The Current State of Scientology

[Sheila Lindsay Day]

I think that you guys are overlooking an important part of the situation, that the Church of Scientology is also a community of people. I see the offshoot "squirrel" groups, and even this chatroom to be a part of the community of the protest movement of Scientologists. Maybe the protest wing will become the main church. Also we might be in the process of redefining all of Scientology; the theologian Karl Barth said that each generation will have to write its own Church Dogmatics.

(I hope that no one was particularly offended by what I just wrote. I wasn't implying that all of you are still Scientologists; only that we are unified by our protest to Scientology.)

 

[Karakorum]

Rude. Just because you write something stupid off the top of your head that makes no sense is no reason to get nasty when you get called out on it.

That was tongue-in-cheek and I used the emoticon to stress that.

General specific is a cartoon character, reference was aimed to be neither serious, nor nasty nor rude:

Oh and for the record, I do not necessarily "dislike all religions". I'm cool with religions that do not manipulate, exploit or otherwise abuse their members. Which does not mean I necessarily believe everything they say is true (ie: I don't believe in the power of christian prayer).

And there you are, right back to making up definitions for things and redefining them however you need to try to force what you said to sound rational.

Well, that is exactly why I wrote: "If we define "cult" as a spiritual movement that is manipulates and exploits its members(...)"


As you provided a different, more exhaustive definitio, we can decide to proceed with that definition. I'll see if it can be applied to the United Methodist Church. I'll sum up the total at the end:

The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader, and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

Yes - deceased leader Jesus Christ. +1

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

Punished - no. Discouraged - yes. +1

Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, or debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

According to this UMC link, speakign in tongues is acceptable, though not necessary. I know of no other such practices in the UMC. I would agree that these instances of speaking "in tongues" should not be considered to be "used in excess" within the UMC. +0

The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (e.g., members must get permission to date, change jobs, or marry—or leaders prescribe what to wear, where to live, whether to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

We can probably argue for years on what is "great detail". Certainly the UMC wants to regulate the martial and sexual life of its members.
I understand that there are now factions within the UMC trying to push their respective views to be church law.
So I'll count this as +0.5

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and its members (e.g., the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

Yes - deceased leader Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the only gate to salvation. +1

The group has a polarized, us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders, or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

It is certainly like that in China, Russia and AFAIK all muslim countries.
It was like that for methodists in early modern England, but now it is quite mainstream in christian countries.

So I guess my conclusion is - yes, but ony in some places (admittedly not the nicest places at that). +0.5

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (e.g., lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

I wouldn't have the tools to quantify that, but I think we can agree that this is not likely the case for the UMC. +0

The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt in order to influence and control members. Often this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

All christian denominations do this to some extent, through the notions of sin, original sin, fall from grace, sinful thoughts, being given grace by God even if we do not deserve it. That last part is certainly a core UMC belief.
+1

Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

For the most part, does not apply to UMC. Unless maybe its with some incredibly hostile or destructive person. But even that would be rare for almost any chrsitian church.
+0

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

Oh yes. UMC sends out missionaries and practices evangelisation etc. +1

The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave—or even consider leaving—the group.

None of us has the tools to quantify this, but in my assessment true believers of any christian denomination believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation, hence leaving christianity is a threat to their souls. +1

Sum total is: 7/11. So would that make them a "cult" or a "semi-cult"? I would argue taht this is a church that has some cult-characteristics, but is for the most part benign.

Which is not to say that I consider their tech to work. Sorry to any Methodists reading this.

 

[strativarius]

I think that you guys are overlooking an important part of the situation, that the Church of Scientology is also a community of people. I see the offshoot "squirrel" groups, and even this chatroom to be a part of the community of the protest movement of Scientologists. Maybe the protest wing will become the main church. Also we might be in the process of redefining all of Scientology; the theologian Karl Barth said that each generation will have to write its own Church Dogmatics.

Are you seriously suggesting that the members of this message board would want to redefine scientology and see it continue? That's simply absurd I'm afraid, there's no other word to describe it.

 

[Karakorum]

Yes, Karakorum has the interesting character combining ignorance and absolute certainty. He "heard something or believed something or thought something and is absolutely certain he is absolutely correct. Birdy does something like that as well. It is nigh impossible to have any reasonable discussion with someone like that. Belief is like that.

I believe you can easily have a reasonable discussion with me:

I can post my arguments, you can post yours. We can agree to the definitions of terms that we use. We can agree to disagree on some issues. I am entirely willing to change my mind on a given issue if I am presented with conclusive evidence, or if I find the argumentation compelling.
You will be very hard pressed to find me make personal insults, dead agent someone, debase anyone because of their ethnicity, race, age etc.

To be fair: I can be ironic, use parody or make fun of certain beliefs, institutions or statements that I consider particularly absurd or malicious (see my posts in the artwork/humor thread). But I do not think humor alone prevents a reasonable discussion by any streach of the word.


Either way: If you think I'm ignorant about any facts, please feel free to provide me with the evidence. I'd be happy to discuss these.
Calling someone 'ignorant' and not pointing to any specific instance of me being in error - that's an ad hominem attack on your part.

Are you seriously suggesting that the members of this message board would want to redefine scientology and see it continue? That's simply absurd I'm afraid, there's no other word to describe it.

I don't want to see scientology to continue as it is.

If someone reformed it so that it becomes a benign UFO cult that is no more detrimental to its memebers than say the UMC, I would be fine with that.

 

[Sheila Lindsay Day]

Are you seriously suggesting that the members of this message board would want to redefine scientology and see it continue? That's simply absurd I'm afraid, there's no other word to describe it.[/QU

Are you seriously suggesting that the members of this message board would want to redefine scientology and see it continue? That's simply absurd I'm afraid, there's no other word to describe it.

That's not what I was trying to say Stratty. I am saying that we still are something of a community with a certain purpose. We might be creating the exact opposite of Scientology!

 

[JustSheila]

That was tongue-in-cheek and I used the emoticon to stress that.

I knew people like that. They assume that as long as they say, "I was just joking," it's a free license to insult anyone with any nasty thing they can think to say. Kind of an "I can do anything I want to anyone as long as I say I'm sorry afterward" attitude. Nope. Don't even think you can play me or anyone else on the board like that. It's clear to me where you're coming from.

the rest... tl;dr

 

[strativarius]

That's not what I was trying to say Stratty. I am saying that we still are something of a community with a certain purpose. We might be creating the exact opposite of Scientology!

Yes, the members here do seem to have a certain purpose, and from what I've learned from being here it is to see estranged members of families be reunited, that scientology's tax exemption be rescinded, that people who have been defrauded by the 'church' should have their monies repaid in full and possibly that the whole evil cult be eliminated from the face of the earth once and for all.

 

[Karakorum]

I knew people like that. They assume that as long as they say, "I was just joking," it's a free license to insult anyone with any nasty thing they can think to say. Kind of an "I can do anything I want to anyone as long as I say I'm sorry afterward" attitude. Nope. Don't even think you can play me or anyone else on the board like that. It's clear to me where you're coming from.

the rest... tl;dr

Do you honestly consider the reference to general specific to be an insult? In this case, I am sincerely sorry, please accept my apologies for that.

It was in no way my intention to insult or debase you. To me general specific is an entirely innocent children's cartoon character. The reference was not supposed to contain any more vitriol than "cpt.Obvious" etc.

Going back to the UMC, why (and if) would you consider it to be a church and not a cult? Do you consider there is a scale of "how cultish" a specific church is? Or is this an "either-or" thing?

 

[JustSheila]

Yes, the members here do seem to have a certain purpose, and from what I've learned from being here it is to see estranged members of families be reunited, that scientology's tax exemption be rescinded, that people who have been defrauded by the 'church' should have their money's repaid in full and possibly that the whole evil cult be eliminated from the face of the earth once and for all.

and some of us are on here to chat about cool birds and loving animals and stuff like that, too. Normal stuff.

 

[JustSheila]

Do you honestly consider the reference to general specific to be an insult? In this case, I am sincerely sorry, please accept my apologies for that.

It was in no way my intention to insult or debase you. To me general specific is an entirely innocent children's cartoon character. The reference was not supposed to contain any more vitriol than "cpt.Obvious" etc.

Going back to the UMC, why (and if) would you consider it to be a church and not a cult? Do you consider there is a scale of "how cultish" a specific church is? Or is this an "either-or" thing?

Thanks.

To answer your second question, I already answered it. READ MY PRIOR POST. I really don't enjoy talking to you. It goes on and on with you requiring endless explanations and never quite understanding so asking more and more. Frustrating. Long, long posts over nothing.

THINK. Read my prior post and answer that question for yourself if it's that important to you.

 

[Sheila Lindsay Day]

Yes, the members here do seem to have a certain purpose, and from what I've learned from being here it is to see estranged members of families be reunited, that scientology's tax exemption be rescinded, that people who have been defrauded by the 'church' should have their monies repaid in full and possibly that the whole evil cult be eliminated from the face of the earth once and for all.

Yes we are protesting the abuses of Scientology! And maybe we are starting to create something better!

 

[JustSheila]

Yes we are protesting the abuses of Scientology! And maybe we are starting to create something better!

"We" don't have any spokespeople that speak for "us" as a group, SheilaLindsayDay, "we" are not a "group," we are a forum of individuals. Please do not speak for "us." Each of us speaks for ourselves.

The forum's purpose has already been defined in the "Welcome" section and that is all there is to it. Your opinion of what should be everyone's purpose is fine, but it is still just your personal opinion. If you do not think the forum is on purpose enough, you can always start your own. Lots of people have and some of them have been successful.

 

[Clay Pigeon]

Yes, the members here do seem to have a certain purpose, and from what I've learned from being here it is to see estranged members of families be reunited, that scientology's tax exemption be rescinded, that people who have been defrauded by the 'church' should have their monies repaid in full and possibly that the whole evil cult be eliminated from the face of the earth once and for all.

Like it or not Stratsie, dianetics is here to stay...


And if you go and take an honest look at atheist, materialist, behaviourist psychiatry with it's pre frontal lobotomy, trans orbital leucotomy, thorazine, stellarzine, haldol electroshock horrors you should be glad it is here to stay

 

[Karakorum]

Going back to the UMC, why (and if) would you consider it to be a church and not a cult? Do you consider there is a scale of "how cultish" a specific church is? Or is this an "either-or" thing?

To answer your second question, I already answered it. READ MY PRIOR POST.

You mean this post?
You have quoted the definition from the http://cultresearch.org, but you have not stated if you consider the UMC a cult or not (not to mention saying why). As the definition you used has many points, it would suggest there is a scale to "cultishness" from 0% to 100%. Would you agree with that?

I really don't enjoy talking to you.

That is odd. Then why do you quote my posts and engage in debates with me?

THINK. Read my prior post and answer that question for yourself if it's that important to you.

This is exactly what I did in this post.
I thought and concluded that christian churches (the UMC as an example) believe in tech that does not work. I've also concluded in the next post that UMC exhibits some, but not all traits of a cult (based on the definition you provided).

You quoted it suggesting that I was wrong. Now you are telling me to go back and again do the same thing you considered wrong. What is your point?

 

[JustSheila]

Yes, Karakorum has the interesting character combining ignorance and absolute certainty. He "heard something or believed something or thought something and is absolutely certain he is absolutely correct. Birdy does something like that as well. It is nigh impossible to have any reasonable discussion with someone like that. Belief is like that.

Yes.

 

[Sheila Lindsay Day]

"We" don't have any spokespeople that speak for "us" as a group, SheilaLindsayDay, "we" are not a "group," we are a forum of individuals. Please do not speak for "us." Each of us speaks for ourselves.

The forum's purpose has already been defined in the "Welcome" section and that is all there is to it. Your opinion of what should be everyone's purpose is fine, but it is still just your personal opinion. If you do not think the forum is on purpose enough, you can always start your own. Lots of people have and some of them have been successful.

Okay, but there seems to be many common threads in this forum; many of its members do seem to basically agree, to "see eye to eye" on quite a few topics, so would I be mistaken to say that this forum might be described as one that would vote "en bloc" on some things? (not everything of course.)

 

[JustSheila]

Okay, but there seems to be many common threads in this forum; many of its members do seem to basically agree, to "see eye to eye" on quite a few topics, so would I be mistaken to say that this forum might be described as one that votes "en bloc" on some things? (not everything of course.)

Thanks. Honestly, no, you wouldn't be correct. There are always voices that disagree or see things differently, even if the majority agrees. It might be annoying, but they are members and have a right to state their opinions as long as they are polite and not using the Board to try to sell something. It is an EX Scientology Board, though, so we have that in common in some way, but not all members are exes, either.

This Board is unique in that way. The majority opinion has changed a lot over the years and may or may not continue to change. Some of us have protested in the past and aside from stating what we do on here, are pretty much done with that, but some still do. Some are here for friendships or good conversations with others who have experienced similar. The Board itself is a phenomenal tool for reading stories and taking apart every concept of Scientology from just about every viewpoint... at one time it had about 5,000 members. Maybe a lot more, but I wasn't here the whole time.

There are many, many things covered on here that aren't covered elsewhere since so many exes have contributed.

Beyond the subject of Scientology and protesting its abuses, what I personally get from this Board is the conversations and friendships. There's some very smart people on here and a wealth of different education and every now and then a member jumps in who is an expert, but even if they don't, folks here have a way of getting people to look at things differently. It's an art in its way.

I'm sorry if I came on too short and strong with you, but Mr. K had me annoyed. Have a good day, Sheila.

 

[Bill]

Yes we are protesting the abuses of Scientology! And maybe we are starting to create something better!

I don't think so.

What I mean is there is no good foundation (in Scientology) from which to build "something better". But I'd posit that there already is something better. Undoubtedly a lot of something betters. A lot of people have been creating something betters for hundreds of years -- and the progress hasn't stopped.

Scientology was a dead end because its foundation was false.

 

[Sheila Lindsay Day]

I don't think so.

What I mean is there is no good foundation (in Scientology) from which to build "something better". But I'd posit that there already is something better. Undoubtedly a lot of something betters. A lot of people have been creating something betters for hundreds of years -- and the progress hasn't stopped.

Scientology was a dead end because its foundation was false.

Since there are a lot of ex-Scientologists in the world now, I think that it can be called a movement; I am wondering what will happen with it.

 

[Bill]

Since there are a lot of ex-Scientologists in the world now, I think that it can be called a movement; I am wondering what will happen with it.

That may be so, but I really doubt there is much coherence. Almost all ex-Scientologists hate the Church of Scientology. That's common. Probably most ex-Scientologists have no use for Hubbard's "tech". But that's not much for a "movement".

Let me explain. There is little agreement on how important being anti-Scientology is. Most don't really care and have relegated Scientology to the past -- best forgotten.

But as for "something better", few (I believe) have any interest in "improving" Scientology. For almost all, it's simply not worth it. If there were any noticeable results, that might be different, but with no reliable or significant results, it's a dead-end. A proven dead-end.

I don't see enough agreement to call it a "movement".