Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, and Confidentiality

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
A Few Questions Re: Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, & Confidentiality


Within the many reviewed materials, a few issues haven’t been addressed ‘head-on’ and I’m appreciative to any/all who might point me in the right direction to find the information sought or provide it by way of response.


I believe I have a handle on the basic path one travels within CO$ - from Book 1 through OT8, with a wide variety of (very expensive) courses which are available/recommended along the way. What I’m not yet up-to-speed on is when certain information is made known to an individual while on the path, how the information is provided to the individual, and how an individual processes the information when it is initially presented. (Questions 1 & 2 below.)



Also, a few friends watched the Investigative Discovery episode that depicted Nancy Many’s awful experiences, and when we discussed the show earlier today, one question popped up that I answered, but I’m wondering now if I was correct. After the RPF in the parking garage (!), the Manys got out of the Sea Org and later ‘rubbed elbows’ with celebrities for a time. That, to my friends, made them wonder why the CO$ ‘rewarded’ them with a ‘cool’ post-RPF assignment. I explained that as far as I knew, once someone completes a stint on the RPF, all other CO$ members believe the person to be fully back in ‘good standing’. (Questions 3 below.)



The last question comes because of something said in one of Tory Magoo’s videos – I’m a HUGE fan – and I haven’t seen the topic addressed/explored in my research. Tory said she wasn’t allowed to tell her husband anything about her dissatisfaction with OT7. Is that how it is between married couples who are going up each level at different rates of speed? If ‘husband’ is on OT4 and hates/doubts it, he can’t tell ‘wife’ who’s still an OT3? And ‘husband’ still couldn’t tell her if ‘wife’ was an OT6? (Questions 4 below.)



Questions #1: When and how was the concept of Suppressive Persons presented? Hubbard’s policy about SPs was read, I presume, (and have seen it quoted here on ESMB and other sites) but at what stage of one’s involvement with CO$ would this generally occur? Did it initially seem like a good idea? Did it ‘feel’ true? If you read an SP Declare on a bulletin board, did it reinforce your opinion that the concept of Suppressive Persons was sensible/correct?



Questions #2: When and how was the concept of Disconnection presented? Hubbard’s policy about Disconnection was read, I presume, (and have seen it quoted here on ESMB and other sites) but at what stage of one’s involvement with CO$ would this generally occur? Did it initially seem like a good idea? Did it ‘feel’ true? If you were encouraged to Disconnect from an SP (who was NOT a family member), did it reinforce your opinion that the concept of Disconnection was sensible/correct?



Questions #3: When an individual returns from a stint at the RPF, do other CO$ members welcome the person back without static? How does a person in CO$ find out someone else is sent to the RPF?



Questions #4: Is it correct to say then, that the ‘no-infringing-on-another’s-“case”-development’ policy also extends to married couples? And if a husband does say something negative, the wife will/does write up a KR? Do children write KRs on parents for such ‘transgressions’?

I'm not asking for ANY personal specifics to be provided and caution those who do respond to remember this is a public forum. I'm allowed to ask questions and you are free to exercise your rights NOT to respond without negative consequences. I'm interested in what was generally understood/practiced by members of CO$ -- and have no intent to cause anyone here further pain by revisiting the past.

I've posted this in "General Discussion" but if a Moderator (or anyone else) believes it belongs in another discussion topic, please move it/let me know and I'll request it be moved.

Thanks,
JB.






 

Purple Rain

Crusader
A Few Questions Re: Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, & Confidentiality


Within the many reviewed materials, a few issues haven’t been addressed ‘head-on’ and I’m appreciative to any/all who might point me in the right direction to find the information sought or provide it by way of response.


I believe I have a handle on the basic path one travels within CO$ - from Book 1 through OT8, with a wide variety of (very expensive) courses which are available/recommended along the way. What I’m not yet up-to-speed on is when certain information is made known to an individual while on the path, how the information is provided to the individual, and how an individual processes the information when it is initially presented. (Questions 1 & 2 below.)

It depends on your path into the organisation. If you are poor you usually end up on staff servicing others in the hope that auditing crumbs will be cast your way. In this process you are exposed early on to many tapes and references that most general public do not see - particularly in the "Source Briefings" at staff muster. People who go up the training side of the "Bridge" are exposed to more of Hubbard's ideas in more depth than people who opt for processing alone. This mostly occurs gradually from the very basic courses and books on the path determined by the sequence of studying those materials on the course checksheet. However, it must be said that many of Hubbard's "out-there" ideas are available in the so-called basic books. I just don't think many Scientologists actually read them. Also, the Keeping Scientology Working reference is at the front of every course pack and must be restudied each time. It subtly indoctrinates you each time that Hubbard is the authority and Scientology is the only way out.

Also, a few friends watched the Investigative Discovery episode that depicted Nancy Many’s awful experiences, and when we discussed the show earlier today, one question popped up that I answered, but I’m wondering now if I was correct. After the RPF in the parking garage (!), the Manys got out of the Sea Org and later ‘rubbed elbows’ with celebrities for a time. That, to my friends, made them wonder why the CO$ ‘rewarded’ them with a ‘cool’ post-RPF assignment. I explained that as far as I knew, once someone completes a stint on the RPF, all other CO$ members believe the person to be fully back in ‘good standing’. (Questions 3 below.)

In my experience people who had completed the RPF were treated as being in good standing. I'm sure there were exceptions to this, though.

The last question comes because of something said in one of Tory Magoo’s videos – I’m a HUGE fan – and I haven’t seen the topic addressed/explored in my research. Tory said she wasn’t allowed to tell her husband anything about her dissatisfaction with OT7. Is that how it is between married couples who are going up each level at different rates of speed? If ‘husband’ is on OT4 and hates/doubts it, he can’t tell ‘wife’ who’s still an OT3? And ‘husband’ still couldn’t tell her if ‘wife’ was an OT6? (Questions 4 below.)

My former husband and I never discussed anything about the OT levels (he was OT III) or even the clay table processing in Key To Life. One day I noticed an indentation in his back and said "wtf, that looks like a bullet hole" and he was like "in a past life I was shot in the back" but that's about all we ever discussed - even AFTER we left Scientology for the next two decades.

Sometimes he talked about, you know, telling other thetans to go and find a body now I think about it. But that seemed kind of "oh, yeah, of course" to me since I shared those Scientology beliefs.

The only time it went a bit further was, I was having a miscarriage and I was really upset. I was like "isn't there SOMETHING you can do? what's the point of a religion without any power" and he said he would see what he would do so he tried to get "in comm" with the embryo. He told me that the ovary that had not released the fertilised egg was not aware that conception had occurred and was trying to bring on my period, and he thought it had the message now and things would be ok. He also said he got in comm with the embryo and told it that it was very loved by both its parents, and if it could just hang on it had a good life ahead of it. Not surprisingly I still miscarried though.

I never moved up the bridge past ARCXwire or Grade 0. I don't fully remember. I did originate past life clear and that was a huge mistake. I never finished the Clear Certainty Rundown.


Questions #1: When and how was the concept of Suppressive Persons presented? Hubbard’s policy about SPs was read, I presume, (and have seen it quoted here on ESMB and other sites) but at what stage of one’s involvement with CO$ would this generally occur? Did it initially seem like a good idea? Did it ‘feel’ true? If you read an SP Declare on a bulletin board, did it reinforce your opinion that the concept of Suppressive Persons was sensible/correct?

The usual introduction was through the Introduction to Scientology Ethics book. You were also shown different references by the Ethics Officer. You might also have somebody do the "Ups and Downs in Life" course. The initial "PTS handlings" are usually quite gentle and involve a "good roads, good weather" approach. You always do live in fear that a) someone you're connected to will stop you from moving up the bridge or being on staff, and b) that you might have to disconnect from one of your family members if you can't get them to shut up about Scientology - the former being more of a concern than the latter.

Questions #2: When and how was the concept of Disconnection presented? Hubbard’s policy about Disconnection was read, I presume, (and have seen it quoted here on ESMB and other sites) but at what stage of one’s involvement with CO$ would this generally occur? Did it initially seem like a good idea? Did it ‘feel’ true? If you were encouraged to Disconnect from an SP (who was NOT a family member), did it reinforce your opinion that the concept of Disconnection was sensible/correct?

Oh, see above. They usually emphasise that it is very rare that anyone will need to do this, and it is usually not wise to take this approach with family etc. etc. You know the "good cop" references. I guess the "bad cop" references come into play more when somebody has been actually declared. In my day it still required a goldenrod and it wasn't a position one would aim to put the public in because we needed them more than they needed us. It was such a tin-pot org we could never pay the rent.

Questions #3: When an individual returns from a stint at the RPF, do other CO$ members welcome the person back without static? How does a person in CO$ find out someone else is sent to the RPF?

See above. It's fodder for the grapevine when someone is RPF'd. If they've been horrid to you there might be a moment of schadenfreude. You might see them running around in the boiler suit or they are just no longer on post. This usually means they've been transferred, are on mission, or have been sent to the RPF. Sometimes it means they have blown or routed out.

Questions #4: Is it correct to say then, that the ‘no-infringing-on-another’s-“case”-development’ policy also extends to married couples? And if a husband does say something negative, the wife will/does write up a KR? Do children write KRs on parents for such ‘transgressions’?

Yes, everyone is encouraged to KR everyone. If you don't write a KR about something you are an accessory. In practice I think this happens less in Australia because there is a culture that you don't dob on your mates. My ex used to write down everything he could possibly KR in a notebook, and if he got attacked then he would let loose a whole bunch of them on those individuals with exact details of time and place and what was said etc. He did this for self-defence though. It was a horrible way to live. He never KR'd me while we were married nor I him.

I'm not asking for ANY personal specifics to be provided and caution those who do respond to remember this is a public forum. I'm allowed to ask questions and you are free to exercise your rights NOT to respond without negative consequences. I'm interested in what was generally understood/practiced by members of CO$ -- and have no intent to cause anyone here further pain by revisiting the past.

I've posted this in "General Discussion" but if a Moderator (or anyone else) believes it belongs in another discussion topic, please move it/let me know and I'll request it be moved.

Thanks,
JB.





Hi, JB. See my responses above.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Dear PR*,

Wow - and thank you for taking the time to help. :clap:

JB. (*if your nic refers to Prince, you get 100 extra cool points - his music's extraordinary.)

Yes, I loved that song. But I am not at all a cool person having grown up in a cult where "worldly music" was sinful, so I really don't know a lot about music at all. I also loved "When Doves Cry", though. Also you're welcome, JB! Hope it helped.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
There is an actual course Cult about The PTS/SP rundown. Here's some discussion about it from another thread here on ESMB: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?12337-Have-you-done-the-PTS-SP-course/page3

Thanks, S&L. :biggrin:

I had read the thread you kindly posted early-on (just read the entire thread again to make sure I haven't missed a newer posting) and knew of the courses' existence already. My questions are really aimed at initial exposure to the concepts of SPs & Disconnection - how/when they were introduced, what a person's initial thoughts/internal reactions were, etc.

JB.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
Posting from my iPad so please forgive errors...

In relation to question #4
here is one of my favorite videos to illustrate communication between couples (really the lack of communicating). As a never in it shocks me how vague you are required to be with your spouse, of all people, if my hubby and I were spending that kind of money and so damn excited about what we were learning I would expect to be able to share specifics about my wins.. Then again, I'm a wog who was never indoctrinated so I understand why I feel that way and I certainly don't condem others like this couple..I just hope they break free one day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZGi7cBvd5w
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
Posting from my iPad so please forgive errors...

In relation to question #4
here is one of my favorite videos to illustrate communication between couples (really the lack of communicating). As a never in it shocks me how vague you are required to be with your spouse, of all people, if my hubby and I were spending that kind of money and so damn excited about what we were learning I would expect to be able to share specifics about my wins.. Then again, I'm a wog who was never indoctrinated so I understand why I feel that way and I certainly don't condem others like this couple..I just hope they break free one day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZGi7cBvd5w

I watched this video three times and instead of becoming less sensitized to the exchange, it grew more disturbing, somehow.

It was - almost, too easy, to imagine myself behind the camera, listening to someone I cared about --- share her joy, her triumph, the sheer happiness she felt to have achieved something for herself --- that it felt - not wrong or disloyal - to tune out her words, all of them, and to just, feel instead. Just what she felt, just as she let it out, and to feel within myself pride for her.

And then, of course, I realized she had spoken. And the cadence was correct, but the individual words, were off. Close...but then wrong. And then they were great - she wanted me to have what she had, to do what she'd done to have it. And that part, with those words, was perfect - just for a few seconds.

I know there were two people in that bathroom - my eyes said so. And there was love there, too. And happiness. And support. And trust. But there were dead ideas in that space, passed from one to the other and back again, given a second, false, life these dead ideas never earned; because the ideas that deserve death are those without truth or wisdom. The joyous breath that gives the dead ideas their new, unearned life, loses joy from one's breath each time dead ideas pass outward to others, until the joy ends and the reanimated ideas live where joy once called home. Within.

So - yes, thank you, Miss W., for the video and the thought and effort it took for posting it here. It's - memorable for all of the right, and wrong, reasons.

JB.
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
A Few Questions Re: Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, & Confidentiality


Within the many reviewed materials, a few issues haven’t been addressed ‘head-on’ and I’m appreciative to any/all who might point me in the right direction to find the information sought or provide it by way of response.


I believe I have a handle on the basic path one travels within CO$ - from Book 1 through OT8, with a wide variety of (very expensive) courses which are available/recommended along the way. What I’m not yet up-to-speed on is when certain information is made known to an individual while on the path, how the information is provided to the individual, and how an individual processes the information when it is initially presented. (Questions 1 & 2 below.)



Also, a few friends watched the Investigative Discovery episode that depicted Nancy Many’s awful experiences, and when we discussed the show earlier today, one question popped up that I answered, but I’m wondering now if I was correct. After the RPF in the parking garage (!), the Manys got out of the Sea Org and later ‘rubbed elbows’ with celebrities for a time. That, to my friends, made them wonder why the CO$ ‘rewarded’ them with a ‘cool’ post-RPF assignment. I explained that as far as I knew, once someone completes a stint on the RPF, all other CO$ members believe the person to be fully back in ‘good standing’. (Questions 3 below.)



The last question comes because of something said in one of Tory Magoo’s videos – I’m a HUGE fan – and I haven’t seen the topic addressed/explored in my research. Tory said she wasn’t allowed to tell her husband anything about her dissatisfaction with OT7. Is that how it is between married couples who are going up each level at different rates of speed? If ‘husband’ is on OT4 and hates/doubts it, he can’t tell ‘wife’ who’s still an OT3? And ‘husband’ still couldn’t tell her if ‘wife’ was an OT6? (Questions 4 below.)



Questions #1: When and how was the concept of Suppressive Persons presented? Hubbard’s policy about SPs was read, I presume, (and have seen it quoted here on ESMB and other sites) but at what stage of one’s involvement with CO$ would this generally occur? Did it initially seem like a good idea? Did it ‘feel’ true? If you read an SP Declare on a bulletin board, did it reinforce your opinion that the concept of Suppressive Persons was sensible/correct?



Questions #2: When and how was the concept of Disconnection presented? Hubbard’s policy about Disconnection was read, I presume, (and have seen it quoted here on ESMB and other sites) but at what stage of one’s involvement with CO$ would this generally occur? Did it initially seem like a good idea? Did it ‘feel’ true? If you were encouraged to Disconnect from an SP (who was NOT a family member), did it reinforce your opinion that the concept of Disconnection was sensible/correct?



Questions #3: When an individual returns from a stint at the RPF, do other CO$ members welcome the person back without static? How does a person in CO$ find out someone else is sent to the RPF?



Questions #4: Is it correct to say then, that the ‘no-infringing-on-another’s-“case”-development’ policy also extends to married couples? And if a husband does say something negative, the wife will/does write up a KR? Do children write KRs on parents for such ‘transgressions’?

I'm not asking for ANY personal specifics to be provided and caution those who do respond to remember this is a public forum. I'm allowed to ask questions and you are free to exercise your rights NOT to respond without negative consequences. I'm interested in what was generally understood/practiced by members of CO$ -- and have no intent to cause anyone here further pain by revisiting the past.

I've posted this in "General Discussion" but if a Moderator (or anyone else) believes it belongs in another discussion topic, please move it/let me know and I'll request it be moved.

Thanks,
JB.







The first time I was expelled, it was alleged that I'd discussed my decision to leave with my husband- and that is a "high crime", to tell another Scn'ist you want to leave. (It is one of many many policies I absolutely hate and disagree with.) So that was in my declare.

Family members do sometimes inform on each other in CofS. Friends, too.

Disconnection- thing is, there are references where Hubbard says you should try to get ALONG with family who are "antagonistic". When I was an apologist and still in CofS, I used to point those out. But what the cult does is another thing entirely. They constantly break up families and friendships. And, in fact, most damning and telling is the fact that ANYONE who is expelled from CofS is automatically "declared" "suppressive". Per policy, members cannot be "connected to" an SP.

The thing about disconnection and members is that the cult gets members to inform on themselves, in a way, and to police themselves and they kind of make the person think that he or she decided to disconnect out of his or her OWN decision. Ever see Invasion of the Body Snatchers where a regular person would show up and the pod people would do this weird howl? It's a bit like that, in a way. Ok, a bit of hyperbole, but it reminds me of it just the same.
The way it works is people in it are taught that the cult knows best. Hubbard knew best, Miscavige does, the local EO or MAA knows best, the policies are always right. And the policies are quite definite about not being connected to anyone who's been found to be suppressive. And since the cult is always right, then if they say somebody's an SP, then most members go along with it. So once they learn that a person's declared, they will decide that they don't want anything to do with them. Of course they would get in trouble if they associated with the person, but they generally will not even get to that point. They'll just cut the other person off.

There are exceptions. I have known a number of people who talked to whomever they wanted. But they were taking risks and they were not the majority, either.
 

MissWog

Silver Meritorious Patron
It just makes me sad.. I would want to come home and share what the secrets were and hopefully learn more and even gain more wins from hearing my partners point of view.
just shows the cycle of control that CO$ has on the believers.. No wins without paying the church directly for them I suppose :(
 

Claire Swazey

Spokeshole, fence sitter
There's also a Scn belief that says that a person who is not on a certain level is not ready to hear about it yet and that by telling the person about it, you would be fucking up their eligibility.

To me, that's a different issue (though definitely relevant) than not being able to tell your spouse about your doubts.

I actually get the confidentiality thing. It's an old idea that is found in some mystical traditions. My observations have shown me that people who do hear about Clear and OT stuff beyond whatever their case level is aren't harmed by it, and that it's not a necessary stricture. It also appears to be used as a control mechanism. But be that as it may, I don't see confidentiality as a big whoop, and I don't mind if others believe in it. I think they're wasting their time, is all.

But the thing about not being able to tell someone else about your doubts or decision to leave- I have a huge huge king size problem with that.
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
The first time I was expelled, it was alleged that I'd discussed my decision to leave with my husband- and that is a "high crime", to tell another Scn'ist you want to leave. (It is one of many many policies I absolutely hate and disagree with.) So that was in my declare.

Family members do sometimes inform on each other in CofS. Friends, too.

Disconnection- thing is, there are references where Hubbard says you should try to get ALONG with family who are "antagonistic". When I was an apologist and still in CofS, I used to point those out. But what the cult does is another thing entirely. They constantly break up families and friendships. And, in fact, most damning and telling is the fact that ANYONE who is expelled from CofS is automatically "declared" "suppressive". Per policy, members cannot be "connected to" an SP.

The thing about disconnection and members is that the cult gets members to inform on themselves, in a way, and to police themselves and they kind of make the person think that he or she decided to disconnect out of his or her OWN decision. Ever see Invasion of the Body Snatchers where a regular person would show up and the pod people would do this weird howl? It's a bit like that, in a way. Ok, a bit of hyperbole, but it reminds me of it just the same.
The way it works is people in it are taught that the cult knows best. Hubbard knew best, Miscavige does, the local EO or MAA knows best, the policies are always right. And the policies are quite definite about not being connected to anyone who's been found to be suppressive. And since the cult is always right, then if they say somebody's an SP, then most members go along with it. So once they learn that a person's declared, they will decide that they don't want anything to do with them. Of course they would get in trouble if they associated with the person, but they generally will not even get to that point. They'll just cut the other person off.

There are exceptions. I have known a number of people who talked to whomever they wanted. But they were taking risks and they were not the majority, either.

Well-written, as ever, Claire. :clap: Thanks!

JB
 

JBWriter

Happy Sapien
There's also a Scn belief that says that a person who is not on a certain level is not ready to hear about it yet and that by telling the person about it, you would be fucking up their eligibility.

To me, that's a different issue (though definitely relevant) than not being able to tell your spouse about your doubts.

I actually get the confidentiality thing. It's an old idea that is found in some mystical traditions. My observations have shown me that people who do hear about Clear and OT stuff beyond whatever their case level is aren't harmed by it, and that it's not a necessary stricture. It also appears to be used as a control mechanism. But be that as it may, I don't see confidentiality as a big whoop, and I don't mind if others believe in it. I think they're wasting their time, is all.

But the thing about not being able to tell someone else about your doubts or decision to leave- I have a huge huge king size problem with that.

Thank you, Claire. :hattip:

Agree all people should enjoy the express themselves w/out limits.:yes:

JB.
 

Petey C

Silver Meritorious Patron
A Few Questions Re:Suppressive Persons, Disconnection, RPF, & Confidentiality


Questions #3: When an individual returns from a stint at the RPF, do other CO$ members welcome the person back without static? How does a person in CO$ find out someone else is sent to the RPF?

First, a caveat. The RPF is only for the SO and "other CO$ members" may not even know that an SO member was ever in the RPF. Many SO members traditionally do not have much to do with the Scn public as they are squirreled away in CLOs or at Int where the public never go. However, SO members are also the staff who run advanced orgs and the CCs, and increasingly these days you'll find them at ordinary orgs as "garrison" missionaires -- which really only means that they're more or less based there for various reasons.

Turning to your question, the answer is (as usual) yes and no. Having been RPF'd twice, albeit for short stints (three months each, about three months apart), I can say that once I was out of the first RPF trip I was thoroughly accepted back by my peers. I was RPF'd from a senior management position and then, once reprieved, went back into a less senior but nevertheless important position heading up a new unit in a different area. But my first RPF assignment was for what was then considered a relatively minor offence and nothing to do with my post, which I was doing well in. Back in the day (early 80s) my crime was considered a technical crime rather than a serious, stat-crashing, counter-intention, counter-productive thing. (It was sleeping with someone I wasn't married to, even though we were both single and the "offence" took place in another country. But that's a different story.)

But I knew people who were RPF'd for a major crime -- such as out-tech, or embezzlement, or stat crashing, or deliberate destructiveness, or Rock Slamming, or causing a major PR flap -- who were never truly welcomed back in their previous posts or even in the SO. Some categories of RPFable offences caused the person thereafter to be viewed with suspicion and their return to the fold was always conditional. This was true even though the person might have been wrongly accused, wrongly comm ev'd, perfectly innocent or plain unlucky. Though SO members and Scientologists purportedly deplore "group think", in fact to be a true member of the group means that one has to buy in to group think and play follow the leader. Thus someone RPF'd of a "major crime" carried a taint about them for months or years.

The second time I was RPF'd it was for major crimes: stat crashing (I was supposedly the Who of ANZO), enturbulation of staff across several continents, embezzlement and neglect of fiduciary duties (!), conspiracy to take down current management, etc etc etc. Two foolscap pages of single spaced crimes and high crimes. I stuck it out for three months and when the opportunity presented itself, I left. But the attitude of my fellow SO members at the time was markedly different from when I was RPF'd the first time. The first time it was more like "you poor idiot" while the second time, it was more like "whoa, this is a major SP here". The accusations stick, no matter what is written about the purpose of a comm ev.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Just as a side note to the married couple discussion aspect;

Nearly all scientologists learn early on what is safe, acceptable sharing and what is not. Sharing ideas about dissent is neither safe nor acceptable amongst scientologists. I rue the numerous times I "successfully handled" my wife's upsets with the CofS over the many years of our entanglement. If I'd been less successful at it, we probably would have been out years earlier.

In any event, the day we finally decided to have a full, no-holds-barred conversation about our true feelings about it all is the day we left scientology forever. It was one of the best conversations we've ever had! :)
 

Gib

Crusader
Just as a side note to the married couple discussion aspect;

Nearly all scientologists learn early on what is safe, acceptable sharing and what is not. Sharing ideas about dissent is neither safe nor acceptable amongst scientologists. I rue the numerous times I "successfully handled" my wife's upsets with the CofS over the many years of our entanglement. If I'd been less successful at it, we probably would have been out years earlier.

In any event, the day we finally decided to have a full, no-holds-barred conversation about our true feelings about it all is the day we left scientology forever. It was one of the best conversations we've ever had! :)

Seeking advice. May I ask for more details on how that came about.
 
Just as a side note to the married couple discussion aspect;

Nearly all scientologists learn early on what is safe, acceptable sharing and what is not. Sharing ideas about dissent is neither safe nor acceptable amongst scientologists. I rue the numerous times I "successfully handled" my wife's upsets with the CofS over the many years of our entanglement. If I'd been less successful at it, we probably would have been out years earlier.

In any event, the day we finally decided to have a full, no-holds-barred conversation about our true feelings about it all is the day we left scientology forever. It was one of the best conversations we've ever had! :)

Moreover, I'm willing to wager, she was right.


Mark A. Baker :coolwink:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Seeking advice. May I ask for more details on how that came about.
It came about because my friend, Kevin Mackey (Feral) phoned me to discuss what he'd discovered on the internet about the CofS. I'd been quietly browsing some stuff but was still undecided even though I was determined to never return to Flag until something REALLY changed.

I remember saying to Kevin at the time, "Well, you can't believe everything you read on the internet". (lol) I knew how I felt about it all and had read some ARS and OCMB and watched a Mark Bunker video in trying to understand the Anon phenomena. Kevin was the first person to mention ESMB to me.

My wife (who posts here as jenni-with-an-eye) knew exactly how she felt about the CofS and was probably already done with it but we knew not to make "trouble" for each other by voicing our personal considerations to each other. (The thing which ultimately decided my wife some time later was Lisa McPherson, she cried about that horror at first and then she got as angry as I've ever seen her.)

My wife asked me what Kevin wanted and I said, "He's discovered the anti-scientology stuff on the internet." She asked about it and thence began the conversation about our true feelings regarding the CofS and its activities.

On the 5th August, 2008, I decided to burn my Bridge and registered here on ESMB. The rest is a rather amusing roller-coaster ride (mostly highs) which is partially documented here on ESMB. My wife joined ESMB some months later after OSA Declared her for posting on the internet, a thing she'd never done until the Declare. LOL :dieslaughing:

My wife is my favourite person in the whole world. I already had plenty of good reasons to love her but I love her more today than at any time in the past. She is AWESOME! :)
 
Last edited:

Ogsonofgroo

Crusader
The most obvious reason for the confidentially things is that the whole system is set up to extract money; you don't want people giving away the chickens when you're selling eggs sortta thingy. Just a thought.
 
Top