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

[tsig]

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

Interesting - Was that the main church in Clearwater? What year was that?

What were you co-auditing at home with a friend?

I hang out at my local church all the time and don't spend a penny. Sometimes I just drop by to read something or watch something I haven't had a chance to read and/or see yet.

I went to the church in Clearwater a very long time ago and hung out for quite a while and nobody tried to sell me anything.
In fact in my business I often get the chance to visit one of the new churches in some area and usually just hang out as well. (I did buy a book at one church but wanted something to read on the flight home.)

Sorry to hear that it went like that for you. Hope your auditing is going okay.

#4

 

[dafydd]

But these things are secondary to auditing. Auditing is what gets you Clear and OT and all the promised powers that come along with that.

And of course that costs money. Ron the Con was determined upon becoming rich. Nobody has ever demonstrated these powers.

 

[dafydd]

#4

Boringly predictable, isn't it?

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

Interesting - Was that the main church in Clearwater? What year was that?

My mistake, I don't know why I said Clearwater (I guess I had that on my mind). I went to Tampa, not Clearwater. This was in late 2001, not long after I had moved to Jacksonville.

What were you co-auditing at home with a friend?

We had both only read dianetics at the time, and were auditing as instructed in the book. I started out auditing silly, physical engrams like twisting my ankle playing basketball when I was 13.

Sorry to hear that it went like that for you. Hope your auditing is going okay.

I had such a bad time of things in Tampa that I dropped the entire thing just a day or two later. That was over 10 years ago, and I wasn't even 22 years old yet. I haven't audited since, and I can't say I miss it. As I told Justinian, congrats that it worked out for you.

 

[marplots]

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

He answered my question about what promises were made to him.

Off hand I can't remember being promised anything. There have been a few times in Mr. Hubbard's writings when he has been more emphatic about trying out a principle than other times.

He has said several times that nothing in Dianetics or Scientology is true unless its true according to your own observation.

Maybe he thinks some of the questions are just attempts to exploit inconsistencies or will seem damaging out of context. It's not unusual. Ask the President something like this, "How many US soldiers did you send to their deaths in Iraq?" Even if he knows the number of casualties, it's unlikely he'll agree with the form of the question.

Are they honest questions or the lawyer type, where the answer is already known or expected to cause damage?

I remember one from the youtube confrontation stuff. The same thing happened in multiple videos. The protester would be challenged repeatedly by the Scientologist. "What crimes have you committed?" or, "What are your crimes?"

Ask me and I'll tell you I have two felonies. And that's only convictions. I have many, many more moral crimes. But I might not want to answer because doing so psychologically distorts whatever else I have to say.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe he thinks some of the questions are just attempts to exploit inconsistencies or will seem damaging out of context. It's not unusual. Ask the President something like this, "How many US soldiers did you send to their deaths in Iraq?" Even if he knows the number of casualties, it's unlikely he'll agree with the form of the question.

Are they honest questions or the lawyer type, where the answer is already known or expected to cause damage?

I remember one from the youtube confrontation stuff. The same thing happened in multiple videos. The protester would be challenged repeatedly by the Scientologist. "What crimes have you committed?" or, "What are your crimes?"

Ask me and I'll tell you I have two felonies. And that's only convictions. I have many, many more moral crimes. But I might not want to answer because doing so psychologically distorts whatever else I have to say.

Of course it's a trap. The trap is that one of these Scientologists actually says unambiguously what Scientology is all about. Is it simply something that goes on in the heads of Scientologists, or does it involve special powers/special technology? Is it a "well if it's true for you, then it's true for you" subjective kind of thing, or is it actually claiming actual things about the actual world. It goes back to my question: "what does Scientology say that adds to, or disagrees with more conventional descriptions of the world?" People looking out of the window at mysterious strangers they believe are rapists who then keep on walking can be accounted for by conventional descriptions of the world.

My money is on Scientology getting by, in part, by the same techniques as homeopathy and other fantasies, by equivocating and being deliberately ambiguous about what it is that they are supposed to be trying to achieve and what they are actually able to achieve.

 

[dafydd]

My money is on Scientology getting by, in part, by the same techniques as homeopathy and other fantasies, by equivocating and being deliberately ambiguous about what it is that they are supposed to be trying to achieve and what they are actually able to achieve.

Making money, that's what $cientology achieves.

 

[marplots]

Of course it's a trap. The trap is that one of these Scientologists actually says unambiguously what Scientology is all about. Is it simply something that goes on in the heads of Scientologists, or does it involve special powers/special technology?

They kinda are answering and saying just that (the first).

Is it a "well if it's true for you, then it's true for you" subjective kind of thing, or is it actually claiming actual things about the actual world.

I think there was a quote earlier that said it was the first of that pair.

It goes back to my question: "what does Scientology say that adds to, or disagrees with more conventional descriptions of the world?" People looking out of the window at mysterious strangers they believe are rapists who then keep on walking can be accounted for by conventional descriptions of the world.

Maybe that's what it adds, entertainment. With the idea that conventional is a synonym for boring.

My money is on Scientology getting by, in part, by the same techniques as homeopathy and other fantasies, by equivocating and being deliberately ambiguous about what it is that they are supposed to be trying to achieve and what they are actually able to achieve.

Seems so. There's probably a bit more, like the good feelings from belonging to a group, working toward a goal you believe in and so on.

Maybe the mistake is demanding something more than a distracting fiction. It's a bad move to make testable claims if you don't have to.

Now I'm wondering if part of the attraction comes from failing in a merit-based system (or even competence-based). Suppose I see my life as unsuccessful and largely worthless? Wouldn't I be more likely to adopt a group meme where I could feel competent and "special?"

 

[fredcarr]

The trap is that one of these Scientologists actually says unambiguously what Scientology is all about... by equivocating and being deliberately ambiguous about what it is that they are supposed to be trying to achieve and what they are actually able to achieve.

This is a line taken from the book "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought."

"The goal of Scientology is making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game."

So that's a pretty clear statement of the goal of the subject.

If one want a better understanding of what the subject is then I would of course recommend reading a book or going to the website. It still cracks me up that my recommending such a thing could be taken in any sort of a negative light.

Now that I think about it this could be one of those "promises" alluded to earlier. I do feel that through my studies in Scientology I am living a better life and working better with others, etc.

 

[fredcarr]

People looking out of the window at mysterious strangers they believe are rapists who then keep on walking can be accounted for by conventional descriptions of the world.

I'm not tracking with this. What is meant by this?

And what are "conventional" descriptions of the world? Is that widely agreed upon descriptions of the world?

There have been times that people have looked out their window and seen people walking by that they thought were rapists when they weren't. How does that relate?

 

[xjx388]

I think it is a very fair statement to make that the study of Mr. Hubbard's written and recorded works is the primary activity of Scientologists.

Would you say, then, that one can be a full practicing Scientologist simply by taking part only in the free services at a Scientology church - maybe reading some books, listening to some lectures and attending the free Sunday services? That there would be no pressure to sign up for courses and/or auditing?

Further, can I get the full benefits of Scientology and never have to spend a dime or be in the employ of the Church? Like I can in say, Catholicism where I can be Baptized, participate in Communion, go to Mass, get counseling from the Priest, be married, be annointed when sick, send my kids to Sunday school and be assured of eternal salvation and never have to pay a dime if I plead poverty?

Yes a certain portion of it is the application of some of his writings to another in our spiritual counseling practices.

And what portion would you say that is?

Also time is spent in training to deliver such practices as well.

But I think purely on a time spent basis that the study of Mr. Hubbards works far out weighs any other activity.

Let's say I don't want to be an auditor, I just want to go OT. What's the ratio of time spent studying the works vs. time spent auditing? Isn't auditing the ONLY way to go OT? Or can I just study the works?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Is it a "well if it's true for you, then it's true for you" subjective kind of thing, or is it actually claiming actual things about the actual world. It goes back to my question: "what does Scientology say that adds to, or disagrees with more conventional descriptions of the world?"

L. Ron Hubbard said that it had been scientifically proven that Scientology could eradicate cancer. That's emphatically a claim about the real world. It's also, unquestionably, a lie.

 

[marplots]

L. Ron Hubbard said that it had been scientifically proven that Scientology could eradicate cancer. That's emphatically a claim about the real world. It's also, unquestionably, a lie.

Any examples of things he said Scientology could do that are true?

 

[shuttlt]

"The goal of Scientology is making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game."

So that's a pretty clear statement of the goal of the subject.

Cool, so Scientology is basically just about your internal state? There is no claim about being able to do anything that would qualify for the JREF challenge? In so far as you are aware, you can't gain any secret information about past lives, distant places, other peoples thoughts by means that defy conventional (i.e. physics, chemistry, biology, medicine as taught at conventional universities) explanations. In so far as you are aware, you can't do any things that defy conventional explanation. In so far as you are aware, Hubbard didn't have access to any secret information acquired by means that defy conventional explanation. Is that correct? Basically, it's just a talking cure/philosophy/social thing?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It still cracks me up that my recommending such a thing could be taken in any sort of a negative light.

It's when you do it in lieu of answering questions. As you rightly say, people can read the books for themselves. When people ask you a question they want to know what you think, not what L. Ron Hubbard wrote 50-60 years ago while (according to a letter he wrote to his wife at the time) drinking alcohol and popping pills.

 

[Krikkiter]

This is a line taken from the book "Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought."

"The goal of Scientology is making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game."

So that's a pretty clear statement of the goal of the subject.

If one want a better understanding of what the subject is then I would of course recommend reading a book or going to the website. It still cracks me up that my recommending such a thing could be taken in any sort of a negative light.
Now that I think about it this could be one of those "promises" alluded to earlier. I do feel that through my studies in Scientology I am living a better life and working better with others, etc.

If one wants an unambiguous description of what Scientology is and does I would recommend people go to Wikileaks and read the documents there. It still cracks me up that anyone, after reading those documents could view Scientology as anything but a dangerous cult founded on the ravings of an old, power and money hungry lunatic.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not tracking with this. What is meant by this?

And what are "conventional" descriptions of the world? Is that widely agreed upon descriptions of the world?

There have been times that people have looked out their window and seen people walking by that they thought were rapists when they weren't. How does that relate?

It's a reference to a quote of somebody claiming to have had some kind of precognition experience of an attack on someone across the street and then used some kind of psychic power to influence events so that nothing out of the ordinary happened. It doesn't matter.

Incidentally, by "conventional descriptions of the world", I mean descriptions that fall within ordinary scientific explanations. No past lives, no influencing people with your mind, no causing things to happen by the power of your will, no Xenu, no Thetans,...

 

[shuttlt]

L. Ron Hubbard said that it had been scientifically proven that Scientology could eradicate cancer. That's emphatically a claim about the real world. It's also, unquestionably, a lie.

He could have been mad, or high as well of course. Doubtless there are other explanations too.

 

[dafydd]

L. Ron Hubbard said that it had been scientifically proven that Scientology could eradicate cancer. That's emphatically a claim about the real world. It's also, unquestionably, a lie.

It's a made-up wacko ''religion'' so everything about it is a lie.

 

[shuttlt]

Any examples of things he said Scientology could do that are true?

Why is that a helpful question? Homeopathy says things that are true, as does the Da Vinci Code.