Surely a scientologist will never say an unequivocal "No" to something that's recognised as part of the "tech"? Isn't it basic that LRH is source, and that anything except full application of the "tech" as it has been received from source is ultra naughty?

What Karen said about the suppressive person doctrine was quite minimal and vague and leaves loads of room for different interpretations.

One view would be that she's simply lying. What she presents as true PTS/SP doctrine has no real resemblance to the application of that doctrine under LRH. There's no recognition in what she says that people/organisations outside the church can be SP, no mention of the idea of PTS and disconnection, no mention of fair gaming. There's also, obviously, no recognition that declares were issued to people who weren't (by any generally accepted standard) "really evil". So maybe she's just trying to cover the truth.

Another view would be that she's lying to herself in order to square the circle.

Another view would be that she does reject standard tech, but cannot explicitly say that this is what she is doing. An equivocal 'No', rather than the unequivocal 'No' that you think is needed. A few days ago on Marty's blog she said:
That's rejecting even a view of the suppressive person doctrine as akin to Catholic excommunication (justified by reference to Matthew 16:19, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.")

Part of me wants to know exactly which precise one of the many things she could be doing she actually is doing. To pin it down. Ignore all the stuff she says about the horrors of PTS/SP under Miscavige (which is misdirection, in effect if not in intention) and just try to get a straight answer on her view of the actual content of genuine, on-source PTS/SP doctrine.

But I sort of think trying to do that might be missing the point (and anyway, I know it'd be a waste of time). One way of dealing with a question to which one can find no satisfactory answer is to ignore it, or half-ignore it -- and it may be that that's the best way to understand her stance (or lack of stance). If the choice you think you face is between embracing evil (embracing PTS/SP) or being a squirrel (rejecting PTS/SP), the best thing may be simply to refuse to choose. (And if you do that long enough, you hopefully get to realise that you shouldn't be facing that choice in the first place.)

That seems like a loud and clear NO to me. I wish she would have been as outspoken in her answer here in this thread.

The whole David Mayo discussion seems to be a big thing on Marty's blog at the moment. Apparently Marty's view on David Mayo is not shared by all his followers. What complicates the discussion is that we now appear to have two DM's who are accused of squirrely behavior by M&M.
The Scientologist's inclination to use acronyms is starting to cause confusion here and there.... And sticking to the "integrity of Source" and Hub's infallibility will keep causing the need to square circles.

I mean, Hubbard was only human, even for those people that believe most of what he said, couldn't there be the smallest possibility he may have overdone some things? A bit like Christians denouncing the stoning of children while sticking to the Divine inspiration of the Bible as a whole?

Religions tend to change over time. If they don't, they disappear. Nobody still worships Zeus or Sobek, the crocodile God of the Nile. And in their time and place they were fairly mainstream Gods.
If Independent Scientology wants a viable future in the 21st century, it needs to get rid of some of the dogma that is simply not acceptable in these days.

The hotbed of corruption and violence that the official Co$ has turned into is (IMO) beyond repair. I wouldn't mind seeing that institution disappear from the face of the earth. ASAP.

J. Swift , another issue with your examples from the bible (whether new or old testament) is that it was written thousands of years ago by many people and then compiled. The early papacy debated over many books as to which would be used in the new testament. The heads of the Christian churches have been debating interpretation ever since and this is allowed (certain things such as Exodus were of their time and are considered not to fit for today). Rabbis have not only been debating the old testament's interpretation ever since it was compiled but they encourage all Jews to debate and challenge scripture starting as early as Hebrew school and continue to do so their whole lives.

Hubbard on the other hand wrote it all himself (or claimed to do so as Marty is arguing with people on his site now and calling them OSA when they don't agree) in modern times to stand as is for all time with no changes and was explicit in his instruction that he be followed to the letter and left no room for interpretation. Hubbard called himself source and told his followers his writings for scientology must be followed completely intact or they are squirriling.

To follow standard scientology as Hubbard intended (and Marty claims for the indies) is to follow SP doctrine, KSW, etc. as he wrote them and to interpret any part of it otherwise is not following his instructions. Oh acceptable truths (flat out lies) are ok for those who are not scientologists as he wrote but those who are following his "religion" as intended what he wanted was pretty clearly written and according to him is not to be tampered with or changed.

So if the indies want to claim they are following standard scientology as hubbard intended then they need to get past this conundrum of the horrible aspects to hubbard's scriptures or they will always be looked at with suspicion and with good reason!

Oh yes, the "Acceptable Truth" doctrine. The first time I got in touch with that piece of junk theology (pun more-or-less intended) was at Narconon. They convinced me that I was an unethical being because all drug-users tend to lie a lot. The only thing I could do was agree. I did lie sometimes, if it came to pass, and that was not an ethical thing to do.

That night I couldn't sleep, I was upset, felt guilty, about the whole lying thing, so I went back to the living-room to smoke a cigarette. Some "student" in a more advanced stage of the program had forgotten to take his booklet with him. Though I knew reading it was against the rules, I was curious. And guess what, L.Ron Hubbard, in his own words, told me that it was OK to lie, or as he put it, to tell an acceptable truth. I was completely flabbergasted. Moment of revelation. End of indoctrination phase one. From that moment I didn't believe anything they said anymore. Thanks for that sloppy student. Without him I probably would have been a Scilon for the next twenty years or so. That double standard was the breaking point for me. There was more, but that was the real eye-opener.

Today I was looking for anti-Semitic Hubbard quotes. And I happened to see some old familiar acceptable truth bullshit. The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics and all that.

Found some nice quotes. The exes among you know this stuff by heart, but it could be interesting for some of our wog board-members. You really have to see to believe this crap. Ok, here we go: (Red text is added by me.)



For the full story on "Acceptable truth", http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/lying.htm

This is just some stuff from one page, the rest of the site is interesting too, specially for those who are relatively new to the subject. I can recommend the pages on racism and minorities too. No, that smiley is an UNacceptable truth. Its more like or Or both.

I do not know Marty or Mike and have never spoken to them. I e-mailed Marty a few times last year but that was it. I met some Indies and Freezoners at the 2008 lake and beach parties that Jason and Marc hosted.

One thing critics are not taking into account is this: Indie and FZ groups do not have religious status. They cannot imprison people, pay slave wages, force abortions, break up families, beat their staffs or do any other illegal things under the shield of ministerial exemption. When groups are subject to civil and criminal law they must behave lawfully or face lawsuits and arrests. These Indie and FZ groups are accountable to civil and criminal laws, this quite unlike CoS. CoS gets away with what it does because it has religious status.

I knew Alan Walter. He ran a big ranch where he and his people offered Knowledgeism. Alan's auditors could make several thousand dollars per week. Alan himself charged something like $1,000 per hour and was booked way in advance. Over at ESMB Alan called it was it was: Capitalism. He and his staff made good money and there was never any negative PR. The Freezone has been running quietly for years. They do not have religious status. They must also compete with each other for clients. Competition keeps prices down and quality up. Indies or FZ'ers who get heavy-handed can easily lose clients to friendlier and smarter competition.

IMO, it is better to have numerous capitalist groups subject to law selling services rather than one big monopolistic Cult that has the shield of ministerial exemption.

Absent religious exemption, the evils of the Scientology Cult cannot be practiced. The answer is, and always has been, to get rid of the Cult's tax exemption and religious status.


/////

You're right on that, Swift. That would be the first and foremost thing for governments to do.

But Indies taking a stand on things like SP/PTS and disconnection has nothing to do with getting rid of tax exemption and religious status of Co$. This is not just about the blessings of free enterprise, this is about dogma and about creating trust.

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, Marty or someone else, gathers enough followers to start an organization with an org board and staff members, purchases a building and then decides to give their organization a name and start practicing as a religious group.

I would have mixed feelings about something like that. I'd have suspicions and mistrust about their behavior. At the same time I think such a thing happening would give David Miscavige a serious case of the willies, and I'd enjoy that.

I would expect such an enterprise to put in all of Hubbard's policies to the letter and that would include the suppressive person doctrine, exactly as it is now practiced by the mother so called church, and such an organization would then have its own religious cloak.

Would such a thing happen? Yes, because it is Hubbard's policy to form an org and expand it.

The Jewish faith is quite different from Christianity. In Christianity, the Bible is considered the inerrant Word of God whose unity and integrity was guaranteed by Divine Transmission. Hebrews 1:1-3 shows the Christian understanding of Divine Revelation of scripture across history until its summation in Jesus Christ:



The Bible is not up for negotiation in Christianity, except for perhaps in liberal traditions. This is why Atheist sites attack the Bible: http://www.evilbible.com/


Yes but David Miscavige, the ecclesiastical head reissued most of LRH's books in 2008 and called them The Basics. He claimed that all earlier versions had alterations due to SP transcriptionists. Therefore, there is a debate as to what is actually Hubbard.


I am glad to see a fellow critic acting as an Ethics Officer by demanding that all Scientologists must practice the SP Doctrine, etc. ruthlessly. Is Marty's blog an example of KSW? Is Mike Rinder doing CNN or the BBC KSW? Tell me please RWT, What is KSW? Does KSW mean that all Scientologists are diabolical? If so, look at the Bible. There is blood and gore from beginning to end.


RWT, by your logic, then, the Jews need to remove all offensive material from their scripture, "or they will always be looked at with suspicion and with good reason." I mean, you are not advocating a double standard are you? BTW, Christians in Colonial America used these verses below from II Kings, along with other verses, as justification for the Salem Witch Hunts and the murder of witches.


2 Kings 23:20-25 (The Message)

These verses above are still used today by Christians fundamentalists to persecute Pagans and Wiccans. However, high church traditions relegate these same verses to the past. Based upon religious history in general, Scientology will split into fundamentalist, moderate, and liberal camps. This constellation has occurred in all established religions. In order to go mainstream, and it never may do so, Scientology will of course have to moderate and relegate problem scriptures to both the past or to its extremist fringes. Once the DM era comes to an end, I think the Church of Scientology will cease in its present form, where "present form" means a culture of runaway soul-killing violence and greed. I could be wrong though: Thursday at 2:00 PM recurs weekly.


/////

Yes for the average Christian but how many councils has there been since 364AD in the Catholic church alone (i.e. Council of Laodicea, Council of Trent, etc) so relevancy of canon has been changed and not held solid since the gospels were first written. As far as I've known there are (and have been for a long time) ecumenical councils in many sects of Christianity. Also I know there is a distinct difference between Christian & Jewish faiths that's why my reference as to Jews was that Rabbi's encourage all in their tutelage to challenge scripture.



So are you claiming either hubbard era or miscavige claimed real SP doctrines are benevolent & benign? I don't see how what you are saying is relevant to what's in question.


Yes there is blood and gore from beginning to end in the bible and it is considered history. I don't know of any clergy asking for that to be practiced now. How does pointing out how hubbard wanted scientology practiced make me an ethics officer? I'm not forcing anyone to practice it only pointing out Marty's claim of standard scientology and what that entails. Is that not allowed? Are you the one who needs to calm down as you suggested for Alert? Are you telling me that Marty is lying and he really doesn't intend to follow scientology strictly? As for KSW are you saying that Marty & Mike aren't following KSW to get rid of the squirrel miscavige? Do you really think that Marty doesn't believe he is following KSW now? I don't think all scientologists are diabolical but if they are following absolute strict hubbard doesn't that include implementation of things like SP doctrine?



You'd be hard pressed to find a Rabbi that says those aspects of the old testament are relevant and should be practiced today. The are essentially disavowed as irrelevant for today and are considered history only. Marty hasn't said any such thing that I know of for the SP doctrine which is what I've been saying to you but in your need to make Marty seem other than what he himself admits you seem to run off in a tangent to make it easier for you to answer yet not address what I and other have been asking or pointing out.

You can try to sidestep it all you want by taking what I say to extremes and answering that but it still boils down to one thing. What it comes down to is either Marty is a squirrel by hubbard's definition or not. If he is and consigned to history (not eradicated from history as the extreme out of some anger you continue to suggest I'm saying) things such as the SP doctrine then great. But so far we haven't seen anything of the sort and from what I've read of his blog I don't think you could get him to admit that the SP doctrine is wrong or shouldn't be practiced. Why do you want to constantly ignore that fact and suggest that Marty should be rammed down Gerry, Caroline's & the SPDL's throat whether they like it or not is baffling when they consider him unrepentant because he wants to be strict standard hubbard intended scientology and not set aside the SP doctrine so the assessment of them to him is still valid. He certainly wont admit what he did to them when he was still in the mother "church" was wrong even now . That the critics should ignore the fact that he wont explicitly state that the SP doctrine is not a part of his practice of standard scientology and just accept him because he's not in miscavige's "church" is absurd.

Marty I'm sure doesn't need our approval (or cares) and Gerry & Caroline should be allowed to have reasonable criteria as to who is allowed into the SPDL.

The interesting thing about the bible is that it has existed in some form or another as a guide for thousands of years. For instance that passage in Exodus 21 is actually quite interesting, and I will use this passage as hopefully a small teaching tool for those questioning how to critically read the written word. It is an invaluable tool when wishing to divine the true intent of those writing the words.

Before I begin I'd like to go explain something, these were written as laws, meaning their intents were to be taken literally. We'll get into why that's important later, but it is important to keep that it is literal in mind. And, for the most part, when laws are made the process that goes into making them is usually very thought out, meaning that if they made a law for it, their most probably was a reason.

There probably wouldn't be a law against theft if no one stole anything.

We'll go through this line by line.

If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do.

This is fairly vague, it only ascertains that there is a difference between the ways that male and female slaves get released from service. But if you think about it, it has some fairly large implications, such as that even at the level of slaves, their is a difference and possibly a pecking order to how women and men are treated. This hints at a highly patriarchal society, however considering the time period and the area this is unremarkable.

If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed.

This is very interesting, suggesting that a master beforehand may have had the ability to cast out a slave girl who displeased him, or perhaps even execute her outright. But then that this right was revoked by the early Hebrews.

He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her.

So a master cannot sell his slave girl to foreigners? Maybe the Hebrews felt the other cultures treated their slaves much to roughly. Or maybe this was a backwards way of ensuring that eventually the slave would be released in jubilee.

If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter.

Many would believe that this would mean the servant girl would no longer be treated as a slave, however I think that it has a far more specific meaning. Early cultures in the Mideast considered the female uterus to be property, quite literally this meant they had sexual rights to women that they bought. The Babylonians and the Early Greeks shared this view as well. As examples of both I point to the Illiad and Hammurabi's code.

Although the Minoans appear to have treated women as equals.

But back to the topic, this passage means that a man cannot have sex with the future wife of his son just because she is currently his slave, I can only assume that the necessity of this law being written was that it must have been at least occasionally happening.

I know these are horrible, terrible things, but believe it or not, they are early advances in human rights. To them, they might have actually been seen as revolutionary.

If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

Again, this is treating women as something more than just tools for doing housework and making children. And also their is a suggestion of rights being ascribed to women, specifically wives. If she is not given these things she goes free, which those days meant back to her family, who would probably put her back on the market for a new husband.


Anyone who attacks their father or mother is to be put to death.

Interesting for many reasons, the Hebrews must have considered the family unit very important to enact this law. Also it says father or mother, meaning that women were ascribed status of some sort at motherhood that they weren't in other cultures. It also is an incredibly harsh sentence, meaning that the Hebrews believed in using punishment as a deterrent towards future crime.

Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

Fairly simple, but it leaves me wondering, what circumstances would lead to this exact wording? What person assumed that just because a perpetrator sold the kidnapped person they were no longer guilty of kidnapping? I will have to read more about the context of this law in particular in order to divine its reasoning.

Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

Wow, the family unit must have been central to early Hebrew culture. This is harsh even by the standards of the time. One must wonder why, it is possible considering the relatively small size of Hebrew culture at the time this was made to ensure that their were no dangerous divisions between families. It deserves study, but it might be because early Hebrew culture attitudes towards the family unit molded the laws around the protection of the family unit.

At the end considering that most of the laws are made to protect women, however horrifying their implications are they are made for the protection of women.

Most would wonder why these laws were necessary to have been made, it might have been for the prevention of violence, specifically vendetta. Think of the conflict that would be created in a relationship if your father was allowed by law to have sex with your future wife.

Laws are created by the government in order to do two things, appease the people, and to prevent the cyclical expanding nature of vendetta.

Your father sleeps with your future wife, you punch him, he kills you, your brothers kill him, your uncles kill your brothers, and on, and on.

Or, you steal your neighbors goat, he burns your barn down, so your sons rape his daughters.

These are horrible things to say, all the more horrible because in certain cultures which are considerably more lawless, they still happen.

http://www.iheu.org/iheu-condemns-sudan-iran-using-rape-political-weapon

If allowed, think of the consequences for a government, the cycle can become so large that it can lead to the weakening of government, leading to possibilities of insurrection, invasion, and revolution. As such allowing these things is foolish, and will only lead to more and more horrors.

sorry for the dark thoughts, but it is important while reading these passages to always seek the truth, unvarnished and bare. Like an ingrown toenail, it is disgusting, sometimes bloody and almost always painful. But left alone it will grow worse and worse.

These are observations, and not meant to be taken as proven facts, only as thoughts espoused from a barely conscious mind at 3AM.

I'm grateful for your insights, butwehave11, thank you.

Thanks also to J. Swift for bringing your A-game to this discussion. As a reminder, J. Swift has announced that he's a Master Mason and Knight Templar, author of The Origin of the Universe and the Masonic Pyramid: The Queen of Heaven, and that he wants to attract followers.



I thought I'd post David Mayo's SP declare for review and discussion. Perhaps Karen #1 would like to comment on this issue.













Source: http://freezone.najbjerg.info/dokumentation/david_mayo_sp_declare

Caroline, yes I am a Master Mason and a Knight Templar. Yes I have written a book. My book makes it clear that I have my own spiritual cosmology that is quite distinct from Scientology. I would like to form a spiritual study group and may someday. This is quite aside from the subject at hand, but I understand your need to document things.

*****
Even ignoring the Hebrew scriptures, which scriptures the Christians appropriated and called the Old Testament, the New Testament itself is also controversial. The New Testament seeks to protects families except when Jesus decides that your family members are, err, suppressive and that disconnection is needed:


Ref: Matthew 10:34-37, The Message

Jesus actually said this and you can check it out for yourself. However, Christian churches ignore this horrific verse and do not break up families - this although Jesus demanded it. Jesus did not want "well-meaning family members" getting in the way of a person's commitment to him. Christians, however, selectively apply scripture like all other religions. My point here is that many religious movements have brutal scriptures that force believers to separate themselves from non-believers. Scientology is hardly unique in this regard. This does not excuse its SP Doctrine, Disconnection, etc. but it shows that even the major religions do not brook dissent from within and will excommunicate people who do not agree. There have always been religious extremists, especially early in the history of a sect or a cult. This is why such groups have to moderate or become a fringe group that eventually disbands. The Church of Scientology is unique in that it has used religious brutality in uncommon and uncommonly expensive ways; most religions do not pursue outspoken former members or prominent critics and journalists with such pure hatred and an incredibly expensive private intelligence bureau.

Religious history argues that Scientology will continue to schism and that moderates will selectively apply scripture like all other religions. Matthew 10:34-37 is part of Christianity's "SP Doctrine," is still a part of Holy Writ, and has been consigned to the dustbin in the everyday life of Christianity.

/////

I looked up the Bible reference, and the verses do say that. I think Butwehave11's insights could be applied to the New Testament too.

Scientology and Scientologists have a tremendous opportunity, this very day, to select out the SP doctrine and completely renounce it, and remove it entirely from their scriptures, including from all Narconon, Criminon, VM and other Scientology outreach programs and propaganda materials. Removing the SP doctrine would probably gut their religion. I'd be okay with that, and, regardless, I'm convinced it's what must be done to evolve, and for everyone's protection and peace.

David Mayo's SP declare was devastating for me. Until then, he had been a symbol for standard tech around the world, and, because I had been a techie in the Sea Org, he was my first authority under L. Ron Hubbard. People were getting declared all around me during that period, including my own husband. Reading this document was, I'd imagine, something like finding out in the LA Times that your twins' pediatrician was one Josef Mengele.

The Church of Scientology's convert Mr. Farrakhan has a very "SP" friend in Moammar Ghadafi. Nevertheless, Mr. Farrakhan has not been ordered, per the SP Doctrine, to disconnect. Mr. Ghadafi has outlawed all religions except for Islam in Libya. Therefore, Ghadafi opposes Scientology's mere presence in Libya. A Google search for "Gaddafi Sadism" yields 1.18 million hits. Yet, Mr. Farrakhan is allowed to remain very much connected to a true antisocial personality, a dictator figure who has slaughtered his own people. If anything, Mr. Farrakhan declared Ghadafi to be a friend a few weeks ago as was widely reported in the media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/2 ... 29024.html

Ghadafi is an SP by definition and yet Mr. Farrakhan is acting as if he has not written him the required Disconnection letter per the sacred scriptures of Scientology. Why has this travesty been allowed to happen in a Church where scripture and ecclesiastical justice policies are always 100% standardly applied by sane, caring persons in a just, dispassionate, and flawless way each and every minute of every day? Do the new monies and recruits expected to flow in from NOI outweigh the SP Doctrine by millions and millions of dollars? I say yes. Indeed, according to *Indie* reports DM has ordered that NOI members in CoS not be crushed regged.

This certainly argues that the SP Doctrine is very selectively and arbitrarily applied at the highest echelons of the Cult as well as the lowest: One can be declared an SP or RPF'd in CoS in a sham Comm Ev for simply having angered the wrong person or having a statcrash. Conversely, one's chances of being declared an SP seem to decrease in proportion to the wealth, power, and influence one can offer David "the Undeclarable SP" Miscavige.

An "SP Declare" in CoS assumes that there is an honest and functional justice system in a Cult where there is no justice.

How many stories of unjust and arbitrary SP Declares have been posted online? Why was Reed Slatkin not declared an SP until after he was arrested? Why was Rex Fowler not declared an SP before he pulled a trigger?

Is it not absurd of us to debate an insane policy? Or are we just having our particular brand fun once again on OCMB?



/////