Caroline
Patron Meritorious
In What is Wrong with Scientology Rathbun provides a statement of Scientology and the Scientology Bridge as he understands and delivers it, and as he advocates for Independent Scientologists around the world.
According to Rathbun, Scientology Inc.'s tech is now "reversed in application and effect," meaning essentially that Scientologists under the control of David Miscavige are applying Hubbard's tech in ways that cause harmful, not beneficial effects on people.
Rathbun runs what he calls an "Underground Railroad" for Scientologists who are leaving the control of David Miscavige and "Scientology Inc." (Rathbun: The Tipping Point for Scientology, Inc.) Rathbun and the Indies sell and deliver Scientology to these people, to supposedly remedy the harm that they experienced under DM.
I think this is a good issue to start with:
Thanks. JQ. First, here's the definition:
Rathbun's "rewording" comes under the category of "verbal tech" which is an ethics offense. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics.) Verbal Tech is classified as a "Misdemeanor" but since so much of Rathbun's book is "verbal tech" the offense would undoubtedly be upgraded to a "Crime" or "High Crime."
Rathbun also presents a theory in Chapter 1 about why verbal tech is okay, but this is just more squirreling, and blatant.
What you mentioned about Rathbun "presenting his theory that they're not to be taken literally" is a "Technical Degrade, which is a class of High Crime:"
One effect of advocating a non-literal approach to the Xenu story, for example, is that it invalidates Hubbard's claims and statements about his OT 3 research. Scientology has been selling the literal story since Hubbard came up with it.
So to now say the Xenu story (and therefore the process and level of OT 3) shouldn't be taken literally is like admitting that Hubbard (and at least some people in his technical hierarchy) knowingly implanted or caused to be implanted, false memories in thousands of Scientologists over decades, but "never mind, that was then." To illustrate this sentiment more exactly, I'll repeat this excerpt from another thread:
According to Rathbun, Scientology Inc.'s tech is now "reversed in application and effect," meaning essentially that Scientologists under the control of David Miscavige are applying Hubbard's tech in ways that cause harmful, not beneficial effects on people.
Rathbun runs what he calls an "Underground Railroad" for Scientologists who are leaving the control of David Miscavige and "Scientology Inc." (Rathbun: The Tipping Point for Scientology, Inc.) Rathbun and the Indies sell and deliver Scientology to these people, to supposedly remedy the harm that they experienced under DM.
Rathbun said:The purpose of this book is to share the knowledge we have gained on how Scientology has been used to harm people and how that harm has been satisfactorily remedied.
Rathbun, Mark 'Marty' (2012-06-24). What Is Wrong With Scientology?: Healing Through Understanding
I think this is a good issue to start with:
What specifically are you viewing as him squirreling? What he wrote about the lower levels, while reworded, wasn't offbeat or other practicy and was in keeping with the materials I've studied. As far as the OT levels, his presenting his theory that they're not to be taken literally is pretty much just that IMO - his theory. Ask 20 people to define God or what it means to be a Christian and you'll probably get 20 answers, so one man saying he views it as metaphor really doesn't constitute squirreling.
I'd like to engage in an analysis thread myself, looking forward to it.
Thanks. JQ. First, here's the definition:
Hubbard said:SQUIRRELLING, 1. it means altering Scn and offbeat practices. It is a bad thing. (HCO PL 14 Feb 65) 2. squirrelling is not really different processes--it is careless, incomplete, messed up auditing procedure. (HCOB 15 Jan 70 II)
Hubbard, L. R. (1979). Dianetics and Scientology Technical Dictionary (Fifth printing 1979 ed.). Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.
Rathbun's "rewording" comes under the category of "verbal tech" which is an ethics offense. (Introduction to Scientology Ethics.) Verbal Tech is classified as a "Misdemeanor" but since so much of Rathbun's book is "verbal tech" the offense would undoubtedly be upgraded to a "Crime" or "High Crime."
Hubbard said:Verbal Tech: This includes giving out data which is contrary to HCO Bulletins or Policy Letters, or obstructing their use or application, corrupting their intent, altering their content in any way, interpreting them verbally or otherwise for another, or pretending to quote them without showing the actual issue.
Hubbard, L. R. (1968). Introduction to Scientology Ethics. (2007 ed.) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications.
Rathbun also presents a theory in Chapter 1 about why verbal tech is okay, but this is just more squirreling, and blatant.
What you mentioned about Rathbun "presenting his theory that they're not to be taken literally" is a "Technical Degrade, which is a class of High Crime:"
Hubbard said:Adding comments to checksheets or instructions labeling any material "background" or "not used now" or "old" or any similar action which will result in the student not knowing, using and applying the data in which he is being trained.
Hubbard, L. R. (1968). Introduction to Scientology Ethics. (2007 ed.) Los Angeles: Bridge Publications.
One effect of advocating a non-literal approach to the Xenu story, for example, is that it invalidates Hubbard's claims and statements about his OT 3 research. Scientology has been selling the literal story since Hubbard came up with it.
So to now say the Xenu story (and therefore the process and level of OT 3) shouldn't be taken literally is like admitting that Hubbard (and at least some people in his technical hierarchy) knowingly implanted or caused to be implanted, false memories in thousands of Scientologists over decades, but "never mind, that was then." To illustrate this sentiment more exactly, I'll repeat this excerpt from another thread:
Dan Koon said:[Informal transcript: 3:26 - 4:50]
You know, LRH didn't really ever stop researching. And I think the Bridge sort of reflects his researches at the different stages of his life.
And what occurred after he passed away in 1986, was he left behind many orders on technical matters that had not been complied to, and they, those didn't really get complied to 'til in the nineties some time.
And some of the stuff still isn't done. So the Bridge has to be-- the grade chart-- the document has to be modified to reflect that.
So whether ah-- There's a discussion going on about different Bridges. I actually don't know too much about that. And it, it's not, ah for me it's not a particularly big issue.
[video=youtube;F3HRf40gobE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3HRf40gobE&feature=player_embedded[/video]