessional list, when it is being done as an HCO Confessional:
“I am not auditing you. We are about to begin an HCO Confessional. We are not moralists. We are able to change people. We are not here to condemn them. While we cannot guarantee you that matters revealed in this list will be held forever secret, we can promise you faithfully that no part of it nor any...
."


(my underline "when it is being done as an HCO confessional"
Conclusion = sec checks and confessionals were/are a confused area for some.
and this is healthy? good or bad thing?
 
and this is healthy? good or bad thing?

I am only trying to clarify the difference (within the cult) between a "sec check' and "confessional/integrity processing", including the blurring of the two, as many things are blurred in scientology.
Scientology confessionals are not a good thing.
Scientology sec checks are not a good thing.
Blurred ones are not a good thing.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I just gotta say my youth minister never integrity processed us and the closest thing we had to a sec check was being asked how our school week went. We learned integrity by example.
DB...what you posted in red looks awful :(
 
I just gotta say my youth minister never integrity processed us and the closest thing we had to a sec check was being asked how our school week went. We learned integrity by example.
DB...what you posted in red looks awful :(

If that looks awful, I'll post the rest of the HCOB and you can tell me what you think of that. :omg:

I have a question in my mind, to myself really, and it goes like this.

What kinds of confessionals, in or out of the COS, or in any other cult or religion, and even outside of religion, is good and healthy for a person...or necessary etc.
There may be a lot of assumed good in the idea of confession, as received cultural/ religious input. Ex catholics..and others? I guess there is a lot of room for control and manipulation of a person, even without threatening them with disclosing info to others . It might be worth starting a thread....
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I just gotta say my youth minister never integrity processed us and the closest thing we had to a sec check was being asked how our school week went. We learned integrity by example.
DB...what you posted in red looks awful :(

Free Zoners don't do intel oriented security checks. They just do the confessionals. And there's no way anyone can say they are the only group that does that. I assume people have heard of Catholicism and The Episcopal/Anglican church, yah?
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
The [STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]Zoners deliver the False Purpose Rundown, which is sec-checking in turbo mode.
 

ClearedSP

Patron with Honors
And, as has been pointed out I think, files with sec checks and files with 'confessional auditing' may be passed around from tech div to ethics department and to GO/OSA.

I hate to say it, but thousands of staff and others had thorough summaries done of everything in their folders, for the GO. If you ever had any juicy secrets, any rockslams, any doubts, or even if you just didn't get very good TA on some processes, the GO knew about it, if you were staff or targeted public. Also, every single page in CF files, personnel and ethics files... basically, everything that could be collected without letting people know that the data collection was going on. I'd imagine all that stuff's been saved in whatever the current INCOMM sort of database is.

It's not obviously relevant WRT current non-CoS practices, but to people like Marty, decades of tradition says that your PC folders will be screened for security purposes any time there's paranoia in the air. Time will tell whether they follow those traditions or not.
 

phenomanon

Canyon
One point of clarification, and I might be demonstrating my own ignorance.

My understanding is that, while the distinction has as a practical matter largely been lost within the corporate Church of Scientology:

Confessional =/= Sec Check

While Grade II contains Confessionals, it does not contain Sec Checks.

Therefore, Independent Scientology could deliver Grade II containing Confessionals without having Sec Checks.

Am I incorrect?

I'll also note in passing that one thing Marty posted on his blog that impressed me was that he did not write down any of the PCs overts during Confessionals. That he made a conscious decision that there was not a written record of overts. I also seem to recall him saying that he didn't care whether people thought that was Standard Tech or not.

You are correct. Grade II contains Confessionals. Sec Checking at GrII is an additive.

phenomanon
 

phenomanon

Canyon
A scientologist gets told that sec checking is the next action, there's no choice and certainly no discussion about it and it's automatic before and after certain things in the SO (like prior to and returning from a 'mission') and done every 6 months on some of the upper levels, its done on the cans (with an e-meter) using a pre written list of questions and any other's that are deemed to be relevant. There are really nasty sec checks where you are told 'I'm not auditing you' prior to starting and they can be terrifying because you know you can't just get up and walk out, you need to come up with something and then appear to be relieved after disclosing it and the needle on the meter has to play along too.

Lol, its complete madness.

It's a constant thing that scientologists tolerate and have to pay for, they are supposedly the most 'ethical people on the planet' (lol) but they have to be sec checked constantly because they are apparently not to be trusted.




:no:

altho sec checking has gotten overused and overabused in COS, what I think that the theory is that is used to justify the sec checking at OT7, and OT Preps, and all the other sec checking that goes on is that "Case Gain cannot be made over Overts and Witholds".
This is law on the Cl 8 course.
Therefore, those that have any trouble any where on their auditing bridge, must have unhandled overts. They are probably continuously committing overts.
That is what I think is the "think" behind all the sec checking from a technical POV. This gets perverted when Ethics enters the picture, or when the Reg has to get the gross income stats up.

phenomanon
 

AlphOhm

Traveler of time/space
You are correct. Grade II contains Confessionals. Sec Checking at GrII is an additive.

phenomanon

While on Grade II long ago (confessionals...often also called sec checking) I ended up going to ASHO for CCRD. There, before any auditing I got the HCO "entering base Sec Check" which was the non-confidential "I'm not auditing you" stuff.

During that visit to ASHO was the only HCO "not auditing you" sec check I got for any org that I visited. I later went to AOLA and Flag :confused2:
 
The [STRIKE]Free[/STRIKE]Zoners deliver the False Purpose Rundown, which is sec-checking in turbo mode.

Personally I had a great time running the Joburg on grades. Similar with other in session forms of "sec checking". I haven't done the FPRD but have a friend who swears by it as the very best auditing he's done. He's also discussed how he's seen others utterly hammered by the church with it. Still by his description, done well it could be a lot of fun.


Mark A. Baker
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
I think it depends on the setting. If you've got people trying to find stuff out so they can control the person, then that person will never benefit from it. Nothing therapeutic there.

But I will also say this- not every method works 100% across the board for everyone. And at different stages in our lives, we respond to things in a number of ways and our needs change.

To me, that's the problem with Scn and it's a problem with lots of other methods. The idea that if you only did it right, that everyone's case is the same. Because I no longer think that's true.

But as far as thinking nobody should have confessional auditing- that's not my stance. It's an arbitrary and it's the same as saying everybody needs to have it right now.
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
As mentioned, Marty has had a lot to say about the FreeZone - and others he considers to be especially squirrel - but a lot of his message is forwarded by his offsiders:

1zbbadf.jpg


. . . "Responsibility of Leaders", and all that.

<<<post moved to a begin a new thread - Emma>>>

Cross posted from http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?29123-Steve-Hall-s-post-on-closed-Indy-Facebook-group

:lol:
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation
altho sec checking has gotten overused and overabused in COS, what I think that the theory is that is used to justify the sec checking at OT7, and OT Preps, and all the other sec checking that goes on is that "Case Gain cannot be made over Overts and Witholds".
This is law on the Cl 8 course.
Therefore, those that have any trouble any where on their auditing bridge, must have unhandled overts. They are probably continuously committing overts.
That is what I think is the "think" behind all the sec checking from a technical POV. This gets perverted when Ethics enters the picture, or when the Reg has to get the gross income stats up.

phenomanon



I couldn't care less what the 'think' behind it all is because it's all 'one size fits all BS' (with a handy built-in assumption of 'track overts' if things are not going well).

I dont take any of it seriously anymore, it is what it is ... a con job aimed at the confused and the gullible.


:eyeroll:
 
I couldn't care less what the 'think' behind it all is because it's all 'one size fits all BS' (with a handy built-in assumption of 'track overts' if things are not going well). ...

Not necessarily. Note this link to a post I made linking to a relevant article written by David Mayo back when he was still free to express his views on the subject. I think David's discussion of "the bridge" and the sequence of processing to be very sensible and worth the reading.




Mark A. Baker
 
Top