Thank you Caroline, but I disagree. I think the SP Declare and the offensive Bible verses I posted are related for both show the intention to break up families. In the larger picture, religion is hostile to "unbelievers" and "apostates" in particular and Culture in general.

BTW, if you did not like the verses from the Bible, then you will surely dislike Surah 9:5 from the Qur'an:



/////

It would have been better for me to have said I couldn't see the relationship, but you've clarified it now.

I'm not a religious scholar, but a comparative study of religious scripture on the issue of apostasy seems like it could be very helpful.

I think this recent debate illustrates an important issue: the separation of scientology's belief system from the physical actions of abuse and human rights violations. IMHO, thinking you are going to get ANY scientologist to "disavow" SP doctrine is like thinking you are going to get a Christian to disavow the Bible or Muslims the Quran simply because those writings contain instructions to abuse and harm people.

What is important is that it became unacceptable for Christians to slaughter Muslims, burn people at the stake, and enforce their Bible scriptures in literal and harmful ways. Culture forced Christians to stop committing murder. Murder was committed because their doctrine was interpreted in literal ways that seemed to instruct such actions. Even "dispose of quietly and without sorrow" can stay in scientology's dogma as long as they do not actually do it. They will simply re-interpret it without deleting it. Hubbard is their God-like figure and they must maintain that sense of "all powerful Source" in order to lend full power and meaning to his dogma. When you get into "deleting" this and that, you weaken the source because it is an admission that the source erred, something that must not be admitted in order to keep the followers following. Does anyone have an example of a religion that claims the equivalent: God mis-spoke, Mohammed was wrong, Jesus made a mistake, or Joseph Smith was hallucinating.

What we need to have happen is for our current culture today, to send a resounding message to scientology: whatever your beliefs are, we are not against you. But you must cease and desist the following actions and practices: Holding and imprisoning people against their will, extorting money and bankrupting people, beating staff members, forcing young women to get abortions, violating human trafficking laws, neglecting the health and welfare of minors, practicing medicine/psychology without a license, the Fair Gaming, stalking and harassment of people who leave scientology or speak out against it, forced disconnection of family members, etc. Asking them to "change their scripture" is asking them to do the very thing that David Miscavage is in so much trouble for: altering the tech, committing technical degrades, etc. No scientologist will ever agree to that. But telling them "you may not DO A, B, C", is not only perfectly acceptable, it must be done.

This highlights what makes me want to distance myself from critics of scientology: statements that otherwise call for "disavowal" of this or that part of their belief system, or statements that call for "deleting" scientology or this or that part of it. These statements discolor an otherwise caring and meaningful movement and make it appear like a group of ignorant fanatics who have no more intellectual flexibility than the scientologists themselves. Sorry to be so harsh but I am speaking from my heart.

Whether or not a critic believes LRon was a con man, a fake, an evil person, an insane man, whatever, it doesn't matter, that is an opinion of the man which people are entitled to. Documenting evidence that proves what he was is perfectly acceptable and helps people to make up their own minds about him. But to use that standpoint as a platform to make a case for why scientology (or any part of it) should be "deleted" quietly and without sorrow, is a huge mistake, IMO. Some people believe Jesus never existed, there is no God, and Joseph Smith was a charlatan and alcoholic who made up his "visions". These viewpoints are not grounds for deleting the rights of others to believe otherwise.

Is scientology a cult primarily set up to deceive people? In my opinion, it is. But I could say the same thing about a few other religions too. People have to be given all the information and be allowed to make up their own minds, just as I was.

Caroline, I appreciate your efforts to expose "SP Doctrine" for what it is. But I never really understand what exactly it is you think should be done about it. When you speak of scientologists "disavowing" their SP doctrine, what exactly does that mean? In your ideal world where SP Doctrine is no longer practiced, could a scientologist get a PTS handling, learn about anti-social personalities, be interviewed about such, locate such a person in their life and decide whether or not to handle or disconnect? Or would that aspect of the doctrine also have to be obliterated? This is an important question I have to ask you, because if I read you right, it seems you are attempting to place a large chunk of scientology doctrine on trial, find it guilty, and lock it up for life throwing away the key. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Dorothy

Perhaps saying "disavow" is too strong. I don't advocate erasure of the problem doctrine (as I have pointed out before but was ignored) but a clarification as to how it will be practiced (or not practiced) not only now but in the future as the indies continue to grow (if they do). THIS is what has not been clarified to us other than to say:



Which only negates miscavige's use of it, not hubbard's. That statement of Karen's is not saying they shouldn't be practiced but that they were enforced wrong (i.e. not according to hubbard).

Get the indies to clarify how this will be practiced and you will alleviate the issue with many critics (myself included). Till then it seems as if you are making excuses for them and that will never convince anyone who sees those parts of hubbard's doctrine as an issue before accepting the indies!

In a nutshell, it is not what you say (or believe), but it is what you do, that matters.

Some people have indeed done some really nasty things for the so-called church under the guise of their so-called religion because it was doctrine/dogma. And then, once free of the mother church, continue with the supposedly pure "religion" aspect, saying that the abusive doctrine they were working to was "squirreled" and that their way is better. More pure in fact.
So, there is a natural tendancy to want to know how they intend to practice all those pure doctrines and not harm people in the same or similar ways. i.e. whether or not smaller groups of independents, if they suddenly had the finances, could and would reinstate harmful dogma by-the-book to protect its interests, just as they previously done themselves when in the mother cult-church. Just how far do they intend to go?....is the burning question. However, I'm not really intrested in constantly battering them over the head with it if they persistently refuse to give sensible answers and I prefer to get on with something else which I think is more productive (For me, that is. Any of you can do whatever you like).

I couldn't agree more.

OK. So what exactly is it you want "the Indies" to say? Who exactly would represent "the Indies" at this point? There are several Indie groups operating at this time, aren't there? Are they autonomous or is your Marty their "boss"?

I disagree that Karen's statement only negates Miscavige's use of it. She does not say that.

What you do not realize is that THERE IS NO "KSW". Each of these Indie people will practice SP Doctrine slightly differently. Scientology is not a "science". Do I really need to make that point?


viewtopic.php?f=9&t=34926&p=396841#p396841

I'm sorry, but I do not see where you "do not advocate the erasure of the problem doctrine" in this post. In fact I see where you insist upon it. This statement makes me confident that you are completely ignorant of what scientology is. I apologize for being such a pompous ass about this. I'm just getting tired of it. How can you be a "critic" of something you appear to know nothing about?

Those of us who do not trust Marty and his "standard scientology" are referring to Marty's group. I am not talking about freezoners or the other indie groups that admit to selectively picking & choosing of hubbard's scripture. Marty has professed that his group will practice hubbard scientology as intended with no reference as to how the SP doctrine will be interpreted. That only leaves us with the understanding that the only difference will be the fact that it will be Marty instead of miscavige and that's not good enough for many of us to trust him. I assure he knows (as we do also) that he doesn't need our approval or trust and he can certainly practice whatever he wants but that doesn't mean we have to accept him at face value. I have no intention of depriving him of anything but that doesn't mean I'm just going to assume he's going use the SP doctrine other than what hubbard dictated and we have examples of how hubbard himself applied it. If Marty wants the trust of a lot of critics then he needs to say that he isn't going to use the SP doctrine even as hubbard had but in a benign way (if at all)!


How do you interpret as enforced? Are you saying that as enforced doesn't mean that the application in the "church" is wrong? And who else would she be referring to if it's not miscavige (as they are still hubbardites by their own admission).



In that post

RWT wrote:

What if Marty does not give a damn whether critics of scientology trust him or not? I think he's made it clear that he does not. He doesn't need critics to do what he's doing.

If (in some alternate universe) Marty proclaimed: "I will not use SP doctrine in an abusive manner, I admit this has been done in the past, that mistakes have been made even by Ron. I promise I will not use it to control or punish people or silence them or to disconnect families", you would believe him? Would that be good enough for you? Because saying that is not even remotely equivalent to "I renounce SP Doctrine".


She makes no reference to time period. She could mean as enforced from the beginning of scientology, or in the last 10 years, and everything in between.


That's the joke of it. Do you really believe in squirrels? because if you do I can't help you. Are you really saying Marty is a squirrel if he no longer practices declaring people SP? Because declaring someone SP via goldenrod colored paper is an administrative procedure that has absolutely nothing to do with scientology "technology" and therefore no bearing upon whether or not he is a squirrel- per hubbard's definition.

Show me a f---ing Clear. Show me a F---ing OT. Show me a F---ing SP. Show me a F---ing squirrel. LOL! None of this shit actually exists other than in the minds of some heavily indoctrinated cult members. Demanding that someone eradicate the practice of labeling someone something that exists only in their own minds seems kind of absurd to me. Is Caroline really an SP because some ronbot typed it so on a piece of paper and stamped it? Is that really the cause of Caroline's victimization?

Is scientology tech for real? Does it actually work? How can you say something does not really exist out of one corner of your mouth while out of the other corner say someone must renounce the very thing you claim doesn't even truly exist? Scientology (as a "technology") is either a lie or it isn't. Which one is it? Does SP doctrine have any real power over people or doesn't it?

It's just my opinion but I think certain critics make a huge mistake when they focus a lot of attention on scientology dogma, ideology, beliefs, doctrine, whatever. Because it takes attention off of what the cult is actually doing to people. For every abusive act, someone could come up with an LRon sentence that justifies it while another person could use LRon writings to show how they are misapplying LRon tech when they commit that abusive act. Scientology, contrary to what you might think is not even remotely any kind of exact science. It is subject to each person's individual ability to interpret and apply it. So Marty "thinks" he is doing "standard tech". So what? It means nothing to me. Whether or not Marty abuses or harms people has to do with what kind of person Marty is today and nothing else.

It would be a start but I wouldn't hold my breath for it. What I don't get is why you feel that we have to accept Marty at face value without his saying anything other than he will practice scientology as hubbard intended. That makes no sense.


Yet she believes it was all sunshine & smiles before miscavige and that hubbard did nothing wrong so what time period would you think she would be referring? We don't know what "as applied" means to Marty's indies other than wanting to have scientology as hubbard intended and that was when? Before miscavige!



Of course not and it is absurd of you to suggest it. But Marty's indies do!



No I was asking if hubbard would consider him a squirrel under those circumstances!


And WHO created the goldenrod colored paper administrative procedure? And who is it that is source to Marty's indies?



Yes and as far as we know they want to create that outside the cult. They haven't said otherwise or have they?


So then by your logic it's ok to call black people the "N" word, Jews the "K" word? I guess black people have no right to expect white supremacists to not look down on them and labeling them with derogatory terms because their belief in their supremacy is something that exists only in their own minds. Yes civilization has had to put up a struggle to eradicate against labeling and looking down upon people and we still have a long way to go, sorry you find that ridiculous.


No, certainly she is not but I'm sure there are those that do believe so within Marty's indie group. The paper isn't the cause of it it is just the documentation and who originally set that up? Would that happen to be the one who Marty's group considers infallible?



No, critics do not just assess by straight dogma but also hubbard's own actions in applying his doctrine (and that's who Marty wants to follow as intended). I'm sure there are contradictions in hubbard's writings to allow for two people to interpret them differently but people don't just go by what is written but how their "source" applied it himself and there are certainly plenty of examples to go by since a lot was documented.

You read me wrong on this. I do not personally take Marty at face value. Personally I do not trust him either. But that is my opinion of him and it means very little. I have no way to verify how the man has changed without personally sec checking him . I cannot say that just because he chooses to be a scientologist automatically means he has not changed. I cannot say that because he has not "renounced SP Doctrine" that he has not changed. I repeat: SP Doctrine is not an exact science. Just because Marty says he applies it "standardly" does not mean he will apply it the same way LRon did. Marty will use it according to Marty's interpretation of what "standard" is. Anyway, all I can do is observe what he does. I do not care about what he believes, but I do care about what he does. Like so many others I'm watching him. Many people on this board have taken a "wait and see" approach as opposed to others who have more of a "chicken little- the sky is falling" attitude (imo).


Oh boy. Uh, no. Based on LRon's definition of a squirrel, no. Hubbard would not consider him a squirrel because he refuses to declare someone a suppressive person. That is not what a squirrel is. Edit: LRon made up other stupid labels for that


I'm sorry but there is WAY too much speculation required to determine "what Indies will create". Too many variables.

Can I control whether or someone labels a black person a nigger in their mind? Should I be able to control whether or not they use the label administratively within the context of their own private organization? Neo-nazis come to mind. Do we shut down their websites and censor their publications? We do not. But, if they start fair gaming black people, stalking them, try to get them fired from their jobs, spread libelous rumors, etc. etc., then their actions have quite likely violated some law and they should be prosecuted for it. You cannot eradicate neo-nazi ideology. If we could do that we might have done it. Changing peoples minds requires broad based social programs, and they do not always have access to closed groups.


It really doesn't matter who set that up. It is still a piece of paper that only has meaning if people give it meaning. Do you really think an SP declare (piece of paper) still has the same meaning and force for Marty that it had when he was in? I doubt it. If it does, then he is truly batshit crazy.


Hubbard applied it just as arbitrarily as anyone else does. I'd like to see someone "learn" from how Hubbard applied it. LOL. If you believe scientology is an exact science, then you will believe that Hubbard applied SP declares in an exact scientific fashion. LOL. LOL. LOL.

Fine yes we agree on this but I think it is you who has grabbed the wrong end of the stick in this discussion. The only reason I've been arguing in this thread was to counter J. Swift's desire to guilt Caroline as to why Marty and his indies would not be accepted by the SPDL. So I need to ask you is it not within Gerry & Caroline's right to err on the side of caution in considering Marty's group? Or should they be forced to accept them only because they are also victims of miscavige's application of the SP doctrine!


That may be true but what is Marty striving to achieve (or at least telling those who he wants as clients whether freshly out or still in the church). Without any clarification one only has the example of his past. I'm not advocating doing anything, just trying to state that I don't trust him either and until he proves himself (i.e. clarification, better disclosure of truth, acknowledgment of his own victims like Gerry & Caroline) this wont change. From what I seen of how he conducts himself so far I'm not waiting for it either.


Yes that certainly is your opinion because I haven't seen anybody on this board take a "the sky is falling" attitude about Marty. Not even Gumby who only thinks that J. Swift has changed for the worse for his contact with Marty. I don't subscribe to this, I may be mystified by J. Swift's level of support of Marty but that is Swift's right and I still respect & like him. I know Marty serves a purpose even if he does hold his cards too close for others comfort and LOGICALLY causes distrust of his ultimate goals.



So you are saying that hubbard allowed for variation in the use of his "tech" and doctrines built to support it? Ok cool, new to me from what I had read on this forum & others (including archives of documents not just posts).


That's true but since they want to turn back the clock to before miscavige (and have enough people to remember it i.e. Karen) it is only logical to consider that's what they would create given the chance or at least to whatever level they can build their group into (if anything at all)


Yes but once again this isn't what was being argued. What is being argued by someone like Swift is that critics as a whole should accept Marty and his group at face value despite that Marty shows no inclination towards any change other than eradicating miscavige and how he has run the "church"! Even though we know that the problems started with hubbard, Marty and his indies do not believe that. Yes critics, anons, Marty's group, and others want the "church" dismantled from it's present form but I don't see us agreeing to what level Marty figures that entails and that is the problem.


No I don't think it is an exact science and I never have, it seemed from what I've read though that hubbard seemed to have pretty clear instructions how it should be practiced and that miscavige has only adjusted things to his desires and that is what Many's indies, freezoners and the other groups argue of the church at present.



We both agree we don't trust Marty. You may want to give him the benefit of doubt as to where he will take things and that is fine. I on the other hand will err to the side of caution and consider him suspect until proved otherwise since he wants to be hubbard intended scientology, remain tight lipped on what that means, and puts on pretty big blinders to unpleasant truth's presented to him.

Of course Caroline and Gerry should not be "forced" to do anything. Is someone forcing them to do something? If it's their group then they are in charge, same as Marty is in charge of his blog. According to Marty, he is not a "victim" of anything so I doubt he would ever want to join SPDL.


What Marty is doing, behind the scenes I dk. What I see him doing is 1) Field auditing, 2) administering a blog for himself and other like minded people to discuss and air grievances about scino-corp, and 3) dodging a lot of incoming fair gaming from scino-corp. Do you see him doing anything else?

A while back I pointed out the problem with MR's affidavit in the Headley case. I wrote that (imo) it was not helpful to the Headley's and possibly damaging in that it focused the case on "religion" and scientology's internal religious conflicts. I don't think MR intended to sabotage their case, I think he believed he was helping. But his affidavit had hubris written all over it. He makes a mistake by continuing to argue that DM is "squirreling" scientology. These people do not even realize that they subscribe to a belief system. They think it is an "exact science". LOL. It's like Christians arguing over which form of Christianity is the "correct" one. If I argue a point it is not political or because I like this person or don't like that person. I argue the same point now. Keep their ideology out of this fight. I believe doing so is a FAIL strategy. Some critics get upset when other critics compare scientology to other religions, because they think we are acknowledging that it is a religion, but that is not true. It is not about opinion, it is about perspective-taking and what strategy will actually send the spear into the dragon's soft underbelly. What is scientology's soft underbelly? I believe it is the fact that they continuously break the law and violate human rights. Does their ideology directly instruct them to do so? Are there LRon instructions that say "break up families for political and control reasons", "hold people against their will", "force young Sea Org women to have abortions", "extort every penny and cause parishioners financial ruin". No. The only piece of scientology ideology that is directly damning, is the Fair Game policy because it does directly instruct them to break the law. Policy which they claim to have cancelled, but their policy clearly states that it is only cancelled as an "official policy" and the action of fair gaming people may continue. Arguing that R2-45 orders scientologists to shoot people or that they plan to commit genocide of people below 2.0 on the tone scale, only presents a debatable argument and is useless other than perhaps to raise awareness about the mental condition of scientology's Founder. Then we are back at square zero, debating "scientology ideology" again.

If you want to educate people on what SP doctrine is, what it means, and how it often harms people when carried out, that's fine. I think Caroline does an incredible job of that. But to say Indies must renounce it 100% in order for us to trust them or include them within the umbrella of people critical of the church of scientology is a mistake imo. It is forcing a line to be drawn in the sand, excludes valuable assets in this fight and separates critics. C & G can do that personally if they want to. But if they want to bring that as any kind of strategy to the overall fight against scientology abuse, I will continue to debate that until someone convinces me that it makes for a viable strategy.




No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is this: a squirrel is an auditor who alters the tech when applying it to himself and others. He changes and invents auditing processes not approved by LRon. That has nothing to do with the scientology administrative machine that spits out gold paper for the purposes of control, to enforce compliance or otherwise shut people up. Marty has no such machine and I do not think he ever will. But if I see him marching towards any such endeavor, he will instantly become my enemy.


Again there is a huge lack of perspective on this subject. Were you immersed in scientology 35 years ago, prior to the establishment of the suppressive Sea Organization? Are you really able to compare what scientology was like 35 years ago versus what it is like today? Just because there are stories of LRon locking children in chain lockers aboard the Apollo does not mean that there is no difference in how the general populace practiced scientology then and now. Hard core believers will question whether the chain locker story is true. The difference is they are now exposed to this kind of information. And I believe that that exposure alone will affect the way they carry on their business as scientologists who are now independent of an organization that has become VERY VERY suppressive.


I can't comment on this because I am not arguing on Swift's behalf, only my own. I do not see Swift as some huge Marty supporter other than he cheerily eggs Marty on in his fight against Miscavige, and I do not see the crime in that.


Only believers see "clear instructions" from LRon. All the self contradictions, illogic, bad writing, poor grammar, incongruent concepts, disjointed paragraphs, pompous unsubstantiated claims, fake research, etc., only become clear when one gets exterior to it all and is willing to put it under a microscope. Until then they believe "it all adds up" and they do not allow any other thought to come to mind. You become an expert at suppressing your own cognitive dissonance. Are they really applying LRon's instructions precisely? Or are they simply living their own illusion?

But regardless of that, one can still believe in their own self and their own ability to apply LRon in an appropriate and helpful manner, especially when they are out from under the thumb of a cult. Marty's group, as-is, right now, is not necessarily a cult by definition. Yes it has the potential to become one. That's why we're watching.


As if he is capable of really knowing what "hubbard intended scientology" really is? LOL. Okay, I understand what you want from him. Personally he is not capable of this imo. It requires that he pay attention to critics' concerns and take the time to alleviate them, when maybe he could care less. Personally I think it is a huge mistake on his part, but then his awareness of things outside of his own rightness is low. The fight he is fighting with Miscavige is too big and too important for him to take on a whole other issue like that, and besides, if he aligns himself with critics of scientology IN ANY WAY, scino-corp will use that to help make him look like the enemy of the very people he wants to "rescue" from them. All they have against him right now is "squirreling". LOL!

Anyway, I'm happy to have discussed all this with you RWT, thank you.

Hopefully you are not holding onto that "what is true for you" bs of hubbard's (maybe even unconciously?)! Because I don't have to have been there in the past to be able to assess it and am talking about more than the stories told about hubbard. I'm talking policies & actions such as operation freakout and the infiltration & theft from U.S. government offices in the seventies as just a couple of examples. Historians & military analysts would be amazed that you believe comparison of the past with now could not be accomplished without experiencing it for one self! Yes I'm sure most average scientologists were good back then as I'm sure there are plenty today but even so plenty will seemingly still follow "greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics" when asked (Even Tory had for OSA while still in). With Marty's dismissal of unpleasant truths about hubbard I can see that information once again being ignored given the chance. Hopefully his group stay small & benign and this discussion of ours just a minor debate (as it probably will be).



No there is no crime in that but he has tried to either pressure or guilt Caroline & Gerry about the SPDL:
HERE





So am I!