[WWP] Scientology Religiosity? (Research Packets & Dox)

caroline · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:20 pm

About salvation...

AnonLover · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:30 pm **Posts:** 122

Now thats a creepy a promo! Any idea of a timeframe for International Scientology News 16?

caroline · **Posted:** Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:02 pm

^ISN 16 © 2001 CSI.

Here's an interesting forum exchange with Bill Patterson, author of Robert A. Heinlein: In Dialogue with his century re: Hubbard, Heinlein and the religion angle:

On NexusForum, RobertPearson wrote:

...Here is the text that I quoted from the original AOL page. Perhaps someone will recognize it:

Quote:

Heinlein kept in touch with his friends. L. Ron Hubbard was stationed in the Pacific, but toward the end of the war he wound up in Philadelphia and was a participant in Heinlein's think tank.

(...)

Also in 1950, Campbell began publishing the series of Dianetics articles by Heinlein's close friend, L. Ron Hubbard, after they had been rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association. While writing the Old Doc Methuselah stories, and after serving as a magickal assistant for one of Aleister Crowley's most promising American disciples, Jack Parsons, in The Babalon Working, Hubbard developed a "new" theory of the mind based on his observations (and, some say, secret doctrines of Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientalis, or "O.T.O.") rather than on psychiatric theory. Hubbard's "Dianetics" was to be a "scientific" replacement for the pre-scientific Freud. Dianetics monitoring, using a psionic device called the E-meter (psionics devices -- machines that interacted directly with the mind -- were Campbell's new passion in the 1950's), became something of a fad in the science fiction community, but Hubbard was running into stiff resistance from the convention-minded medical community, who were inclined to become nasty about Dianetics monitors practicing medicine without a license. Heinlein had told Hubbard in conversations in Philadelphia during World War II that a religion could successfully front anything in the U.S.

Hubbard followed Heinlein's now ten-year old advice, abandoning Dianetics. The Founding Church of Scientology opened in January 1955 in Washington D.C. and in New York. Heinlein's advice to Hubbard had allowed him completely to bypass the medical opposition; for the next fifteen years, Hubbard's principal bêtes noirs would be the Internal Revenue Service (but Heinlein was right: the IRS was never able to prove Scientology a fake religion under U.S. law, and they eventually gave up after being defeated in decision after decision).

BillPatterson wrote:

Yes, that's the original version of the biographical sketch published in the Heinlein Journal no. 5. It was online briefly, but replaced with a condensed version, at my request.

caroline · **Posted:** Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:11 pm

For Scientology Religiosity? Volume 0 - Materials Index (Project Outline) Vol IV: Gnosticism and Applied Religious Philosophy.

In "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material," Hubbard instructs Scientologists how to and how not to communicate with various "publics" outside of Scientology. It also makes a useful primer for researchers, especially researchers who attempt to communicate with Scientologists about their religion.

Hubbard wrote:

A DESCRIPTION OF SCIENTOLOGY

Scientology is the science of knowing how to know answers. It is an organized system of Axioms and Processes which resolve the problems of existence.

A Scientologist is a specialist in spiritual and human affairs.

Scientology is organized from the viewpoint of the spirit and contains a precise and usable definition of the spirit, and charts and studies and is capable of changing the behavior of the spirit.

This science is formed in the tradition of ten thousand years of religious philosophy and considers itself a culmination of the searches which began with the Veda, the Tao, Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions. Scientology is a Gnostic faith in that it knows it knows. This is its distinguishing characteristic from most of its predecessors. Scientology can demonstrate that it can attain the goals set for man by Christ, which are: Wisdom, Good Health, and Immortality.

By spiritual means, but means which are as precise as mathematics, a host of bad conditions of life may be remedied in Scientology. Illness and malfunction can be

[...]

In addressing persons professionally interested in the ministry, we have another interesting problem in public presentation. We should not engage in religious discussions. In the first place, as Scientologists, we are gnostics, which is to say that we know that we know. People in the ministry ordinarily suppose that knowingness and knowledge are elsewhere resident than in themselves. They believe in belief and substitute belief for wisdom. This makes Scientology no less a religion, but makes it a religion with an older tradition and puts it on an intellectual plane.

Religious philosophy, then, as represented by Scientology, would be opposed in such a discussion to religious practice. We are all-denominational rather than nondenominational, and so we should be perfectly willing to include in our ranks a Moslem, or a Taoist, as well as any Protestant or Catholic, while people of the ministry in Western civilization, unless they are evangelists, are usually dedicated severely to some faction which in itself is in violent argument with many other similar factions. Thus these people are ready to argue and are practiced in argument, and there are more interpretations of one line of scripture than there are sunbeams in a day.

Beyond explaining one's all-denominational character, explaining that one holds the Bible as a holy work, one should recognize that the clergy of Western Protestant churches defines a minister or the standing of a church by these salient facts: Jesus Christ was the Savior of Mankind, Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

We in Scientology find no argument with this, and so in discussing Scientology with other ministry one should advance these two points somewhere in the conversation. Additionally, one should advance to the ministry exactly those things mentioned earlier as what we would like the general public to believe. Christ, if you care to study the New Testament, instructed his disciples to bring wisdom and good health to man, and promised mankind immortality, and said the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and the translators have not added that "at hand" possibly meant three feet back of your head. We could bring up these points but there is no reason to. You are not trying to educate other ministry. A friendly attitude toward other ministry in general, and fellow ministers in particular, is necessary.

The way to handle an individual minister of some other church is as follows: get him to tell you exactly what HE believes, get him to agree that religious freedom is desirable, then tell him to make sure that if that's the way he believes, he should keep on believing that, and that you would do anything to defend his right to believe that.

None of these people as individuals are antipathetic. They know a great deal about public presence, and can be respected for such knowledge. However, engaging in long discourses, or trying to educate a minister of some Protestant church or a priest of the Catholic faith into the tenets of Scientology is not desirable and is directly contrary to Article 10 of the Code of a Scientologist.

You will find you have many problems and people in common with other ministers. They're alive too. Also you will see a campaign to place only ministers in charge of the mind and mental healing. Talk about these things.

The Christian Church has been hurt by factionalism. We stand for peace and happiness. Therefore, let us carry it forward by example, not by unseemly discussions.

Hubbard, L. R. (1955, ca. mid-March). The Scientologist A Manual On The Dissemination Of Material. The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol III: pp. 40-66; 1976 ed., Vol II pp. 151-71.) Los Angeles, Bridge Publications, Inc.

Here's one of Hubbard's amazing justifications for not telling the truth about Scientology to "religionists":

Hubbard wrote:

The real crime of evaluation is to tell the patient he is wrong. Evaluation itself as a broad subject is not particularly harmful so long as it does not completely invalidate the person to whom the remarks are addressed. Thus you could give a person a general framework of life so long as you are not crowding it against an entirely different framework of life. As an example, a Scientologist tells some religionist whose life is entirely oriented on religious principles of some archaic and antiquated creed that his beliefs are all wrong and that the truth lies otherwise. As the Scientologist is going straight up against a life entirely oriented by these ancient creeds, he is apt to produce in his action a considerable apathy on the part of the religionist. He is not apt to get in truth a convert to Scientology. He is apt to get a candidate for a mental hospital instead.

A person can be led out of any serious fixed beliefs by getting him to agree that there are wider beliefs to assume, but this must be done in full observance of ARC, and is not done by direct evaluation. This is, by the way, why we sometimes fail to convert people in older “healing” methods to Dianetics and Scientology. We simply fly into the teeth of their stable data and leave them all confused. We, knowing life, are far too convincing. “They” cannot but partially agree.

Evaluation for a person could be defined as the action of shaking his stable data without giving him further stable data with which he can agree or in which he can believe.

Hubbard, L. R. (1956, 24 July) A Critique of Psychoanalysis (Continued) The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol III: pp. 455-63.) Los Angeles, Bridge Publications, Inc.

Hubbard, of course, is using the term "religionist" disparagingly. Then he proceeded to make Scientology a religion and Scientologists all religionists.

AnonLover · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:30 pm **Posts:** 122

Caroline, I think i love you!!!!!

Quote:

In "A Manual on the Dissemination of Material," ...

Hi Ho!!! thats been leaked before... altho i dont have a local copy ATM, i shall seek it out. Thanks for the tip, AND for working ahead to the later volumes that are still formative at this stage.

(AND nice to know somebody other than me can wrap their head around my project outline document. i sorta feared that was tied to closely to how my extremely anal retentive brain works & only made sense to me :crazy:

)

caroline · **Posted:** Tue Sep 27, 2011 11:49 pm

AnonLover wrote:

(AND nice to know somebody other than me can wrap their head around my project outline document. i sorta feared that was tied to closely to how my extremely anal retentive brain works & only made sense to me :crazy:

)

No, your outline is brilliant, and this is an epic project.

Note: on Vol 1 Subject Matter Index >Hope of Man: The 1955 lecture was excerpted and published in Ability Minor 5 ca. mid-June 1955. Republished in the Technical Bulletins 1976 edition, Vol II, pp. 209-15.

Vol II Quotes

About there being only one God and about the character of the Christian God:

Hubbard wrote:

If nobody to date has been able to actually spot with a meter the existence of commands from a Supreme Being.. you see, he's got no reason or right to keep insisting that people receive commands from a Supreme Being. He has no reality on it. He.. he couldn't.. he couldn't get a good agreement on this except on a stampede basis. It cannot be scientifically established the geographical location of a fellow by the no.. name of the Supreme Being, MEST universe. That can't be established.

A lot of fellows been trying that. This does not say that there aren't such things as gods and makers of gods. But it does say that this cardboard thing-a-ma-bob that they sell by painting signs on the rocks probably isn't sending out anything for us to experience at all.

Why? We can't measure it. That's a heck of an arbitrary scale, isn't it? Well, the dickens it is. We've been able to measure everything else. In absence of that we've been driven to this incredible length. In absence of trying to find a supreme being for this universe, why we've been driven to the incredible length of having to discover that uh.. uh.. probably the mostest god you'll ever know is you in this universe and uh.. for lack of a..lack of a nice big fellow who anthromorphically sits on a throne and uh.. has a greed for adulation which would be found disgusting in any mortal (I'm quoting the Greeks now. The sources of Christianity, Plato, the great pagan, he's their sole reason for authority). Anyway, didn't you know that, that Christianity is based upon the writings of Plato, and the Catholic Church at all times when challenged about its doctrines has uniformly referred to the authority called Plato? You understand I'm not.. not in any way, sense or form against the Church. I think the Church is a good organization. But we got a better one now.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 4 December). The Logics and Methods of Thinking. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

In discussing his preclear, and the auditing demonstration just concluded, Hubbard wrote:

Of course she’d (Hubbard's preclear) destroy God. So would anybody when he comes up tone scale a little bit. Because stop and think for a moment, what passed for God for the MEST universe is not the goddest God there is by an awful long ways. And that whoever made that MEST universe – this MEST universe – whoever made this thing was a usurper of one’s own universe. And this has been sold to the individual, and it has sold the individual out of his ability to make a universe or even to handle this one.

That is a very healthy reaction from a preclear. "Kill God? Let me at him!" Tick-tick-tick! Now, it tells you something about that. All right.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 1 December). Creative Processing Demo of E-Meter Auditing. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

Hubbard wrote:

There are gods and makers of gods. And this is a minor universe. All right, it’s a big, sloppy one.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 3 December). Anatomy of Processing - Energy, Phenomena/Sensation. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

Hubbard wrote:

As long as… as you think, "Well, there’s an origin someplace, and that’s really what the origin is, why, I’ll just kind of tap in and say, "Well, I… I’ll be origin too, I mean I’ll just view this thing from this."

But it’s a sort of diffident thing; it’s something – you don’t say I’m origin for the MEST universe. Just… just think of this. Just think of this as the thought to yourself right now: I am the origin point of the whole MEST universe.

Sometimes people get pale when they think of that. "That’s just, oh no, I am the point of creation of the MEST universe. No, no, uh-uh." Now, what he does instead, he says, "Origin, I don’t know anything about that – wherever the origin is, but I sort of look at what is there in terms of origin. I sort of look at this from a viewpoint here that, well, uh… it’s a secondary viewpoint and somebody must have given it to me."

And here we get the whole theory of God made the physical universe and God made me but uh… I am – by His good offices, good graces and by a charter which I don’t quite have a copy of – am able to view all this space by His leave. And that’s where you get that.

Now, what kind of self-determinism is this? This is pretty horrible self-determinism.

[...]

First thing they tell you, "God is everywhere." Rrrrr. You mean we can’t have any of our own space in this universe because that’s all God’s space? That’s the neatest trick of the universe. That’s been perpetuated for 76 trillion years. You think that’s new?

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 4 December). Spacation: Energy Particles and Time. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

Hubbard wrote:

It is symbolical, that line in the Bible; it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." The day when you state a postulate to begin a universe, you are creating a God as well. And it is the God of that universe.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 6 December). Axioms and Logics Further Data. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

Hubbard wrote:

Uh… but you go in one of these modern cemeteries, one of these nice modern ones. Boo! There’s more trapped thetans around that joint than you care to measure up in a long day of Sundays. And if you want to amuse yourself, uh… put out a line on them and say, "Hey fella, why don’t you get on your way?" And they sort of feel groggy, "Huh? Voice of God, huh? Must be the voice of God."

So you want to play god? Well you ought to go down and do this sometime just for kicks. And uh… yeah, put a little bit of an energy beam on them and… or plant the thought, "You are now on top of the grave." Or, "You are now on top of the headstone." And if you really want to pour the juice into them – it’s kind of bad to hypnotize thetans; I usually feel sorry for them – if you want to pull the… if you want to pour the juice in on them and go just brrwhack! "You are now on top of the tombstone." There isn’t any doubt about your getting them out, truth be known.
You can put out enough energy. Beam in, sort of bore a little hole in the guy’s head and then… and then put the energy concentration flow into the center of his forehead, in in in in in in in, and his skull will go spatter, brains and all. This is no joke. I mean, I’m not joking about this.

So there isn’t any doubt about your getting somebody out of his head. It’s just how tough do you want to get as an auditor? So anyway, you go down and you fish out… you fish out a thetan or two and you feel real good. You’ve done your boy scout trick and the loved one then ceases to be troubled with seepage.

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 6 December). Axioms and Logics Further Data. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

Hubbard wrote:

And you… if your poor… if your poor psycho can only realize this, brother, it doesn’t amount to two whoops and a collar button what you’ve done, where you’ve been, who you’ve butchered, how many crosses you lugged to Golgotha, oh, that… that’s really vicious. You go down an… an insane asylum corridor and you see these religious implants are just leaping, it’s something in the order – it’s at least one out of three inmates in any asylum are spinning on religion. Why? God occupies all space. That’s all you have to convince a guy and he’s dead. That’s right, that’s all God’s space and any space which you occupy will be God’s. Oh, brother, just look at that as an operation. The guy can’t throw out any anchor points of his own without getting God into that space. And he’ll spin like a… like a spinning mouse if he finally gets this down the line. [Definition: Spinning]

Hubbard, L. R. (1952, 9 December). What's Wrong With This Universe: A Working Package for the Auditor. Philadelphia Doctorate Course. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, PA.

Hubbard wrote:

If you can get enough people to repent, repent, repent, and believe they are all sinful, and ask forgiveness, and et cetera, yap-yap, you see, if we – if we can run this in on somebody, he will recognize that he should have an effect. You get that? He should have punishment. He should have an effect his way. Ah, all they do is come along and get him to make up his mind you see, that he actually has created some effects. And now he ought to have one, or he’s going to get one, or Yahweh or somebody, who lives in a trunk with a leopard skin – that by the way is the Christian God.

I’m sorry to have to interject that statement but I’m always struck by this tremendous thing here of all of these – of all of these poor people going around not knowing anything about the anatomy of their own religion.

Hubbard, L. (1954, 9 December). The Communication Formula. Ninth Advanced Clinical Course. Lecture conducted from Phoenix, Arizona.

On forgiveness

Hubbard wrote:

Now, you want to know what teenage conduct is, and the standard feeling toward the parent which customarily, I’m informed takes place in the teens. And a rejection of the family on which tomes have been written. And which the most learned minds have shown how unlearned they were, and the great problem of juvenile delinquency--all those things. They arise out of this particular level of action. It isn’t so much. The child actually never forgives the parents for certain things. You’ll be amazed how tiny they are sometimes but they tend to mount up. And he really never forgives them. And you say forgiveness is the answer. No, forgiveness is dropping down another tone to propitiation. You’ve got to get to the source and cause of the matter. It’s got to be brought to the fore. Auditing does this easily. All the time.

Hubbard, L. (1964, 9 January). Bad Indicators.[mp3] Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. Lecture conducted from Sussex, England.

Hubbard wrote:

If there is any saintly quality, it is not to forgive. “Forgiveness” accepts the badness of the act. There is no reason to accept it. Further, one has to label the act as bad to forgive it. “Forgiveness” is a much lower level action and is rather censorious.

[...]

Justice, mercy, forgiveness, all are unimportant beside the ability not to change because of provocation or demands to do so.

Hubbard, L. (1966, March). What is Greatness? Retrieved on 27 September 2011 from http://www.lronhubbard.org/articles-and-essays/what-is-greatness.html

Dorothy · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:43 am

AnonLover wrote:

Government isnt the audience we are targeting with these publications.

May I ask- Who is the target audience?

AnonLover wrote:

Feedback, suggestions, discrepancies & other input on how to make this publication better in later editions is welcome here, or in the original WWP project thread where we are keeping opinions/debate on the actual materials & subject matter separate from ongoing compilation & publication efforts.

Here goes:

Volume 1 Summary wrote:

This volume of the Scientology Religiosity? publication series has been compiled to serve as the introductory module for a larger body of materials, and covers some of the basic principles of Scientology when viewed from the perspective of being classified as a new religious movement. The enclosed subject matter reveals the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard and other promotional material from the Church of Scientology on common aspects of “salvation” that is adhered to by the more traditional faiths:

The existence of God,
The role of heaven and hell, and
The eternal hope of mankind in accordance with the Scientology tenets of faith.

Modern religious studies have redefined religion to include a wide and diverse field of religious groups and NRMs. Here's an example:

Quote:

WORKING DESCRIPTION OF RELIGION

A developed religion is an integrated system of beliefs , lifestyle, ritual activities, and social institutions by which individuals give meaning to (or find meaning in) their lives by orienting themselves to what they experience as holy, sacred or of the highest value.

"Religion in America" (2010) 6th edition by Julia Corbett Hemeyer

Note the lack of mention of God, Heaven, Hell, Eternal Hope. If someone wants to orient themselves to "freedom from the space-alien Xenu" as what they deem holy and sacred, it falls within this very liberal definition, which is how religion's defined and classified these days.

My advice is to keep this in mind and gear it more towards "bad religion" than "not a religion", because it may be too late for "not a religion". Stick with (only) the most obviously insane and subversive stuff that evokes emotion and outrages people. Even religious academics will admit that there is such a thing as "bad religion". Personally, my opinion is that scientology is creepy and not a religion. But when it comes to religious classification, no one cares about anyone's opinion. Only if you can create enough drama (bad feeling) over it with the general public will you make a difference. If the general public begins to ask "why are our tax dollars supporting this crazy criminal organization?" only then maybe something will be done about it. The precedent that "bad religion" can and should be dealt with has already been set. Addressing scientology as bad religion is a more logical first step imo. Once that's widely accepted, then a failure to reform over time will result in the logical next step- revoke their religious status, because they were given a chance, and failed.

If the IRS turned around today and started looking at scientology again as a taxable entity, you'd have thousands of scinos immediately squealing and screeching and sending petitions to the White House too, just like we are.

Maybe your target audience is not America. If not, then perhaps none of this applies.

caroline · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:00 am

About using religious deception

Hubbard wrote:

CHURCH OF AMERICAN SCIENCE, there is a difference between the Church of American Science and the Church of Scientology. The Church of American Science is a Christian religion. It believes in the Holy Bible, Jesus is the Savior of man and everything that's necessary to be a Christian religion. People who belong to that church are expected to be Christians. These two churches fit together. We take somebody in as a Church of American Science. It doesn't disagree with his baptism or other things like that, and he could gradually slide over into some sort of better, wider activity such as the Church of Scientology and a little more wisdom and come a little more close to optimum. Then if he was good and one of the people that we would like to have around he would eventually slide into the HASI. So we have provided stepping stones to Scn with these organizations. (541OC04)

Hubbard, L. (1976). Modern Management Technology Defined. Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

Hubbard wrote:

There has been some stir amongst auditors concerning the fact that Scientology has allied itself with the Church of American Science, why a Church of Scientology has come into existence and why auditors qualified by training and personal attainments are applying for and have received ordination as ministers in these churches.

To some this seems mere opportunism, to some it would seem that Scientology is simply making itself bulletproof in the eyes of the law, and to some it might appear that any association with religion is a reduction of the ethics and purposes of Scientology itself. The broad majority of those interested have accepted this step, but not all have entirely understood it.

[...]

I do not mean to tell you that Scientology is an extension of the Dharma, or that the forecasts of the Tibetans concerning the Western world are now coming true, or that you should embrace Asiatic philosophy, or even that the efforts of the Buddhas and the Scientologists are comparable. I am telling you this mainly because Western civilization is extremely ignorant of its sources and because these facts, no matter how true, are probably very little known in America and Europe. And I am telling you this to dispel some of your shyness and to increase your boldness and overtness where the society itself is concerned. No door need be closed to you, nor need you apologize should you accept through the Church of American Science or the Church of Scientology any degree or title for which you are qualified. Western civilization is engaged in a worship of superstition, the supernatural and the miraculous even as other nations long ago. Its only other worship is that of the machine. Where else could men and women of compassion and skill serve better, and what else should they call themselves but Teachers of Wisdom?

Hubbard, L. (1954, 7 August). Why Doctor of Divinity? Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1976 ed., Vol. II, pp. 72-5.) Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

In Why Doctor of Divinity? Hubbard also asks and answers "why should Scientology ally itself with religion or use the word religion in connection with its philosophy?"

J. Swift · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:23 am

In the period of 1967, the "Old Man" on the book cover was arguably Charlton Heston in his role as Moses. This was a stunning Pop Culture image at the time:

*****

Not all "old men" are created equally. Imagine if Don Knotts had been hired as the face of this particular text!

/////

AnonLover · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:30 pm **Posts:** 122

caroline wrote:

No, your outline is brilliant, and this is an epic project.

FWIW - a little backstory on how it came together... When the "Scientology and the Bible" publication first got the anony christfag dander up, the obvious choice of making the most damning comparisons of scientology scriptures/teachings was the Advance! Magazine "Spiritual History of Man" articles where you dont even need to explain 'whats wrong with this picture' because the articles speak for themselves.

and in many cases, the twisted & perverse nature of those articles is so outrageously bad or plain old stupid - they tend to inspire extremely strong feelings in those with strong faiths.

So exploitation factor was too high to resist, and thats what i drove my macro and micro level organization of materials off of... which advance mag feature articles were readily available or could i easily get my hands on. Then i back tracked from those topics, to other materials & structured the topical outline from there.

Dorothy wrote:

May I ask- Who is the target audience?

1. The massive waves of world religions 101 & 102 college students that flood the social networks at the start of each semester looking for information for doing a term paper on scientology and grumble about the lack of good citations needed to do the topic justice in that vein.

2. People w/ strong inclinations in traditional faiths that read Hugh Urban's book expecting to find answers to the question "is scientology a religion" only to find he challenges them to explore the subject further and judge it for themselves, yet their is no easy path to do that because of past inclination to be too scared to tackle the "r" word in regards to scientology.

3. Other religous scholars and theologians who might be inclined to pick up where Hugh left off, if they can easily find the materials they need to explore the subject further.

4. The established interest base stemming from Catholic, Baptist and Southern Baptist minor media outlets that jump on every controversial scientology story with even the slightest religion/church angle and take full advantage of getting their flavor of bible thumpers fired up about it.

5. The existing backchannel network of priests, reverends and ministers that have reached out to their local protesters and taken the time to educate themselves on the controversies and are always looking for a deeper level understanding of actual doctrines/scriptures that isnt readily available at this time.

6. The religious right evangelists that are seemingly hell bent on getting into bed with politicians and erasing the American history of holding the separation of church & state sacred, and are in dire need of a reality check that what they aim to achieve will empower the subversive religions like scientology to a greater extent than they already are.

7. The predominant faiths who have a tendency to form national/regional/local intrafaith & interfaith counsels and community networks that need to be aware that scientology representatives dont deserve a seat at the table.

8. Every other bible thumping fire & brimstone preacher who hasnt caught on to the fact that there is an inherent evil in scientology that they should care about at least a little if their dedicated to the cause of saving souls.

Plus a few other angles for supporting ongoing sekrit harpooning efforts that desperately needed /b/ackup dox, which I wont mention publicly until the time is right because its stuff way more influential than most of what's on the above list of blatantly obvious answers to your question.

Dorothy wrote:

My advice is to keep this in mind and gear it more towards "bad religion" than "not a religion", because it may be too late for "not a religion".

If everybody is too chickenshit to go there, then it is too late. And the tendency for people to even lean towards "oh its probably too late to go there" is indicative of how long overdue & badly needed something like this project is.

Just because a void in information currently exists, doesnt mean it should stay that way for the sake of preserving a politically correct cop out. (especially when its a cop out the cult not only takes for granted, but goes absolutely apeshit insane over when you even get close to it let alone tackle it head on. and when it is tackled head on, their reactions always bring out the unholy & inhuman nature of their beliefs to the point of it being a parade of utterly degraded morality such that lulz of watching it unfold is of epic proportions.)

And my publication series is merely presenting examples for people to examine and decide for themselves if its what they personally consider a religion.

Being geared towards "bad religion" is your slanted interpretation of what you seem to think we aim to do without actually looking thru all the materials closely. The reality is we only aim to empower a better understanding that cuts thru the cult's propaganda and gets down to the nitty gritty.

What conclusion people who study this series might come too on good vs. bad is irrelevant to our primary goal of just providing something substantial for people who are academically inclined to seriously dig into if they feel so inspired.

Dorothy wrote:

Modern religious studies have redefined religion to include a wide and diverse field of religious groups and NRMs.

Hugh Urban's book has already covered that angle quite well. And what he doesnt get into, the apologists have already covered ad naseum in that vein of thinking.

Also - NRM advocates arent the ones in congregations holding open community events, nor lobbying politicians, nor showing up enmasse when there is a natural disaster to help out the red cross & other aide efforts, nor doing other forms of community outreach thru chairty-based homeless shelters/soup kitchens/free-clinics. IOW - they typically dont form far reaching relationships that extend beyond the confines of their belief system like the traditional faiths do.

Erego, NRM advocates hold little to no large scale social influence, as a group, to represent any kind of advantage that could be easily leveraged for spreading a message to a new audience to be concerned with. So the apologists are more than welcome to cater to those wishy washy folks that wont be inspired to speak out no matter what you say to them nor show them.

Dorothy wrote:

Note the lack of mention of God, Heaven, Hell, Eternal Hope.

Thank you for making my point - no stone left unturned, and what is lacking needs filled in so that different strokes for different folks is satisfied on ALL sides.

Also seems you havent looked thru the materials outline that shows the initial game plan of 9 volumes to be included in this series. This has now grown to atleast 10, probably more like 11 or 12 until I'm done due to massive outpouring of responses I have gotten from Volume I offering up additional Advance Mags to be included in my efforts.

So there will be something for everybody, traditional and modern, by the time its done. And its organized by themes that allow people to pick & choose which types of comparative religion angles they wish to study further. So protip for ya meant with all do respect - if traditional faiths & bible study dont float your boat, you should probably wait until i get to the more modern new age religion-friendly stuff later on in the series so you can offer advice on what you know best.

And altho your advice is appreciated & welcome, its pretty much moot when you look at the full scope of what we aim to do. But you gotta have an open enough mind to get past the your immediate knee jerk reaction at words such as "Heaven, Hell, etc" that obviously doesnt resonate with your personal beliefs like it does with somebody actively involved in a traditional faith in order to appreciate the lack-of-info problems this series is attempting to solve.

Dorothy wrote:

Maybe your target audience is not America. If not, then perhaps none of this applies.

I havent even considered ramifications abroad. yet. Maybe you haven't seriously considered the impact American bible belt residents and traditional bible thumpers in general have on the communities where their congregations are the strongest.

caroline · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2011 5:41 pm

On the secret knowledge of cults

(Also Hubbard on Scientologists, "divine doubt", responsibility, inventing a god, religious conversion. He also gets a dig in at cold war scientists and discusses what his personal reaction would be to a hypothetical baby-killer. These excerpts of course can be edited to better fit the format.)

His message in scripture about the total loss of responsibility when considering the viewpoint that we might be created and not by ourselves, is patently untrue, and as shallow as zock.

Hubbard wrote:

Scientology and Dianetìcs have included the upper ten thousand of Earth very easily. If you don’t believe that and you’re not a professional auditor—if you don’t believe that, why, just try some professional auditing some day and just start picking them up at random off of the streets or out of the hospital wards and so forth, and start processing them. And you will find—you will find that you are amongst the upper ten thousand of Earth.

Now, I’m not trying to give you a swelled head. It’s true. It’s true. You had brains enough to know you didn’t know, just like I had sense enough to know that I had to do some tall remembering and reorganization here in order to get anything together, because most of the information had gone zock. And we knew we didn’t know, and that made us the smartest people on Earth. Most of the rest of them think they know, and that is the high tide of ignorance. The most ignorant man in the world knows that he knows every thing there is to know about everything. When he’s that ignorant, why, he’s that ignorant.

People used to call it a “divine doubt.” A divine doubt was necessary to genius. And then I think some cult or another... I’ve forgotten what cult. Some cult or another said that all you had to do was sit back and somebody else knew everything, only you could never talk to him.

When you can’t do anything else to a population, if you totally fail to give them any information, if you totally fail to help them, if you totally fail to cure any of their ills, if you totally fail to take any responsibility in all directions, you can always invent a god in some cult or another. Cynical statement, isn’t it?

And yet it’s not cynical; it’s actually quite factual. The assignment of total responsibility to another deity than yourself is the most invalidative thing that you can do to you.

You could always get a zing out of handing over all the responsibility in the universe to Zock or—or Cronus or Titan or Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn. There’s always a certain zing involved. You could get a change.

This fellow is going along one day and he’s—you know, there’s no emotion, and he’s all sort of dead, and things are, you know, not so good. Life is like a stale glass of beer or the inside of a motorman’s glove. And somebody could come along and say, “Repent ye, repent ye,” or something of the sort, and you could suddenly turn over all the responsibility for everything to somebody else someplace, and there’d be a wheee! The glee of insanity or something—but you’d actually get an emotional zock, an emotional bing, an emotional snick-wh-e-e-w one way or the other. Of course, it went up this way and then z-z-z-r-e-w-w boom. But nevertheless there was—something happened. The individual knew something happened. There was something emotional happened. It was an emotional experience to suddenly throw your self on your knees in front of the local circuit rider and say, “I got the Word,” you know?

And knowledge has had the reputation of being coldly dispassionate. But to knowledge has been imparted the cold dispassion of a bunch of irresponsible scientists who, finding things out, didn’t carry them through to their final end. But to knowledge has been imparted the cold dispassion of a bunch of irresponsible scientists who, finding things out, didn't carry them through to their final end. Just in the dressing room a moment ago, we were talking about Einstein and Fermi. Man, somebody's got a case coming up! See, that's a real case because-didn't follow through a responsibility along the developments. You know? Created something and then let somebody else confront it. Only nobody could confront what they developed, see? Nobody could confront the living fire of atomic fission exploding in a city full of women and children.

And the fellow, of course, who - as I've told you in another congress dropped the A-bomb on Hiroshima, is in a Texas mental institution right
now, totally convinced the Japs are after him. But he went mad. He couldn't confront that much of an overt and, of course, the only extant mental assistance didn't have enough sense to run responsibility on the deed. We could save his bacon rather easily. But when it comes down to that much of an overt, I am one to yawn and say, "Why? Why do anything for the guy?" You know, that's just too much overt for me to get-exert myself to get anybody to recover from.

But in that, I am actually making a mistake because, probably, that is the fellow who is keeping in place a lot of this atomic roaw-rrhar, see? He's got the biggest overt, so therefore he'd have it all mixed up on the fate lines or something, you see? And probably somebody ought to blow it. But I've been in charge of justice and public welfare too often in too many different places-boy, that's a downgraded statement-well, anyhow not to have a sort of an instinct about this sort of thing, you know? I see somebody walk up with a blast pistol and blow some baby's head off, you know, just for a gag, and for some reason or other, I don't have an immediate impulse to go over and console him. Somehow, I just don't.

I know it's something lacking in me. Perhaps it's my training pattern. I have quite a reverse in impulse, you see, and that's to pick up the blast gun and blow his head off slowly. Now, that's a stimulus-response mechanism, of course, but that is the way things have kind of worked. But it's a bum thing it's a bad thing-the punishment mechanism. If you don't have anything else, however, it's better than nothing. But actually, it worsens the condition, because by punishing him, it puts out of control, and out of his control, the thing he's being punished for, and so tends to confirm it as a continuing crime.

Hubbard, L. (1960, 3 January) Your Case. State of Man Congress. Lecture conducted from Washington, DC.

Dorothy · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:46 pm

Thank you for explaining your project to me, especially it's scope and how it will cover all angles.

AnonLover wrote:

And altho your advice is appreciated & welcome, its pretty much moot when you look at the full scope of what we aim to do. But you gotta have an open enough mind to get past the your immediate knee jerk reaction at words such as "Heaven, Hell, etc" that obviously doesnt resonate with your personal beliefs like it does with somebody actively involved in a traditional faith in order to appreciate the lack-of-info problems this series is attempting to solve.

I realize I've taken for granted that I can walk into my attic where my LRon library sits that I wasted my hard earned cash on and can look up anything I want for whatever reason I want, and others can't do this. I also realize that after wasting a hefty chunk of my life studying LRon, that I don't think anyone in their right mind would waste one minute of their precious time on it. But that's the cynic speaking. Obviously calling attention to scientology and then not providing a legitimate means to verify it's essence would be negligent.

AnonLover wrote:

I havent even considered ramifications abroad. yet. Maybe you haven't seriously considered the impact American bible belt residents and traditional bible thumpers in general have on the communities where their congregations are the strongest.

Bible Belt residents and thumpers have an obvious impact- which is not a potential impact, but an existing impact: there are no scientology churches or missions in the real Bible Belt, outside of a few southern metropolitan areas (which are like "Green Zones"). There are no scientology books in the small town libraries in the south. I'd love to see a scientology mission open up in bumfuck Alabama and see what happens. Believe me, the Bible Belt inhabitants got you covered already. I'm just not sure who concerns me more- the scientology culties or Christian culties like the NAR (New Apostolic Reformation) for example.

caroline · **Posted:** Wed Sep 28, 2011 8:01 pm

About the nature of Jesus Christ

Hubbard wrote:

There's a textbook on the subject, it's called, The Scientologist: Dissemination of Materials.* If you haven't read that textbook, boy, you haven't lived.

*[Editor's Note: This textbook is published in Volumes 2, 6 and 7 of The Organization Executive Course as "The Scientologist, A Manual on the Dissemination of Material."]

It tells you how to get around these rocks and shoals. But right along with that textbook, Dissemination of Materials, the other important thing is, is make sure that your legal house is in good order and then you can rarely, if ever, be disturbed. It isn't that you've defended yourself: but you've merely announced yourself and you've had courage enough to stand up and be what you're doing.

Now, what you're doing, really, is what the Christian minister has thought he should have been doing for a couple of thousand years. And what the public, weirdly enough, thinks a minister does. It's the darnedest thing you ever heard of.

You go around door to door and you say, "How are you? I'm taking a little survey here. I'm from the Trot poll and tell me now, tell me, what do you think a minister should do?"

And they will uniformly groove it down to something on this order, "Well, he should teach his doctrines. Should follow in the footsteps of Christ. Yeah, that's what he ought to do. Of course, the one thing that he really should do, and we count on him for doing, is healing the sick-and suffering."

That's the public idea of a minister, except where they've had one for a father or something. That's the public idea of a minister out there, which is just gorgeous, see?

Well, all you have to do to follow in the footsteps of Christ is be three feet back of your head and you're resurrected. And that's not blasphemy, that's fact. That's the one thing this guy did that really seized the imagination of the civilized world. You can look all the way through the Bible and stories and examine all kinds of theory and philosophy and be talked to about assuming all the guilt and blame and burden of sins and so on. You find these are all strange ideas. But he did one thing: He hauled off this planet and he operated as a living proof, which everybody's tried to make nothing out of ever since, that you can get away with it, that you can live and get away with it. You know, you can live and go away to live again. And that's what seized the imagination of the civilized world. And whatever they did with the doctrines, this fact never escaped notice.

You can just see--don't think of it as a society of thetans at all, think of it as a society of people completely immersed into the materialism, the trap, the confines of life. Just think of them like that, just people. They still would get enough echo to themselves as a thetan to say, "I can be three feet back of my head," see?[1] And that message destroyed the Roman Empire. So you shouldn't worry about following in the footsteps of Christ. You can. Get a little auditing, some of you that aren't exteriorized with any stability.

Hubbard, L. (1955, 23 August). The Auditor's Public. The Conquest of Chaos. Lecture conducted from Washington, D. C.

[1] See definition: Exteriorization.

The below has to do with processing preclears' ideas about Christ and God. Hubbard also talks about insanity related to religion.

Hubbard wrote:

When you get to the point of destroying Christ, most people hardly quiver. But once in a while a person in very, very bad condition (a condition you wouldn’t suspect otherwise) will jump off the pin on an E-Meter. And just the idea of destroying Christ, they practically faint.

You see, Christ actually is a method of – this is – I mean, this is therapy I’m talking about, the hell with religion – Christ is a method of wasting admiration on spirits.

People are trying to waste in the MEST universe what they can’t have in their own universe. And if they can’t have admiration, they’ll waste it in various ways and they’ll finally get up to a point where they waste it on Christ and God. That means that they, as a thetan, are in terrible condition – I mean brutal condition. It just shouldn’t happen to somebody.

That’s why I sometimes smile on the subject of religion because it’s such an accurate index of exactly what’s happening to this poor preclear – this poor citizen, you see? He’s got to waste admiration on a spirit. Well, boy, if he’s got to waste admiration on a spirit… And you start running this, by the way, on preclears and you’ll find very interesting material suddenly start to fly up.

Waste ghosts. Nobody in this society today can have a ghost. Science’s main throat-cut to the whole society is to say, "Now that we are scientific, we of course don’t believe in ghosts." And the preclear goes neyeaw.

One of the main things wrong with science today is the fact that it runs a "We can’t have," because it’s got a set communication system. And this very rigid, set communication system forbids many things, but the most important one is ghosts. You can always get a bang out of a preclear by wasting ghosts.

But when somebody is trying to get back to battery, they go down the dynamics and they start wasting first themselves, and then they’ll start wasting the second dynamic and then the third dynamic and the fourth dynamic and the fifth, sixth.

And you can run this case on an E-Meter and you’ll find out he went just in that progression. And when he gets to the point where he’s got to waste the seventh dynamic, he’s practically ready to be shut up in a small box. And that’s where religion enters.

And when they’re real, real, real bad off in sanitariums and so forth, they go around reading the Bible all the time – reading the Bible, reading the Bible hectically. They’re trying to waste that last fragment of admiration that they can waste. But the horrible part about it is, is you can’t waste admiration in that fashion therapeutically. If you try to waste it in real life, it doesn’t solve the case subjectively. And you see, it’s the more they waste, the more they want. You can’t waste it out in the MEST universe.

Perhaps this tells you immediately why or gives you some inkling of why you see so very much religion in a sanitarium. And religion is all right in its own place, but it doesn’t belong in a booby hatch. I don’t know if they’re capable of embarrassment, but I think it possibly might be embarrassing to some churches if they knew. There’s one church in particular, one in particular, that just lists the majority of the roster in sanitariums.

That’s not a condemnation of the religion. It isn’t the religion doing this the way that we used to think. Religion isn’t doing this. Religion just gives them a method – and somebody always invents some method – gives them a method to waste admiration of a thetan. That’s all there is to it.

So, if you start doing an assessment and you start running down the line on it and all of a sudden the idea of creating Christ or destroying Christ suddenly knocks that needle off the pin – you take it awful easy with that preclear. And if the biggest charge is on God, oh-oh, he’s got to waste the whole MEST universe, all the space and everything in it.

Hubbard, L. (1953, 4 October). Question and Answer Period Part 1 First International Congress of Dianeticists and Scientologists. Lecture conducted from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

So, Scientology must have been Hubbard's method to make Scientologists waste admiration on him.

Below, Hubbard explains why Jesus was crucified.

Hubbard wrote:

I think nothing is truer than evolution, looking it over. Except we shouldn’t fall into the decline of accepting, hook, line and sinker, the basic theory of evolution. If you go back and look up Darwin you will find that the field of cytology—which is supposed to be the study of this sort of thing— and Darwin’s theories are not compatible, and yet they exist and are taught in the same university side by side. A student can go from a class in cytology into a class which is teaching evolution and biology, and they teach him one thing in cytology and another thing in biology.

This is something like the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament says, “I am the God of vengeance,” and the New Testament says, “Love thy neighbor—I am the God of love.” So people, without the slightest ripple, picked them both up and printed them in the same case, as the Bible. The New Testament was a terrific revolution in Old Testament practices. Nobody has really ever noticed the difference.

What did Jesus say? “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.’’ As a matter of fact, he was a revolutionary of such character that he finally got crucified for it. The Romans didn’t do it to him, the old religion did. Now we take the book of the old religion and we print it alongside of his revolution. I think if he came to earth tomorrow he would be upset. They believed him.

Cytology and biology, then, don’t agree; that is because only parts of the answer are in each one of them.

Hubbard, L. (1951, 17 September). The Cellular Postulate. Professional Course. Lecture conducted from Wichita, Kansas.

Transcript source:
Hubbard, L. (1980) The Cellular Postulate. Research and Discovery Series: A Running Record of Research into the Mind and Life (Volume 7, pp. 201-212). Los Angeles: Church of Scientology of California.

AnonLover · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:30 pm **Posts:** 122

bump 4 marking the spot in this thread where i left off catching up w/ Caroline's great postings for pending updates on both the materials index & vol2 scriptures vs. quotes document.

caroline wrote:

Vol II Quotes

... lots & lots of great stuff, all put to good use...

^^Whew! that was one helluva a list! Thanks C!!! (hugs)

EDIT: Note2Self - i need to pick bak up where i left off, w/ "On the secret knowledge of cults" posting above.

AnonLover · **Joined:** Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:30 pm **Posts:** 122

Major updates now rolled into the Materials Index / Project Outline document for ongoing work-in-progress:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57784121/Scie ... ials-Index

As well as additional quotations (culled so far) w/ scripture comparisons incorporated into this Vol II draft segment:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... MjAz&hl=en

[WWP] Scientology Religiosity? (Research Packets & Dox)

Who is online