Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

There is. I looked over a number of your posts (not all of them) which covered a lot of different points.

I could be mistaken but it seems like one of the questions your asking is this: If we assume Scientologists are not all brain-washed cultists who have some degree of independence then what is it in Scientology they find valuable?

I saw some discussion of "workability" which I think answers the question from my perspective. Various principles learned and applied make it easier to play this game we call life. Having been a Scientologist for over three decades I find that is a simple summary.

Best

Hi, Fred.
Good to see you here.
I've been researching E-meters and not getting much positive information about them.
What have your experiences with E-meters been like?



...The question, as it relates to Scientology is whether or not they are delivering on their promises. Whatever the promise happens to be, beyond the hype and the colorful language. Do they deliver on their claims or not?...

Check out the stories here and you tell me.
http://exscientologykids.com/
 
When I was young, when I was thirsty, I drank water from the tap. It was so close to free we'd let it run down the sink just to get a cooler drink. Now, water has been packaged and is sold in bottles next to the sodas.

Somewhere along the way, water was packaged and recast as worth spending hard cash for. Was that an evil con? Could be. It certainly is huge money.

My purpose isn't to justify Scientology by drawing the parallel, just to point out how easily the "con" idea gets thrown around. It becomes a comment on modern marketing more than anything else. Am I being conned when I am told that the Most Interesting Man in the World drinks Dos Equis? Kinda.

If the idea is new to you, I can understand the outrage. But this is the way the world operates, at least the way mass marketing operates. The question, as it relates to Scientology is whether or not they are delivering on their promises. Whatever the promise happens to be, beyond the hype and the colorful language. Do they deliver on their claims or not?

Aquafina costs a buck. But on the label it says "water" and by God Almighty, that's what's in the bottle. I can gripe all day about how they sell me stuff I can get at any drinking fountain, but they haven't lied. The label says exactly what it is. That's the proper basis for deciding "evil con."

It sounds to me that some are disappointed because Scientology isn't as holy as they would have it be. That's a strawman. What does the label say the ingredients are, and what's in the bottle?

LRon claimed his "tech" could do everything from cure disease to give you superpowers. This obviously not true. He just made it up; he was a conman.
 
I couldn't help myself either. They're pretty inane.


Being a skeptic is like being one of the little yellow petals on a dandy-lion, or like a fin on the bottom of a catfish, or maybe "truth or dare"... :rolleyes:


The American Religious Identification Survey numbers on Scientology: (This is from the ARIS study, breakdown of Scientology estimates for the USA, provided on Operation Clambake.)

1990 45,000
2001 55,000
2008 25,000


The sampling error is in the tens of thousands because Scientology is so SMALL you would have to survey about 20 million people to get a reliable figure. In the 50,000 range and falling is a rough approximation.

Good, in the foreseeable future their numbers will dwindle to nothing if present trends continue.
 
Hi, Fred.
Good to see you here.
I've been researching E-meters and not getting much positive information about them.
What have your experiences with E-meters been like?





Check out the stories here and you tell me.
http://exscientologykids.com/

You should really check out that site, marplots, then you might not be so complacent about this dangerous cult.
 
LRon claimed his "tech" could do everything from cure disease to give you superpowers. This obviously not true. He just made it up; he was a conman.

If that's what they claim and what they deliver (or, more properly, don't deliver) then I have to agree -- it's a con. But I'd like to hear what FredCarr has to say about it.

Just to be sure though, you meant "would" instead of "could" in that, right? Like a promise, a guarantee? If it's just "could," I might as well sell you a lottery ticket (or call that a con) because you "could" win millions of dollars. I take it you mean the claim is more like you "will" win millions, instead of the softer, "You could lose 20 pounds!"
 
Last edited:
When I was young, when I was thirsty, I drank water from the tap. It was so close to free we'd let it run down the sink just to get a cooler drink. Now, water has been packaged and is sold in bottles next to the sodas.

Somewhere along the way, water was packaged and recast as worth spending hard cash for. Was that an evil con? Could be. It certainly is huge money.

My purpose isn't to justify Scientology by drawing the parallel, just to point out how easily the "con" idea gets thrown around. It becomes a comment on modern marketing more than anything else.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, did I just read this? Way too funny. Your water wasn't free.

I've been skipping your posts because convoluted thinking isn't easy to follow, but the little soliloquy "when I was a little boy" was worth following for humor.
 
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, did I just read this? Way too funny. Your water wasn't free.

I've been skipping your posts because convoluted thinking isn't easy to follow, but the little soliloquy "when I was a little boy" was worth following for humor.

I wonder why he is going to such lengths to deny that scientology is nothing but a con. It's obvious to anyone who has done a little research into the cult.
 
If that's what they claim and what they deliver (or, more properly, don't deliver) then I have to agree -- it's a con. But I'd like to hear what FredCarr has to say about it.

Just to be sure though, you meant "would" instead of "could" in that, right? Like a promise, a guarantee? If it's just "could," I might as well sell you a lottery ticket (or call that a con) because you "could" win millions of dollars. I take it you mean the claim is more like you "will" win millions, instead of the softer, "You could lose 20 pounds!"

Difference is that you actually could win millions of dollars by buying a lottery ticket. Gaining superpowers by giving Scientology a bunch of money, not so much.
 
Difference is that you actually could win millions of dollars by buying a lottery ticket. Gaining superpowers by giving Scientology a bunch of money, not so much.

But you do gain a depleted bank account if you get involved with Ron the Con's phoney religion.
 
There is. I looked over a number of your posts (not all of them) which covered a lot of different points.

I could be mistaken but it seems like one of the questions your asking is this: If we assume Scientologists are not all brain-washed cultists who have some degree of independence then what is it in Scientology they find valuable?

I saw some discussion of "workability" which I think answers the question from my perspective. Various principles learned and applied make it easier to play this game we call life. Having been a Scientologist for over three decades I find that is a simple summary.


Ah, very good. I hope that means you can answer some questions that I've raised in an attempt to add clarity to Justinian2's statements regarding Operating Thetan cause over MEST.

First, Justinian said this:

At OTVIII, a person is starting to learn how to be cause over MEST for the other dynamics.

Actually, everyone is able to effect the other dynamics. Even a jerk (Holms) can negatively effect the other dynamics.

Being able to surgically effect the other dynamics for the better requires constant learning and practice.

I am not complete cause over all MEST. It would be easier if I was a billionaire, but that misses the point too.

I don't want to be complete cause over all MEST because then I wouldn't have a game to play. A man needs some challenges. Maybe this thought is my Achilles heel. Maybe I don't want to responsible for everybody. Perhaps others also don't want me to be responsible for them.


Because the only example of cause over MEST in the other dynamics that Justinian mentioned there was Holmes' (the Aurora shooter's) actions, I inquired whether his methods (using his hands to operate guns to fire bullets to injure and kill people) were representative of all OT cause over MEST. Not that they'd use only guns; I gather that that represents the more general concept of using one's hands and limbs to manipulate objects and operate tools. The thing I don't understand is, everyone (barring severe physical or mental disabilities) can do that, and they "start to learn how" in early childhood. As an example, I mentioned using hands and tools to replace a poorly functioning toilet, this surgically affecting multiple higher dynamics for the better for a long period of time, and yet not requiring any OT training. Justinian2 responded:

That would certainly be cause over MEST that a clear might have at 4.0 (enthusiasm) on the tone scale. If it made you happy, then it was a moment at clear.

An OT can effect changes just by thinking about them when he is really, really up tone. Denial and anger don't produce OT changes.
(emphasis added)

I then asked for examples of what kind of changes an OT can make just by thinking about them:


This is not clear (in the normal English sense of the word: having unambiguous meaning).

What kind of changes can an OT effect just by thinking about them? Can you give some examples?

And what constraints does the need to be "really really up tone" place on this ability? For each example of a possible change you provide, can you also include an estimate of what percent of the time an OT is likely to be sufficiently up tone to achieve it?


Justinian's response was mostly about Christian prayer, which seems a change of subject, but he also said:

What happens to me, more often than not, is that an OT postulate gets converted to inspiration.


I asked what that means. What are OT postulates and what does it mean for one to get converted to inspiration?

Also, inspiration is a phenomenon of the mind; is it reasonable to infer that those OT abilities that can be effected only by thinking about them apply only to the OT's own mind? This would not be surprising, as it conforms to beliefs of some other mystical traditions regarding the nature and limitations of mental powers or "magic."

These are important questions that would provide considerable insight about what Justinian is claiming. Yet these went unanswered, except for this comment:

Sometimes OT phenomena are like the things that happen in Matrix.

A lot of the benefit from the OT levels comes from the setups. Some comes from a feeling that you are less helpless to an understanding of the OT realm.


But, The Matrix depicts a great number of different phenomena, many of them ordinary. I several times asked Justinian2 to specify some examples of which things that happen in the Matrix he was referring to. That query, too, went unanswered.

I also noted that the final paragraph once again describes the effect as an alteration in a "feeling" -- that is, again, something within the OT's own mind. This seems to confirm my hypothesis that OT causes over MEST, or at least those that can be effected only by thinking about them while in a sufficiently high-toned state, are mental phenomena, not physical ones.

Can you provide the specifics and examples that Justinian2 has apparently declined to?

- What does it mean for an OT postulate to be converted into inspiration?

- Which things, specifically, that happen in The Matrix are OT phenomena like?

- From Justinian2's comments above, it appears reasonable to conclude that OT cause over MEST either involves the use of the body and tools to manipulate matter in the ordinary way, or creates effects that occur only within the mind of the OT. So far, all examples provided fit into one or the other of those two categories. Do you agree with that assessment? If not, can you provide an example that does not fit into either of those two categories?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
The internet must really bug the upper echelons of the cult. In the old days it was easier for them to track down critics and deal with them in the manner prescribed by Ron the Con. Now we're all anonymous, even if Avalon is watching me.
 
Excellent. Can you comment on how Scientologists are painted as gullible fools who are stuck in a never ending con game?

Do you find value in Scientology and does it fulfill its promises?

Its an interesting question/point. One that has been portrayed in various media reports in the past. And with the advent of the internet has been passed along. Not sure how to comment upon it as responding to such things could be a never ending task of responding to one allegation/rumor/insult after another.

For the most part I could care or less. (Though I do wonder how such things will affect my children.) I try to set a good example and leave it at that.

An interesting anecdote on that happened to me recently. Having lunch with a small group and Scientology came up in the middle of discussion about different science fiction novels. One person made a brief comment about Scientology that was less than exemplary. After lunch I mentioned my affiliation with the church to him which surprised him to say the least.

His biggest surprise was that I was completely unlike what he thought Scientologists were like - brainwashed, couldn't think for themselves, etc. (The usual stuff.) Since he has known me for a while he had a personal opinion of me that was quite contrary to his opinion of Scientologists.

His opinion was basically formed from things he had read on the net. I can't do much about what someone reads and or decides to think but I can try to set a good example when and where I can.

It was interesting to see him grapple with the two conflicting opinions.

About the only thing I can really take from this and the many things said about me as a Scientologist is that almost none of the people saying them really have clue what my religions basics beliefs and principles are. Yet many individuals on the net seem to think they do know without studying any of our basic texts or works.

Recent news reports about Suri Cruise and Scientology are great examples of this. When people in conversation bring some rumor up and pass it off as fact and I correct them on it I can't help but notice how they don't take responsibility for it but say something like "Oh! That's just what I read."

I guess it makes for a good case study of bias, prejudice and ignorance. Topics that aren't newcomers to the history of the human race.

Of course, personally, I find immense value in my religion. The spiritual gains I have gotten from it are priceless to me. The help it has given me on more mundane topics like studying, living a drug free life, being a good faithful father and many other things are of course valuable as well.

I feel I have gotten far more out of it than I have put into it but at the same time know I could do far better than I am currently doing. So its really an endless journey of bettering myself and the different aspects of my existence.

Life is not some iidyllic existence free of travail. I go through my own trials much like anyone else I suppose. However, I have found that by applying various principles of Scientology here and then things are more understandable and as such more easily dealt with.

Also I don't feel the need nor is their a responsibility on my part to respond to every post on a thread. So don't be surprised if I ignore some...I find that when I answer a question in a reasonable and rational way its almost always ignored anyway.

Back to the individual I mentioned above who was quite surprised to find out I was a Scientologist. He had an interesting observation about the internet - It makes it easier for people to find others that think the same way they do and thus avoid those that do not. (He put it much more eloquently than that.)
 
All cult members feel they are getting something out of it. Big deal. Hell, the Heaven's Gate people thought that they were getting something out of it by offing themselves.
 
Myriad - I won't even bother attempting to explain Justinian's explanations of the subject matter of what a spiritual being is or is not capable of. I would refer you to Ron's works on the subject instead of my rewriting everything he wrote on the subject.

Besides until I can get my four year old to go to bed on time at night I could hardly claim to have any special powers!
 
Fred usual tactics to avoid direct questions are
1, Change the subject.
2. Make some innocuous remark that we can all agree on ( a particular CoS learnt tactic)
3. Direct you to read one of LRH's books or to a CoS "information" site.
4. Say he doesn't care as it doesn't affect him, he's never seen/experienced it so can't comment.
5. Play the "you can't diss my religious beliefs" card so anyone who criticises CoS is just a bigot
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom