The Church of Scientology admits that it does not perform gay weddings

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
The Church of Scientology admits that it does not perform gay weddings.




Screenshot_20210503-102453_1620063330949_1620063797402.png


This is true despite the fact that the Church of Scientology has repeatedly assured gay people that it does not discriminate against them.


Screenshot_20210503-093236_1620059778601_1620060188623_162006027_1620060531490.png

Screenshot_20210503-092845_1620059482507_1620060204740_162006025_1620060518362.png


Screenshot_20210503-094024_1620060067649_1620060223807_1620060504437.png

/
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Oh really? Scientology is "not concerned" with sexual orientation?
I address this in my recent thread:

The Church of Scientology says: "Sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church." We have questions.


https://exscn2.net/threads/the-church-of-scientology-says-sexual-orientation-is-not-a-criteria-for-membership-in-the-church-we-have-questions.3088/


Including the relevant background:

VIDEO: Why You Can't Be Gay In Scientology.




Scientology Homophobia


Scientology Homophobia



Screenshot_20210219-151108_1613772710321-1.png


Scientology’s Homophobia: Even the Church’s Token Gay Guy Was Disgusted





Screenshot_20210219-151648_1613773066120-2.png

/
 

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I address this in my recent thread:

The Church of Scientology says: "Sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church." We have questions.


https://exscn2.net/threads/the-church-of-scientology-says-sexual-orientation-is-not-a-criteria-for-membership-in-the-church-we-have-questions.3088/


Including the relevant background:

VIDEO: Why You Can't Be Gay In Scientology.




Scientology Homophobia


Scientology Homophobia



View attachment 10989


Scientology’s Homophobia: Even the Church’s Token Gay Guy Was Disgusted





View attachment 10990

/
I think you replied before I was done editing my post. Let me explain my own position, using my standard color-coded formatting.



Oh yeah Scientology is absolutely "not concerned" with sexual orientation. They never ask about sexual orientation during ethics cycles. Certainly not during P37 or Joburg and most certainly never ever in the TKS. Fo'sho'



Scientologists are like rugs...




... thy just lie and lie and do nothing but lie. :nooo:

Cowards.

Let me quote one L.Ron Hubbard:

"Lies are told because one is afraid of the consequences should one tell the truth. Destructive acts are usually done out of fear. Thus, the liar is inevitably a coward and the coward inevitably a liar"
 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
The Church of Scientology admits that it does not perform gay weddings.




View attachment 10985


This is true despite the fact that the Church of Scientology has repeatedly assured gay people that it does not discriminate against them.


View attachment 10986

View attachment 10987


View attachment 10988

/
I would like to add some observations.

The Church of Scientology obviously says that it is a church.

The Church of Scientology says that it is a religion.

A traditional function of churches is to perform weddings and to provide religious recognition to the resulting marriages.

The Church of Scientology says that sexual orientation is not a criteria for membership in the Church, and indicates that they do not discriminate against gay people.

The Church of Scientology says that it cannot perform gay weddings because "there is no service in the Church available for such a wedding."

Seriously? The Church of Scientology cannot create a new "service" for gay weddings, or adapt an existing "service?"

Because Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard did not create a gay wedding service, the Church of Scientology is forever foreclosed from doing so?

If the above is true, how can gay people trust that Scientology has in fact moved on from what L. Ron Hubbard wrote and taught about them?

How can the Church of Scientology say that it does not discriminate against gay people when it performs weddings for heterosexual couples, providing religious recognition to such marriages, but refuses to perform weddings for gay couples, thus denying such marriages religious recognition?

Have you ever heard of a church or religion say we don't discriminate against gay people, they just have to get married in a civil ceremony?

Have you ever imagined a church that would want their parishioners who are in compliance with church law and doctrine to get married in a civil ceremony, instead of getting married in the church?

I find the response by the Church of Scientology to be truly bizarre. The Church of Scientology welcomes gay members, but doesn't have a wedding ceremony for them and refuses to create one? What?

/
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
Seriously? The Church of Scientology cannot create a new "service" for gay weddings, or adapt an existing "service?"
Nah, this really is impossible. I'm not being ironic for once.

There was just one man in all of scientology who could have made this change and he died in 1986.

Because Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard did not create a gay wedding service, the Church of Scientology is forever foreclosed from doing so?
Exactly.

If the above is true, how can gay people trust that Scientology has in fact moved on from what L. Ron Hubbard wrote and taught about them?
If anything "moved on from what L.Ron Hubbard wrote" then it is no longer scientology.

I mean Miscavige can barely get away with some very minor tweaks. Creating gay marriages after Hubbard explicitly said that gays are horrible deviant people 1.1 on the tone scale? Ain't gonna happen - ever.

Have you ever imagined a church that would want their parishioners who are in compliance with church law and doctrine to get married in a civil ceremony, instead of getting married in the church?
Yes. Some satanist sects, as well as some neopagans who do not believe in marriage as a religious union.

I mean Anton Le Vey created satanist marriage ceremonies, but a lot of satanists couldn't care less about Anton today.

I find the response by the Church of Scientology to be truly bizarre. The Church of Scientology welcomes gay members, but doesn't have a wedding ceremony for them and refuses to create one? What?
That makes absolute sense, if looked at from within. Never modify what Hubbard did, but present it in as socially-acceptable way as possible.
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Yes. Some satanist sects, as well as some neopagans who do not believe in marriage as a religious union.
But, as you said, they do not believe in marriage as a religious union. The Church of Scientology clearly does (or pretends to) since it performs marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples.

None of the examples you cite offer marriage ceremonies to some members (e.g., heterosexuals) and deny marriage ceremonies to other members (e.g., homosexuals) while claiming both groups are equally welcome.
That makes absolute sense, if looked at from within. Never modify what Hubbard did, but present it in as socially-acceptable way as possible.
Except the response of the Church of Scientology isn't socially acceptable at all. It is completely ridiculous. Risible.

The response makes absolutely no sense to anyone outside of Scientology. It looks completely nuts.

/
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
But, as you said, they do not believe in marriage as a religious union. The Church of Scientology clearly does (or pretends to) since it performs marriage ceremonies for heterosexual couples.

None of the examples you cite offer marriage ceremonies to some members (e.g., heterosexuals) and deny marriage ceremonies to other members (e.g.,, homosexuals) while claiming both groups are equally welcome.
All fair points, I do not think we are in disagreement here.
The neopagans here might be a bit weird, but from what I know they are not a destructive, manipulative high control group.

Except the response of the Church of Scientology isn't socially acceptable at all. It is completely ridiculous. Risible.
Well, the alternative would be saying: "We think gays are inherently damaged and their damage causes them to be malicious underhanded liars. But we can fix them with scientology so they won't be fags anymore after we process them".

I think the murky, "we kinda do but we kinda don't" answer they gave is still the less damaging one.

I agree it is very weird and isn't socially acceptable for the liberal crowd anymore. Its just that they think they had chosen the least out-PR way of saying that.

I myself am not sure what would be the better way to say that, without them ending up sounding like the Westboro Baptists.



Also, let's be clear: Scientology hates gays. Unlike with racism, where there is no policy demanding scientologists to be racist even though Hubbard was, there are explicit policies demanding that Scientologists treat homosexuals as aberrated people. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of "bypassed charge" and "no-case-gain". Suffice to sum it up:
Scientology believes that processing will de-gay the "good gays" and if someone will not be de-gayed despite processing, then he/she is a psychopath to boot.
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
Well, the alternative would be saying: "We think gays are inherently damaged and their damage causes them to be malicious underhanded liars. But we can fix them with scientology so they won't be fags anymore after we process them".

I think the murky, "we kinda do but we kinda don't" answer they gave is still the less damaging one.

I agree it is very weird and isn't socially acceptable for the liberal crowd anymore. Its just that they think they had chosen the least out-PR way of saying that.

I myself am not sure what would be the better way to say that, without them ending up sounding like the Westboro Baptists.
I largely agree. I don't know if the Church of Scientology was expressly asked about gay weddings because the tweet to which they replied has been deleted (otherwise I would have included it), but even if they were, it might have been better to apply Success Through Communication Course Drill Two-E: No-Answer --


Scan_20141222-745x1024.jpg


You are right that their answer isn't socially acceptable for the liberal crowd. I suspect their answer isn't socially acceptable for the conservative crowd either because, as we agree, it is weird, and they appear to be trying to have it both ways.

/
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Broke ranks over 10 years ago, never looked back
I largely agree. I don't know if the Church of Scientology was expressly asked about gay weddings because the tweet to which they replied has been deleted (otherwise I would have included it), but even if they were, it might have been better to apply Success Through Communication Course Drill Two-E: No-Answer --


View attachment 11002


You are right that their answer isn't socially acceptable for the liberal crowd. I suspect their answer isn't socially acceptable for the conservative crowd either because, as we agree, it is weird, and they appear to be trying to have it both ways.

/
Well, I do not want to give the impression that I'm defending scientology. Consider my posts here to be like a doctor talking about treatment for a patient she doesn't like.

There's no "good" answer Scientology can provide to these sort of questions. Being blunt and brutal would end up with the liberal media quoting them all around the place. This in turn would end up drawing unnecessary media attention to scn celebrities. Betty Moss wouldn't be happy with zounds of journalists asking her about homosexuality.

So in this sense, I do think that a non-answer is the best answer. Anything to avoid bad publicity.

Of course Scientology already has tons of bad PR. So from the outside, it might seem it is lunacy for them to try to avoid one speck of grease if they are already filthy from head to toe.

Thing is: on the other side there is some guy who will answer with his neck if that speck of grease is not dodged.
 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
There's no "good" answer Scientology can provide to these sort of questions. Being blunt and brutal would end up with the liberal media quoting them all around the place. This in turn would end up drawing unnecessary media attention to scn celebrities. Betty Moss wouldn't be happy with zounds of journalists asking her about homosexuality.
Your mentioning Elizabeth Moss is a good point. She has been asked about Scientology and gay rights, and has made it clear that she strongly supports gay rights. I am sure that she would not like to be asked about it again.

/
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
On one hand, the Church of Scientology has their inviolable policy and immutably sacred scripture that declares (in writing!) that all gays and lesbians are "1.1", which is defined as the most treacherously dangerous/destructive tone level.

On the other hand, the Church of Scientology has their inviolable policy and immutably sacred scripture that declares (in writing!) that "purpose is senior to policy".

Alas, the Hubbard Law of Commotion*. Normally about 99% of the time, Scientology's parishioners are too drunk on the koolaid to notice that their "religion" maintains and regularly issues 2 completely contradictory positions. But once in a great while the cult bumps directly into a socially sensitive landmine and is rendered clueless, clumsy and creepy about which lie to blinklessly assert.

Must lie, can't lie. Gays & Gay marriage is one such dilemma wherein the cult is stuck between a rock(slam) and a hard TR.

This is why Scientology and Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to the press or answering questions. This is why Scientology, after 71 years of perfecting their public relations technology, they finally surrendered to the fact that they should not even attempt to have a spokesperson. Because there is no spokesperson that ever lived who can survive journalists demanding to know which of the two (2) diametrically opposite lies they just told is the truthful one.

Even the universe's greatest OT, L. Ron Hubbard, found it impossible to answer impossible questions. Which is why things like this happened in his last filmed interview in 1968, a full 18 years before he died:

Interviewer: “How many times have you been married?”
Hubbard: “How many times have I been married? I’ve been married twice, and I’m very happily married just now, I have a lovely wife and I have 4 children, my first wife is dead [smiles].”
Interviewer: “What happened to your second wife?”
Hubbard: “I never had a second wife.”
Ergo, what would happen if Hubbard gave an interview today?

Interviewer: “How many policies do you have on gays??”
Hubbard: “How many policies do I have on gays? I have just one policy on gays---that they are the most ethical and uptone beings one could ever hope to connect to! I have a lovely life and I have four children, my first gay son is dead [smiles].”
Interviewer: “What happened to your second policy on disconnecting from gays because they are all treacherous 1.1 SPs?”
Hubbard: “I never had a second policy.”

* Hubbard Law of Commotion: In Scientology, for each and every code, creed, policy and/or piece of tech--there is an equal and opposite code, creed, policy and/or piece of tech.

.
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
On one hand, the Church of Scientology has their inviolable policy and immutably sacred scripture that declares (in writing!) that all gays and lesbians are "1.1", which is defined as the most treacherously dangerous/destructive tone level.

On the other hand, the Church of Scientology has their inviolable policy and immutably sacred scripture that declares (in writing!) that "purpose is senior to policy".

Alas, the Hubbard Law of Commotion*. Normally about 99% of the time, Scientology's parishioners are too drunk on the koolaid to notice that their "religion" maintains and regularly issues 2 completely contradictory positions. But once in a great while the cult bumps directly into a socially sensitive landmine and is rendered clueless, clumsy and creepy about which lie to blinklessly assert.

Must lie, can't lie. Gays & Gay marriage is one such dilemma wherein the cult is stuck between a rock(slam) and a hard TR.

This is why Scientology and Scientologists are forbidden from speaking to the press or answering questions. This is why Scientology, after 71 years of perfecting their public relations technology, they finally surrendered to the fact that they should not even attempt to have a spokesperson. Because there is no spokesperson that ever lived who can survive journalists demanding to know which of the two (2) diametrically opposite lies they just told is the truthful one.

Even the universe's greatest OT, L. Ron Hubbard, found it impossible to answer impossible questions. Which is why things like this happened in his last filmed interview in 1968, a full 18 years before he died:

Interviewer: “How many times have you been married?”
Hubbard: “How many times have I been married? I’ve been married twice, and I’m very happily married just now, I have a lovely wife and I have 4 children, my first wife is dead [smiles].”
Interviewer: “What happened to your second wife?”
Hubbard: “I never had a second wife.”
Ergo, what would happen if Hubbard gave an interview today?

Interviewer: “How many policies do you have on gays??”
Hubbard: “How many policies do I have on gays? I have just one policy on gays---that they are the most ethical and uptone beings one could ever hope to connect to! [smiles].”
Interviewer: “What happened to your second policy on disconnecting from gays because they are all treacherous 1.1 SPs?”
Hubbard: “I never had a second policy.”

* Hubbard Law of Commotion: In Scientology, for each and every code, creed, policy and/or piece of tech--there is an equal and opposite code, creed, policy and/or piece of tech.

.
I honestly thought of your Hubbard Law of Commotion when I posted the OP and, indeed, when I found the Scientology tweet screenshot in the OP. I really did. I thought, "This is the Hubbard Law of Commotion in action, in a single communication -- and it really does not turn out well."

/
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
PART II: Hubbard & Gays

In Part I, above, it was noted that despite the anti-gay scripture threaded throughout Scientology sec checks, books, bulletins and policies---there is something that contradicts that. It's that little get-out-of-jail gimmick known as "Purpose is senior to Policy".

HOW IT WORKS: Being openly gay or performing gay marriages is strictly verboten. Gays must be "handled" before they are allowed to do their advanced levels or expose the contradiction of a "1.1" homosexual being on the cover of "UPTONE" magazine. Thus, the anti-gay matter and natter is kept "off-lines" so that the public doesn't notice it. It's ironic that the 1.1 "covert hostility" actually describes the supposedly uptone Scientologists' reaction to gays.

HUBBARD LAW OF COMMOTION: Just because there is written and unwritten scripture opposing openly gay behavior or church-sanctioned gay marriage ceremonies within Scientology--even that has its own "equal and opposite" policy. To wit, if two of the cult's biggest billionaire whales (Kerry Packer and Bob Duggan) hooked up and decided to "come out" and get married, it would become a gala celebration sponsored by the church and David Miscavige himself would perform the marriage ceremony. (Disclaimer: This above gay whale scenario is just hypothetical fiction to illustrate a point)


NOTE: Think this is an exaggeration? Think again. Just recall the Church of Scientology's 100% rabid rejection of electroshock and how there is inviolable policy that forbids anyone who has had electroshock from ever doing OT levels or even receiving auditing. But what happened when a well known rich Scn. businessman regularly donated money to various cult causes. Well, that's right, he was given the VIP red carpet treatment at Celebrity Center and Flag with the best auditors in the world.

/
 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
PART II: Hubbard & Gays

In Part I, above, it was noted that despite the anti-gay scripture threaded throughout Scientology sec checks, books, bulletins and policies---there is something that contradicts that. It's that little get-out-of-jail gimmick known as "Purpose is senior to Policy".

HOW IT WORKS: Being openly gay or performing gay marriages is strictly verboten. Gays must be "handled" before they are allowed to do their advanced levels or expose the contradiction of a "1.1" homosexual being on the cover of "UPTONE" magazine. Thus, the anti-gay matter and natter is kept "off-lines" so that the public doesn't notice it. It's ironic that the 1.1 "covert hostility" actually describes the supposedly uptone Scientologists' reaction to gays.

HUBBARD LAW OF COMMOTION: Just because there is written and unwritten scripture opposing openly gay behavior or church-sanctioned gay marriage ceremonies within Scientology--even that has its own "equal and opposite" policy. To wit, if two of the cult's biggest billionaire whales (Kerry Packer and Bob Duggan) hooked up and decided to "come out" and get married, it would become a gala celebration sponsored by the church and David Miscavige himself would perform the marriage ceremony. (Disclaimer: This above gay whale scenario is just hypothetical fiction to illustrate a point)


NOTE: Think this is an exaggeration? Think again. Just recall the Church of Scientology's 100% rabid rejection of electroshock and how there is inviolable policy that forbids anyone who has had electroshock from ever doing OT levels or even receiving auditing. But what happened when a well known rich Scn. businessman regularly donated money to various cult causes. Well, that's right, he was given the VIP red carpet treatment at Celebrity Center and Flag with the best auditors in the world.

/
I was going to say that Catherine Bell is a real life example of the type of thing you are talking about, but that is not technically correct. Bell is not married to her girlfriend, and indeed is not officially "out" to my knowledge.

Still, I haven't heard any indication that the Church of Scientology has hassled Bell in any way, and I would be shocked if they did.

The last time they hassled (to put it mildly) a celebrity who was still in, Leah Remini, it did not turn out well.

The last time they hassled (again, to put it mildly) an internally prominent lesbian person who was still in, Michelle LeClair, the result was an anti-Scientology book and People magazine cover.

IF Bell ever chose to come "out" and complain about Scientology's treatment of the LGBT community, Bell would destroy Scientology's standing in that community and, more importantly as a practical matter, with those who care about that community and LGBT rights. It would be headline news.

/
 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I was going to say that Catherine Bell is a real life example of the type of thing you are talking about, but that is not technically correct. Bell is not married to her girlfriend, and indeed is not officially "out" to my knowledge.

Still, I haven't heard any indication that the Church of Scientology has hassled Bell in any way, and I would be shocked if they did.

The last time they hassled (to put it mildly) a celebrity who was still in, Leah Remini, it did not turn out well.

The last time they hassled (again, to put it mildly) an internally prominent lesbian person who was still in, Michelle LeClair, the result was an anti-Scientology book and People magazine cover.

IF Bell ever chose to come "out" and complain about Scientology's treatment of the LGBT community, Bell would destroy Scientology's standing in that community and, more importantly as a practical matter, with those who care about that community and LGBT rights. It would be headline news.

/

Yup, with Scientology it's all reduced to "battlefield assessments" and "damage control".
If Bell disaffects the public relations uproar would not be good. Who knows, another SP gets booked on primetime TV shows for tell-all interviews. Maybe they show up for a live podcast for "THE AFTERMATH" or even at Tony Ortega's "UNDERGROUND BUNKER".

Of lesser but not unsubstantial concern would be burning Bell's partner who is the daughter of Penny Jones who is all over the FSM networks and fundraising industrial complex. Burn Jones' daughter and mamma bear might poison some of the cult's money lines, selectees and network of fund raisers.

In my experience, Scientology does not give a damn about any of these Scientologists---they are only worried if it could become a "PR FLAP". Traditionally Scientology trashes everyone that offends them in any way whatsoever. But, as you pointed out, the trashing of Leah Remini blew back big-time! Same with Paul Haggis! Same with Jason Beghe! Same with Lisa Marie Presley! There are many examples of when Scientology took actions to "destroy" or "shatter" someone that came back to haunt them in explosive fashion.

It's been commented on before, but it still AMAZES me that Scn management didn't excise those degrading passages in Scientology books/materials which peg gays as sleazy and perverted SPs. It's right there in black and white, anyone can walk into any Scn center worldwide and read what Hubbard said about the diabolically evil "1.1" gays. I guess they're plenty scared of commiting the "High Crime" and "Technical Degrade" of editing and removing Hubbard's toxic words.

If the cult hired me to do some editing, I'd simply highlight and delete everything Hubbard wrote on Scientology after the 3rd word he typed in 1950. Up to that point it was outstanding, but on the 4th word he began lying.

DIANETICS THE MODERN SCIENCE OF MENTAL HEALTH


.
 
Last edited:

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
It's been commented on before, but it still AMAZES me that Scn management didn't excise those degrading passages in Scientology books/materials which peg gays as sleazy and perverted SPs. It's right there in black and white, anyone can walk into any Scn center worldwide and read what Hubbard said about the diabolically evil "1.1" gays. I guess they're plenty scared of commiting the "High Crime" and "Technical Degrade" of editing and removing Hubbard's toxic words..
I agree.

But as Karakorum noted above, "Miscavige can barely get away with some very minor tweaks." Could Miscavige get away with such a major change? Would he have the courage?

Would there be a partial exodus like with GAT 1? Or would parishioners, Class 5 staff, Sea Org and particularly Reges and FSMs quietly say to themselves "Finally!" and breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to deal with the issue anymore?

To the extent that the Church of Scientology has any members left, it is an urban phenomenon. Clearwater, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco for Xenu's sake. Big cities tend to be gay friendly, or at least intolerant of referring to gay people as 1.1 covertly hostile perverts. Even Kansas City has a PrideFest.

The big hang up making the changes that you suggest may be the book Dianetics. To my knowledge, Hubbard's text in the book has never been changed (unlike other Hubbard texts), there are a zillion old copies floating around, and the deletion would be obvious and draw comment.

One way to handle the changes required in various texts (including Dianetics) would be stealthily, best buried amongst other changes to a plethora of materials, without comment, perhaps with an Order that all old materials be pulped.

Another way to handle it would be to "discover" that before Hubbard voluntarily dropped his body: (1) he Ordered the changes based on his further research; but (2) evil homophobic SPs hid or destroyed the relevant Orders to deprive gay people of the benefits of Scientology, and to discredit Scientology itself. The RTC Research Team, led by Chairman of the Board David Miscavige, found and verified the pertinent Orders. [Show photos of the Orders.]

The acceptable truth would be that Hubbard was, as always, ahead of his time. He tried to fully open the doors to Spiritual Freedom to gay people, only to be temporarily thwarted by evil, homophobic SPs. Fortunately, Chairman of the Board David Miscavige succeeded Hubbard, investigated an obvious injustice, and was able to fully open the Bridge to Total Freedom to the gay community. It was only his tireless efforts that ensured that Scientology Scriptures were finally On Source and the gay community received justice and freedom as Ron intended. [Standing ovation.]

This explanation could be broadly distributed, or perhaps only internally.

/
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I agree.

But as Karakorum noted above, "Miscavige can barely get away with some very minor tweaks." Could Miscavige get away with such a major change? Would he have the courage?

Would there be a partial exodus like with GAT 1? Or would parishioners, Class 5 staff, Sea Org and particularly Reges and FSMs quietly say to themselves "Finally!" and breath a sigh of relief that they don't have to deal with the issue anymore?

To the extent that the Church of Scientology has any members left, it is an urban phenomenon. Clearwater, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, San Francisco for Xenu's sake. Big cities tend to be gay friendly, or at least intolerant of referring to gay people as 1.1 covertly hostile perverts. Even Kansas City has a PrideFest.

The big hang up making the changes that you suggest may be the book Dianetics. To my knowledge, Hubbard's text in the book has never been changed (unlike other Hubbard texts), there are a zillion old copies floating around, and the deletion would be obvious and draw comment.

One way to handle the changes required in various texts (including Dianetics) would be stealthily, best buried amongst other changes to a plethora of materials, without comment, perhaps with an Order that all old materials be pulped.

Another way to handle it would be to "discover" that before Hubbard voluntarily dropped his body: (1) he Ordered the changes based on his further research; but (2) evil homophobic SPs hid or destroyed the relevant Orders to deprive gay people of the benefits of Scientology, and to discredit Scientology itself. The RTC Research Team, led by Chairman of the Board David Miscavige, found and verified the pertinent Orders. [Show photos of the Orders.]

The acceptable truth would be that Hubbard was, as always, ahead of his time. He tried to fully open the doors to Spiritual Freedom to gay people, only to be temporarily thwarted by evil, homophobic SPs. Fortunately, Chairman of the Board David Miscavige succeeded Hubbard, investigated an obvious injustice, and was able to fully open the Bridge to Total Freedom to the gay community. It was only his tireless efforts that ensured that Scientology Scriptures were finally On Source and the gay community received justice and freedom as Ron intended. [Standing ovation.]

This explanation could be broadly distributed, or perhaps only internally.

/
.
Good post. You should offer consulting services to COS senior management, LOL.

The best solution (which you suggested) is the one where it is "discovered" that someone alter-ised Ron's material on gays.

Then there could be a major search project to find everything Hubbard ever said/wrote that might demonstrate that he regarded man as a spirit, not a body. From there it would be easy to jump the gap over to the BIG REVEAL! As you said, Ron was way ahead of his time---when he wrote and lectured about how:

"The being does not have any sex or gender!"

Ron was therefore the first to recognize that there is no gender, only what the being considers. Cut to the axiom about "goodness and badness are alike considerations and no other basis than opinion". Which proves that if one "considers" themselves to be male or female or any of the 123 other gender categories, then they ARE that gender!

Amazing, that Ron!

And sometimes a being changes their sexual gender when picking up a male or female body from lifetime to lifetime! That proves (again!) that Ron respected all gender designations in conformity with what "the being" wishes (considers).

We should all be on cult payroll! LOL


.,
 

ISNOINews

Independent Scientology and Nation of Islam news
.
Good post. You should offer consulting services to COS senior management, LOL.

The best solution (which you suggested) is the one where it is "discovered" that someone alter-ised Ron's material on gays.

Then there could be a major search project to find everything Hubbard ever said/wrote that might demonstrate that he regarded man as a spirit, not a body. From there it would be easy to jump the gap over to the BIG REVEAL! As you said, Ron was way ahead of his time---when he wrote and lectured about how:

"The being does not have any sex or gender!"

Ron was therefore the first to recognize that there is no gender, only what the being considers. Cut to the axiom about "goodness and badness are alike considerations and no other basis than opinion". Which proves that if one "considers" themselves to be male or female or any of the 123 other gender categories, then they ARE that gender!

Amazing, that Ron!

And sometimes a being changes their sexual gender when picking up a male or female body from lifetime to lifetime! That proves (again!) that Ron respected all gender designations in conformity with what "the being" wishes (considers).

We should all be on cult payroll! LOL


.,
Thank you. I may or may not have handled the Church of Scientology's current problem -- i.e., the LGB of LGBT, but you anticipated and handled the problem that the Church of Scientology didn't even know it had -- i.e., the T of LGBT.

A transexual is simply a Thetan that accidentally (perhaps due to abberation) picked up the wrong body and was causitive enough to correct the mistake. What is important is the gender the Thetan considers it is, not the sex of the body it may have mistakenly picked-up. If any religion should understand transexualism and transexuals, it is Scientology.

BTW. will California Scientologists be voting for Gavin Newsom or Caitlyn Jenner?

/
 
Top