Why some Scientologists continue with Scientology

[Bill]

Sorry

People have been known to spend years in psychotherapy just to "feel better".

It's not unproven for those who had the experiences. Not for those who did well with psychotherapy, not for those who did well from prayer, meditation, and not for those who had auditing that they felt helped them.

Sorry, I'm not being clear. I don't argue that Scientology may help some people. That is actually my experience.

I'm arguing about the claim that Scientology helps everyone no matter who, no matter what their problems, it "works 100%" as Scientologists claim.

It doesn't. It hasn't. It never will.

That is why I object to Scientological statements like: people can "use [Scientology] to benefit themselves and others".

Such statements give a false picture of what Scientology can do and these lies are used to sell Scientology. It's part of the fraud, and I strenuously object to that fraud.

 

[Gadfly]

Sorry, I'm not being clear. I don't argue that Scientology may help some people. That is actually my experience.

I'm arguing about the claim that Scientology helps everyone no matter who, no matter what their problems, it "works 100%" as Scientologists claim.

It doesn't. It hasn't. It never will.

That is why I object to Scientological statements like: people can "use [Scientology] to benefit themselves and others".

Such statements give a false picture of what Scientology can do and these lies are used to sell Scientology. It's part of the fraud, and I strenuously object to that fraud.

I live in the Bible Belt. In a store, at the gas station, standing in line at Walmart, I often hear these sort of comments:

"If you take Jesus Christ into your heart, all your problems will be solved".

"The Lord God can and will help any person who seeks with an open heart".

"No problem is too big to lay at the feet of Jesus Christ, YOUR Lord and Savior".

"There is no person that God will not help if asked sincerely"

And, on and on. It is the same thing! You can't legislate "belief". I think the above is nonsense, at least as these Baptists assert, and in a sense it IS also "fraud".

And, I agree. It is a major aspect of BS in Hubbard's writings of KSW and KSW-type nonsense, that Scientology "can and will help everybody and anybody if exactly applied standardly". It is a basic "belief" - it is held onto with FAITH (as in any other religion). Of course, it isn't presented that way in Scientology at all, this necessary aspect of "faith", but in the end there are MANY things that are held onto WITH FAITH by any devoted adherent of Scientology.

Faith can be defined as "belief in the unseen, or in the as yet not experienced". Scientology members like to delude themselves with the notion that his or her ideas are "based on Rons' exact science", but for the most part, ALL concepts such as "OT", "a cleared planet", "the Bridge to Total Freedom", "Scientology offers a WAY OUT of the eternal trap", and so forth, are beliefs held with FAITH. They have never been observed or experienced, and at best, ONLY exist as some vague HOPE. Of course, "hope" has never been a reliable barometer of "truth". But, this is true for almost ANY religion, where FAITH is an integral aspect of the psychology of "conviction" and "certainty". Really, in this regard, as far as being based on FAITH, Scientology is VERY MUCH a "religion" (that's not a good thing).

But, it is a free country here in the US, and people really do need to learn how to stay away from STUPID! With the educational standards continuing to decline in the USA, as they have been for many years, it is no wonder that so many are unable to detect and stay away from ridiculous beliefs and practices. But also, while this has never been true for me, for many people, ones attachment to some religion or movement often has more to do with a desire for "community" and "agreement" than with any "search for TRUTH". And also, yes, the recruitment aspect of Scientology is slick, severe, brutal, Tone 40, deceptive, and "effective" on some people. The "spread the word" TEK is not minor - and it often WORKS! Once in, the PRESSURE to STAY IN and to KEEP CONTRIBUTING is at a hysterical insane level of constant demand. Yes, all based on LRH's carefully and exactly written policies.

A person's involvement with some group has MANY variables, variables that differ for each person in both quantity and quality.

The Internet will continue to expand in its ability to expose so many of the disreputable aspects of Hubbard, his subject and his Church of Scientology. It will function as a "warning label" does on a pack of cigarettes. But, just as a person can be entirely stupid and choose to smoke regardless, so can any person ignore the warnings and walk into any Church of Scientology. There is such a thing as "Karma", and Scientology might exist to give certain bozos the smack upside the head that he or she truly needs (and possibly deserves)!

++++++++

 

[Bill]

Agreed

I live in the Bible Belt. In a store, at the gas station, standing in line at Walmart, I often hear these sort of comments:

"If you take Jesus Christ into your heart, all your problems will be solved".

"The Lord God can and will help any person who seeks with an open heart".

"No problem is too big to lay at the feet of Jesus Christ, YOUR Lord and Savior".

"There is no person that God will not help if asked sincerely"

And, on and on. It is the same thing! You can't legislate "belief". I think the above is nonsense, at least as these Baptists assert, and in a sense it IS also "fraud".

And, I agree. It is a major aspect of BS in Hubbard's writings of KSW and KSW-type nonsense, that Scientology "can and will help everybody and anybody if exactly applied standardly".

But, it is a free country here in the US, and people really do need to learn how to stay away from STUPID! With the educational standards continuing to decline in the USA, as they have been for many years, it is no wonder that so many are unable to detect and stay away from ridiculous beliefs and practices. But also, while this has never been true for me, for many people, ones attachment to some religion or movement often has more to do with a desire for "community" and "agreement" than with any "search for TRUTH".

A person's involvement with some group has MANY variables, variables that differ for each person in both quantity and quality.

The Internet will continue to expand in its ability to expose so many of the disreputable aspects of Hubbard, his subject and his Church of Scientology. It will function as a "warning label" does on a pack of cigarettes. But, just as a person can be entirely stupid and choose to smoke regardless, so can any person ignore the warnings and walk into any Church of Scientology. There is such a thing as "Karma", and Scientology might exist to give certain bozos the smack upside the head that he or she truly needs (and possibly deserves)!

++++++++

Exactly right. Scientologists have every right to believe and say that Scientology solves every single problem for everyone.

And I will then exercise my right to point out it's just not true.

Everybody can then be happy.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Sorry, I'm not being clear. I don't argue that Scientology may help some people. That is actually my experience.

I'm arguing about the claim that Scientology helps everyone no matter who, no matter what their problems, it "works 100%" as Scientologists claim.

It doesn't. It hasn't. It never will.

That is why I object to Scientological statements like: people can "use [Scientology] to benefit themselves and others".

Such statements give a false picture of what Scientology can do and these lies are used to sell Scientology. It's part of the fraud, and I strenuously object to that fraud.

Then we're on the same page. I do not believe it helps everyone.

My posts were mainly about people chosing their ideology. But again, yes. Even when I was "in", I didn't like the one size fits all idea that everyone 100% of the time is going to go up the bridge, going to need the same things, has the same sort of case (including Incident iI). Now I get where you're coming from and I really have some strong agreement there.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Sweetness and Light said

Are you REALLY getting "Spiritual gain", while ignoring and denying the great harm that the system that you are supporting does to others? ...

What system? Every Scn'ist on this board is ex CofS.

 

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . When it comes to "subjective realities", Hubbard wins: "What is true for you is what you agree to be true and what you observe about yourself subjectively" . . . <snip> . . .

So if I observe myself to be Napolean, then I *really* am Napolean?

 

[Gadfly]

So if I observe myself to be Napolean, then I *really* am Napolean?

Subjective never has and never will have anything to do with "really".

"Really" is based on what people agree on as existing "out there" (objective reality). Subjective is that entirely PERSONAL realm, that is often NOT shared with any other conscious entity.

Of course, the further any person's subjective claims get from observations of others that contradict those claims, the further "nutty" or "insane" that person will appear to be to most other people.

There is a reason why these two words, "subjective" and "objective", exist, and that is because they each delineate very different realms of personal and shared realms of experience.

I experienced myself being VERY HAPPY, nearly ecstatic, when I line-charged many times during Life Repair and Expanded Grades auditing. Was I "really" happy"? Was I "really" ecstatic? There is no PROOF other than I say I was - I was!

And, I don't care if you agree, imagine what I say to be impossible, or try to "logically dipsute my claims". I was there - you weren't. You have NO VALUE or POWER in my subjective reality. That is the way it is for everybody. But, yes, you and others have GREAT value in my objective reality - in the world of commonly shared experiences.

++++++

 

[Infinite]

Subjective never has and never will have anything to do with "really" . . .

In that case, Hubbard's "what's true for you" concept does little more than reinforce delusion.

 

[Gadfly]

In that case, Hubbard's "what's true for you" concept does little more than reinforce delusion.

Well yes and no.

I can give many such examples, but I will give one. Sue loves the Beatles and feels that they are the absolute BEST band of all time. She FEELS that. She emotes heavily whenever she hears "Michelle", or "Yesterday" or "Day Tripper". She KNOWS that they are the best band ever, and nothing can ever change her "reality".

Reginald loves the Rolling Stones and feels that they are the absolute BEST band of all time. He FEELS it. He emotes heavily whenever he hears "Satisfaction", or "Wild Horses" or "Gimme Shelter". He KNOWS that they are the best band ever, and nothing can ever change his "reality".

Aleister loves Led Zeppelin and feels that they are the absolute BEST band of all time. He FEELS it. He emotes heavily whenever he hears "Communication Breakdown", or "Dazed and Confused" or "Stairway to Heaven". He KNOWS that they are the best band ever, and nothing can ever change his "reality".

Whose right? Whose wrong? Which is more "deluded" than the other? For instance, if I said that the "Strawberry Alarm Clock" were the best band ever, some or many might then assert that I WAS delusional! In fact, a great deal of anyone's subjective view has to do with "agreement". Not "truth", but with "agreement". As far as many things go, like the example above, there are NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS, just "different answers", though many people will yell and scream demanding that others agree with his or her own (quite arbitrary) view as if it were anything other than entirely "subjective". People confuse the objective with the subjective all of the time. It is horrendously COMMON. It is the nature of the human mind and emotions.

Those things above involve SUBJECTIVE "realities". Just to let you know, a GREAT deal about what each of us think and feel are entirely of the nature of "subjective".

It is true that what is true for you is whatever you see as "true". Every viewpoint sees it differently. No person is free from the trap of being extremely limited by his or her own very finite viewpoint.

Of course, that doesn't mean that what you or I feel as "true" is true in any objectively verifiable sense.

Bill says that he loves Sue. Can you "prove" it? It is almost entirely subjective. People fall in and out of love all of the time, because something changes inside. The facts of reality generally don't change so much - you just come to see it differently. Viewpoints shift. More subjectivity. What is true for you is . . . .

For instance, I can believe that it is raining outside, and feel all wonderful because I love the rain. That is REAL to me, BUT it gets tricky if it is actually a sunny day!

The worlds of the subjective and objective intermix on many levels. This intermixing differs for every person.

Again, you cannot legislate "subjectivity". You can legislate ACTIONS that cause harm to real people. That is where Scientology (the Church) will eventually lose, and lose big time. When it gets slammed in courts of law, and slammed over and over, for despicable actions based on exact despicable LRH policies, it will truly be the beginning of the end.

Hubbard's statement "what is true for you is what you have observed for yourself" applies to YOU just as much as it does to anyone else. Do you deny that what is true for you is based on your own careful and honest observations? I somehow doubt it.

+++++++++++++++

 

[Infinite]

. . . <snip> . . . Hubbard's statement "what is true for you is what you have observed for yourself" applies to YOU just as much as it does to anyone else. Do you deny that what is true for you is based on your own careful and honest observations? I somehow doubt it

The statement doesn't apply to me at all. I know, for example, that the Earth is not flat and that the Sun does not revolve around the planet. To come to that conclusion, I had to investigate what the science proves rather than rely on my own careful and honest observations. The fact that I prefer Mahler to Beethoven, or cabbage to brussel sprouts, doesn't mean anything to reality. Reality exists independently of anyone's ability to appreciate it.

 

[Panda Termint]

Whose reality?
The truth is what it is - not what you want it to be. (Alan C Walter's sig line)

 

[Infinite]

Ed Zachary.

 

[Sindy]

It's all good. I resist no more.
I have been so, so angry at all the lies and betrayal.
I don't want to be angry anymore.

When I watch this video,
I imagine that this unbelievably beautiful artist
(in every sense of the word) does not have all this
criticism in her universe and I am sick of being a critic.
At least tonight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJlxipQoI30​

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

NewLife,
you are happy with Scientology and I am happy for you.

If you need a car you maybe have a need to go somewhere. Others may be very happy being where they are, or enjoy to walk or fly to other destinations.

What I found wrong with Scientology, amongst other things:

• The implant that The Car is the only true workable way to move around.
  
• The implant that there is a beautiful miraculous destination called "OT-land" where you literally get Super Powers like Superman!
  
• The implant that yo can get to OT-Land only if you buy and drive that particular car.
  
• The implant that you need to make sure everybody buys that car too and have a "Motorized Planet", or they will burn in hell till the end of time.
  
• The implant that those who complain about our air pollution, or that say that OT-land doesn't exist are evil and need to be avoided, disconnected, destroyed, looked up in a mental institution.
  
• The policy that those who try to build their own car or modify in any way their car need to be avoided, disconnected, destroyed.
  
• The fact that the builder of the car, who sold all the promises about OT-Land and Superman-powers, never had Superman powers nor he never reached OT-Land himself, but sold the car and the destination for money nonetheless.
  
• The fact that the car is full of advertisements about how great the builder of the car was, actually lying about his achievements.
  
• The fact that part of the money you pay for the car goes into rewriting history about the builder's life, toward smashing his name into history.
  
• The fact that the builder of the car stole parts of the car from others and didn't give credit to other engineers where credit was due, instead used part of the money received from sales to harass and destroy contributors.
  
• I didn't liked also the fact that most of the people who bought the car in the past put the car aside and now they walk or fly to move around. None of them reached OT-Land. Many even said it was a fraud and asked for money back but all they got back was harassment.
  

Yet, if you are happy with your car and your rides then keep going. You are the only one with a right to decide where you want to go.

Actually, I think the way you worded the above, it is more applicable to the computer analogy. MS-DOS 1 was NOT written by MS, it was ported from a CP/M clone.

MS-Word wasn't written by MS either.

Yet read the MS propaganda and B*** G**** was the hero who changed the world.

In its original incarnation, Word was designed by someone who knew about type-setting and had to use the program himself.

Once I escaped Scn, the first serious Word Processor I used was MS-Word 3, and it still had that overall approach of someone who had to use it. Maybe it took someone two hours to get their first document out, but by the end of the week that time would be down to 15 minutes.

Then the Steves' Vatican threw the Mac at us. "Look, you can go from knowing nothing to getting your first document out in one hour instead of two." A week later, it would still be taking 30 minutes to produce the 10 minute PC version. In fact, once all the 'templates' were setup, an incoming typist only needed 10 minutes' training to be up and running at full speed with the rest of us.

But then MS looked and decided that all was not good. "We must destroy this new MacReligion. The best way is to adopt its practises and make them our own so that we can absorb it," and thus Windows was given unto the world and MS saw that it was good.

But MS was not as Divine as first thought. MS had set one foot inside the MacReligion and brought forth MacWord, but still things were not good.

MS set foot again in the temple of IBM where both partners would work on a new gift to the world called OS/2 Warp which promised to rid the world of MacReligion forever.

Curse MS's sudden but inevitable betrayal of IBM and MS gave to the world Windows 3 just early enough to render Warp dead. And it continued to produce new versions of MacWord, while leaving the PC faithful with DOS-Word.

In an effort to appease the doubters, MS decreed that it would produce WinWord 1. The hard-core faithful had to wait until WinWord 6 emerged which was what WinWord 1 should have been. And thus was created the ultimate operating system (OS) paradigm ever given to the world. With each new release of an OS Level came new Training Packages and all new Processes to replace the ones that you had used before.

In its mighty benevolence MS brought forth Windows 95 and gave it unto the world which meant more Training Packages and entirely new Processes. The hard-core faithful (and the ignorant) stuck it out because all that came from the mighty MS had to be good. They forked over their money and proclaimed that MS was the ultimate and accepted that MacBelievers had been right in the first place. And thus was forged the Cult of the GUI.

But all was not right with the world! The one true MS had economic dominion over the computing world, but there were Suppressive Persons at work. These SPs began passing a Squirrel Operating System among themselves and it was known as Linux.

Linux was offered to the world free of financial commitment and the mighty MS saw this as a major threat to its monopoly but could find no way to thwart the growth of the Protestant Religion of Linux. The givers of Linux set no boundaries and thus the world is populated with hundreds of different versions of Linux.

Even the mighty MS and rebellious Mac used Linux code in creating their new Levels of OS.

Now we have the Bridge to total OS. One side is the mighty MS which goes right up to Win7. On the other side, the MacRebellion goes to a level of OS X.

So just how OS are you?

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Not meaning a diatribe, but attempt to clarify a viewpoint.

Sweetness and Light said

What system? Every Scn'ist on this board is ex CofS.

The "ology" of Scientology.

I'm not so sure that they are all entirely "out", even though they might call themselves Exes and no longer are directly involved or contributing to COS.

They still contribute to and legitimize the movement (cult that does harm people and society) by calling themselves Scientologists.

That's the point I'm making. Some of you are saying so what, why is that a bad thing. If I'm no longer supporting COS I'm not harming anybody.

You can't see (or won't accept) the harm that using and practicing Scientology on people does, to yourself and other people, but others who are free of the mindset can see it. I know your intention is not to harm your self or others. You've been bamboozled into thinking that something harmful is actually something good.

You can't see from this viewpoint, and I get it. That's o.k.

It takes a really long time for some people to become fully un-indoctrinated. Especially if you won't read the facts about the actual history of your group and your Founder, how and why he created your thought control system, and you won't accept those facts as real. Because if you did read and research and learn the truth, you would never ever call yourself a Scientologist again. You would never support or promote that system to other people, or use it yourself. When you get there, you really are an Ex, or a Former Scientologist.

Many of the people who are members here are still stuck in the mindset of a Scientologist, and happy to be so. I understand that.

How many Indys and Free Zoners still believe and promote to the people in their sphere of social influence (whatever it's size, large or small) the shore story that Ron was a really great guy who created a religion to "give" to the world because he wanted to help people? It's just that it went wrong somewhere along the way and there are some problems with the organization of COS now. But if we could just get back to Ron's original tech and intent, what a wonderful world it would be!

Anyone who still thinks that truly is still in denial, has not read the research into Ron's history or read the facts and is ignorant of the truth about the origins and purpose of Scientology "processing". Or they have read it and have dismissed it, as it doesn't fit in with what they want Scientology to be for them personally,"in their Universe". A denial of reality. Magical thinking that it's true if it's true for me.

I think fully out from under the mental influence of the COS is a state of mind that I don't see or hear expressed by "Every Scn'ist on this board". But I do hope that everyone will get there eventually, where they will be really free to look beyond the hype and smoke and mirror tech, the promises of super-human powers and space opera of Scientology and evaluate for themselves it's origins and influences, and the way it operates in subtle and not-so-subtle ways on people's minds, alters and limits thought processes, and limits people's abilities to discern and differentiate reality from magical thinking.

I do understand the distinction between actively supporting COS with a lock-step mindset, or more passively supporting "Scientology" by practicing it more privately as some nebulous, it means to me what it means to me "ology", by cherry-picking the bits and pieces of the scam that you like, feel comfortable with, or that you feel "work" for you. But for those who are proud of self-identifying their "religion" as Scientology, and to operate as an Indy, you are still supporting a dangerous and destructive cult.

You can't totally separate and extract the subject of Scientology from the attitudes, practices, and indoctrinated belief system of the cult called the Church of Scientology. Scientology didn't evolve into something that was dangerous and harmful to people, it started out that way, done so with awareness and intent by it's creator, Ron.

Look, the word "Scientology" has been tainted forever by the crimes, frauds and abuses of the cult of the COS. It's not just me that thinks this way about it. People either cringe or laugh when the word comes up in conversation, sometimes both. I don't know that it's possible to redeem the word "Scientology". It equates with an evil cult in the minds of most people.

A lot of people who have left COS have squirreled the parts they liked into some process or method and called it something else. So long as they are not harming or defrauding anyone by doing so, it's o.k. with me. People do have the right to think what they want, believe what they want, but not to always do what they want. Your right to swing your fist ends just in front of the other guys nose.

I'm sorry, I know my stating this so plainly seems really harsh to many of you who still find something to love about Scientology. I grew up in a small to middle sized town with a booming Mission, having over 200 staff members at one time (180 full-time), before the Mission Holders revolt and RTC take over. Ubiquitous FSMs fished for raw meat, sold Dianetics and recruited for the cult in every high school and college in town for years. A lot of people in my life have been involved with Scientology to greater or lesser degrees. Many with no choice in the matter as they were dragged into it by their parents. All of them are out of COS and most have totally left the beliefs and practices of Scientology as an "ology" behind them, as being actively harmful, flawed or just pain unworkable. NONE of them came out of their cult experience unscathed.

Some of them are now activists for the protection of our community from Scientology and other mind/behavior control cults. Others just want to put it all behind them and forget about it as a bad experience. Some of them are so ashamed of ever having been Scientologists that it's a deep dark secret in their lives that they never currently reveal to people or talk about. A couple are still a bit haunted and traumatized by it (especially those who were Cadet Org children, now grown up).

I know three people personally (all reliable reporters) who have independently told me that Scientology members physically assaulted them and on other occasions attempted to kill them, as a means of frightening them into compliance with the cult's agenda for their lives and controlling them, or when that failed, eradicating them as a threat to the group. Two of these incidents happened in the 70's and 80's, and one happened in the 2000 decade. All three of these people are living and working as professionals in my town, good citizens with good reputations, and I BELIEVE THEM. None of them have anything to do with Scientology any longer and are Exes in the true sense of the word. They have gotten free of the mindset and indoctrination and are flourishing and thriving without it. They have largely recovered from their cult experience.

The cult of Scientology is not reforming or improving itself over time. It's devolving into more and more of an overtly fraudulent and criminal organization that's been more and more infiltrated into our society, via it's front groups. Maybe some of you who have been out for a long time, or who were not very deeply involved don't fully realize how dangerous and destructive the cult of Scientology is. Alanzo said it best when he said that the Scientology that you read about in the books and thought you were joining doesn't exist in reality.

I don't hate Scientologists, either in or out of the cult. I do hate the fraud, crimes and abuses perpetrated by Scientologists in the name of and for the benefit of their group, Scientology. I want law enforcement to put a stop to it, for all of our sakes, even to protect those who are still in the cult from further harm. In order to do that, a whole lot of Exes need to tell their stories to the Feds, and turn whistle-blower and give all the documentation they can about criminal actions. Many brave souls are doing just that. Many good people are working around the world to put an end to the cult and it's abusive practices. Both Nons and Exes and those who still call themselves Scientologists.

Some of them are members here.

To the extent that we can see eye to eye about stopping the abuses and ending forever the criminal behavior of the cult, I have no problem with Indys and Freezoners. I know and like many of you and respect you, up to the point where you begin defending Scientology, which harms people! I just want everybody to wake up and get free of cult indoctrination. It can be done and life can be wonderful afterwards!

I just want you to read all the uncovered documents and testimonies for yourself, because so much important information about Scientology has been hidden, distorted and suppressed over time, for the purpose of manipulating people's perception of Scientology to enable the cult to keep going, get rich and expand.

I know a lot of you who consider yourselves Free Zone or Indy Scientologists are good people and want to be of help to others. I don't mean to hurt or offend you and wish you well as individuals.

People need to learn the truth about Scientology, especially the people on this board who are still in denial about it.

At some point, as an Ex, you have to get over and recover from your cult experience...if you're still defending and supporting Scientology, you're still to an extent, defending and supporting the cult...and at some point, you have to chose between the cult and the real world.

I understand that not everybody is ready to go there yet. It's a gradient, it's a process. It takes time and effort. I am asking you to make the effort to read all the data and think for yourself.

Research "Confusion technique" as it relates to the Alice in Wonderland drill done by all "good" Scientologists. Where did that come from? What is it's purpose and what was the intent of making that a part of your processing? That's a good place to start. Arnie has done a lot of the hard digging for data for you already. All you have to do is LOOK.

Please do so, think about it and then decide for yourself.

"And your ability to know the subject is your ability to look. No more, no less than that. Now, the only thing, actually, that anyone can do for you is to provide you with an example of having looked, and perhaps to furnish you a little road map saying, ‘If you travel up this way there's some scenery.’ Got it? ‘And if you look at this scenery real hard, it won't bite you.’” (15 July 1957, Scientology and Effective Knowledge-LRH)

The truth won't bite you. Go ahead and LOOK.

 

[newlife]

NewLife, thanks for being here and having the kahunas to start this thread.

Now, of course (obviously) you don't need anyone else to tell you that it's okay to study and apply Scientology. That's your prerogative and I respect your forwarding of an argument as to why you would so continue.

Having said that, you apparently do not like things about the official C of S or you wouldn't be posting here.

If you don't mind my asking:

Do you think all the problems are created by David Miscavige or by agents thereof or by members of the C of S or do you see inherent problems with the policies created by Ron?

To help stop the abuses and contribute what you can to exposing the atrocities, would you be willing to expose Ron's lies?

Hello Synthia,

Thanks for your welcome and great that you’re here too.

I read your story on http://leavingscientology.wordpress....synthia-fagen/ by the way.
Well done!

Always good to know who you’re talking with, so you can also read my leaving-church-story on http://www.scientology-cult.com/savior-miscavige-saves-the-day.html and what happened with me after I left the church on http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=22432.

Indeed, I sure do not like things about the official C of S!

About the problems in the Church.
I am convinced that DM plays the most important role in creating and perpetuating the abuses happening in the church.
But for me it is a bit too easy to blame it all on him.
I believe that every single person who uses Scientology has his own responsibility in how he uses it.
One can use Scientology to help others and one can use it to destroy others.
People who blindly trust and follow their leader ar not able to ask themselves the question: Am I using it right or am I using it wrong?

Yes, I see inherent problems with the policies created by Ron.
Some of them are quite extreme and these policies will not work in the hands of robots who ar blindly following their leader.
On the other hand, if the policies are used by a sensible person who takes those things out of it that can be used to improve situations in his life or organization, then they can be valuable.
I believe that people who are able to think for themselves can apply policy constructively, using it when they think it applies to a certain situation.
If policies become holy laws that have to be followed no matter what, then they become destructive.


About exposing Ron’s lies.
First of all it is good to specify what we mean by “Ron’s lies.”
For some it means 3000 lectures, 10 green volumes, 10 red volumes and several other books.
For some it means stories from others that they’ve read on the internet.
And others will say: “What lies?”
In discussing it we should specify what we mean and take one single item at the time.

Second, if we have an item, we should establish if it is really a lie or not.
Usually there will be people saying “this is what happened” and other people saying “no, this is NOT what happened.”

Third, once we have established that something is a lie, is it then at all times really important to expose it?
Let’s say that I have a person in front of me who has had a terrible loss of the death of her daughter, which completely ruined her life. And I give her an auditing session and she experiences a great relief, like a burden has gone from her shoulders and she is able to face life again and be happy.
Should I tell this person, “Look, this session was fine, but to be honest I have to mention you that LRH had actually six women in his life instead of three?”

In general I would say, “Yes, I’m willing to expose Ron’s lies if it serves a good purpose.

I feel not compelled to expose all lies there are in the world.
I grew up as an orthodox Christian, and if I had to expose to my family all the lies that are written in the Bible, boy would I be busy.
Instead, I recognize that there are good things written in the Bible as well, and if people feel better and more stable by believing in Jesus, that’s fine with me.
Sure, in discussing a topic of the Bible I would point out my view, but I see no reason to attack their practices or beliefs, just for reason that the Bible contains lies.

Hope this answers the question.


.
.

 

[Panda Termint]

Research "Confusion technique" as it relates to the Alice in Wonderland drill done by all "good" Scientologists. Where did that come from? What is it's purpose and what was the intent of making that a part of your processing? That's a good place to start. Arnie has done a lot of the hard digging for data for you already. All you have to do is LOOK.

I disagree with Arnie's conclusions regarding use of Alice in scientology's TRs. It's a hell of a stretch. Have you read the actual TRs data and seen how Alice is used? The Kubark materials Arnie refers to simply utilises the title "Alice In Wonderland" to indicate a particular technique of deliberate confusion. The use of Alice in TRs is a completely different thing, IMO.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Scientologists say the most outlandish things as if they were proven and widely acknowledged by "everyone" as true. They aren't.

"psychiatrists do far worse". There is absolutely no proof that this absurd allegation is true. To state this generality so boldly shows that you have never investigated the subject at all. You just bought the church propaganda, hook, line and sinker. You know nothing about the subject.
...

When I was a child, my maternal grandmother was hospitalized. I was not privvy to any data as to what was going on, but in an unprecedented move (for our family), my mother packed up and travelled to Sydney to "sort" the situation.

Some months after that my Grandmother came to visit us for a week or two, and her behavior was very odd. We were supposed to be going out on a picnic, but as soon as she saw father putting the ax (for firewood) in the trunk of the car, she freaked, "S***'s going to try and kill me out in the bush!" So the whole thing got dropped. A couple of hours later, she was sitting around bored and said, "What happened to this picnic we were supposed to be having?" Miraculously (for our dysfunctional family) the car was packed and we were underway in 10 minutes.

There were other oddities to her behavior that I was unable to process and therefore don't necessarily remember at the time.

When I was about 15 I was sent, under the supervision of welfare staff to an institution called Stuart House for two weeks. Stuart House is a charity that provides a completely institutionalized environment for kids that aren't getting a good deal at home, and also observes the interractions with other children to see if the kids themselves are "abnormal" in any way. I liked it there, and if I could have stayed and completed by education there, I think the results would have been very different; but that was not the purpose of the Organization. The report on me received by the School Counsellor indicated that I was "normal" which very seriously pointed the finger at the home environment.
Because of train timetables, I was to stay with my Grandmother for one day, and then catch the train home.

The day that I spent with her was very revealing. We both opened up to each other honestly. She told me about being put into psychiatric care by my Aunt, how they were keeping her in "Deep Sleep Therapy", but she was still awake and could hear everything going on around her. She was subjected to ECT whilst in this conscious state and couldn't communicate to anyone that she was actually conscious!

My Aunt had apparently been trying to get her committed in an effort to seize her Estate. This had been why my mother had gone on the unprecedented trip----to block the actions of Commital and to get my Grandmother out of the hospital.

My Grandmother told me that for the whole time that she was sedated but still conscious she was totally petrified that they would bury her alive. Although I was too young to have any legal clout, I promised her then and there that I would do my utmost to prevent anything like that happening again.

Long after her death (from lung cancer), I learned that my Aunt had apparently been doping her food, but with what I never found out. My Aunt's ex-husband would testify to this even today.

So with that experience/observation, when I got tangled up with Scn, I didn't swallow the anti-psych stuff hook, line and sinker---I swallowed a copy of the Angling Times as well!

Further, given that many doctors have tried to foist me off onto Psychs because they just want to stick CFS in the "too hard" basket, I have come away with some pretty low opinions of some of the psychs I've been compelled to see but, even the most contentious still admitted on paper that my problem was not psychiatric in nature, but biomedical, effectively putting it in the same "too hard" basket.

I have a regular counsellor who is a psychologist, and have a great rapport with her and she, like other people, suggests that I'm looking healthier and happier except that I can't see it! On days like today, all the available energy in my body has been wasted just by the activity of sweating!

I still have reservations about any future referrals to a psych because of the social stigma attached to it, but I have realized that for some people that is the correct answer.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I disagree with Arnie's conclusions regarding use of Alice in scientology's TRs. It's a hell of a stretch. Have you read the actual TRs data and seen how Alice is used? The Kubark materials Arnie refers to simply utilises the title "Alice In Wonderland" to indicate a particular technique of deliberate confusion. The use of Alice in TRs is a completely different thing, IMO.

I agree. If you read any of the "submission material" that I posted, you will note that the only criticism I had of TR 1 was that the HCOB said a book like "Alice in Wonderland", and yet no one was ever allowed to use anything else. "War & Peace" or "Pride and Prejudice" would have done just as well, that was a definite no-no!

 

[RealShellback]

All well and fine if we we just talking about cars and computer software. What Scientology deals with is changing people and creating a different reality by getting people to believe whatever the organisation wants them to believe.

Lots of organisations do this, it's not a problem unless the reality that the people create is harmful to society at large. I would say that the reality that Scientology proposes to create is not good for society. The people who have allowed this organisation to change them have (IMO) diminished themselves and are less capable as a whole than if they had gotten no training at all. Members who achieve a measure of success do so despite Scientology training, not because of it. The only good thing I see coming out of TRs is an almost arrogant sense of self worth. I can't imagine the price is worth it. You could get the same thing by staying in a Holiday Inn Express.

I have a personality.

I LIKE my personality!.....