Unchanging Scientologists: How to treat?

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
I'll give you some genuine virtue signaling: it is best not to post while under the influence of alcohol or mind-altering drugs. Thank you.
.

Read your post three times. Not the slightest clue what you are trying to say. I don't think the term "virtue signaling" means what you think it means. LOL

Was it supposed to be one of your little nasty ripostes?

Are you sure you did all the clay demos on the HSPTSSPC? *


*
Hubbard Standard Punchlines To Shatter SPs Course

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
ps: to Hobson.

In my recent post I replied to something you posted and asked you 2-3 questions. You ignored the questions and shot back what i am guessing you intended as an insult. Here is a different recent post on this thread that asked you some other simple questions you refused to answer.

Are you back into your mode of refusing to answer questions again?

Why are you afraid to answer simple direct questions? You're only here to lecture?

.
.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
When I got into scientology it was through reading DMSMH and I assumed it was a self-help system. After I'd been going to my local org for a week or so I was becoming increasingly nervous about references I was seeing about religion. One day I asked the ED if scientology was a religion and he assured me it wasn't. He said that referring to it as a religion was just a pretense to keep the government off their backs, or some such thing. That handled my considerations so I stayed for the next 15 years. Doh!
I had something similar happen in my few first weeks in Scientology where a staff member at Boston Org assured me it was only called a "church" but wasn't actually a church, and he expressed his own disagreement that it was characterized in that way.

During my ten years in Scientology, I never heard a Scientologist refer to Scientology as "my religion", not even once.

We had Sunday Services at Boston Org occasionally, but very few if any people showed up for them. I recall a Div 6 staff member going around the org, looking for people who weren't busy, just to get a few bodies in the seats where the Sunday service was supposed to be happening.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
During my ten years in Scientology, I never heard a Scientologist refer to Scientology as "my religion", not even once. We had Sunday Services at Boston Org occasionally, but very few if any people showed up for them. I recall a Div 6 staff member going around the org, looking for people who weren't busy, just to get a few bodies in the seats where the Sunday service was supposed to be happening.
.

It's extremely difficult for a Scientology Minister to deliver
GROUP PROCESSING when there are zero parishioners in attendance.



"Brothers and sisters, today's sermon addresses the vital spiritual importance of Scientologists
showing up for the Sunday service each week in order to keep up the PR appearance that our
church is holy to us because this is "OUR RELIGION"! And if wogs start to catch on that it's
just a scammy little tax dodge, Ron states in scripture that we must pretend to be indignantly
outraged and begin screaming like maniacs about religious persecution and hate speech!"

.


 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Naturally, like most members of this board, when I was active in Scientology I thought it was a cringey joke that Hubbard tried to force the tax dodge concept of "religion" on his "modern science". Everyone I knew and worked with just kind of closed their eyes and shook their head a brief moment, just before thinking "whatever!" and went back to work. It was an embarrassment.
<snip>



Scientology was made to look like a religion not just so they can avoid having to pay taxes. There were many other benefits:

(For anyone who hasn't already read this, click on the link and read the entire document. There was not a single person within Scientology that was more qualified to speak on these matters...ever!)




Religious Cloaking of Scientology
PDF
Thursday, 15 January 2009 11:49
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE H. BRENNAN
Excerpt:



<snip>

7. Based on years of work in the senior most legal bodies of organized scientology as covered above I have dealt with directly or supervised the handling of hundreds of legal matters involving the organizations of scientology which directly or indirectly had to do with using religious cloaking to help handle a real or potential legal or PR problem involving said organizations. This included a wide range of legal matters involving taxes, immigration, licensing, corporate, potential draft issues, practice of medicine and/or psychology, sales of services, employment laws and much more. This involves times both within the Guardians Office as well as later in Special Unit and from my position as WDC X.

8. It was determined that the only way to handle many of the legal matters in front of us and still apply Hubbard’s policies that had to do with staff, ethics, sales of services, money, delivery of services and the like was to develop and use a religious cloaking saying scientology was a religion, its services religious, its staff members of religious orders and the like. I can state without doubt that the overwhelming main reason that organized scientology developed and pushed its religious cloaking was to avoid a myriad of real or potential legal problems that would exist by following Hubbard’s policies if it were not considered a religion. By developing this religious cloaking for organized scientology it was hoped to avoid legal requirements around the world that might otherwise have to be followed that would make it impossible to follow Hubbard’s policies. In developing the religious cloaking for organized scientology, the following were considered a few of the “benefits” so that Hubbard policies could be applied. There are countless examples but the below are listed simply as a few of them:

(i) minimum wages would not have to be paid;

(ii) staff could be sent to different parts of the world and be able to stay locally as religious workers;

(iii) standard employee rights, such as those found in laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, could be discarded and thus Hubbard policies involving such things as ethics conditions, the Rehabilitation Project Force and the like could be applied without outside interference;

(iv) less scrutiny would be allowed on the controls of the funds of scientology and the intermingling of funds between the corporations and other legal fictions of organized scientology;

(v) it was hoped that the treatment of public scientologists and the use of their funds would be considered outside the purview of governmental bodies;

(vi) couching the demand for and flow of monies within organized scientology using “religious” terms (such as by saying that clear cut mandatory payments for services were “fixed donations” and were mandated by the scripture of “exchange”) was hoped to cut off attempts by governments and others to look into them further;

(vii) what was considered one of the most important reasons for the religious cloaking was so that the services of dianetics and scientology could be delivered without it being considered the practice of psychology and/or medicine. It was feared that unless there was a religious cloaking developed and used throughout organized scientology that its practices would be outlawed in many parts the world.

9. In order to perpetuate what amounts to a worldwide fraud through the religious cloaking many things were done by the Guardians Office before Miscavige was involved and later under Miscavige after he ran the functions once handled by the Guardian’s Office. Again, these things were done so that Hubbard policies otherwise inconsistent with the laws of the lands could be applied. For example, a number of books were written to forward this religious cloaking either by the Guardians Office staff or with their input and help. If you look though the US Library of Congress records for books put out by the “Church of Scientology of California” you will see a number authored entirely or in part by the Guardians Office. These include such titles as:

<snip>
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
Larry Brennan talks about how Scientology adopted the trappings of a religion when its leaders went to prison for espionage against the U.S. government.




 
Last edited:

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
Scientology was made to look like a religion not just so they can avoid having to pay taxes. There were many other benefits:

(For anyone who hasn't already read this, click on the link and read the entire document. There was not a single person within Scientology that was more qualified to speak on these matters...ever!)




Religious Cloaking of Scientology
PDF
Thursday, 15 January 2009 11:49
DECLARATION OF LAWRENCE H. BRENNAN
Excerpt:




<snip>

7. Based on years of work in the senior most legal bodies of organized scientology as covered above I have dealt with directly or supervised the handling of hundreds of legal matters involving the organizations of scientology which directly or indirectly had to do with using religious cloaking to help handle a real or potential legal or PR problem involving said organizations. This included a wide range of legal matters involving taxes, immigration, licensing, corporate, potential draft issues, practice of medicine and/or psychology, sales of services, employment laws and much more. This involves times both within the Guardians Office as well as later in Special Unit and from my position as WDC X.

8. It was determined that the only way to handle many of the legal matters in front of us and still apply Hubbard’s policies that had to do with staff, ethics, sales of services, money, delivery of services and the like was to develop and use a religious cloaking saying scientology was a religion, its services religious, its staff members of religious orders and the like. I can state without doubt that the overwhelming main reason that organized scientology developed and pushed its religious cloaking was to avoid a myriad of real or potential legal problems that would exist by following Hubbard’s policies if it were not considered a religion. By developing this religious cloaking for organized scientology it was hoped to avoid legal requirements around the world that might otherwise have to be followed that would make it impossible to follow Hubbard’s policies. In developing the religious cloaking for organized scientology, the following were considered a few of the “benefits” so that Hubbard policies could be applied. There are countless examples but the below are listed simply as a few of them:

(i) minimum wages would not have to be paid;

(ii) staff could be sent to different parts of the world and be able to stay locally as religious workers;

(iii) standard employee rights, such as those found in laws like the Fair Labor Standards Act, could be discarded and thus Hubbard policies involving such things as ethics conditions, the Rehabilitation Project Force and the like could be applied without outside interference;

(iv) less scrutiny would be allowed on the controls of the funds of scientology and the intermingling of funds between the corporations and other legal fictions of organized scientology;

(v) it was hoped that the treatment of public scientologists and the use of their funds would be considered outside the purview of governmental bodies;

(vi) couching the demand for and flow of monies within organized scientology using “religious” terms (such as by saying that clear cut mandatory payments for services were “fixed donations” and were mandated by the scripture of “exchange”) was hoped to cut off attempts by governments and others to look into them further;

(vii) what was considered one of the most important reasons for the religious cloaking was so that the services of dianetics and scientology could be delivered without it being considered the practice of psychology and/or medicine. It was feared that unless there was a religious cloaking developed and used throughout organized scientology that its practices would be outlawed in many parts the world.

9. In order to perpetuate what amounts to a worldwide fraud through the religious cloaking many things were done by the Guardians Office before Miscavige was involved and later under Miscavige after he ran the functions once handled by the Guardian’s Office. Again, these things were done so that Hubbard policies otherwise inconsistent with the laws of the lands could be applied. For example, a number of books were written to forward this religious cloaking either by the Guardians Office staff or with their input and help. If you look though the US Library of Congress records for books put out by the “Church of Scientology of California” you will see a number authored entirely or in part by the Guardians Office. These include such titles as:

<snip>
.

Excellent and expansive view of why the "religion angle" was infinitely better than the "science angle".

However, Hubbard's extremely clever ruse was to use both of them together at the same time!

That's pretty ingenious, who would have thought that Scientologists would have the cringeful cult credulity (and cognitive dissonance) to simultaneously believe that that their religion is a science and their science is a religion!

- - - - -

Abhijit Naskar
“If to a person religion means reading books and obeying every single word from it without the slightest bit of reasoning, then such perception would only bring destruction upon the person and the world. Also there are people who use the words from those books to justify their own filthy actions. Let’s take a conservative Muslim, for example. Say, the conservative Muslim male Homo sapiens (I won’t call such creature a human, regardless of the religion, since his action here shows no sign of humanity) is found to be beating his wife. Now, if someone says to him “this is wrong”, he would naturally reply, “this is a divine thing to do, my book says so”. Now, if a Christian says “my book is older, so you should stop obeying your book and start obeying mine”, there will come the Buddhist, and say, “my book is much older still, obey mine”. Then will come the Jew, and say, “my book is even older, so just follow mine”. And in the end will come the Hindu and say “my books are the oldest of all, obey them”. Therefore referring to books will only make a mess of the human race and tear the species into pieces.”
― Abhijit Naskar, In Search of Divinity: Journey to The Kingdom of Conscience

.
 

Helena Handbasket

Well-known member
Some people A) won't take your advice B) Will listen to your advice and do what they want to anyway C) Don't want to hear any advice, especially from you (wives and husbands fit this to a tee) D) will only listen to authority, even if the authority is saying exactly what you said.
I learned the hard way, those four.

Am I pessimistic? No - I am stunned when somebody actually does what I suggest. I just learned to accept the old adage: opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Mimsey
I studied Vernon Howard's materials for a while and I still remember a comment he made in one of his tapes ("The Horror In Anytown") about giving advice to people (meaning other adults);

Never give advice to someone unless;

1 / he or she asks for it, and

2 / he or she follows your advice.

I think this is sound advice, though I can't say I always follow it.
I have found that most advice is worthless. Just because someone has advice to give me, am I required to follow it? In rare cases, the advice is useful, at least in part, but only an egotist thinks their advice is so useful that it must be followed, without question, although I will often "hear it out" just in case.

And then there's the case where the advice is something I've already considered, and have either rejected it or I am doing that already.

If you're not prepared to have your advice rejected then you probably shouldn't be giving it.

Helena
 

Pepin

Active member
It seems to me that there is a lack of information from independent scientologists as to why they still use the word "scientology" to describe what they are doing. I am not criticising anyone here, simply trying to understand this situation.

I have seen indies criticise Hubbard yet still use the tech he supposedly created and still call it scientology even if they only use parts of it and discard other parts, which would not be an official definition of "scientology" when I was still involved with the CofS.

Maybe it is this lack of understanding on the part of us ex scientologists that sometimes leads to friction with indies?
Scientology is a tool. One has use of it as long as there is a use for the tool. One does not need a screwdriver for every situation, sometimes a wrench is needed. The same goes for Scientology.
 

Bill

Well-known member
I studied Vernon Howard's materials for a while and I still remember a comment he made in one of his tapes ("The Horror In Anytown") about giving advice to people (meaning other adults);

Never give advice to someone unless;

1 / he or she asks for it, and

2 / he or she follows your advice.

I think this is sound advice, though I can't say I always follow it.
I would say that just about everyone who comes to you with their problems DOESN'T want advice, they only want someone to listen. I try not to ever give someone advice. But often listening to someone helps them work it out for themselves.
 
Last edited:

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
I would say that just about everyone who comes to you with their problems DOESN'T want advice, they only want someone to listen. I try not to ever give someone advice. But often listening to someone helps them work it out for themselves.
(and Helena) I think it can help though to point out what the options are in a given situation, because there might be some that the other person hasn't considered.

I once took part in a local history project and one of my "workmates" was having severe difficulties with his marriage (his wife was very jealous and possessive apparently), and I said to him; "Have you considered a trial separation?"

It was news to him that there even was such a thing; he thought the only options were either staying together on the one hand, or an out and out divorce on the other.
 

Isaac

Well-known member
The steps on and off the Bridge:

1. Pre Scientologist ("wog")

2. "Raw meat" Scientologist

3. Scientologist

4. Independent Scientologist (optional)

5. Ex Scientologist

We've watched many pass through these stages? But what to do when someone is stalled?


Be confrontational?



Be friendly?



Ignore?



?
I was one of those "stalled Scinetologists".
Allow me to share LRH's "Scientological Program"

LRH says...
ALL stalled Scientologists of course are to apply Scientology :cool:

Step 1: Schedule an appointment to see the MAA or EO.
I was ordered to bring all credit cards and phone number to banker to complete a HELOC loan on my house.
A Joberg Security Check is conducted at my expense to locate the high crimes and suppressive acts I committed towards L Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, other Scientologists in good standing and the entire orgnaization of Scienotlogy including all orgs ON THE PLANET.

My high crimes:
Watched "Going Clear" on HBIO, watched Leah Remini's docuseries on Netflix, Read Mike Rinders Blog and Tony Ortega's blog on the internet.
Uttered my findings and doubt to my sister, who was on the level.. (OT 7)
She wrote me up.
Masterbated to photos I took at the last IAS event of the hot new 24 year old word clearer that just got back from Flag

Step 2: LRH says to then delivers a blow to themselves
The MAA ordered me to make excessive donations to all scientology front groups and our ideal org until I was in deep debt - so that enough pressure was applied to impinge on that part of my curious mind to not ever LOOK or LISTEN to anything critical of Scientology etc.
I was order to pay for the next step on the bridge and prior to starting it, I had to pay for and pass out 10,000 WTH booklets on streetcorners to eradicate crime in our city.

I followed all instructions, went into deep debt, lost home to foreclosure and filed bankruptcy however...I was flying up the bridge in no time.
Thanks LRH - for the tek
Hip Hip

LRH says Scientology works when standardly applied

:hattip:
 
Last edited:

onceuponatime

Well-known member
I was one of those "stalled Scinetologists".
Allow me to share LRH's "Scientological Program"

LRH says...
ALL stalled Scientologists of course are to apply Scientology :cool:

Step 1: Schedule an appointment to see the MAA or EO.
I was ordered to bring all credit cards and phone number to banker to complete a HELOC loan on my house.
A Joberg Security Check is conducted at my expense to locate the high crimes and suppressive acts I committed towards L Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, other Scientologists in good standing and the entire orgnaization of Scienotlogy including all orgs ON THE PLANET.

My high crimes:
Watched "Going Clear" on HBIO, watched Leah Remini's docuseries on Netflix, Read Mike Rinders Blog and Tony Ortega's blog on the internet.
Uttered my findings and doubt to my sister, who was on the level.. (OT 7)
She wrote me up.
Masterbated to photos I took at the last IAS event of the hot new 24 year old word clearer that just got back from Flag

Step 2: LRH says to then delivers a blow to themselves
The MAA ordered me to make excessive donations to all scientology front groups and our ideal org until I was in deep debt - so that enough pressure was applied to impinge on that part of my curious mind to not ever LOOK or LISTEN to anything critical of Scientology etc.
I was order to pay for the next step on the bridge and prior to starting it, I had to pay for and pass out 10,000 WTH booklets on streetcorners to eradicate crime in our city.

I followed all instructions, went into deep debt, lost home to foreclosure and filed bankruptcy however...I was flying up the bridge in no time.
Thanks LRH - for the tek
Hip Hip

LRH says Scientology works when standardly applied

:hattip:
The EP of scientology was achieved. They had all of your money. Scientology did work, it wasn't the end result you were promised, but it was the EP of scientology.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
I would say that just about everyone who comes to you with their problems DOESN'T want advice, they only want someone to listen. I try not to ever give someone advice. But often listening to someone helps them work it out for themselves.
Yes - getting it out of your head helps a lot. Sometimes as I write a client about some aspect of the job, it seems to not only solidify, but shows up things I forgot, or didn't consider. Very helpful.

I have found that most advice is worthless. Just because someone has advice to give me, am I required to follow it? In rare cases, the advice is useful, at least in part, but only an egotist thinks their advice is so useful that it must be followed, without question, although I will often "hear it out" just in case.

And then there's the case where the advice is something I've already considered, and have either rejected it or I am doing that already.

If you're not prepared to have your advice rejected then you probably shouldn't be giving it.

Helena
If the person has all the facts, and familiarity with the situation, there's a good chance the advice will be of value. If they are talking off the top of their head - I agree it could be worthless. I have to give advice to my clients frequently, so I do my best to fully understand the situation, so what I propose is of value.

Mimsey
 
Top