What's new

Questions about Being Married in the Sea Org

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
The SO rule was just about the PR "visuals" of "ministers" in a "church" not having sex outside of marriage.

I think LRH didn't like the drama and disruption to production that came with "inter office" dating.

But he didn't like people getting married either. It is more difficult to transfer, censor and command married people than single drones and they require more expense and logistics.

If children could be born already turnkey at a working SO eligible age without all those bothersome expensive non-productive years and made property of the state like in Sparta then he probably would have ordered people to have unmarried sex.
 

renegade

Silver Meritorious Patron
When I was in PAC I met a guy who was from uplines who was in LA doing a project. I wound up on the project with him. We were instantly attracted to each other.

When he went back up, he told his senior (who was high up in CMO) that he met a girl and he really liked her.

She had all my pc folders pulled, had them gone through and then proceeded to tell him anything and everything that was there regarding my "2D history" (pretty much all of which was before I even got into Scientology).

So, yeah. There is no privacy.

Whatsoever.

Somehow, that sounds illegal as f*#k!
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
Somehow, that sounds illegal as f*#k!

I believe that staff sign waivers to the effect that all files and PC Folders are property of the Church and may be used or disposed of at the Church's complete discretion.

I would be very surprised if they didn't take thorough measures to make all of this "legal".

Think about it, many people in HCO (Human Resources) have access to Ethics Files and sec-check material. How would you enforce a restriction on access to material for a person working in HCO who is married or even interested in a relationship with another staff member in another division? It places too much liability on the Church. The smaller the org the more people are double hatted or holding multiple posts from above so its not like this is restricted to just an Ethics Officer. And HCO in service orgs is lower in authority to all these other upper levels of management who can demand those files. And, people are moved between posts and orgs frequently. They don't just forget everything they learn from previous posts. Then they leave staff and no longer have anyone looking over their shoulder to make sure they don't gossip about what they learned on staff. It's a free for all.

The Church indoctrinates people into the idea that as immortal spiritual beings who must advance to such a high level of OT ability that they will interact with other thetans telepathically - in order to do that they must be so squeaky clean ethically that there is nothing to hide. The Church is the only organization ethical enough to divulge all your deepest unethical transgressions to where they can safely be archived and maintained in a way to help you evolve to such a high potential.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
I believe that staff sign waivers to the effect that all files and PC Folders are property of the Church and may be used or disposed of at the Church's complete discretion.

I would be very surprised if they didn't take thorough measures to make all of this "legal".

Think about it, many people in HCO (Human Resources) have access to Ethics Files and sec-check material. How would you enforce a restriction on access to material for a person working in HCO who is married or even interested in a relationship with another staff member in another division? It places too much liability on the Church. The smaller the org the more people are double hatted or holding multiple posts from above so its not like this is restricted to just an Ethics Officer. And HCO in service orgs is lower in authority to all these other upper levels of management who can demand those files. And, people are moved between posts and orgs frequently. They don't just forget everything they learn from previous posts. Then they leave staff and no longer have anyone looking over their shoulder to make sure they don't gossip about what they learned on staff. It's a free for all.

The Church indoctrinates people into the idea that as immortal spiritual beings who must advance to such a high level of OT ability that they will interact with other thetans telepathically - in order to do that they must be so squeaky clean ethically that there is nothing to hide. The Church is the only organization ethical enough to divulge all your deepest unethical transgressions to where they can safely be archived and maintained in a way to help you evolve to such a high potential.


And then there's this....

 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Wow, Lulu Belle, where did that reference come from?

Attorneys representing exes need to take this with them to court to show that policy defies any priest/penitent privilege!


I picked it up from an old post on the board from Gadfly. (Whatever happened to Gadfly, by the way? He was great.)

It came from some tape. I don’t remember it ever being in a written policy per say. Maybe one of the techie people on the board can tell us where it came from.

I do remember it being referenced when I was in the SO. I heard it more than once being used as a justification for spreading someone else’s personal shit around.
 

Lulu Belle

Moonbat
Can you explain what a "Non-Actionable Report" is and who writes them and why? What is it used for?

Also - what is "dead filed" mean and how is that used.

Dead File - A new term I just heard about in the cult lingo but I never heard it used when I was involved in the cult.



A "non-actionable report” is a report an auditor writes up and puts in the pc folder of the pc being audited. It is a report on an overt or overts that were brought up in an auditing session. The idea is that, because it was brought up in auditing, the pc isn’t supposed to get any ethics action because of it.

As is so many things in Scientology, the “no ethics action” thing is quite often bullshit. What often happens is that the pc is then C/Sed for a sec check based on the “non-actionable report”. Of course the sec check is actionable. So, that’s the way that little technicality is worked around.

And of course if the church considers you an enemy for whatever reason they will go through all of your folders and advertise any dirt they can find anyway.

“Dead file” is a term used when someone writes a letter to an org and it’s considered “entheta”. The person’s CF folder is filed somewhere where the idea is that they are no longer written to. Interestingly this doesn’t mean the person is declared or not allowed on service lines. I knew some active Scientologists who were on lines when I was on staff who were actually deadfiled because of something they wrote and sent to the org.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
I never had a significant other during my brief stint in the SO, but I'm curious about what it was like for people who did. Comparing it to any relationships you've had since being out, would you say that it felt "real"? I remember hearing about multiple people who blew and left their spouse behind, and in retrospect it just seems so bizarre to me that people would just leave without telling their spouses. Also, thinking about Scientology's crazy sexual repression, I was wondering if it was difficult for couples to be intimate. Like, did you worry about anything besides completely vanilla intercourse getting you in trouble on your next O/W write-up? In short...

1. Did you feel like you could really tell your spouse anything?
2. Did you ever complain about seniors/anything work related or discuss routing out with them?
3. Did your spouse route out with you or did you divorce?
4. Do married SO members get in trouble for being sexually intimate when their stats or down or they are in lower conditions? Like, would they get in trouble for this if anyone found out?
5. What exactly are the parameters surrounding sex? I know masturbation is a big no-no, so is anything beyond straight missionary also off limits?

I met my wife in the SO at FOLO EU in 1978 and we are still married.

1. Hard question to answer because there were "questions" I never thought to ask.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. Don't know any
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
It came from some tape. I don’t remember it ever being in a written policy per say. Maybe one of the techie people on the board can tell us where it came from.

I do remember it being referenced when I was in the SO. I heard it more than once being used as a justification for spreading someone else’s personal shit around.

I don't know the source (lecture) but wasn't it in the "hard sell pack" and similar? I was never a body reg but have read about it on ESMB.

Paul
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
And then there's this....


Right. My point was that there is a lot of woo thinking about how there should be no privacy for SO crew. This ties into my comments about Scientology justice. Scientology is oriented around figuring out what the deepest psychological things are that drive behavior but this is not confined to auditing - it permeates and migrates over into personnel policy and the private lives of staff. The sec-check is the natural outcome of such thinking.

A lot of things can be said about sec-checks but if nothing else they serve to break down and destroy the concept of privacy in the SO. Then SO justice uses the fantasy woo from these sec-checks to impose real life sentences and decisions like post placement or demotion.

The ultimate catch all of violating "Command Intention" is very reminiscent of divination from things like reading the intestines of some sacrifice. The interpretation is completely arbitrary. The only thing that matters is the power of the person imposing the interpretation. In this context LRH became like some unpredictable god in the pantheon of fickle gods. Thetans don't get married. Marriage is just a postulated agreement and if that agreement doesn't forward Command Intention then it is unworthy.

Check out the 1981 Cadet Org Establishment Eval linked in Anonymary's thread below. The way LRH views parent's opposition to his ownership of their children as the why is repugnant but it is very telling. Why should any SO member expect the organization to respect privacy or marriage in an organization with this prevailing view?

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...-ORG-ESTABLISHMENT-EVAL-How-kids-were-treated

https://www.scribd.com/document/225084800/Scn-CadetOrg-CEO-Eval-Scientology-Aides-Order-203-71
 

renegade

Silver Meritorious Patron
I don't know the source (lecture) but wasn't it in the "hard sell pack" and similar? I was never a body reg but have read about it on ESMB.

Paul

That is one of the main refs in the Hardsell pack for registrars and FSMs. IIRC, it's a policy letter about how you have to impinge, and by-pass all the social mechanisms and get in there and not be uncomfortable doing so. The justification was to help this person go free.
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
That is one of the main refs in the Hardsell pack for registrars and FSMs. IIRC, it's a policy letter about how you have to impinge, and by-pass all the social mechanisms and get in there and not be uncomfortable doing so. The justification was to help this person go free.

I'm pretty sure we can assume that it is included in the hat packs for people working the phone banks also.
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
Wow, I never knew such a glaring loophole existed!

That would make a great demonstration sign for Flag or Big Blue:

"Did you know that you don't need a certified marriage to get married berthing".

Remember, this was in 1980 or so, when it was apparently much looser rule-wise. I wouldn't be too surprised if that loophole has been closed.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Check out the 1981 Cadet Org Establishment Eval linked in Anonymary's thread below. The way LRH views parent's opposition to his ownership of their children as the why is repugnant but it is very telling. Why should any SO member expect the organization to respect privacy or marriage in an organization with this prevailing view?

It all comes down to the attitude that individuals are the property of the Group, whose purpose is to fulfill the objectives of the Group, as laid out by the Leader. Once you accept that, then individuals can be used, abused, or killed at the whim of the leader. It is the pattern in all totalitarian systems, not just Scientology.

There are two main viewpoints:

(1) Individuals are the property of the Group, versus

(2) Individuals belong to themselves, and have their own goals. To achieve certain goals, it may be necessary for individuals to band together into groups. When the group no longer works towards the purpose that its members set up for it, then it is time to abolish the group, expel the misbehaving leaders, and set up a new group. Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
That is one of the main refs in the Hardsell pack for registrars and FSMs. IIRC, it's a policy letter about how you have to impinge, and by-pass all the social mechanisms and get in there and not be uncomfortable doing so. The justification was to help this person go free.

Thank you. Found online:

“Hard sell means insistence that people buy. It means caring about the person and not being reasonable* about stops or barriers but caring enough to get him through the stops or barriers to get the service that’s going to rehabilitate him.” — LRH, HCO PL 26 Sept 1979, COPYWRITING

* “Reasonable,” in Scientology, has been redefined to mean “accept[ing] reasons why something cannot be done.” It is seen as a bad thing. (Source: Scientology Admin Dictionary)​

Paul
 

TheOriginalBigBlue

Gold Meritorious Patron
It all comes down to the attitude that individuals are the property of the Group, whose purpose is to fulfill the objectives of the Group, as laid out by the Leader. Once you accept that, then individuals can be used, abused, or killed at the whim of the leader. It is the pattern in all totalitarian systems, not just Scientology.

There are two main viewpoints:
(1) Individuals are the property of the Group, versus

(2) Individuals belong to themselves, and have their own goals. To achieve certain goals, it may be necessary for individuals to band together into groups. When the group no longer works towards the purpose that its members set up for it, then it is time to abolish the group, expel the misbehaving leaders, and set up a new group. Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it:


The main difference in the use of "Creator" in The Declaration of Independence is it intentionally or incidentally serves as a mechanism to make arbitrary laws made by flawed people subject of a higher law that is very difficult to undo. We don't need to understand or pretend to know what that Creator is as long as it is something senior to the whims of the Executive, Judges or Parliament.

Every totalitarian system including socialism recognizes that this is the principle reason religion as competition cannot be tolerated but religion as totalitarianism is a no brainer.

Systems like communism and socialism need a reality based cover story like workers revolt against the evil capitalists to confiscate and redistribute resources but with theocracies it's anything goes. All these things that Scientology uses as a basis for policy decisions that directly control staff conduct and quality of life that somehow trace back to some nebulous concept of thought or existence are quite insane. Even if they are credible as a philosophy of thought they belong in therapy not as an underpinning to a Human Resources Department.

Scientology organization makes no distinction between staff member and patient and to them a patient is inherently someone who is a victim of their own mind (or the minds of BTs) and can only be cured by the all knowing Church.

We could start a thread to list all the faith based things used to manage a Sea Org member in their capacity as an employee. It would include all the arbitrary whys and solutions that LRH interjected into his many evals as these too carry the full weight of religion.
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Marriage, as an institution, and marital love, are a threat to the totalitarian system of Scientology.

They cannot allow the idea of two people having their primary loyalty being to each other, and to the children they produce, rather than to the Org.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
Thank you. Found online:

“Hard sell means insistence that people buy. It means caring about the person and not being reasonable* about stops or barriers but caring enough to get him through the stops or barriers to get the service that’s going to rehabilitate him.” — LRH, HCO PL 26 Sept 1979, COPYWRITING

* “Reasonable,” in Scientology, has been redefined to mean “accept[ing] reasons why something cannot be done.” It is seen as a bad thing. (Source: Scientology Admin Dictionary)​



"CARING ABOUT THE PERSON"


UPSIDE%20DOWN_zps34mmvkxj.jpg
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
Thank you. Found online:

“Hard sell means insistence that people buy. It means caring about the person and not being reasonable* about stops or barriers but caring enough to get him through the stops or barriers to get the service that’s going to rehabilitate him.” — LRH, HCO PL 26 Sept 1979, COPYWRITING

* “Reasonable,” in Scientology, has been redefined to mean “accept[ing] reasons why something cannot be done.” It is seen as a bad thing. (Source: Scientology Admin Dictionary)​

Paul

You know, if I had to describe this cult in two words, those words would be 'hard sell'
 

Gib

Crusader
Thank you. Found online:
.
“Hard sell means insistence that people buy. It means caring about the person and not being reasonable* about stops or barriers but caring enough to get him through the stops or barriers to get the service that’s going to rehabilitate him.” — LRH, HCO PL 26 Sept 1979, COPYWRITING

* “Reasonable,” in Scientology, has been redefined to mean “accept[ing] reasons why something cannot be done.” It is seen as a bad thing. (Source: Scientology Admin Dictionary)​


Paul

yep, that is correct. I drilled it many times while on staff to sell books. And then as all hands we were to go out on the streets, selling books to make booms, because stats were down, because Ron said so.

Insistence. Why that was a hard one for me to do because I always favored giving a person a self determined decision, like hey check it out.

I failed as a reg, one of the posts I had. (labeled PTS by Ron, which really means you are still a critical thinker and not quite right, LOL).
 
Top