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

[marplots]

Marplots,

May I recommend this book - Fads and Fallacies. Chapter 22 is on Scientology. The book is from 1957, so it gives you a view into the early days.

There's a posting at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/gardner/
Loves me some Martin Gardner.

Here's what he says about Hubbard's disease claims in that book (he's referencing what he (Gardner) read in Dianetics):

All neuroses, psychoses, and psychosomatic ailments (including the common cold and possibly diabetes and cancer) are caused by engrams.

If this is the claim, it's pretty far from "curing all disease" or even any disease that isn't generated by "psychosomatic" processes (except common cold). While not earth shaking, it certainly would be an easier claim to meet. Gardner describes some rather more nutty stuff after that quote.

That's why I wanted to see what the actual claims were before just handwaving them away as outright nuts.

It's interesting to read something from 1952, including the part about an early "splitter" -- a doctor who opened his own Dianetics style clinic but rejected some of what Hubbard said. Early freezone?

Gardner does delve into claims and cures with this observation:

Of all the defenses which can be made of dianetics, the defense that "it works" is the most irrelevant. It is irrelevant because in the cure of neurotic symptoms, anything in which a patient has faith will work. Such "cures" are a dime a dozen. The case histories of dianetics are not one whit more impressive than the hundreds of testimonials to be found in young Perkins' book on the curative power of his father's metallic tractors. They prove that dianetics can operate on some patients as a form of faith healing. They prove nothing more.

Interesting, no?

Finally, he predicts the whole thing will probably crap out (remember, this is Gardner in 1952).

At the time of writing, the dianetics craze seems to have burned itself out as quickly as it caught fire, and Hubbard himself has become embroiled in a welter of personal troubles. In 1951, his third wife, twenty-five-year-old Sara Northrup Hubbard, sued him for divorce. She called him a "paranoid schizophrenic," accused him of torturing her while she was pregnant, and stated that medical advisers had concluded Hubbard was "hopelessly insane."

 

[shuttlt]

Interesting, no?

I don't follow. It's a better written version of the position I believe is held by most of the forum.

 

[marplots]

Advance! Issue 20 (Aug/Sep 1973)

"There I was, outside late at night, far from my body, watching two fellows suspiciously walking by an apartment house. There was a girl of about 22 inside the apartment house getting ready for bed. A short time passed and she was asleep. Then the two fellows threw a garbage can under her window, opened it and broke in. The girl didn't have a chance. She was stabbed as she attempted to yell. The place was ransacked and the men ran.

In the morning I was in quite a muddle. I knew I'd see headlines about the incident in the newspaper, but they weren't there. All of a sudden I realized it hadn't happened yet! It was going to happen tonight!

I was greatly relieved and thought "What can I do?" I decided to exteriorize at the same time that night and handle it.

That night I went there, saw the same guys doing the same thing they did the night before and the girl doing the same thing, too.

But as the two walked by the apartment this time I put out an intention to divert them from the very idea of it.

They walked right on by, never even noticing the window of the girl's apartment. She had a good night's sleep and woke up with the dawn. -- Brian Sheen, OT"

... and so on.

From http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/02/scientology_ot_miracles.php

Good link. Those stories are what? forty years ago? Some of the authors might still be alive. I wonder if anyone has talked to them about what they wrote. That would be cool.

 

[marplots]

Interesting, no?

I don't follow. It's a better written version of the position I believe is held by most of the forum.

That's what I meant. Here's a skeptic from 60 years ago talking about something we are talking about today, and making some of the same points. I thought that was neat.

He had a great mind. I used to read his stuff and Asimov.

 

[shuttlt]

That's what I meant. Here's a skeptic from 60 years ago talking about something we are talking about today, and making some of the same points. I thought that was neat.

He had a great mind. I used to read his stuff and Asimov.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure it's that surprising. The arguments against homeopathy have been around since the mid 19th Century, and yet it potters on. Most believers are not looking to critically analyse their beliefs. Arguments that show these things are nonsense are relevant only to people who don't believe and probably weren't going to believe anyway. About the best that can be achieved is to deny the believers intellectual respectability.

 

[Krikkiter]

Good link. Those stories are what? forty years ago? Some of the authors might still be alive. I wonder if anyone has talked to them about what they wrote. That would be cool.

Yup. Evidence that Scientology claims to enable miracles and that so-called Operating Thetans believe that they are indeed capable of performing miracles due to Scientology's teachings. I suppose it might be interesting to know if those claims have been taken out of current Scientology doctrine. At this point we can only assume that they haven't.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If this is the claim, it's pretty far from "curing all disease" or even any disease that isn't generated by "psychosomatic" processes (except common cold).

"arthritis vanishes, myopia gets better, heart illness decreases, asthma disappears, stomachs function properly and the whole catalogue of illnesses goes away and stays away."

Dianetics, pg 72, bolding mine.

There are also specific claims about curing cancer, polio, broken limbs, arthritis, paralysis and radiation burns. None of these have been proven, the FDA prosecuted, and the Church of Scientology now has to place disclaimers on their e-meters explicitly saying that they have no medical properties whatsoever.

 

[Krikkiter]

marplots may have missed this:

Regarding the E-meter:

"Judge Gerhardt A. Gesell found that:

Hubbard and his fellow Scientologists developed the notion of using an E-Meter to aid auditing. Substantial fees were charged for the meter and for auditing sessions using the meter. They repeatedly and explicitly represented that such auditing effectuated cures of many physical and mental illnesses. An individual processed with the aid of the E-Meter was said to reach the intended goal of 'clear' and was led to believe that there was reliable scientific proof that once cleared many, indeed most, illnesses would successfully be cured. Auditing was guaranteed to be successful. All this was and is false.[17]

The judge ordered use of the E-meter be confined to "bona fide religious counseling" and the device be prominently labeled with a warning notice:

The E-Meter is not medically or scientifically useful for the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily functions of anyone."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter#Food_and_Drug_Administration_interest

 

[Rrose Selavy]

I figure if someone wants to just read material critical of the church then I'm not going to worry to much about getting the word out to them

There are a series of 19 online courses that one can take online for free which anyone is free to do. Not to mention the thousands (I can only hazard a guess the exact number) of web pages that we have on the net explaining various aspect of the church.

We have video covering the basics as well.

We donate books to libraries so individuals can find out about it that way as well.

Plus people can always go to a local church, mission, study group, etc. Lots of ways to learn about it. I'm sure there will be additional programs released in the future to make it even easier to learn about.

I chuckle when I read about how secretive we are when we put so much effort into making it easy for anyone to learn.



However I don't worry to much about the net. It is what it is. Why worry about it?

Fred's usual tactics to avoid direct questions are

1, Change the subject.

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.

-----

 

[Krikkiter]

<snip>

I've even given books away to people.

<snip>

Wikileaks does that too

 

[Krikkiter]

-----

 

[tsig]

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?

Why not just go get audited and decide for yourself?

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

To Marplots-

Your water analogy doesn't hold. The water in a bottle is still just water. Sometimes it's "water from a stream", but that makes no claims that the water is better. You are paying for convenience. When the water companies lie, they get into trouble. This happened last year with the companies who were claiming they had biodegradable bottles. The bottles were pulled from the shelf for false claims.

There is nobody pulling Scientology from the shelves for false claims, which is part of the problem.

 

[Marcus]

So it looks like yes, fredcarr is just going to ignore the questions about Xenu. Presumably because that is what the church has ordered him to do.

At least Justinian had the courtesy to acknowledge that the Xenu story really exists. Even though he just told some lie about it being a metaphor or something.

I thought this part was interesting. Justinian, when pressed for his opinion on Xenu, did finally give it. There is no good answer though. Obviously you can't say that you believe this wacky nonsense, but the idea that it is a metaphor is directly contradicted by the evidence, including words out of Hubbards own mouth.

 

[dafydd]

Why not just go get audited and decide for yourself?

Maybe his bank account won't run to that.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

To Marplots-

Your water analogy doesn't hold. The water in a bottle is still just water. Sometimes it's "water from a stream", but that makes no claims that the water is better. You are paying for convenience. When the water companies lie, they get into trouble. This happened last year with the companies who were claiming they had biodegradable bottles. The bottles were pulled from the shelf for false claims.

There is nobody pulling Scientology from the shelves for false claims, which is part of the problem.

This guy has been in a cult. Cults both attract people predisposed to disordered thinking, and inculcate disordered thinking into those that do not already have it. So he's accustomed to making up "just-so" stories off the cuff - and not just ones with zero thinking behind it, but the invention of complete falsehoods.

Water was not free from his childhood tap. His family got a water bill from the city water supply, or in our case we have a well that cost over $5k to install, it has maintenance expenses, and costs electricity to run a hefty pump. Water is an urgent life necessity - your life expectancy is in a matter of days if you don't have water.

This guy prattles on about how he has so little time. So therefore he invents false stories, going through the effort of thinking them out, typing them, dealing with responses to them - so obviously he would rather spend the majority of his precious scarce time not studying - and waste the time of others too. The business about time being scarce is actually an excuse to avoid the tiny investment it takes to learn quite a bit about the malicious nature of Scientology. Cult personalities are all about deception.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

However I don't worry to much about the net. It is what it is. Why worry about it?

You've followed the L. Ron Hubbard prescription of attacking the enemy, and the 'net as you vaguely refer to it is obviously your enemy. We are told we cannot trust the internet. That's what Scientology is folks: you cannot trust the internet. All this stuff about what Scientology is NOT, and nothing about what it IS.

That is how you "inform" us about Scientology: by attacking the internet and pretending to be giving away free information while giving none. Analogies and parables are not information. Oh wow, such a HUGE surprise they are presently out of "free" copies. Look how hard we are trying to get this information out.

The personal testimony is so cute, with you having given away free books. See how I am giving information by saying I gave it to someone else?

The main theme of L. Ron Hubbard is doing the opposite of what you are saying. So here we have all these loud noises about providing information while at the same time providing exactly none. Who has provided actual source information? The skeptics.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Water was not free from his childhood tap.

Nor did he claim it was.

 

[marplots]

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot View Post
Water was not free from his childhood tap.

Nor did he claim it was.

Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to know if a point is worth defending or just letting it slide by in the interest of civility.

I should have mentioned the "cult" I was in was run on patriotic fervor. It's actually quite well thought of. I spent a full year in it before I decided I wasn't really buying into the elitist attitude.

Here's a link to their site: www.usma.edu/

I believe the point had to do with how broadly the attributes of the word "cult" could be applied. I probably had in mind the period of indoctrination, the breaking down of individualism, the separation from the outside world, engendering a feeling of being special, organization specific jargon and the call to a cause greater than yourself.

 

[hgc]

Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to know if a point is worth defending or just letting it slide by in the interest of civility.

I should have mentioned the "cult" I was in was run on patriotic fervor. It's actually quite well thought of. I spent a full year in it before I decided I wasn't really buying into the elitist attitude.

Here's a link to their site: www.usma.edu/

I believe the point had to do with how broadly the attributes of the word "cult" could be applied. I probably had in mind the period of indoctrination, the breaking down of individualism, the separation from the outside world, engendering a feeling of being special, organization specific jargon and the call to a cause greater than yourself.

This is a favorite Scientology tactic, as we've seen in this thread over and over already -- label every other institution on Earth a "cult" to try to take the barb out of Scientology=cult formulation.

Here's a handy guide:
Scientology -- cult
West Point -- not cult